Marriage = union of one man and one woman.

Last I knew, almost ANYONE who wanted to "get married" could "get married." To the best of my knowledge, NO ONE in this country is standing in the way of any homosexual getting married -- that is, entering into a union of one male and one female. IN FACT, the majority of Americans would support any homosexual for undertaking the responsibility of doing what is required in order to be "married" -- that is -- confront your sexual disorder. For the homosexual community to claim that they are being prohibited from "getting married" is ABSURDITY at its best.

Indeed ... anyone who wants to get a college degree can probably get one. But there are certain requirements to obtain the degree. That does not point to discrimination -- it points to human choice, values, aspirations and a willingness to fulfill the requirements.

Indeed ... almost anyone who wants a drivers license can get one. If one is blind and can't see, it is NOT discrimination when the blind cannot satisfy the state's requirements, it is pure common sense that recognizes that there are certain requirements that have to be met in order to be licensed to operate a car.

And ... so it is with MARRIAGE. But I fail to see how the state, the church or ANYONE is standing in the way of any homosexual pursuing the path of Holy Matrimony. It is NOT the state or the churches' DISCRIMINATION that disqualifies the homosexual ... IT IS THE HOMOSEXUAL who declares his/her own disqualification.

we have to recognize the interest of the whole society in maintaining the male-female character of marriage. Marriage isn't only an agreement between the man and woman; it's also an agreement between those two people on the one hand and the whole of society on the other, an agreement in which society honors and benefits that new family so that the maximum proportion of new members of society, the children, will have the stability of being raised by a mother and a father. Anyone who has had a mother knows from obvious common sense that there is a difference between that experience and just having a father with one other man around the house. To say otherwise is to defy the experience of the entire history of humanity, and it's in the interest of the society to maintain that stability as much as possible. Every other kind of social order depends on it. In America's inner cities today, 90% of the kids without fathers have a run-in with the law, versus only 10% of the kids that have fathers. We can't leave these family matters to the educators. As the great poet George Herbert experessed it, "A father is more than a hundred schoolmasters." Abandon the father-mother family, you undermine the entire groundwork of social stability.

Quote:

This is a unique burden of the Baby Boomers and their WW2-generation parents. As a GenXer, I object to it quite strenuously for the same reason I object to the (unspoken) results of the "civil rights" movement and its Bolshevik inspired "politically correct" orthodoxies: peace enforced by police power; credentials and treasury wealth dispensed on basis of race; the extortion of fair-minded Majority members to their own detriment and yes, apparent self-destruction. And a mounting race problem more pernicous and potentially destructive as ever existed in the USA.

Repsect is granted not earned. Black Americans were en route to an earned respect when the Civil rights movement arrested that forward motion and shoved it down the throats of Americans at the end of airborne soldiers' bayonetts.

Is this much different from the homosexualists' agenda and tacitcs? Not much. A policeman with a gun is every bit as lethal as a soldier with a gun, and every state ruling or edict is enforced at the point of a gun.

Baby Boomers, when will you wake from the fog of WW2 propaganda? When will you stop being "anti-nazis" and live according to your own culture's norms and expectations?

Of course, it will matter little because in the lifetime of many of us posting here, America will lose its European heritage, to say nothing of its English cultural heritage. Quaint discussions over "a woman's right to choose abortion" or "should queers marry" etc. will seem as out of touch as worrying about one's color-coordination on the battlefield. And yes -- it will come to battle if any of us dare defy our earthly masters and Right Think.

God help us -- we are a country of fools.

"But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights."

*****************

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!

I cannot change the colour of my skin, but I can choose to be a homosexual. That does not mean I have the right to marry a man as in the case of the G&L group lobbing for same-sex marriage. In fact it is quite distinct from the struggle of African-Americans who did not have a choice with slavery on their backs. Homosexuals are not oppressed other than in their minds and spirit. African Americans are a visible minority, homosexuals are not a visible minority.

This is clever ploy like slavery was to advance their cause. Take heart people, in the end God will win.

God Bless

BHTech

Am I a bigot just because I am unalterably opposed to same-sex "marriage?" Yes, I am, and I'm not afraid to say so!

Cennydd

Dear BHTech,

I find it odd that there is no rage ad outcry from Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson about how the homoanalfecal and lesbitrannygay movement has hijacked the Civil Rights Legacy. That must mean only one thing - they are apologists and enablers of the homolesbitrannygay movement.

Your humble servant I remain,

Giovanni

Giovanni said "I find it odd that there is no rage ad outcry from Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson about how the homoanalfecal and lesbitrannygay movement has hijacked the Civil Rights Legacy."

***********

You raise a very good point there Giovanni. It is quite possible that they may have felt that it is not as important as other issues affecting the African-American community as a whole (e.x. drugs, gang violence, poverty, etc). On the other hand you may be absolutely correct.

I don't know, but if they have any guts once they are alerted they should raise hell against those seeking to equate the homosexual movement with gay rights. It's a no brainer in my opinion, but only time will tell what they do with the issue.

God Bless

BHTech

It's really a matter of basic human rights. And for some of us, it's in our baptismal vows. We vow to seek and serve Christ in every human being. It doesn't say just the straight folks. Contrary to what was posted above, there are a growing number of states where gay marriage, AND ANYTHING WITH SIMILAR BENEFITS, is being prohibited. Discrimination is inately wrong for moral people. Here's the clue that you are being an oppressive bigot. When you want to pass laws that don't affect you, but limit the rights of somebody else, usually a small minority. Here in America we were given the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Acting to curtail this promise for a distinct group of people other than yourself is disgustingly immoral. Where in the hell did you people lose your consciences?

GIL - thanx again for proving to VOL that you are Judas - you betray Our Triune God by your promoting homoanalism and lesbitranny carnality as a civil right that God has ordained - how utterly and psychosociopathically depraved and bigoted you are!!!

Giovanni, I am convinced that GiL is a homosexual advocate, and "civil rights" has nothing to do with his defiance.

Cennydd

but I can choose to be a homosexual

BHTech ... I'd just like to suggest that we all take care how we word things. We are ALL created sexual beings. We don't seem to have much of a choice about that. We cannot CHOOSE to be sexual beings or not. That is hardwired. BUT ... THAT is not the issue nor is it what is at stake. The ISSUE is what we DO with the sexuality that God has given us. The Lord gave us language and the capacity to speak. But like our sexuality, God does NOT grant His blessing on everything that can come out of our mouths. We have a choice and we have control over what comes out of our mouths. And so we have choices and control over how we use our sexuality. We can use our mouths and our bodies in accord with HIS purposes ... or we can use them to further our own purposes.

No development in the bizarre gaysex movement has been more insulting and demeaning than the effort to compare the self-indulgent recreational sexual activities of homosexuals and lesbians with the struggle to end slavery and all its badges and incidents from American society. To analogize refusing to marry persons who are only interested in engaging in a fruitless self-indulgent sex act with forcing one man to work for free for another is ludicrous. It demeans hundreds of years of struggle and devalues to nothing the mortal sacrifices of millions of Americans in the civil war and since, not to mention grotesquely abusing and insulting good, decent people by equating them with sodomites. The slouching gaysex advocates should be ashamed for even proposing the argument but, having no shame and having killed their consciences for the sake of homoanalfecalsodomy they drool out their mouthful of pride instead.

Chalice said "The ISSUE is what we DO with the sexuality that God has given us."

*************

Dear Chalice,

Thank you but my wording is just fine and you have misunderstood (unintentionally of course) what I was saying. In fact it corresponds to what you have written above. It [homosexuality] is a choice as I have stated. I don't have a choice in the colour of my skin.

I choose NOT to be homosexual because its contrary to God's requirements for mankind, its sick, disgusting, perverse, degrading and whatever adjectives one may wish to add to that list. To even consider it is gut wrenching.

God has given us free will as you have correctly stated, and I am well aware of his blessings on me over the course of time. My saying that I can choose to be homosexual was not to further my purposes for I am a happily married man with kids. My point was to illustrate those things which I have control over versus that which I don't.

God Bless

BHTech

Fr_Steve said "It's really a matter of basic human rights."

*************************

Friends do not be deceived by Fr_Steve claims. This is about having a state license for G&Ls to do what they want while receiving the state benefits of heterosexuals couples. Its about dismantling the institution of marriage that God has created in favor of whatever pleases you. Its about saying that our bodies are not the temple that God says in the Bible, but ours for our own being and pleasure to our hearts content. As the Bible and the words of Jesus clearly states in Mark 10:6-9

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

7 For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife,

8 and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Fr_Steve also states "Discrimination is inately wrong for moral people.". What homosexuals practice is not moral is God's eye for he says so in the words of Paul and others. It should also be emphasized that we are to discriminate on matters of good and evil. Certainly our Lord Jesus overturned the tables when people worshiped in his temple, and he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Come judgement day some will be with the Lord while others will not be. Discrimination of the kind that separates good from evil MUST and should be practiced.

God Bless

BHTech

No, Steve, it isn't.

The differences between the homosexual lobby and feminist / African American struggles for equality in this nation is this: Gays have a choice how to act, women / African-Americans have no choice in being who they are.

Seeking to serve Christ in each human being does not equate to endorsing every behavior they choose. Otherwise you must say that "serving Christ in each human being" means insuring every alcoholic has enough alcohol for his/her addiction. Or making sure pedophiles have a steady stream of child pornography. Or heroin addicts their fix whenever they want it.

There is no law here curtailing anyone's rights. Gays and lesbians can live together in this country. They have rights to deed and will property to each other. They can go into business together...and own assets together. Just like anyone else.

Your definition of "an oppressive bigot" fascinates me: "when you want to pass laws that don't affect you, but limit the rights of somebody else, usually a small minority." By that definition, we can say that the Episcopal Church USA is being "an oppressive bigot" by the way they are using the Dennis canon AND the way bishops are defrocking clergy using the "abandonment of communion" canon.

As an ordained clergyman in an organization you define as being "an oppressive bigot", how does it feel for you to represent just such a church?

-Jim+

"Where in the hell did you people lose your consciences?" I can't claim to speak for others, but MY conscience doesn't bother me the slightest bit on this issue! I have to answer for that before the Judgement Throne of God, and nowhere else....as will we all!

Cennydd

I will never understand the human cruelty and hardness of heart that would motivate someone to work to keep two people who care deeply for each other apart. These laws benefit no one, and only serve to punish and hurt others. I've seen good men die alone in their hospital rooms, with their partner of 20+ years out in the hall, because they were not "immediate family". And those who were blood relative family, the same ones that shunned this person decades ago, then swoop in like vultures to devour the estate. You know it's dandy that legal and medical arrangements can be made to accomodate this type of problem. But if there is a sudden illness or accident, it won't work. It also is expensive. Where is the shame? And where is the human compassion?


+++++++++++++++++++++++
Poster: Cennydd Posted: 2006/6/6 21:07:54

"Where in the hell did you people lose your consciences?" I can't claim to speak for others, but MY conscience doesn't bother me the slightest bit on this issue! I have to answer for that before the Judgement Throne of God, and nowhere else....as will we all!

Cennydd

Poor Steve just doesn't get it.

The example he cites is an illustration of how he is assigning blame where it doesn't belong. Anyone can make written statements about who they want in their rooms in a hospital - and the hospital cannot keep them out. Anyone can will their estates to anyone (or almost anyTHING). The problem in this instance is that the alleged person involved did not take care of themselves. Instead of blaming that person, Steve conveniently attacks critics of gay marriage. It is a straw man.

In addition, it is truly sad that this person chose a homosexual lidestyle in the first place. When doing my two years of clinical pastoral education, I saw more than my share of homosexual men in particular die from AIDS, transmitted by their male lovers. Often these men came from (what appeared on the surface what appeared to be) good Christian families. That this person left the family to pursue his own sinful behavior is indeed shameful and unfortunate. But he made the choice, and died as a result of it.

Steve, like so many liberals politically and religiously, fail to give people the power to be individuals and live with their consequences. It is much more convenient to blame someone else, but it is dishonest and hurtful to do so.

Steve wants to know where the compassion can be found. Simple: it is found in the prayers a gay man prayed with me before he died of AIDS. He asked Jesus Christ into his life, repented of his sins, and entered eternity with a clear conscience.

I call it pastoral care. Steve would probably call it uncaring and abusive.

I will let God be the judge.

-Jim+

GIL you vicious, cynical, spinster. You pretend opposition to gay marriage has something to do with homosexuals dying of aids. You know full well that advance directives of all kinds which would declare the legal right of a “friend”, whether the maker is gay or straight, to remain in the room and make final decisions, are openly provided in every hospital. You know there are legal aid lawyers and brigades of attorneys who will, pro bono publico, provide an impoverished AIDS patient, straight or gay, with a free Will. You know full well that anyone, gay or straight, HIV positive or not even infected, who dies
of a sudden illness or accident without a will runs the identical risk of an unwanted intestate succession. Shame on you for the fraudulent, fictitious picture you paint to confuse peoples minds.

Like all the leading advocates of gay marriage, you lie to obtain the law and hide your true ultimate objective: The end of marriage as a social institution. How dare you? Where is your shame?

Causidicous, GiL HAS no shame! None! This yoyo is a shill for the LBGTQ lobby. A mouthpiece! An apologist! Every word out of his mouth is despicable episcopsychobabble! There is no morality in his prattling....only the so-called "new morality" of today's "progressive society" which denies the very teachings of the Church down through the ages and which are the norm thoughout all of Christianity....with the notable exception of Liberal ECUSA.

Cennydd

I simply cite a real life example to illustrate the inhumanity of anti-gay legislation. Which by the way does nothing to add to society. There is no benefit to society from bigotry, hatred and discrimination. I'll let God be the judge as well. You're the one who is going to have to explain how keeping loved ones apart at the end of a painful illness is Godly. May God have more mercy on your soul than you show to your own brothers and sisters.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Poster: JimMcNeely Posted: 2006/6/7 9:26:51

I will let God be the judge.

-Jim+

There you go again, GIL. Spinning all the way to the end. You need to know: There is an extremely negative benefit to society from deconstructing the social institution of marriage and the effect reaches way beyond the family. May God have mercy on you for participating in the deconstruction of marriage.

As for "keeping loved ones apart at death", your post shows that you did not read the other posts. You never listen. Listening to those with contrary points of view! What a novel concept for you! Take the beam out of your own eye, first, GIL.

Gosh, that's awful. Too bad people can't be responsible and have a LIVING WILL. You can make one for $7.95 online. But no, let's blame it all on everyone else. It's those mean parents and family that shunned them that made their life so much hell!!!

Your example was debunked, since present law already covers the situation. It is a straw man.

No one here is arguing for bigotry, hatred, and discrimination...unless you are a Loon Left bishop. This again is another smear tactic and strawman...but typical and expected.

I have to answer to no one for keeping people away from each other. Since your example has no merit in law, it is more silliness.

As for mercy, I suggest God's mercy needs to be directed more towards you for dishonesty, smearing others, and supporting an intolerant, bigoted, and hate-filled organization. Given my track record of ministry to all (regardless of sexual orientation, gender, religion, and just about any other category) I think it is safe to assume you need it much more than me.

-Jim+

Episcopal Priest Says Citizens Must Understand What Homosexuals Do to Each Other

An Episcopal priest, F. Earle Fox, says citizens must understand what homosexuals do that makes them a “homosexual.”

The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, "The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young. The pair and their respondents are stunningly candid. According to their research:

Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.

Homosexual promiscuity is enormous. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that the average active homosexual male ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year (largely from rimming), and that the number of sexual partners averages nearly 100. Homosexual persons, per year, on average fellated 106 different men, swallowed 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and had 72 penile penetrations of the anus. [FYI: type ‘homosexual’ along with any of the behaviors above into the Google search engine. These practices are widespread.]

Q2.What are the medical, psychological, and sociological consequences of homosexual behavior, and of defending such behavior? Put very briefly...

Medical consequences are so devastating that the average practicing homosexual person loses from 25% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we average well into our 70's. Sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) commonly gotten from homosexual behavior include gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, amoebic "gay" bowel disease, and herpes. Over 50% of American HIV/AIDS cases are contracted by practicing homosexual persons -- less than 3% of the population. The Red Cross will not accept blood from anyone who has had same-sex sex, even once, since 1977. Joel Beltz writes in World Magazine, "Here is a whole category of people in our culture today unable to perform a basic function of human society – to share their blood with their fellow human beings."

Homosexual behavior is lethal. Nearly 1,000,000 Americans have been infected with HIV -- and 400,000 have died -- of a behavior-caused, and thus preventable, disease, largely because those in the medical watchtowers have remained silent as this enemy of social order entered the gates and seized the levers of power. There is no excuse for the abysmal ignorance of the public, nor for the cowardice of medical (and other) professionals in sounding the warning.

Psychologically, the evidence shows homosexuality to be compulsive and addictive. When warned that continuing their behavior would result in a high death rate, homosexually active persons typically respond that such a request was an attack on their identity and personhood, not on their behavior. "Homosexuality is who I am, not what I do!!" The continued justification and practice of self-destructive behavior, even when warned, is evidence of a compulsive and addictive pattern.

The social consequences of the homosexual agenda include the deconstruction of marriage and of sexual morality, and the criminalization of honest discussion through "hate-crime" laws.

* * * * *

The full text of Pastor Fox’s article follows.

The Homosexuality Debate -- in the Public Arena

By F. Earle Fox

I. Restoring Sexual Sanity
A. The "Pansexual" Path

America is treading the path of the Episcopal Church, the primrose path into pansexualism, with homosexual activists riding point.

Pansexualism is the "Alfred Kinsey" belief that all forms of sexual behavior are morally equivalent -- fornication, adultery, incest, pederasty, etc. It is all a matter of personal choice, there are no moral distinctions between sexual practices.

Homosexuality is thus only one branch on the pansexual tree, a tree with branches for every known sexual practice, a tree natural to the secular/pagan Godless world of the Fall. With no relation to the Living God, there is nothing in the world to tell anyone otherwise -- neither by moral standard nor by the Image of God in which we are made, male and female.

The quest to legitimize sexual promiscuity never had an ounce of intellectual integrity, yet it has been the underground engine driving western culture since the late 19th century. It surfaced and hit the streets in the 1960’s -- the so-called "sex revolution". And then the homosexual revolution in 1969 with the Stonewall riots in New York.

Today we face the astonishing situation that although few Americans, including politicians, support the homosexual agenda (recent polls tell us that nearly 70% of Americans oppose it), yet all sides assume that the legal mandating of homosexual marriage is inevitable. Homosexualists have created the illusion of an inevitable juggernaut.

People wonder how homosexual activists, representing less than 3% of the population could sway the whole nation. They can do so only with the help of the much larger pansexual group of persons who desire their sexual freedom -- whatever the brand.

B. Behavior - the Achilles Heel

Some blame outlaw, runaway judges who legislate at will. But the primary fault is not with the courts, homosexual activists, or their pansexual sympathizers. Homosexual marriage is as "inevitable" only as the timidity of those who object -- who fail to confront the single vulnerable issue, the Achilles’ heel of homosexualism, i.e., homosexual behavior.

Homosexual activists have successfully framed the debate as a matter of civil rights, privacy, and victimhood. The population has been so desensitized and anesthetized that the people of America will not confront them with either the facts or the consequences of their behavior.

Homosexualists cannot afford public discussion of the behavior because it is so outlandish and self-destructive. And those who oppose them have been typically too prudish, timid, or ignorant to do so. In the 34 years since the Stonewall riots ignited the homosexual revolt, no political, religious, or educational leader has stood up to lead a sustained, honest public discussion of homosexual behavior.

That is betrayal of the public, and especially of homosexual persons themselves. Truth alone sets people free.

The homosexualist mind-control effort to quell any such discussion has been astonishingly successful -- with the result that conservatives are buying "a pig in a poke" -- an unexamined pig and a public policy time-bomb. That requires remarkable revisionist "salesmanship" (read "brainwashing"). And remarkable apathy, ignorance, and naiveté among their conservative "victims".

The Episcopal Church fell to homosexual forces because the conservative leadership was either unwilling to address, or incapable of addressing, homosexual behavior. America need not go down the same path.

Their bizarre behavior is the only issue homosexual advocates cannot talk around. They can talk around Scripture, the law of God, undermining marriage, "traditional values", the constitution, or any other conservative issue. But they have to shut down discussion of behavior because they know the public would not consider their behavior moral, healthy, or mainstream America. If the public knew what it was.

C. Clearing the "PR" Fog

The public intuitively knows that something is terribly wrong. But Americans have allowed themselves to be kept sufficiently in a fog so that most persons (uncomfortably) believe that homosexual behavior is essentially benign and harmless -- just a little affectionate hugging and kissing.

The public has been kept in this fog of misinformation by the enormously successful "public relations" program, which has pictured homosexual persons as victims, and anyone who disagrees as "homophobic", "mean spirited", and denying their civil rights. So the public is pathologically hesitant to challenge homosexual behavior publicly.

But it can - must - and will be done. Despite the juggernaut illusion, the homosexual agenda is a very, very vulnerable "house of cards". Below is a logical, simple, common sense, and graceful strategy for getting the important information on the table, forcing a candid but graceful public discussion to pull the house down.

It is to be hoped that you, dear reader, will pray for guidance as to whether you are called to get equipped to make a public statement -- through one-on-one discussion, letters to the editor, testimony at board of education meetings, at political rallies and committee meetings, or through other ways of your own creative devising. If we do not address the behavior issue both gracefully and candidly, with clinical, not street, language, we can plan on losing the sexuality war.

If we lose, pastors can plan on hate-crime laws shutting down their preaching on homosexuality -- leaving the choice of fighting in court, compliance, or jail. Pastors must train their people, first in their personal spiritual life, secondly in the Godly understanding of being made in the image of God, male and female, and thirdly, how to make a difference in the public arena, especially with legislators.

Time is short. We are passing on to our children and grandchildren a battle which will cost them far more to win than it will cost us to fight here and now.

Effective resistance at public hearings requires at least a small group, not soloists (who are too easily diverted). When the first speaker is shut down or sidetracked, a second, third, and fourth speaker should be ready to bring the diverted subject (homosexual behavior and its consequences) back into focus, picking up where the previous speaker left off.

The material below will provide a head start in forming a small group who can work together to support each other so that homosexual advocates will begin to understand that whenever they get up to speak, they will have to defend homosexual behavior in public. [For examples of how to use this strategy, visit http://theRoadtoEmmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/00Epis.htm In the "Strategy" sections, select Fr. Fox’s dialogue with the Rev. Frank Wade, and his witness at the Gene Robinson consecration.]

II. Five Questions for Getting Truth into the Discussion

Reason and righteousness are fundamental aspects of both Biblical religion and of the American democratic republic. The Church is society's conscience, the State is its referee. The following five questions will lead, with moral and intellectual integrity, to a reliable conclusion to the question:

Should civil or ecclesiastical government approve the homosexual legislative agenda? Yes or No? And why?

Whatever else homosexuality might be, it is at least a behavior. We are forbidden to judge persons (which God alone can do), but we are required to judge behavior (every law, divine or civil, is a commandment to judge behavior -- our own first, and, when appropriate, that of others).

Q1.Homosexuality is a behavior. What behavior, precisely, are we being asked to approve? We do not want to buy a pig in a poke. What are the behaviors and approximate percentages of homosexual persons who engage in these behaviors?

Advocates of homosexuality will seldom volunteer to explain their sexual behavior. Rather, they deliberately hide their behavior from public discussion (see After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, two primary homosexualist strategists, who recommend this deceit as a part of their strategy). Truthful policy-makers must learn on their own to explain the behavior -- publicly.

One begins by asking them to explain the behavior so an honest assessment can be made. Wait patiently for a clear answer. Only when they are unable or unwilling, should our side offer what we have garnered from reliable studies, asking, "Is this your understanding of typical homosexual behavior? Is this what the Church and America are being asked to approve? If you think this inaccurate, to what better studies can you point us?"

Studies from both sides focus on the same behaviors with reasonably similar figures on what percentages of homosexual persons engage in them. There is little debate about the general picture of the sadly misnamed "gay" lifestyle.

The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, "The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young. The pai r and their respondents are stunningly candid. According to their research:

Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.

Homosexual promiscuity is enormous. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that the average active homosexual male ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year (largely from rimming), and that the number of sexual partners averages nearly 100. Homosexual persons, per year, on average fellated 106 different men, swallowed 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and had 72 penile penetrations of the anus. [FYI: try typing ‘homosexual’ along with any of the behaviors above into the Google search engine. These practices are widespread.]

Q2.What are the medical, psychological, and sociological consequences of homosexual behavior, and of defending such behavior? Put very briefly...

Medical consequences are so devastating that the average practicing homosexual person loses from 25% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we average well into our 70's. Sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) commonly gotten from homosexual behavior include gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, amoebic "gay" bowel disease, and herpes. Over 50% of American HIV/AIDS cases are contracted by practicing homosexual persons -- less than 3% of the population. The Red Cross will not accept blood from anyone who has had same-sex sex, even once, since 1977. Joel Beltz writes in World Magazine, "Here is a whole category of people in our culture today unable to perform a basic function of human society – to share their blood with their fellow human beings."

Homosexual behavior is lethal. Nearly 1,000,000 Americans have been infected with HIV -- and 400,000 have died -- of a behavior-caused, and thus preventable, disease, largely because those in the medical watchtowers have remained silent as this enemy of social order entered the gates and seized the levers of power. There is no excuse for the abysmal ignorance of the public, nor for the cowardice of medical (and other) professionals in sounding the warning.

Psychologically, the evidence shows homosexuality to be compulsive and addictive. When warned that continuing their behavior would result in a high death rate, homosexually active persons typically respond that such a request was an attack on their identity and personhood, not on their behavior. "Homosexuality is who I am, not what I do!!" The continued justification and practice of self-destructive behavior, even when warned, is evidence of a compulsive and addictive pattern.

The social consequences of the homosexual agenda include the deconstruction of marriage and of sexual morality, and the criminalization of honest discussion through "hate-crime" laws.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of family. The family is the building block of society. God, not the State, created the family when He created the human race in His image, male and female. The State only recognizes, not creates, marriage. Where there is no legal proscription of homosexuality, there is then no legal barrier to same-sex marriage, nor, soon, to any of the other "pan-sexual" arrangements, all of which undermine social order.

Anti-discrimination based on "sexual orientation" opens the pansexual door, permitting pedophilia, pederasty, adultery, bestiality, polygamy, and others. Pederasty and pedophilia are largely subsets of homosexuality. Supporters of the whole range of pansexuality are already bringing cases to court, based on the recent Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws in Texas.

There is no bottom to this pit. One asks, "Which of these homosexual behaviors do you think God (or the State) ought to bless?" Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.

Q3. Is homosexuality a genuine inborn identity, a choice, or a compulsive, often lethal addiction?

Prior to the 1990's, no researchers on either side of the fence said either that homosexuality was genetic, inborn, or otherwise "hardwired", or that one could not change one's orientation. Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Masters and Johnson, all pansexual proponents, said that persons could change, and that it was their own business. It was difficult, but possible.

Not until the 1990's did homosexual activists discover the "PR" value of getting people to believe that their condition was "genetic" or "biologically determined". Several studies during the early and middle '90's were alleged to prove such. The claim was false. Not one of those studies has survived scientific peer review, and few, if any, researchers today will support that claim. Even some homosexual groups are now admitting the "inborn" case to have failed.

The prodigious promiscuity in disease-causing behavior, coupled with denial of lethal dangers, provides incontestable evidence that the homosexual orientation is a compulsive and addictive condition -- with practitioners looking for self-justification in a pseudo-identity.

Q4. Given the answers to #1-3 above: Would a loving person (God, or a compassionate legislator) approve homosexual behavior, or reject and forbid it? Would such behavior be consistent or inconsistent for persons made -- male and female -- in the image of a loving and reasonable God?

Love not based on objective truth is no love at all. It is betrayal. Love seeks the welfare of the beloved, not emotional bondage. Love speaks the hard truth even when it causes pain, and will not allow a person caught in bondage to define the diagnosis. A loving response does not condemn persons, but gives a candid assessment of behavior. A loving person condemns the sin precisely so that the sinner will not be condemned, neither by God nor by the behavior itself. Tough love.

In America, all civil laws proscribing behaviors harmful to persons, property, and the public good are based ultimately on Biblical moral codes, including the Ten Commandments, i.e., on the law of God. Thus, to say, as some do, that "you cannot legislate morality" is disingenuous, illogical, and contrary to historical fact. All law, without exception, is based on someone's moral code, someone's understanding of right and wrong. Morality is the only thing we legislate. Easily available evidence shows that American law is based on the Judeo-Christian revelation of the will of God, who designs laws for human benefit and prosperity. (Read, for example, Original Intent, by David Barton.)

Given the evidence above, a loving person, God, or other legislators, would say "No" to homosexual behavior.

Q5. Given the answer to #4: What should the public do (personal action, law enforcement, in the Church) about this situation?

How might Church and State go about implementing a "no" response to homosexual claims with both truth and compassion?

Honest public policy would conjoin truth, righteousness, and love. It would call an addiction an addiction, and then assist those seeking help. Honest public policy would insist on candid discussion of health issues (i.e., honest science) with appropriate public health measures. It would stop the common subversion of public health policy which betrays those very persons badly in need of honest discussion, trapped in an addiction.

Civil government faithful to its constituents would not allow activists to subvert discussion of homosexual behavior or its impact on public health and welfare. Two issues must be considered.

1. Non-Discrimination Laws: The freedom of religious communities to conduct affairs, such as hiring, and the freedom of individuals to conduct their home life according to their own moral standards must be protected. Homosexual activists are aiming at coercing employment and housing policy to enforce their pseudo-nondiscrimination, a situation already true in Canada, Europe, and in parts of America. Churches and para-church organizations would be forced to hire persons who violate the spiritual and moral base of the group. Owners of homes and apartments would be forced to share their own space with persons of a contrary moral and/or spiritual view -- as has already happened in Madison, Wisconsin.

Valid inclusiveness does not validate immoral behavior. Every law discriminates. That is the purpose of laws. The proper basis for discrimination is the moral judgement of the people, under God, through their elected legislators.

2. Hate-Crime Laws : The proper object of law is behavior, not attitude or belief. Hate-crime laws attempt to regulate feelings and attitudes to subversively gain an end they cannot attain in open discussion. They are often used to shut down the very public discussion of homosexual behavior necessary to rational public policy, and thus they violate the proper inclusiveness and pluralism necessary to a democratic republic. Honest inclusiveness or pluralism does not say that every view is right, but rather that every view is welcome into the public discussion to be tested to find out whether it is the right one for the circumstances. Views are plural, but truth is singular.

A loving church would offer the gifts of salvation: repentance, forgiveness, with restoration of innocence and reason for existence. It would hold persons accountable for good behavior, offer prayer, help in finding resources for overcoming self-destructive patterns, and provide companionship along the way. The church would offer resources for spiritual and emotional healing, and for discipleship into mature man- and womanhood.

And finally, the church would stand firmly for rational public policy which would assist in these compassionate aims.

Ergo, the Question: Should either civil or ecclesiastical government approve the homosexual legislative agenda?

The Answer: the five questions above lead to one reasonable and compassionate answer. Truth and compassion both tell us, "No."

Government regulates everything from bungee jumping, to tattoos, to cigarette smoking "for the benefit of the public". It is therefore facetious to suggest that government has no authority to craft policies to restrict sexual behaviors which adversely affect public health.

A homosexual person is entitled to the same civil rights as every other citizen -- according to the rules of honest inclusiveness and pluralism. Society is not obligated to legitimize dangerous sexual behavior any more than adultery, gambling, or drug use. The much touted privacy of homosexual behavior ("Stay our of our bedrooms!") does not mean the public is not affected. Both private and public acts of homosexual persons have profoundly affected the whole public and private order: our education system, our media, our political system, our medical system, and our Churches, often through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation. When private acts have damaging public consequences, as the homosexual agenda does, society has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from those consequences.

http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/04_April/040104_earle_fox_pamphlet.htm



----------------
"Choose this Day" video
SEE THIS VIDEO !!!
Watch free on the web at
http://www.anglicandecision.org/

Susan Russell, Louie Crew et al, are you listening? Are you ready to pay the penalty for the terrible unspeakable damage you've done? I hope so, because your end is coming! You can't mock God and get away with it! You have been warned!

Cennydd

The gay-is-ok crowd want to force it down our throats.

Lies are usually more saleable when cloaked in half truths...hence all the civil rights stuff.

They want it both ways - presumably legal sanction of the Union of two men but not three or more, or a men and child, or any other 'house of horrors' combinations that could be thought of when the civilizing influence of biblical standards are removed. The point is, marriage is either one man and one woman, or it is nothing. Any other combination, label it how you like, is not marriage. I may like to call the color of the clear sky green, but it will always be blue.

Notwithstanding the gay lobbies 'commitment' to civil rights, why are their arguments always self-importantly labeled 'truth telling' and any objections raised labeled 'hatespeech'? Its called choosing your own reality...

Adapted from its original post, at:
Re: Islam, persecution, and culture wars: Same-Sex Marriage Flounders. . .
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4424

The following is a brief expose of the conditions that must be present for the healing of sexual and relational issues that are at the heart of so many fallen lives and ‘disfigurements,’ today:

Several pieces have to be in place for the broken one who struggles with any issue, sexual or otherwise, to be made right with God:

1) End of self.
Knowing, that at the end of all strength to change, that there remains ONLY the place of falling prostrate before a Mighty God who heals, and has the power to Redeem, Heal, Save. Our rebellion has to end. Mine did so after what seemed a lifetime of struggle, but which was, in actuality, much briefer!

2) Our house of rebellion and pride must fall.
"You will not surely die!" For on the day you eat of it you will be like God, knowing good from evil." Today we revisit early Genesis, and in delusion we deceive ourselves. Often 'missed,' is the spiritual realities behind these afflictions. It is far more insideous than merely affecting spheres of psychological and behavioural aspects of our personhood.

Does anyone NOT know a sinful activist who would rather 'flip the bird' at God, rather than surrender to Him? I stood at that crossroad myself! Today, as in past days, FEELING GOOD becomes our god. Flesh first, although the world, the flesh, and the devil all rebel against God.

Terribly judgmental!

3) Sadly, some (many) who 'have tried to change', harden their heart and discover, with some relief, that surrender is easier than perseverance. And they are correct. For, and trust me on this one, the pain and anguish for some seems far greater than anything else that they can ever do.

Lord, have mercy on these ones, for I know that but for the grace of God, I would be one myself! Many bounce, and bounce again, and again, as they work their ‘many anguishes’. I will remind all, that God is active and real and alive in these ones. And He succors. Our Lord Himself said to Cain: "Sin crouches at your door, and seeks to master you. You must overcome" (my paraphrase).

We must pray FOR all who have blogged their dissent here. Have we done this? This, too, is 'cool-cup-of-water-ministry'. It must not be neglected! Many who have been released from bondage know that they were often held in prayer for many years, by those who have loved them.

In recent days, I have registered a blog page, and will write extensively on how one can find hope and healing in Christ through the power of the cross. Included will be all aspects of how the church is to come alongside to offer the flesh and blood love and encouragement that all strugglers need to find, and to hold on to such hope for themselves.

These days, who do we know who is NOT affected by the sins of lust, pornography, masturbation, dependent relationships or those who avoid all intimacy, fornication, same sex attraction, adultery, voyeurism, fetishism, covetousness, envy, and idolatry and transgender issues. [To name but a few life-dominating sins.]

But for now, take a look at these ministry pages (Some newly added!):

www.zacchaeus.ca . . . . . . . . Anglican
www.redeemedlives.org . . . . Episcopal
www.pfox.org . . . . . . . . . . . . families
www.jonahweb.org. . . . . . . . Jewish
www.peoplecanchange.com . gen. info.
www.pathinfo.org . . . . . . . . . gen. info.
www.narth.com . . . . . . . . . . . science/research/law
www.comingoutstraight.org . .gen. info.
www.oneby1.org . . . . . . . . . . Presbyterian
www.couragerc.net . . . . . . . . RC
.