Thursday, May 21, 2009

Gay Bucks Buy Northeastern State Legislators

Apparently sexual deviancy has the big bucks in the Northeast. Already three Northeastern States have passed into existence same-sex marriage laws. It should be noted though those laws were not decided by voters as much as they were enacted by State Legislators.

State Legislators have been receiving campaign donations from the sexual deviant crowd. This is coupled with the unfortunate reality of the lack of a presence of any well financed of Biblical Morality organizations. The organizations that are in place have depleted their financial coffers fighting other issues. The Roman Catholic Church is the biggest financially endowed Christian organization and that group has failed to step up to the plate to battle the immorality of same-sex marriage.

If you want to see the moral degradation of what Northeastern legislators are supporting you should view this link to the sexually prurient group that that does a morally degrading homosexual block party in New York. Be forewarned though, IT IS NOT A PRETTY SITE TO READ OR VIEW:

The big bucks represented by these sick immoral hedonistic sexually explicit homosexuals are what New York State legislators are paying attention to. According to the New York Times (of all rags) New York’s duly elected State legislators are imminently preparing to enact a law legalizing same-sex marriage in the State of New York.

If you encounter a homosexual who vainly attempts to disabuse the Bible of Biblical Morality by informing you that God’s Word does not condemn homosexuality as immoral, then you can laugh at his tongue in cheek face.

Here are some examples from a Calvary Bible Church website from 2004:

After reading the Biblical texts that address homosexuality you might wonder how anyone could call themselves a Christian homosexual or why some mainline denominations now give approval to homosexual behavior. The Scriptures have not changed, so how, you might wonder, do they justify the sin of homosexuality in light of what the Scriptures say?

There are several approaches homosexuals use to explain why the Scriptures don’t mean what they say. First is to say that the reason Sodom and Gomorrah were judged is that the men of Sodom were not practicing hospitality. This is a desperate interpretation that disappears into vapor when one reads what Jude has to say about the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude, after explaining how God judged angels who did not keep their proper domain says in Jude 7, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” Here Jude describes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as “indulging in gross immorality” and going after “strange flesh” or flesh of a different kind – the men of Sodom were homosexual and wanted to have homosexual relations with the angels.

A second way the Scriptures are twisted by homosexuals is by saying that the laws against homosexual activity in Lev. 18:22; 20:13 are only for the priests. It is argued that these texts appear in the holiness code for the priesthood (Lev. chs. 17–27) and therefore do not apply to those who are not priests.

The problem is that the holiness code also forbids other immoral acts such as incest, fornication, harlotry, adultery, and bestiality. You can quickly see the problem their argument creates. If homosexuality is acceptable because it is found in the holiness code that only applies to the priests then the other immoral acts mentioned only apply to the priests as well, which means incest, fornication, harlotry, adultery, and bestiality are acceptable, also.

A third way the Scriptures are twisted by those who argue that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is by trying to argue that the Apostle Paul didn’t condemn all homosexual activity. He only condemned homosexual activity among those who were born to be heterosexual, for they would be contradicting their created nature. They argue that Paul assumed that some people would be born with a homosexual orientation and those people would be sinning if they had heterosexual relationships because they would be perverting the way God made them.

Of course the fallacy with this argument is that God doesn’t make anyone a homosexual. Homosexuality is not genetic, but a learned behavior, a sinful choice that people make. Granted, everyone is susceptible to some sins more than others, but a strong desire to commit a particular sin, doesn’t mean God made you to sin in that way. Some people like to lie, others like to steal, but this doesn’t mean God created them that way. It means they have a strong desire to sin in those areas but it does not exonerate their sinful behavior.

A fourth way the pro–homosexual advocates twist the Scriptures is by using the misogynist argument. The misogynist argument says that in biblical times women were treated cruelly and were oppressed. They say that men during that time felt it was important to show dominance over women in every area. They argue that the Apostle Paul was conforming to the cultural standard of the day so naturally he taught that heterosexual relationships were mandatory. Since we live in a different culture where women are not treated like cattle and oppressed, Paul’s teachings don’t apply.

The problem with this argument is that the Bible sets a very high standard for the respect and care of women and requires husbands to treat them as co–equals in salvation and equal in worth. There is no law, ancient or modern which honors women like the Bible. Husbands are commanded to love, cherish, nurture, honor, protect, provide for, love their wives as their own body, help their wives grow in the Lord and love their wives as Christ loved the church who gave himself up for her. Hardly a misogynist agenda, especially when you consider that the Apostle Paul, who was the most outspoken in condemning homosexuality, also was the most outspoken about how husbands are to love and honor their wives. Granted, men have sinned against God in every age by not loving and honoring their wives, but their wicked behavior towards their wives is not sanctioned in the Bible.

The reason homosexuals are so desperate to try and explain away the Bible’s universal condemnation of homosexual behavior is that men, in their selfish desire to satisfy their lusts, have always sought to justify their sin. God has placed within man an awareness that he exists, but men, wanting to sin with a clear conscience, either deny God, deny the Bible is the Word of God, or twist the Scriptures to conform to their own lusts. Yet, in doing this they open the door for every other sin.
(You should read the article from start to finish – it is informative.)

From a Biblical Morality view homosexuality is definitely a deviant perversion regardless of the faith abandoning sciences of the American Medical Association (SA THIS) and American Psychiatric Association (SA THIS).

The scientific community in its quest to validate a morally reprobate lifestyle such as homosexuality has been working feverishly to prove that homosexuality is biological-genetic as opposed to learned from the environment. The environment case would validate God’s Word and the genetic case would validate Secular humanism.

The irony of this scientific quest is that some homosexuals realized an emerging problem. That problem is that the discovery of a specific gay gene might prove to be a scientific way for normal parents to make sure that their child is genetically enhanced to wash away all inclinations toward homosexuality. Oops! The quest to genetically validate sexual deviancy might lead to genetically ending sexual deviancy.

Upon this realization the pro-homosexual scientists have attempted to connect genealogy to environment. This obscurant attempt to validate the homosexual gene stipulates that environment is the leading cause that activates that gene.

PLEASE! One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that empirical data is being manipulated to appease the big buck homosexual organizations in their quest to invalidate Christianity as the foundation of the moral standards of America.

Thus it is not surprising that the American Psychology Association has publically acknowledged there is NO gay gene.

Still the well financed Homosexual agenda is succeeding in the Northeast in validating homosexuality via legalizing same-sex marriage. I wonder if there would be a greater outcry from normal heterosexuals if they and lawmakers were aware of the Homosexual agenda already implemented by many large businesses and corporations. Homosexual agenda influenced subservient businesses are actually persecuting Christians who take a stand not to participate in management mandated diversity seminars (i.e. code for forced homosexual acceptance).

Here are few examples:

Professor Janis Price of DePauw University, Indiana, placed issues of a magazine on a table in the back of her classroom. One of her students was offended by an article that was critical of how homosexuality was being handled in public schools and complained to the administration. Price was accused of providing her students with intolerant material. She was suspended and her salary cut by 25 percent.

Albert Buonanno, a Christian employee of AT&T Broadband, was fired in February 2004 for refusing to go along with a mandatory company policy demanding acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

Rolf Szabo lost his job at Eastman Kodak after he refused to go along with the company's "diversity" program, which required he give support to homosexuals in the work place who wanted to come out.

Motorola actively promotes a similar agenda through mandatory "homophobia" workshops and homosexual sex-ed courses. One employee told author David Limbaugh that "this push is causing a great deal of tension among employees and the 'quiet anger' of some who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs."

Episodes such as these are happening by the hundreds across America, every day of the week. According to medical, social science and especially legal experts, what is being called "diversity" is actually a dangerous new movement by a small group of activists to make the homosexual lifestyle appear as normal and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle, even if that means deliberately hiding any information to the contrary.

Fitzgibbons recently served as an expert witnesses in a case involving an Ann Arbor Michigan high school student whose Christian viewpoint was deliberately excluded from the schools "Diversity Week" celebration. Part of the week's festivities involved a panel of six clerics from different denominations who were assembled for a discussion about "Homosexuality and Religion." No one on the panel represented the Judeo-Christian view of homosexual relations.

Betsy Hanson, an 18-year-old Roman Catholic student, requested that a representative of the Catholic Church be part of the panel. Her request was denied by school officials who claimed her religious views would convey a negative message and would "water-down" the positive religious message that they wanted to convey.

Hanson and her mother decided to sue and Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen ruled in their favor. "Isn't this cultural hegemony, where you're only going to present one view to the exclusion of others?" the judge demanded of the school's attorneys. "Don't you think that smacks of government and religious totalitarianism? Isn't that how we got to book-burning in Nazi Germany back in the 1930s?"

Fitzgibbons believes schools and school psychologists should be held liable when they actively promote the homosexual lifestyle while withholding vital information about mental and physical risks.

Although doctors are obligated to provide informed consent to their patients, educators are not, he said.

However, in schools where a school psychologist is involved in these groups, then Fitzgibbons said they have the requirement to provide informed consent about the dangers of the lifestyle.

"If they don't, and a child experiences some of the medical illnesses that are so highly prevalent, particularly among men involved in same-sex relationships, that school psychologist is liable, the principal is liable and the school superintendent is liable. Just as when a doctor makes a mistake at a hospital, the hospital is also liable."

Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, has been sending out letters to 2,500 schools across the country who are relying on the "safe-school" programs devised by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network warning them of potential legal liabilities for the tort of negligence "if it is proven that homosexual activist organizations were granted access to students under the school's responsibility and that students suffered physical or mental harm. Under the right circumstances, state authorities could also bring criminal proceedings," he writes, citing Ohio Revised Code 2907.04, 2919.22 and 2919.24.
(Excerpted from intro of the Catholic Education Resource Center 6 Part essay entitled, "Homosexuality: The Untold Story — The phantom gene”)

Yeah, I am willing to bet this Roman Catholic study receives very little attention from the Mainstream Media. I also doubt that Northeastern (and now New York State) legislators have viewed this alternative yet mainstream view of homosexuality.

JRH 5/21/09 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake email)

No comments: