Tag Archives: GLBT

What’s wrong with teaching “gay history”?

California bill SB48 is touted as another step in combatting discriminatory practices by teaching students about the contributions to humanity made by gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons.

“Most textbooks don’t include any information about (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) historical figures or their civil rights movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history,” the bill’s author, state Senator Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said during a news conference Thursday.

“This selective censorship sends the wrong message to all young people, and especially to those who do not identify as straight,” said Leno, who is openly gay.

Leno, however, begs the question when it comes to teaching GLBT issues in an age appropriate manner. As child psychologist Miriam Grossman testifies:

Personally, I think this whole situation underscores the need for robust voucher programs to empower parents to opt their children out of things like this.

Share/Bookmark

Only the gay die young?

In late March, 2007, a spate of articles and news releases were released from Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron purporting to demonstrate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years lower than that of straights. Behind this flurry of activity was a poster session presented at the March, 2007 Eastern Psychological Association convention in Philadelphia.

This is part of the introduction of “An exchange between Warren Throckmorton, Morten Frisch, Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron
regarding the lifespan of homosexuals.”

In it, the often criticized methods of Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron are discussed. Specifically the objection given by Morten Frisch:

Since, as noted, age is a strong determinant of openness about homosexuality, the study groups of deceased homosexuals in Cameron and Cameronís report were severely skewed towards younger people. Consequently, the much younger average age at death of these openly homosexual people as compared with the average age at death in the unselected general population tells nothing about possible differences between life expectancies in gays and non-gays in general. All it reflects is the skewed age distribution towards younger people among those who are openly homosexual.

Paul Cameron responds with a couple of points:

  • it has been shown that homosexuals are more likely to respond to surveys

    Further, in that study, analysis of the patterns of missing answers among respondents showed that those with homosexual interests were more, and not less, likely than those with only heterosexual interests to respond to questions about sexually non-conforming behavior.

  • no one, on either side of the issue,

    knows for sure how often people deliberately lie when they respond to sex surveys, or how many individuals simply refuse to respond in order to hide their sexual preferences. We also donít know whether refusals of that particular sort are more common among the older. All we know is that several well-funded research teams have not found many differences along behavioral dimensions ó including items about sexuality between the first responders and those who eventually responded after repeated visits or call-backs.

  • the death of older homosexuals would be difficult to simply cover up. But even so, no one can know this with any certainty either.

    It was partly because of the uncertainties in self-report that we decided to examine other kinds of data. Obviously, obituaries depend upon human reporting but are not ‘self-reports.’ To keep oneís past sexual behavior secret after death can be difficult unless no one else knows, presumably even oneís own partners. As Ben Franklin wisely said, ìthree can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead.î Again, neither Dr. Frisch nor anyone else knows whether in fact the older are disproportionately less often represented than the young among obituaries in gay newspapers.

  • the report also used data from public records

    That is why it is of more than passing scientific interest that three rather different sources and kinds of data ó sex surveys, obituaries, death registries all indicate fairly similar declines in homosexual prevalence with age.

Its interesting to also note that Dr Frisch apparently mentioned “in an email that no more than 5% of Danish gays take advantage of the marriage laws there.”

In his response, Warren Throckmorton cites the following report

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. (Hogg et al, 1997, from the abstract)

There is a lot more in the paper, and I highly encourage anyone interested in engaging others in a rational discussion regarding homosexuality to read it. One thing to note, however, is that all sides agree “that there may some difference in life span”. The only difference seems to be that those who are sympathetic towards the homosexual agenda are unwilling to speculate on how much that difference is.

How to defeat the gay and lesbian movement in one generation

The gay and lesbian movement has been slowly gathering steam every since the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s. As such, many have been tempted to look at this movement as a culprit to the breakdown of the institution of marriage.

The gay and lesbian movement, however, is more like a vulture than it is like a hawk.

Where hawks actively seek out prey they can swoop in and kill. Vultures are content to feed off of the dead flesh of animals that have already died, either at the hands/claws of others, from disease, or simply from old age.

The sexual revolution, with it’s emphasis on sexual hedonism, is more like the hawk of marriage. It swooped in and fed on men from families by wounding them with the lie that they were aggressors and no longer needed.

It separated mothers from children by feeding them the feminist line that they were not “real women” unless they sought to become just like the men they were taught to despise.

And it picked off the children by condemning them to broken homes and permissive parenting. This had the unfortunate effect of producing weaker future parents and only perpetuated the downward spiral.

So how can we defeat the gay and lesbian movement in one generation?

Simple. We just refuse to provide any more dead flesh for them to feed on.

The simple truth is that the gay and lesbian movement cannot grow by producing their own offspring. Their plan of growth is limited exclusively to recruiting the products of heterosexual unions.

More on homosexual marriage.

I ran across a image post on Facebook recently which stated:

A reminder of what happens when we make love a crime.

In reference to the following picture:

My initial reaction was the simple comment that: Interracial marriage and same sex marriage aren’t even close to being the same thing.

After a little bit of flack for daring to bring up the apprently taboo position that same-sex unions are not the same as interracial unions I recieved the following comment:

I think we’re a little mixed up. You said that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are not the same thing. I agree; that’s obvious.

Unfortunately, you’re completely wrong when you say that “it is the favorite refrain from the GLBT community.” I’ve never heard anyone say that, and I’ve been looking at the GLBT community for years.

What we might have said is that bigotry against the two are very, very similar. The point of this statement is that every negative statement about interracial marriage in that clipping is also stated, word for word, about same-sex marriage now.

To which I replied:

And that, Chrisopher, is the basis for my response. The two are simply not the same thing. One does not oppose same sex marriage for the same reasons that interracial marriages were opposed.

One was based on the premise that some races of humans are inferior to others (as mentioned in the article) whereas the other is not (no one is claiming that homosexuals who choose to lead a lifestyle opposed to biological design are subhuman).

Additionally, the article makes clear that the moral basis for supporting interracial marriage (indeed, the very notion that all humans are created equally) is only supported from within a Biblical moral construct.

In fact, the article’s very notion that the two were able to conceive a child gives credibility to the naturalness of their union (ie. that racial differences are merely an arbitrary preferential prejudice and not one based on hard biological facts). Ironically, it is exactly the thing that this article condemns (the creation of a “mixed” child that gives rise to the strongest (imo anyway) line of argumentation against same-sex unions. Namely, that the very concept of a same-sex union is contrary to our natural biological design.

Reply to me:

It just looks like you’re trying to start a fight instead of join us in contemplating how far we’ve come in protecting people’s freedom to love each other.

Me:

Nope, just pointing out that the horse you are trying to ride to sexual liberation will not take you very far. The facts are that “free love” is not free even if the participants freely consent.

What we should be asking is where we ought to draw the line when it comes to sexual activity. I imagine few (if any) would want to take up that challenge.

Reply to me:

Well, if you want to come join me in my bedroom and make sure I’m doing it right, you’re welcome any time. 😉

Me:

Sorry, but an appeal to privacy doesn’t work here either. There are a lot of things we don’t allow people to do even if it is done in private. Like murdering people or abusing their own (often consenting) children.

Reply to me:

Um, what are you talking about? People talk about “where we ought to draw the line when it comes to sexual activity” all the time. Most people don’t apply strict logic and critical thinking to it, as you’re demonstrating so clearly, but …

You are the one who insisted on reminding everyone how wrong we all are to think that queer folks shouldhave rights. Sorry, but we’re all pretty much just going to make fun of you until you give us a decent reason for that nonsense (and no, “straight folks can make babies” isn’t a good argument at all).

Me:

Queer folks don’t have rights? That’s news to me.

And yes, the fact that homosexuals are incapable of procreating is quite a very good argument against same-sex marriage considering one of the major purposes of marriage is the attachment of children with parents (and each other). Same sex unions are built on the fundamental redefinition of a naturally occurring biological entity (the family) so the onus is actually on proponents of same-sex unions to show why we (as a society) should prefer to walk down the road of redefining marriage and family to be something that the state declares rather than something the state merely recognizes.

Reply to me:

1. Your literal position here is that queer folks should not have rights that heterosexual folks do have.

2. Your argument is unambiguously wrong: Firstly, homosexual and bisexual people are absolutely capable of procreating. How the hell have you concluded that they aren’t? Secondly, many heterosexual couples are incapable of procreating and/or don’t intend to do so. My own mother has had the tubes tied, and my father has gotten the bits snipped. I take it you conclude that their marriage should be dissolved, due to their complete inability to procreate?

3. “The family” as you define it isn’t a biological entity. Human beings are, at least occasionally, biologically poly-amorous, as are many, many other mammals closely related to us. I take it, then, that you support polygamy?

4. The state already does “declare” a type of marriage to be legitimate, and other types to not be legitimate. Are you saying that the state and federal governments should cease this discrimination?

Me:

1. No, my literal position here is that queer folks DO have the same rights that everyone else has (heterosexuals included). My position is actually in opposition to giving them special rights that no one else has or could have (unless they chose to live in a homosexual lifestyle).

2. Biology my dear friend. Homosexuals simply do not posses the parts necessary to procreate. Your parent’s present condition is actually an argument in favor of the traditional definition of marriage based on biology. You see, your parents had to go to such great lengths to prevent something that occurred naturally whereas a homosexual couple has to go outside of their union to artificially produce something that they could never produce between themselves. And even if they do have a child the child’s biological parents are not the homosexual couple. This brings us back to the state’s role in determining parentage vs. it’s role in simply acknowledging parentage.

3. You are assuming that poly-amorous is the base condition of men. Based on what anthropological evidence? I find it curious that all cultures in human history have held a view of natural marriage as between one man and at least one (sometimes more) woman. However the view of two members of the same sex being involved in an intimate fashion has historically been seen as simply a perversion of natural biological processes.

4. Wrong. The state does not declare anything. The state merely recognizes a natural union between a man and a woman for (among other things) the proactive safety of any children produced by their union. Marriage is also the only institution that does not need to be ratified if a couple decides to move to another country. It is actually a curious fact that even in the most diverse cultures marriages are merely recognized as a pre-existing and pre-governmental union. It’s not really surprising either considering the fact that families (as defined by a marital union) are the building blocks of societies.

Sorry, an assault on marriage is an assault on nature. And just as it is foolish to whine about the naturally occurring law of gravity it is foolish to whine about the naturally occurring laws of biology. Sure, you could change the law to decree that square circles really do exist, but that simply doesn’t make it so.

At this point I took off for a few hours during which the conversation ran off without me (actually, I received quite a few comments) so rather than address them each individually, I decided to simply provide a summary in closing.

Me:

Wow, I took off a few hours to play with my kids and miss most of the conversation.

I must admit that it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to address most of what has been brought up at this point but I did want to say, in closing (this will be my last post on this thread, I’ll give yall the last word), that while I appreciate your zeal for righting what you perceive to be a wrong. That is, I know many or most of you firmly believe that homosexuals truly are being denied a “right” and that such a “right” has no bearing on anyone else. I must again reiterate a few key facts:

1. Marriage is a natural state determined by biology and upheld by human society. There are many reasons for this, ONE of which is the rearing of children. Note the singular case among a plural backdrop for those of you who seem to think this argument lends itself to a reducto ad absurnum once reproduction is taken out of the picture. Men cannot father children by themselves (asexually) or with other men and neither can women bear children without the aid of men.

“Wait, I don’t possess the parts necessary to procreate? Then how the hell did I have a son?”

No, you do not posses the full 46 chromosomes necessary for the production of human life. You posses only 23 chromosomes which can not be conjoined with 23 chromosomes from another woman. So in order for you to have had a son you had to have either had intercourse with a man or you had to have received genetic material from one. One thing is certain, however, and that is that both a man and a woman were involved in the production of human life.

2. Marriage consisting of a man and a woman is the ideal institution for rearing children. Studies have conclusively shown that children need both sexes of parents. Ideally, the biological parents who, as I mentioned above, must be male and female anyway. Alternate forms of family such as foster homes, adopted parents, and even single parent households all exist as exceptions to the rule and all require, among other things, heavy government intervention in order to function properly (or at all). This leads me to my third point which is..

3. Marriage is the basic building block of society. Many ask why we have marriage at all if there are many instances where children may not be the result of such a union. However this is rather narrow and short sighted since, as Christopher’s example of his parent’s measures of preventing further conception above clearly demonstrate, heterosexual union is the only type of union that results in the production of new life. So the question is really more along the lines of what we should do about it. We could expect people to just “do the right thing” but that, as history has proven thanks to the sexual revolution, is naive at best and willfully negligent at worst. It also neglects the clear rights of the children to both their parents (which were, again, a male and a female). So marriage exists to proactively answer not only the rights of the child but also the demands of the state since a state with an inordinate amount of broken homes will inevitably spend more on mending the fissures of broken homes (of which homosexual unions are at the outset) than they would otherwise.

Many like to raise the question “what does it matter to heterosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to marry”. Well the answers are many but here are two:

1. Governments, under societies that allow homosexual unions, necessarily step into the role of assigning parentage rather than merely recognizing it. When my children were borne no one asked my wife who we wanted to assign parentage to (for either of our distinct and separate roles), rather they merely recorded what had happened 9 months earlier.

2. Since homosexual marriage is being pushed as tantamount to racism (or, as the initial post implies, opposing interracial marriage) those of us who continue to oppose homosexuality as the perversion of nature it is will necessarily be seen and treated in the same manner as racists are today. Not that I really mind the social stigma (on the contrary, I consider it an honor to be considered backwards and a bigot for my defense of traditional, natural, marriage), but the problem comes in with additional laws that attempt to “weed out” what society has deemed to be “intolerant”. Specifically, being branded a “sexual racist” (a term that is incoherent but which characterizes the GLBT community’s strongest, or only, positive argument) would necessarily place one in legally precarious situations in a whole host of areas Just imagine, if you will, how racists are treated in the workforce, in government, etc. If the argument were “we want the right to have sex with whomever/whatever we want in the privacy of our own bedrooms I may not be as vocally opposed.

However to form a “movement” around it with the express aim of making a sexually deviant practice a socially accepted norm is to draw a line in the sand and declare war. Simply put, there are no neutral sides to this issue. Ideas and movements have very real consequences.

For those of you who are shocked with people like me who vehemently oppose the GLBT agenda I simply want to ask; What did you expect would be the response? Did you honestly expect people like me to simply roll over and accept a wholesale change in societal (moral, religious, etc.) norms?

On proposition 8

I’ve been thinking about the recent court case in California to repeal Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage ((Actually, it was really more a positive affirmation of what marriage has been understood to be for centuries due to the provocation of the radical and aggressive agenda of the GLBT movement.)) and I’ve come up with a few questions for the GLBT community.

I am curious to know why the GLBT community thinks this is immoral and not fair that the citizens of California voted overwhelmingly to include specific language (12 words to be precise) into their state’s constitution which concretely defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.

I wonder where they derive their ethical standards for fairness and morality.

I can easily see where the civil rights movement grounded their campaign that all men are created equal specifically in a Christian world view. Essentially, they believed (rightly in my opinion) that there was a natural law that superseded the government’s laws. This case in CA, and the stubborn refusal to accept defeat by the GLBT community, raises a very precarious question; Where do they ground their objections and why are we morally obligated to obey such a standard?

However I fail to see how members of the GLBT community are being devalued as human beings for being denied the imaginary “right” they never had1. I also fail to see where diversity (in the strict sense of accepting all human beings as equal in value) is challenged by refusing to accept all practices and lifestyles.

For excellent coverage on the whole proposition 8 fiasco, I highly recommend the podcasts from The Ruth Institute by Jennifer Roeback Morse. Also, here’s a great overview post by Wintry Knight.

  1. Actually, they do have the right to marry. Same as you and I do. What they are upset about is not being afforded special privileges that no one currently has. The whole mantra of “equality” falls flat on it’s face when you consider what is really being demanded by the GLBT community. []

On homosexuality

Our simple church group recently took up the rather controversial topic of homosexuality. It is a prevalent issue in the public square as well as among the Christian community1 and we decided that the topic was worth perusing in order to know where we all stood on the issue (and, more importantly, where we are supposed to stand on this issue according to the Scriptures) and how to respond to those inside as well as outside of the Church who are struggling with this issue.

Biblical case

The following verses refer either directly or indirectly to the practice of homosexuality which should serve as the basis of any discussion provided both parties agree upon the existence of God and that that God is described accurately by Scripture:

  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
  • Romans 1:26-27
  • Leviticus 20:13
  • Leviticus 18:22
  • Romans 1:24-27
  • Genesis 19
  • Leviticus 18:22
  • I Corinthians 6:9-11 The word for homosexuality here has an interesting nuance in the Greek not often captured by translators wherein it referrs to both active and passive participants in the act. The NETFree bible renders verse 9 as follows:
    “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,”
  • Galatians 5:19-21  The term “immorality” is from the Greek word “porneia” which refers to all illicit sexual activity, including adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and prostitution.
  • Ephesians 5:3-5 The same term for “immorality” is used here
  • I Timothy 1:8-11

Many proponents of homosexuality try to co-opt characters such as David and Johnathan as portraying a homosexual relationship or have tried to explain that passages such as Genesis 19 merely condemns inhospitality and intentions of rape rather than an imply that the homosexuality is the author’s way of expressing that the type of rape intended further emphasized how depraved these cities had become.

Careful exegesis and hermeneutics2 shows, along with the above passages, that we cannot escape the fact that homosexuality is considered a sin and never portrayed as beneficial or laudable in Scripture.

Teleological case

Men and women are, well, different. While this might seem obvious, it is something that, I’m afraid, needs to be reiterated in today’s gender-neutral climate where one can specify their gender when obtaining a driver’s license.

Teleogy is the study of how things ought to work. Their purpose in other words. While this is an area of study that is often overlooked in our post-modern culture, I believe it still provides a strong foundation for arguments against same-sex relations.

For example, there are many medical arguments to be made against the physical actions often involved with homosexuality. Many may accuse me at this point of succumbing to “the yuck factor” but the truth of the matter is that there are unique and specific medical conditions associated with putting things where they don’t belong.

For a more detailed explanation of the medical case against homosexuality, take a look at the resources below.

Political case

One of the most overlooked cases to be made against common acceptance of the practice of homosexuality is the political aspect. Specifically the basic fact that any culture without a population that is geared to the reproduction and rearing of children will eventually fall into decline.

One of the biggest problems we face as a society are the wide-reaching effects of feminism and how it has undercut the family unit, the foundational building block of any society. Homosexuality and the campaign to normalize it in our society is part of a larger social shift. One that has historically had drastic consequences in every culture that has tried it.

Resources for further study

Homosexuality & the Politics of Truth” by Jeffrey Satinover
Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong” by John MaCarthur
Uncompromised Faith: Overcoming Our Culturalized Christianity” by S. Michael Craven

Finally, here is Ravi Zacharias giving the best answer I’ve ever heard to the question “Can someone be a practicing homosexual and a Christian”:

  1. Here is an example of an entire denomination who is becoming more vocal about their belief that Christ not only accepts homosexuality but somehow promoted it. They are currently running an ad campaign using bilboards along highways in Texas to get their message across. Here is another example of a blog run by someone who honestly claims that homosexuality is compatible with Christ’s teachings. []
  2. The kind which take into account the ‘prejudices’ of the origional author and audience as central to the meaning of the text rather than, in Derrida’s deconstructionalist fashion, allowing our prejudices and prefrences to be read back into the meaning of the text. []