Thursday, December 8, 2011

The Hostility of Homosexuality

I have written about the homosexual choice in the past and talked about how I believe it is a veiled tool of secularist strategy to eliminate free thought and religion. I have said that the homosexual choice was primarily a choice steeped in radical narcissistic philosophy. I would like to point out three stories that emerged over the last week that serve to illustrate my point better than I ever could. The homosexual choice is radically a selfish and hedonistic choice and it is in fact used as a tool to shut down religious freedom in the world.

Boycott the Salvation Army
After the loss of his roommate and best friend, Ron Shank was devastated. Being developmentally disabled, Ron was unable to express and deal with his grief. But thanks to the Salvation Army Developmental Disabilities Program, he's back on track. Ron, who is 65, has been part of the DDP since 1987. Previously he had been institutionalized since age 8. Thanks to the Salvation Army, Ron gets the special attention he needs to grow and learn. He is doing much better now and is able "to develop his true talents and abilities,...which he wouldn't have been exposed to in another program.

One night, Marcial Figueroa, out of funds to finance his long-time drug addiction and besieged by threats from those whom he owed money, decided he was fed up with his destructive lifestyle. He broke down, cried, and asked God for help. "If you really want to change, you got to look to the Lord," he said. After participating in several different recovery programs including Alcoholics Anonymous, Figueroa arrived at The Salvation Army Reed House in 2005. "If I didn't find this place, I probably would have turned back to drugs," said Marcial, who has been drug-free for three years now. "I thank God that The Salvation Army opened their doors to me."

"I grew up in a house full of people," says Noemi, "but I was lonely." When Noemi was three, her mother and baby brother died of tuberculosis. Noemi was sent from Puerto Rico to live with her aunt, who ran a house of prostitution in Florida. Throughout her childhood, Noemi was molested by the men who visited her aunt. She was beaten when she tried to reveal the abuse to her family. Desperate to escape her situation, when Noemi was 10 ½ she ran away with a much older man. By the time she was 14, she bore him 3 children.

Enter the story:
Gay-rights groups are urging a boycott of donations to the iconic holiday bell-ringers, saying the Salvation Army has a history of discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people -- a charge the charity denies.

It seems that the only thing that matters to the gays is that everyone heartily agree with, accept and endorse their sexual behavior, no matter what! They simply cannot tolerate the fact that some people actually disagree with how they live their lives. It does not matter how much good the Salvation Army actually does, all the people that are blessed by the kind and gracious work of the SA is summarily tossed aside. What matters is that the Salvation Army disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, you should not help anyone through the Salvation Army. I am going to go out on a limb and say that there have been thousands of homosexuals benefit from the charity of the Salvation Army. Here is the novel idea for the gays who want to boycott the Salvation Army: just go give to your own organizations who engage in the same sort of charitable work. Why try to force the Salvation Army to stop being who it is.

Mom Uses 8 yr. old Son in Political Strategy
Did you see the lesbian mother of an eight year boy who pushed her son toward Michelle Bachmann in an effort to use her cute little son to defend her lesbian lifestyle. This kind of vile behavior demonstrates that there are some in the homosexual community who will stop at nothing to preserve their narcissistic lifestyle. This is an extremely shameful move on the part of this mother. This calls into question the qualifications of this woman as a parent. What kind of a mom would use her son to do something so outrageous and shameful? When I first saw this story, it was on Yahoo. The headline read something like: 8 yr-old with gay mom silences Michelle Bachmann as if he had some brilliant little comment that was indefensible. It was absurd that Yahoo would play that angle. What was Mrs. Bachmann to do? Debate a child on the issue of homosexuality? She did exactly the right thing. My point is that the homosexual community will stop at nothing to eliminate religious freedom because it is the one thing that stands in their way of achieving their desired state.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
In remarks on Tuesday in Geneva to the United Nations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said religious and cultural beliefs are standing in the way of homosexual human rights worldwide.

“Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs,” said Clinton.

It seems clear that the politicians in Washington have lost their minds. About 2% of the total population has decided to be gay. How is it that protecting the rights of that segment is more important than protecting the rights of the rest of the culture with its deeply held religious beliefs? The homosexual community has deeply held religious beliefs that their lifestyle is normal and healthy and endorsed by God. Therefore, society should accept it. Or, at a minimum, they hold that there is nothing morally wrong with their lifestyle and therefore society should accept it. Why is it that people like Hilary Clinton cannot see the folly in this sort of thinking. Why is it not violently contradictory to think that the homosexual beliefs are somehow in a different category from other opposing beliefs? Moreover, why don't conservatives point this out when the opportunity presents itself? Why is it acceptable to destroy the religious freedom of the majority in order to appease the tiny sliver of the minority? I wonder about that.

Unrelated but related was a segment about Tim Tebow on the O'Reilly Factor this week. Bill had a female attorney on that thinks that Tim Tebow's religious outspokenness is inappropriate and offensive. I admire Bill, but sometimes he just doesn't ask the right question. As a Christian, if you were sitting there watching this segment, I wonder what you were thinking? I know what I was thinking. I was wondering about this idea of undisciplined "offense." The idea is that people are entitled to be offended over anything they want. If that is true, then let's play it Hitler's way: the existence of the Jew was offensive to Hitler and he decided to fix it! What am I getting at? Here is the question: are there some things that we should not cause offense? To put it another way, is it EVER wrong or even unreasonable to be offended? One more time; is it always, under any and all circumstances reasonable or permissible to be offended? It would seem to me that any honest and reasonable person would have to say that there are times when it is actually offensive to take offense. (hahahaha). The point is that once you turn the discussion in this direction, you can then begin discussing what those things are and why they should not offend us. You get at the basis for offense if you take that approach. It will open to door to good conversation and an opportunity to present the gospel.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Does Ephesians Five Really Tell Wives to Submit to their Husbands? Responding to DTS Professor, Darrell Bock and Sandra Gahn

With all the rage over feminist issues going on as a result of the #MeToo movement, it isn’t shocking that pastors and professors holdi...