Please keep your views RESPECTFUL

Question-What are your arguments about homosexuality in the church, based on your spiritual or religious views? Should the church be allowed to preach what the bible says about it? What are your arguments about what is written about it in the bible?

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Revelation 21:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Tactics of the
Homosexual Movement

1987 “Overhauling of Straight America”
Detailed Strategy for public acceptance of Homosexuals

by John Vennari

“The Overhauling of Straight America” by Marshal E. Kirk and Hunter Madsen was expanded into the 1989 book, After the Ball, How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. It is a blueprint of media and psychology manipulation for widespread public acceptance of homosexuality. One of Kirk and Madsen’s key strategies is to vilify their oppoents: “We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.”

In late February, Barack Obama announced that he and his Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], claiming the act was “unconstitutional”. The 1996 Act states that in federal law, “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”[1] It prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages” for the purpose of taxes, social security and other programs.

It appears obvious Obama is working to clear a path for federal recognition of what is called same-sex “marriage”. Recent polls indicate that an increasing number of Americans find same-sex “marriage” acceptable, which tells us more about the moral bankruptcy of America than its present competence to recognize objective moral law.

Obama’s recent statements regarding DOMA provide the opportunity to pose the question: how is it that homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” is now accepted by so many individuals?

There are various contributing factors, most notable being the collapse of countless Catholic theologians and prelates in teaching true Catholic moral law, and the breakdown in authority since Vatican II. Modern Church leaders no longer discipline Catholic teachers who propound principles and practices contrary to natural and Divine law.[2]

Other forces have been at work, not least of which is the strategies of homosexual activists themselves.

“The Overhauling of Straight America”

Our focus here will be on the effective tactics employed by the homosexual movement, particularly spelled out in the 1987 landmark article “The Overhauling of Straight America” by homosexual activists Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill. (“Erastes Pill” was the pen name for Hunter Madsen).

Both of these men were highly educated. Kirk was a Harvard educated researcher in neuropsychiatry; Madsen had a doctorate in politics from Harvard and was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.

It is said “The Overhauling of Straight America” has become the “bible” of the homosexual movement, as it presents strategies both to make homosexuals more acceptable, and to demonize opponents of homosexuality. The entire campaign is based not on intellectual arguments, but on emotional manipulation of the public. (Kirk & Madsen later expanded the principles in the article to a 398-page book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s).

For now, we will focus on their original 1987 article. In order to convey the true spirit of the piece, we will rely as much as possible on direct quotation.

Published in the 1987 edition of Guide, a homosexual publication, “The Overhauling of Straight America” begins:

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the pubic is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of keen emotion.” The authors go on to note their goal to make sexual preference placed on a par with preferences in ice cream flavors or sports. You prefer chocolate, I prefer butter pecan. You prefer hockey, I prefer baseball. No problem.

“At least in the beginning”, they write, “we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average America. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can only get them to think that is just another thing, with a shrug of the shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug state, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien and contrary.” The article calls for a massive media campaign to change the image of homosexuals, “and any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should accomplish six things.”

The following six steps are directly lifted from the Kirk/Pill article:

Step 1: Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly and as Often as Possible

“The principle behind this advice is simple”, say Kirk and Pill, “almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one’s fellows doing it or accepting it.” A person may be offended initially by the novelty of it all, but the authors point out “as long as Joe-Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on.” As time goes on, Joe-Six pack and his friends will become more tolerant of homosexuality as no more than an alternative, legitimate way of life.

“The way to benumb raw sensibilities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way.” The more it is talked about, the more the impression is created that public opinion is at least divided on the topic. “Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve our purpose so long as ‘respectable’ gays are front and center to make their own pitch.”

The authors also insist that this talk about “gayness” must be talk, not homosexualist indoctrination. “In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight American, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.”

The authors stress the importance of having homosexual issues talked about in the visual media, film and television, which are “the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization.” At the time, the average American spent a good seven hours or more per day in front of the TV. “Those hours open a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed.”

Hollywood is described by the authors as the best covert weapon homosexuals have to desensitize the mainstream. They applaud the fact that over the past 10 years (up to 1987) homosexual characters have become prominent in films and television programs.

Since then, these characters have become even more common, and it is all part of the strategy to mobilize public acceptance of homosexuality. Witness, for example, television’s Will & Grace or The L Word; movies such as Brokeback Mountain, and likable homosexual characters with prominent roles in films such as Bridget Jones Diary and As Good As it Gets. Amiable homosexual characters increasingly feature in modern film and television, and it is no accident.

Kirk and Pill then lay out their full scale assault on religion. “While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretation of Biblical teaching and exposing hatred and inconsistency.”

They continue, “Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated and backwards, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and swords of that accursed ‘secular humanism’). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work here again.”[3]

Step 2: Portray Gays as Victims, Not as Aggressive Challengers

Hollywood is described by the authors as the best covert weapon homosexuals have to desensitize the mainstream. They applaud the fact that homosexual characters increasingly have become prominent in films and television programs.

“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our ‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia —’They are all around us!’ — on the other.

“A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims).”

Kirk & Pill outline two different messages about the “Gay Victim” that must be communicated. “First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: ‘As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary – it’s only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!’”

This strategy is in place all around us. Witness the vile Lady Gaga and her recent music release, “Born this Way”. Witness also the rabid hatred of homosexuals against groups such as Courage or Exodus Now that help men and women defeat their homosexuality. If homosexuality can be overcome, then this destroys the false argument that homosexuals are victims of fate who can do nothing to change themselves.

Kirk and Pill continue, “Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, ‘they are not like us.’ To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance — in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type ‘straight gays’ rather than Q-type ‘homosexuals on display.’) Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: ‘These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me’.”

The authors go on to note that homosexuals may not look favorably on a strategy that makes them look like victims of some sort of plague, “but the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy.”

“The second message would portray gays as victims of society.”

Step 3: Give Protectors a Just Cause.

“A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

“It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.”

Step 4: Make Gays Look Good

“In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know — this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, ‘Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was ____?’ But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as ‘queer’ people — shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits.”

The authors stress the importance of Celebrity endorsement. “The celebrities can be straight” (such as Ed Asner) “or gay”

Step 5: Make the Victimizers look Bad

“At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights — long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.[4]

“The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the ‘fags’ they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

The authors later explain, “We have already indicated some of the images which might be damaging to the homophobic vendetta: ranting and hateful religious extremists neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen made to look evil and ridiculous (hardly a difficult task).

“These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the ‘bracket technique.’ For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about ‘those sick, abominable creatures.’ While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.

Step 6: Solicit Funds: The Buck Stops Here

“Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years — an unprecedented fundraising drive,” say the authors. They call upon homosexuals to contribute heavily to this campaign. “And because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.”

They go on to say, “the appeal should be directed both at gays and at straights who care about social justice.”

Two years later in their book After the Ball, Kirk and Madsen stated clearly their plan for mass propaganda for converting America to promote the homosexual cause. They write, “….by conversion we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”[5]

Vilify Christianity

In line with Kirk & Pill’s “Overhauling of Straight America”, the process of vilifying those who oppose homosexuality is now spreading with frightful rapidity. The attack from homosexuals is aimed primarily at Christianity.

• On a Lesbian Gay, Bisexual and Transvestite (GLBT) website dedicated to exposing “Hate Crimes”, activists claim that pro-family organizations are engaging in hate speech when they criticize homosexual conduct and this “hate speech” allegedly leads to hate crimes and must be suppressed. This site equates opposition to homosexuality as equal to Hitler’s slaughter of Jews in Europe.
• The same website also blames pro-family groups for the murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard.[6] (Yet Matthew Shepard was killed in a robbery, not because he was homosexual).[7]
• In 2004, a Protestant preacher in Sweden was sentenced to a month in jail for criticizing homosexuality during a sermon he gave in his own church.[8]
• The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution blaming religious groups for so-called “hate crimes” such as the murder of Mathew Shepard. In addition, the Board approved a resolution urging the local media not to carry advertisements by pro-family organizations that addressed hope for homosexuals to change.
• In New York, a billboard with a Bible verse on it was taken down under pressure from city officials, who cited it as “hate speech.”
• In Massachusetts in 2005, parent David Parker was arrested for protesting his elementary school child having to listen to pro-LGBT propaganda! He eventually removed his child from the school. He was in court for two years and lost all of his appeals.[9]

The public acceptance of homosexuals has now invaded so-called conservative Republicans, many of whom have withdrawn any opposition to homosexuality.

• In August 2010, Glenn Beck told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly he didn’t see a problem with same-sex marriage. This prompted the Washington Post to run a story headlined “Glenn Beck, gay marriage advocate?”

The interview took place as follows:
O’Reilly: “Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?”
Beck: “A threat to the country?”
O’Reilly: “Yeah, is it going to harm it in any way?”
Beck: (laughing) “No I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?”
O’Reilly: “No, OK, is it going to harm the country in any way?”
Beck: “I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: ‘If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?’“

• GOProud, a Republican homosexual organization that backs same-sex marriage and homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military, was a sponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Acton Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C, which is supposedly the largest conservative annual gathering in the country. CPAC ignored calls from genuine conservative groups not to allow GOProud to sponsor the conference.[10]

It is clear that the strategies and tactics laid out in “The Overhauling of Straight America”, and in After the Ball, are playing themselves throughout the nation and in the world. Homosexuality is now being forced on the nations as a legitimate lifestyle, to the point where California just passed a measure that demands “Gay history” curriculum to be taught in its public schools.[11] There can be no doubt this is the plan homosexual activists and corrupt politicians intend to implement in all public schools throughout the nation.

We have been manipulated and corrupted.

If this trend is not stopped by solid Catholic teaching against homosexuality from the highest places, the end result can only be the further destruction of the family, the corruption of youth and the persecution of Christians who uphold the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality.[12]

0 thoughts on “A LONG AWAITED DEBATE

    1. We need to remind ourselves that God is still on the throne, neither slumbering nor sleeping.
      Although decided in the private chambers of the Supreme Court, this has not happened out of God’s sight. He is the God who knows all and sees all. This is beyond our rational understanding, but by faith we believe that God remains in control over all things, even over the decisions made by man and society that veer away from his wisdom. To respond with anger or abject fear is to forget this.
      We only know what Scripture does tell us: that this is a broken world, a world where his image-bearers are in rebellion against him and his intentional design for creation. Nothing really new here, we must, as his followers, trust in Him at all times, especially when it seems that ungodliness has the upper hand. This is the courage of faith, and that courage must also move us to boldly and gently proclaim the ultimate destructiveness of ungodly actions.

      1. I don’t “get it” and I’m good with that simply because of that trust in God at all times that you mentioned. Very well stated

  1. Homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is so unnatural that gays and lesbians can”t produce anything at all, and that alone is destroying the moral fiber of life. If the gay lobby is correct in their claim that the only thing standing between gays and their freedom is the superstitious beliefs of Christians, and their clinging to their ancient, homophobic Bible, then how is it that homosexuality is deemed socially unacceptable all over the world, in other countries of other faiths ? Homosexuality has been universally considered abnormal, sinful, aberrant…. fill in your own adjective. For these reasons the church should be allowed to preach what the Bible says against it. Oh, not to go off topic, but even in Home Depot”s electrical department, the sales associate will tell you say that the male and female plugs go together. I am sure something this basic will hopelessly confuse a homosexual. Lady Gaga sing a song say she born that way. Well as for me, me homophobic, because me can”t help it say me born that way.

    1. Yuh know almshouse, yuh right bout that male n’ female plug comment @ Home Depot cause mi hear ah sales associate mention it one time and I never bothered to question it..very good analogy

  2. Keep calm and carry on” as God’s people and his church

    We must not let these things have more power over us than they really do. And, thankfully, we still live in a country that allows our views to be heard and we should make our concerns known about the reality of unintended consequences making further trouble and about the future of religious liberty, two major issues embedded in this controversy. But, again, we should not place our faith in any human political or legal structure as our ultimate protector or savior. Jesus said that his kingdom was “not of this world” neither is ours. The mission of the church continues. The church cannot be either dismissed or destroyed. It remains God’s vehicle of redemption, worked out through his people. That mission will endure until he returns. And in the meantime, the church, and especially the next generation inside her doors, needs to be strengthened by. Relevant and effective preaching and teaching

  3. Even gay people know its wrong, that is why they need constant validation and reassurance. They are never content.

  4. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. Gays have been around from sodom and gomorrah days meaning that this is nothing new. what’s new is the fact that gays feel that they are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Perfect example is marriage and rights as married couples. NOOOOOO WAYYYYYY. Marriage between people of the same sex in my opinion is a slap in God’s face. oN THE OTHER HAND I STAND TO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE BORM GAY. for whatever reasoning idk but i take young kids into consideration. for instance, im sure we have all seen a little boy/girl at around age 3 and say “him ah go be one big batty man”! and so said so done. I don’t believe that anyone would wanst to wake up one day and decide to be scrutinized by the world for loving or preferring to be with some one of the same sex. I say Preach about it in church but then what if a gay person is in the church and decide not to come back because the pastor is speaking against the gay community. Christians are not to turn people away from God. Metty I’m lost on this one.

    1. Christians are not to turn them away but if they come in the church and decide not to change then the church has to reject them

  5. My personal belief is this… I don’t condone homosexual activity, but the ultimate choice and judgement isn’t left up to me, but I will say this…I always ask myself ,” Yep!, what if your son and daughter came to you with partners of the same sex and said they were in love, what would you do?” Would I disown them, would I hate them, would I be happy for them and accepting of their sexual preferences, or would I just be tolerant of it? I can honestly say that I love my kids enough to ask not turn my back on them, but I would probe as to why they went that route instead of the route that brought them about, what Mother Nature “intended”…. Just my opinion, so please go in easy on me..

    1. Yeppie of course the ultimate judgment is left up to God but we can say the bible says its wrong..in doing that we are not judging them ultimately

  6. As I have often said on Jmg, It was a revival church, I was not brought up in these kind of churches, but God called and I answered, and coming out of dancehall revival was sweet to me with the drums and dancing…anyway I became the leadress for the church, second in command to the Bishop which was a woman, me neva know sey de ooman tan SUH!!……mi boyfriend at the time had an aunt who was SUH, (poor him neva know), due to my work (oonuh have an Idea of my work, de regulars on JMG) de ooman confided to me that she want to leave that life style, so me nung carry go to church fi seek redemption and all de good tings of life…it was convention time, The bishop had known that I would be bringing this woman , I had briefed her on the womans life and plans to change and serve the Lord with gladness, (Me neva know sey de Bishop had odda plans whey tickle har sey de ooman coming, COMINGGGGG! sass crises) afta much singing and Jumping dat night, I went home, it seem like de Bishop time crank mi, as mi siddung de phone ring ah de Bishop, all de ooman waan know is if de ooman did notice when she bend dung and how when she bend down pon de pulpit how it mussi did sweet de ooman!!…SHOCKED, APPLALED AND TAKEN ABACK, I SAT LISTENING TO THIS BISHOP WHOM I LOVED AND ADMIRED OUT HERSELF, two weeks later the one whey did ah run from de life style move in wid de Bishop dem still live togedda to dis day mussi all married and adopt kids yah nung!!!…mi neve step back inna de church again!!…de people dem from de church meet mi ah road an tell mi sey ah from Jamaican days de ooman Bishop ah battyman…..mi fritten so telllll!!

  7. cudden be me Quena, caws fi mi tongue inna my head neva stiff afta no ooman from I bawn, but I was among dem, (NEVA KNOW) and wha God sey??…COME OUT FROM AMONG DEM!!!…qUENA I PUT MY FOOT IN MY HAN AN RUN FROM DAT CHURCH LIKE TEN BATTYMAN!!!!1

  8. How does a murder in another state between two people living in a trailer park in the middle of nowhere, among people whom we have never known and who don’t know anyone we know, affect us personally? It doesn’t, but because it has no effect on us personally this doesn’t mean that we should ignore the moral issues associated with murder and not condemn such actions. Murder is morally wrong, and when any moral law is broken we are all ultimately affected and we know that if such actions were to increase, society would be affected…no matter where you are.
    Am I comparing homosexual marriage to murder and saying they are related or somehow equal? Not at all. I’m momentarily shifting the focus to something that we all agree is morally wrong in order to demonstrate that even though there can be an action somewhere that doesn’t specifically affect us (i.e., murder), we should rightfully condemn it because it is wrong. It is a moral concern. Likewise, homosexual marriage is a moral issue and we must be concerned with its moral implications — whether or not we are personally affected at the moment.
    However, someone might say that homosexual marriage is not a moral issue, but is instead a civil rights issue. Though some pro-homosexual marriage proponents wave the flag of “civil rights” in support of their cause, which I believe is inappropriate, homosexual marriage is wrought with moral issues: faithfulness, promise, love, support, commitment, sex, etc. Besides, civil rights are based on moral rights. It is morally wrong to prevent someone from holding a job, eating at a restaurant, or using public bathrooms based on skin color. Likewise, the union of two people in a public ceremony where emotional, sexual, and faithful commitment to each other is recognized by the rest of society is also moral. If you disagree, then it is up to you to demonstrate that such public commitment is somehow a non-moral issue.
    When we look at the question again, we can see an implied moral standard; namely, that morality is determined by how people are personally affected. But something is not right or wrong merely because of the effect an action might have on someone. Something is right or wrong because there is an inherent nature to moral truths. For example, it is wrong to murder. It is wrong to torture babies for your personal pleasure. It is wrong to divide society based on skin color. It is wrong to promise fidelity, commitment, and love to your marriage “partner” and then break that promise. It is wrong to hate someone without a cause. It is wrong to desire the death of someone just because you don’t like his skin color. If morality were determined by how a person is affected, then all of morality would be based on effects, circumstances, and personal likes — but only when they are acted on, not when they are felt. But this is problematic because if I believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, am I morally wrong for simply believing it? Am I morally right? Or is there no moral value to the belief? If you say there is no moral value to a mere belief, then hating someone based on skin color or “sexual orientation” isn’t wrong, is it? See how morality based “only” on how someone is affected is wrought with problems? It ignores the underlying motives and says that evil motives aren’t wrong until they are acted upon.
    If you deny that there are intrinsic moral truths, then there is nothing wrong with hatred, anger, lust, coveting, prejudice, etc., as long as they aren’t manifested. Again, if there are no intrinsic moral truths, then please find an exception to the statement that it is always wrong to torture babies merely for your person pleasure. If you can’t, then aren’t you admitting there are moral absolutes — to which we must ultimately answer since it implies a moral Truth Giver? But, I digress.
    Homosexual marriage is really about two things: love and sex. Sure, homosexuals profess love for one another. But, they also have sex with each other and it is the latter issue that, in my opinion, is the driving force behind their marriage redefinition. Think about it: homoSEXuality. Yeah, I know, its just a word. However, it leads us to the practical concerns as they are related to sex, the very thing that the homosexual community has brought out of the closet/bedroom into the public eye.

    If a single homosexual couple is married on the other side of the world, it has no effect on me — but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a moral issue. However, if a homosexual couple is legally married in the country in which I live, I am affected. First of all, writing this article is the result of the question raised by pro-homosexual marriage supporters. I was affected, and I’m writing this as the result. Second, the redefinition of marriage away from the public promissory bond of a man and woman affects society as a whole, since society is based on the family unit in which marriage is the legal contract of fidelity and commitment through which children are brought into the world. Third, by redefining marriage away from a man and a woman, where normal physical sexual intercourse can occur, the absolutes of male female marriage relationships are broken down and sexual permissiveness is encouraged. This opens the door to further redefinitions of familial and sexual relationships. Take, for example, the 2011 symposium “Living in Truth and Dignity” in Baltimore, Maryland on August 17. In it, pedophilia was redefined as “minor attracted persons,” and the symposium sought to raise concerns about how the DSM1 considers it a mental disorder Is this a precursor of more sexual “reconsiderations” in a changing world where sexual permissiveness in the form of homosexual behavior now seeks acceptability by redefining marriage so it can hide within its sacred halls and gain acceptability? We have to ask if such a symposium would have gained traction if the fidelity of traditional marriage had remained intact, and along with it the sanctity of sexuality that marriage provides. I can’t see how. With the redefining of sexual roles and marriage partners, the dike that holds back the immoral deluge is cracking.
    When the door to marriage redefinition is opened, a host of sexual moral obscenities can slip in. When and how do we close the door again? After pedophilia is accepted by society? What about polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory? Without a definite statement that marriage is between a man and a woman, and with it the natural biologically designed sexual union that is guarded within marriage, then anything goes — pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, gender identity, and more. Philosophically, this can have profound moral ramifications for society, and when morals change society changes and everyone within it is affected.
    As history too often demonstrates, when a society’s morality frays the wicked prosper and they soon turn their attention to the morally conservative and persecute them. This is already occurring here in America where people who dare express contrary opinions to the politically correct view of homosexual marriage are fired from jobs, ridiculed, and/or called bigots. This causes others, myself included, to be wary about saying anything, lest the brown-shirts3 of the homosexual agenda turn us in and we be punished for simply believing that homosexual marriage is wrong. Think it won’t happen? It already is!

    1. no sah! ur head wrap on tight a doe done read ur comment yet but give it to dem mek a finish reading..ure brilliant 🙂

      1. No mi shame…a gwine read some more……….omg u lay it out start to finish…this homosexual agenda is to pacify them and their sexuality by making themselves the victim at first and now dem a step on heterosexuals because a di trick ina dem momentum …mi seh it all di while….but see people whey have sex with animals a look rights deh so the whole world will become totally immoral..

    2. But Anon teck a name no and enlist inna we army cause ur reasoning REAL , say it already n will always say it the battyman dem is a corrupt set that tseek to indoctrinate n blind the masses with their lifestyle n if we don’t stand up n shout even when a whisper they are whispering and push n shove our beliefs right back very soon we heterosexuals will be made to seem as if we are the ones living wrong

    3. I don’t believe this is this person’s actual thought more like a google search on the subject and a copy paste.


  10. LOOK YAH!!!

    Step 3: Give Protectors a Just Cause.

    “A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

    “It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.”


    Step 1: Talk About Gays and Gayness as Loudly and as Often as Possible

    “The principle behind this advice is simple”, say Kirk and Pill, “almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one’s fellows doing it or accepting it.” A person may be offended initially by the novelty of it all, but the authors point out “as long as Joe-Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on.” As time goes on, Joe-Six pack and his friends will become more tolerant of homosexuality as no more than an alternative, legitimate way of life


    “No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.”
    ― John F. Kennedy

    “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?”
    ― Peter Hitchens

    “The very power of [textbook writers] depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is ‘doing’ his ‘English prep’ and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

    “There is no absurdity so palpable but that it may be firmly planted in the human head if you only begin to inculcate it before the age of five, by constantly repeating it with an air of great solemnity.”
    ― Arthur Schopenhauer

    “Intelligent men do not decide any subject until they have carefully examined both or all sides of it. Fools, cowards, and those too lazy to think, accept blindly, without examination, dogmas and doctrines imposed upon them in childhood by their parents, priests, and teachers, when their minds were immature and they could not reason.”
    ― James Hervey Johnson

  13. Blessed, I’m not quite disagreeing with you, but then again I kinda am, but I wanna agree to disagree in a constructive manner. Growing up as a young girl I was an extreme tomboy. I rN with the boys and did what the boys do, from climb ackee ah mango tree ah lick slingshot aafa lizards or anything moving, to helping my grandad and father plant a vegetable and callaloo garden to home improvement projects around the house to building a tool shed, fix car…you name it, I did it with my dad and my grandad. I even dressed like a boy and hated going to Sunday school because I had to have mi hair Chiney bumped every Saturday and had to wear mi white dress w/ white lace socks ah shoes ah shawl ah before me leff church, alla dem clothes deh tear off. When my sister was inside with grandma and mother, I was outside with the fellas because that was where my comfort zone was and to this day, still is. I say that to say this….I am all woman and I LOVE MEN!! Ever since I was a little girl I’ve always dreamt of becoming a mother, and I am a very happy and proud mother of 2. I have been hurt and deceived by men before and not once have I EVER decided to take a walk on the lesbian side of life…and even if I did or do discuss having a managetois with a woman, that’s still a CHOICE that I’ve made ( though I have yet to choose to take that chance). So I whole heartedly with the notion that some people are born gay cause if that was the case and mi been a tomboy since from whence me can remember ( which I have since outgrown during my teen years), I would be lesbian/ butch/ dike/ stud ( whateva them wa call themselves). I stand firm on my belief, that homosexuality is a life choice…

  14. I do not feel it affects me and I am not concerned. I am puzzled though by the civil union piece I feel it’s either a marriage or it isn’t. I’m more disturbed by down low brothers than people who chose to love their lives according to their own standards. Just my opinion.

  15. I must say this to Anon 4:07 and Obara…I regard you both as intellectually brilliant!!!!!!!!!!! Extremely brilliant!! :2thumbup :2thumbup

  16. @Yep :2thumbup


  17. @OriginalSmh, It affects us all in many ways, if you have children, plan to have children or have any feelings for the younger generation , this gay agenda and the muzzling and name calling (HOMOPHOBIA) OF ALL AND ANYONE WHO OPPOSE THIS LIFESTYLE IS A threat to the evolution and continuity of mankind as it was meant to be. Homosexuality has evolved from just being a Sexually deviant behavior the likes of which needs psychiatric help and intervention to being equated to the black holocaust, civil rights and the rights to declare to the world and teach our children in school that IT IS OK TO BE GAY!!.TWO DADS IS OK AS WELL AS TWO MOMS!!…THIS TOTALLY DISCREDITS THE TEACHINGS OF THE MOST HIGH AND TO SAY THEY “WERE BORN THIS WAY IS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT GOD SOME HOW IS NOT PERFECT AND HAS MADE A MISTAKE….How can it be that life is ONLY CONCEIVED WHEN A MAN AND A WOMAN GET TOGETHER, being fruit full and multiplying, and yet the non-productive getting together of TWO PEOPLE OF the same sex was MEANT TO BE, SO SAY THE LORY OUR GOD???!! IN ALL RELIGION AND TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS THERE LIES THE FAMILY, CONSISTING OF THE TRADITIONAL MOTHER AND FATHER, to co-sign or subscribe to the union of same sex couples is to DENY, DISREGARD AND DEFILE THE LAWS OF NATURE…

  18. Nature has created man, like other species, as male and female, each possessing a strong natural urge for the other. The study of other animal species has shown that their division into male and female and the natural urge in them for the opposite sex is confined to the propagation of the particular species only. That is why their sexual urge is just proportionate to requirements to that end. Moreover, this urge has been so controlled in them instinctively that they never transgress sexually the limits set for their nature. Contrary to this, man has been endowed with this urge in a liberal, unparalleled measure, knowing no discipline whatever. Man knows no restriction of time and clime and there is no discipline that may control him sexually. Man and woman have a perpetual appeal for each other. They have been endowed with a powerful urge for sexual love, with an unlimited capacity to attract and be attracted sexually. Their physical constitution, its proportions and shape, its complexion, even its contiguity and touch, have a strange spell for the opposite sex. Their voice, their gait, their manner and appearance, each has a magnetic power. On top of that, the world around them abounds in factors that perpetually arouse their sexual impulse and make one inclined to the other. The soft murmuring breeze, the running water, the natural hues of vegetation, the sweet smell of flowers, the chirping of birds, the dark clouds, the charms of the moon-lit night, in short, all the beauties and all the graces of nature, stimulate directly or indirectly the sexual urge between the male and female

  19. The human child has been created the tenderest and weakest of all young ones in the animal kingdom. The human baby, unlike the young ones of other species, has to depend on its parents for protection and upbringing for quite some years, and it takes a considerably longer time to develop self-sustenance. This also implies that the relationship between man and woman should not only be of a sexual nature, but as a consequence of this relationship they should develop mutual regard and co-operation in the wider sphere of life.

    Animals nurse their young ones for a brief period only, and then break all relations of love and blood with them, so much so that they do not even recognise each other. Contrary to this, man remains emotionally attached to his offspring even after its early stage of development. He transfers his love even to the offspring of his offspring, and in most cases it so overwhelms his selfish animality that he gladly sacrifices his personal desires to the desires of his children. He wishes from his innermost heart that he may provide the best possible means of life for them and leave behind the fruits of his labours for their comfort and enjoyment. The existence of this intense sentiment of love in the human heart clearly shows that nature wants the sexual urge between man and woman to bind them in an enduring fellowship, to make this fellowship the basis for family life, to knit several families together by the love of blood relations, to lay foundation for co-operation and mutual dealings by common loves, and finally to create a society and system of community life.

  20. male/female marriage comes from natural law. Marriage is the natural way that a man and woman raise and nurture the children that they bring into the world. The whole structure of human society is built on the foundation of male/female marriage.

    It is acceptable to deny marriage to members of the same sex because they have never had rights to marry under natural law and it is not, therefore, discrimination.

    Same sex marriage will also open up the door to other forms of marriage such as multiple marriage and incest.


  22. J. Budziszewski says, “We are passing through and eerie phase of history in which the things that everyone really knows are treated as unheard-of doctrines, a time in which the elements of common decencyare themselves attacked as indecent. Although our civilization has passed through quite a few troughs of immorality, never before has vice held the moral highground. Our time considers it dirty-minded to treat sexual purity as virtue; unfeeling to insist too firmly that the sick should not be encouraged to seek death; a sign of impious pride to profess humble faith in God. The Moral Law has becme the very emblem of immorality. We call affirming it “being judgemental”, which is our way of saying that it has been judged and will not be tolerated”.
    There is an inherent complementarity between an man and a woman. We do not speak of a man and a woman commisurating to perform respiration, one with lungs and one with a diaphragm. We do not speak of a man and a woman coming together as one flesh to provide, one a heart and the other vessels to carry the blood being pumped. But, there is one circumstance which does require such a union, with its regenerative powers. The union of opposites is the only possible realization of their procreative potential. If they do not come together, procreation will not occur.

    There is a complimentarity of wife and husband which does not end in biology. Nurture of child, protection of wife and family, emotional differences, intellectual differences. The family is based on enduring conjugal partnership, a feat not possible in a homosexual relationship. Many pro-homosexual advocates will even profess that the optimum circumstance for nurturing a child is a father and mother. This is the ideal, the normative or how it was designed. Natural Law remains though many have suppressed the truth of Natural Law to profess the lie.


  24. Obara everyone above has made eloquent explanations about their beliefs. I will not raise a child to be biased and judgmental. I would rather to have open dialogs and have them form their own opinions of life. There are too many other issues that affect me more greatly to pick up this type of battle. We all are sinners and we will all have to make our own decisions on how to carry on our lives. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. I’m not gay but I will not condemn them either it’s not for me to do. The fashion business is dominated by gays so should we stop shopping? Is the issue about gay lifestyles or about gay marriage? Who want to be married does. Not affect me. People been having two moms and dads for a long time some open and some hiding. It is not my cross to bear. Just my opinion.

  25. @original, my comment was not trying to CONVINCE you to take up this battle. I made it in reference to the statement you made that IT DOES NOT AFFECT OR CONCERN YOU, so although I pointed the comment in YOUR direction, it was meant for many who feel the same way. Gays and their supporters (not saying you are) have always used the argument about the fashion industry and should US straight people stop shopping or utilizing anything homosexuals are involved in, THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHAT ONE BLOGGER SAID (ANONYMOUS) IN THE KEVIN TERRY POST..”NO SOUND ARGUMENT”. AGAIN, BEING OPPOSED to the homosexual lifestyle IS NOT I repeat NOT an attack on THE INDIVIDUAL, his/her life is theirs and ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE then in the REAL sense of the was., WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS OF FAMILY VALUES AND MORAL CODES!, What we actually oppose to the fullest degree is the indoctrination of this behavior upon our youths and the world at large, and being forced to accept a lifestyle which is not conducive to natures laws of life and procreation!…while I do not agree with a persons lifestyle or sex choice, It does blind my eyes to that persons creativity, artistic accomplishments, talents, beauty (inside or out), leadership, reasoning abilities, skills, personality etc…LET US NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUE HERE AT HAND….HOMOSEXUALITY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR AGES, GOD DESTROYED A WHOLE CITY BECAUSE OF IT, WHAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS LET IT STAY IN THE BED ROOM, WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO WITNESS YOUR PUBLIC DISPLAY OF AFFECTION NOR DO WE WANT TO, AND WE WILL NOT ACCEPT IT AS THE NEW NORMAL…NO WAY!!! DIS IS NOT ONE CASE OF IF YUH CYAAN BEAT DEM JOIN DEM, WE NEVER WILL, BUT IN NO WAY WILL WE EVER ACCEPT IT, NO WAY!!……OBARA MEJI…CYAAN SIGN IN!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top