Posts Tagged ‘Gay’

I’m so tired of lemmings like Franklin Graham who I consider a fraud, him and his cowardly pops. They’re always arguing about sin. what is sin? Show from your bible one scripture that defines sin…I’ll wait…still waiting. Since most won’t tell you or can’t tell you, I will. 1Jn3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. The second question, what is the law; his word. The 913 presets no one teaches and for good reason. You can begin to see the utter ridiculousness this is. What bothers me, Franklin comments on a movie he hasn’t seen. He trivializes the life of a young man name Chiron who has to deal with a drug addicted Mother and him being confused about why kids are picking on him calling him a faggot at around the age of 7.  In England a cigarette is known as a faggot(just saying). He moves on up through to his middle years to adult hood. As an adult he gets into the trap game(selling drugs) as transforming his body and mind to be strong in order to never be weak again. The story is somewhat of a true story, the parts about his mother and gayness. Blacks represent a certain sphere of gay men, we can’t hide from it. What I don’t understand is the weapon of the bible that is so regularly chosen to prove a point. Watch Moonlight for what it is, a complicated love story of people trying to figure out life and its meaning an how to maneuver and guard themselves.

We have confusing ideas about sex and what sex is. We have preferences, mine happens to be with a woman. I refuse to use ideas of not having a women to populate with. If you look to the bible and the gospel according to Paul, sex wasn’t for enjoyment, it was for the purpose of giving birth and populating. Again society has to be looked at for it dictates the morals, not the bible. The bible through high minded thinking can be a good thing. However it can’t be made to be superior to the people who don’t believe in it. Many people believe different things in many ways. If you look at it carefully, don’t all the Abrahamic religions believe pretty much the same thing? Also look at all other religions they have moral codes as well. Sorry but the bible can’t be looked to for sex, a first century standard compared to a twenty first century standard. Even if we look at their standard for homoeroticism , it is viewed differently. It was about dominance. When I say it was about dominance I’m speaking of sexual conquest either by the female or male. Sex within that culture was myopic centered. It was frowned upon to be weak. The dominate person has to always be on top. When it comes to women being viewed in a certain light. The fullness of that is for another day. Theirs a lot of inconsistencies where that is involved.

Within the bible people chose what they want to believe. As I’ve said in the past “people derive our values form scripture but live by the values they insert.” This is not an odd statement. People chose the lives they want to live and justify it by their personal convictions. They put personal interpolations instead of following the holy writ. Stop using the guise of the bible, we have no idea how/why people are the way they are. I accept you as you are and what you do in your bedroom is your private business, nothing more. In writing this only the surface is being scratched in which we can have a proper conversation. These differences will be debated till the sun turns cold. Allow me this caveat, differing views are a must to have proper dialogue, same with interracial relationships. All the same, just a different con.

We can’t contend without the homoerotic story of David and Jonathan. This story proves problematic, especially within the looking on ones nakedness. Scholars debate wether the story is a homoerotic act or not. All I will say is, if it took place in todays context it would be considered a relationship between two men. Except the story takes place during a different time when sexuality is viewed differently. Read 1Sam chapters 18, 19, 20 for yourself. I’ll leave with this to show my meaning of comparing something that was written for a different time for a different group, think on it and ponder it. 2Sam1:26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

Written/Posted by John the Revelator


Every so often I hear someone say in despair, “What is this world coming to?” This kind of comment usually comes in response to a doomsday report of some kind. You know the kind I’m talking about…

Statistics show that kids are more sexualized now than ever, and that 70% of kids will have sex before graduating high school!
A new report says that 45% of Americans think that God wants them to be happy more than anything else!
A pew poll report shows that church attendance is at the lowest mark in twenty years!
Studies now indicate that the current presidential administration is the most anti-Christian administration of the modern era!
When we hear these kinds of reports and stats, our gut instinct can be to throw our hands up in despair, panic, or disgust. We are shocked at the behavior of young people these days. Shocked at the levels of immorality at universities. Shocked at the apathy of people toward spiritual things. Shocked at the spike in gay marriages. Shocked at the smut being produced by Hollywood. Shocked at the increase in sexual promiscuity in our culture. What is this world coming to?!?
Whatever happened to the good old days, when a fella could leave his car unlocked without fear of having his stereo stolen? Whatever happened to the days when kids would actually respect authority? Whatever happened to the good old days when young men and women actually treated each other with courtesy, instead of trying to sleep around with each other?

I would venture to say that many conservative television shows, and radio shows, and blogs, and podcasts, perpetuate the “what is this world coming to?” attitude. It’s not uncommon for talk radio hosts to spend three hours lamenting the decay of morals in the world.

But we shouldn’t be shocked or dismayed. The world is coming to exactly what Jesus said it would come to, and this actually gives us a lot of hope.


The simple reality is, we live in a godless world. Of course, I don’t mean that there isn’t a God, or that the true and living God is not active in our world. I mean that the natural state of every person is wickedness, godlessness, and evil. It has always been this way, and it always will be this way.

In Genesis 6:5, God looked down on the earth and was grieved by what he saw:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

God brought the great flood upon the earth because the wickedness of man was great. Every intent, every desire, every thought, bent toward evil. Doesn’t sound that different from today, does it?

Acts 17:16 says, “Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.” As Paul walked through the city of Athens, he became acutely aware that the city was absoutely jam packed with false gods. Athens was not a moral, upright, virtuous city. It was a city full of idolatry.

When we see evil and wickedness in the world, we shouldn’t throw our hands up in despair. We shouldn’t be shocked or surprised. Evil and wickedness is not an anomaly; it’s the norm. The evil we see in the world isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s not like things have suddenly gotten out of control in the last fifty years. Wickedness has been standard practice since Cain killed Abel.

So why does this give us hope? Hold on, I’m getting there.


Not to be a Debbie Downer, but things are going to get worse. Before Jesus returns, evil and wickedness is going to increase in the world. Speaking of the last days, Jesus said:

And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. (Matthew 24:12)

Lawlessness and wickedness and godlessness isn’t going to decrease, it’s going to increase. In fact, it’s going to increase to such a degree that many Christians will find their love for Christ going cold. Dang, son. That’s some serious, intense, lawlessness. Contrary to what the Beatles proclaimed, it’s not getting better all the time. It’s not going to get better, it’s going to get worse.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11, Paul spoke of the “man of lawlessness”:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

At some point, the “lawless one” will come, and he will come in power, with false signs and wonders. He will be so impressive, so powerful, that many unbelievers will be deceived by him. The wickedness promoted and perpetuated by the lawless one will be on a colossal, sickening scale.

It’s already bad, and it’s going to get worse. But don’t throw up your hands in despair. There’s good news.


The good news is that, in spite of the wickedness which fills the world, the gospel of Jesus Christ will continue saving sinners! Yes, evil is powerful, but Jesus is more powerful! Yes, Satan prowls about like a roaring lion, but Jesus is the great lion slayer. Jesus encouraged Peter that the church would not be overcome, and would even stand against hell itself:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

Jesus isn’t particularly concerned with the most recent Barna report, or church growth study, or the state of Hollywood. He will build his church, and there is absolutely nothing that can stop him.

Even as Jesus talked about the spike in lawlessness, he also promised that the gospel would be proclaimed in ALL nations:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14)

And when the big, bad, man of lawlessness appears, Jesus will take care of him too:

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (2 Thessalonians 2:8)

When Jesus returns, he will utterly decimate the man of lawlessness. Farewell, lawless one! King Jesus has arrived!


Should we be concerned about increasing immorality in the schools, and on television, and in politics? Sure. Where appropriate, we should stand for righteousness. And, of course, we should instruct our kids how to think biblically about the sin they will most certainly encounter.

But if we’re constantly outraged, disgusted, discouraged, or panicked, then we haven’t come to grips with the Bible’s grim description of the world, and we aren’t fully trusting in our coming, conquering, reigning king.

Yeah it’s bad. Yeah, it’s gonna get worse. But the gospel will continue to triumph, Jesus will remain on the throne, and Jesus will finally rid the world of wickedness.


My first contention is to say, who ever wrote this has to be a high school student, no adult would have written this drivel. To be fair without sounding ostententious maybe the person was a very young adult or maybe he was full of fervor and passion with no real world experience. Whatever the case this article wreaks of hyperbole.

Firstly, please throw up your hands because your immorality clause has ran out. Your litany of things you are against, your, what is the world coming to moment is very disingenuous. What you are doing is judging people who differ with you, they are correct in their claim to believe how ever they please. Lets take a look at why you’re throwing up your hands.

  1. shocked at the behavior of young people these days
  2. Shocked at the levels of immorality at universities
  3. Shocked at the apathy of people toward spiritual things
  4. Shocked at the spike in gay marriages
  5. Shocked at the smut being produced by Hollywood
  6. Shocked at the increase in sexual promiscuity in our culture

Instead of answering point by point, I will say this. The world hasn’t changed, the world has gotten better without christianity as the major influence, people are now critical thinkers. Without christianity as the influence people are allowed to be critical thinkers. could some be better or change, generations before us thought so, they also probably thought the world during there  time was going to hell in a hand basket. Instead of being narrow people have choices, they can choose how to better live there life instead of a deity they don’t know, they know what’s best for them. What you  are offering is fascist   theocracy. Churches have the right to exist as other have the right to exist. The law of the land is the constitution, not the bible! The bible should never be used to create laws, for it is for the believer to follow. And what about the revisionist decade of peacefulness youre’re speaking off when people didn’t have rights except people that were born the right color.

The being that you speak off is confusing, he creates man (mind you he’s perfect and cannot make mistakes) then repents for creating mankind then destroys mankind for a do over. The first mankind was evil, no good thoughts, what you described earlier sounds basically the same. You on the other hand is awaiting the destruction of the world. You go on to say the world is worse or has gotten or gotten worse, you even throw in some scriptures to substantiate your claim, when you’re not looking at the obvious.

Since you cherry pick, I’ll do the same 2 Cor 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

Say Satan is the God of this world(the name God/title is a 19th century creation)we have other proofs he is. Read Math 4:1-11 focus carefully on verse 8,9 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”

If Satan didn’t have charge he couldn’t have offered the kingdoms of the world. When prophecy  was written it was written for a certain time, the people it was was intended for! I suggest you clean your temple first, your churches. No one can seem to agree on simple doctrine. I’m pretty sure what you believe you believe it to be true…as with everyone else.

Crime has been trending downward, life has gotten better since the 16th, 17th, 18th and early 19th century, life has improved since the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s. You can have your bible and revisionist history. To cherry pick once more I live by Ecc 9 verses 7,5 7 Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.

I believe in the rights of individuals, justice and non aggression, and the right to coexist. You also have the right to live life as you see fitting.

Written by John the Revelator

The saga of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail for a weekend rather than sign off on same-sex marriage certificates, might seem like it’s a last gasp for the anti-gay right; an attempt to eke out some kind of victory after having lost their two-decade fight against same-sex marriage. Unable to stop same-sex couples from marrying, Davis, along with a handful of anti-gay florists and bakers, strives instead to just make getting the license an embarrassing hassle. It’s childish sore loser behavior, the equivalent of a baseball player pouting in the dugout and refusing to shake hands with his opponent because he didn’t win the game.

Because of this, liberals can be forgiven for laughing and moving on, not particularly worried about Davis, whose temper tantrum isn’t even preventing the licenses from being issued any longer, as the judge authorized her deputies to hand them out.

Unfortunately, though, Davis’s behavior isn’t just a bratty tantrum. This whole incident is also a sign of a troubling development in the religious right: As their cultural power declines in the face of growing diversity and liberalism, religious conservatives are embracing scary levels of radicalism. They don’t have the numbers anymore, so they are turning to scarier and more radical demands to seize power in any way that they can.

No doubt Davis is a comical figure whose self-righteousness is only equaled by her ignorance both of the text of the Bible she clings to and what it means to have a job as a government employee. But she’s being used by her legal team and other religious right leaders to spread the idea that religious conservatives are entitled to ignore — or even overthrow — democracy and seize power just because they feel like it.

Some supporters, like Ryan Anderson of the New York Times, are claiming that Davis wants an “accommodation” for her religious beliefs. This is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Davis was offered just such an accommodation and told that she doesn’t have to personally issue the licenses so long as her deputies were allowed to do so. She declined that compromise, insisting that she be able to actually prevent same-sex couples from getting licenses in her county altogether.

What Davis is asking for is not an accommodation at all, but for the right to declare, by fiat, that Rowan County, Kentucky, is a mini-theocracy not beholden to the laws of the land, but by the whims of Kim Davis. Her legal team wants you to see her as a sweet but faithful woman, but in fact she’s trying to pull a coup here, claiming that “God’s authority” — read Kim Davis’s authority — trumps our entire democratic system.

It’s not just her, either. Rena Lindevaldsen, who works for the Liberty Counsel that is handling Davis’s case, has taken to boldly arguing that Christians have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government and simply impose their will by fiat. “Whether it’s zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn’t have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they’re contrary to Scripture,” Lindevaldsen recently argued in front of Liberty University. Which is to say that even though the government has declared abortion legal, if you decide you don’t want your neighbors getting abortions, you should be able to declare yourself a God-appointed authority and simply shut it down. If you don’t want to pay taxes, declare yourself a “sovereign citizen.”

Mike Huckabee has been at the frontlines of pushing the claim that Christian conservatives simply have the right to ignore or overturn democracy to impose their will, and not just because he’s been running around Kentucky, trying to get himself on camera as much as possible in support of Davis’s attempt to ban gay marriage by fiat. He’s also been using the campaign trail to argue that the president should be able to simply end rule of law and start ruling like a dictator.

He doesn’t use the word dictator, of course, but make no mistake, Huckabee has repeatedly and shamelessly promised that if he is elected president, he will start declaring his beliefs to be the law of the land without the cooperation of Congress. In a Google hangout, he laid out the scheme: Declare as president that there are “constitutional rights of the unborn” and simply ban abortion by fiat. He claimed a similar authority during the Republican debate, a moment that got startlingly little play even though it was literally a candidate for president arguing that he would make himself a dictator.

Despite his regular references to the constitution when making these proclamations, Huckabee’s scheme would mean voiding out the constitution, as well, and not just because, despite his claims to the contrary, there is not a single word in it that gives citizenship status to embryos. It’s also because his scheme would mean ending the balance of powers, concentrating all the power of the legislature and the courts into the hands of the president.

And once you believe that your interpretation of what God wants trumps rule of law, not just for yourself but for your neighbors, then it follows very quickly that you are entitled to use force and even violence to get your way.

Some religious right leaders are, in fact, making noises that sound very much like justifying the use of violent force in order to overturn the social progress brought upon the U.S. from the democratic system. “No one should want it and no one, myself included, does want it,” conservative pundit Erick Erickson argued in an op-ed about the Davis case. “But how much longer until we have another civil war?” You can be forgiven for being skeptical of his claim not to want this, of course. On the contrary, it reads very much like a threat: Either give up the gains made under the democratic system or face violent overthrow by religious fanatics.

Huckabee plays the same game of fantasizing about violent struggle to overturn democracy while pretending to abhor violence. In his Google hangout, he said that he expected that banning abortion by fiat would likely result in “extraordinary pushback, and goodness, perhaps riots in the streets.” He’s not wrong that simply dissolving rule of law and declaring yourself the sole authority would likely result in people resisting, but he shrugged this off as merely the price of doing business.

To be clear, all these fantasies of governmental overthrow to stop gay couples from marrying will likely remain fantasies. The religious right is aging and losing numbers quickly. This is why they’re getting increasingly fanatical in their rhetoric, of course, but it also makes it hard to imagine they could really get it together to act out their fantasies of seizing power by force.

Still, this isn’t just talk. The Republicans are still beholden to the religious right in many ways. The fact that so many Republican candidates were afraid to defend the rule of law and denounce Davis for her actions is a troubling symptom of this. The Christian right may not be up to armed revolution, but they are increasingly demanding that Republicans turn their backs on the basic rules of democracy to cater to a theocratic minority. That Republicans are listening is a danger to us all.

By Amanda Marcotte

Posted by John The Revelator

I guess this wonderful couple are headed to divorce court…..

This is yet another example of christian BS. It’s okay to feel the way you do, but their is a “huge gap in your logic.” Are you truly in love, is your marriage based on faulty reasoning, or do you really believe what the bible says about divorce or are letting your personal feelings dictate to you what truth is. What is most pathetic is the thought that people think marriage is a god given institution. Here’s question, is marriage sanctioned by the church? NO! Marriage is sanctioned by the government. If the church marries you, it wouldn’t be recognized. Another thought that lies heavy on me is, the society dictates the norms or will be accepted behavior. All the prophets and saints were under someone else’s rule. So this couple, are just one of the many who are christians in name only. Who would have thunk it!

That a married couple who identifies themselves as Christian would oppose same-sex marriage should come as no surprise, especially in Australia. However, what makes Nick and Sarah Jensen‘s protest unique is what they plan to do if the country ever decides to amend the constitution.

Simply put, the happily married couple is threatening to divorce if Australia passes any same-sex legislation later this year:

Jensen told Fairfax Media that he and his wife entered into their marriage “as a fundamental order of creation, part of God’s intimate story for human history, man and woman, for the sake of children, faithful and for life”.
“And so, if later on in the year the state does go ahead and changes the definition of marriage and changes the terms of that contract then we can no longer partake in that new definition unfortunately,” he said.
Under Tony Abbott, the county’s conservative prime minister since 2013, the current government has worked to bar legislation rendering same-sex marriage possible. Since Ireland’s game-changing popular vote in May, however, Australia and other countries around the world are beginning to rethink their positions on promoting and passing pro-LGBT amendments.

Still, it’s interesting that the Jensens — who describe any attempt to allow gay marriage as undermining “our most sacred institution, and [having] serious consequences for children who would grow up without a mother or father” — are technically threatening to do just that with their divorce. As the Sydney Morning Herald points, the couple has (and wants to have more) kids, yet their threatened split could do to them what they think allowing same-sex marriage will do to all children of such unions.

From Sydney Morning Herald

Posted/Comments by John the Revelator

Stop treating Brendan Eich as a one-off – gay marriage is inherently illiberal.

It’s four weeks since Javascript inventor Brendan Eich was hounded out of his job at Mozilla by a virtual mob of intolerant tweeters and campaigners. His crime? Failing to genuflect at the altar of gay marriage, which is now the closest thing our otherwise godless, belief-lite, morally vacuous societies have to a sacred value. For refusing to bow down before this new sainted institution, and for having the temerity to donate money to a campaign group opposed to it, Eich was found guilty by the mob of sacrilege and was hounded out of public life as a modern-day heretic.
And in those four weeks, some gay-marriage backers, feeling more than a little red-faced, have called for the zealots in their camp to get a grip. The treatment of Eich was an example of what happens when bad-apple activists turn crazily self-righteous, they say. British-American writer Andrew Sullivan says the witch-hunting of Eich speaks to the ‘fanaticism’ of certain campaigners, which apparently runs counter to the gay-marriage movement’s desire to create a more ‘tolerant and diverse society’. This week, prominent American liberals and libertarians published an open letter headlined ‘Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both’, which says the Eich episode showed the ‘eagerness [of] some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticise or to persuade those who disagree’. ‘Enforcing orthodoxy hurts everyone’, the letter says, and gay-marriage campaigners must lobby for the ‘freedom to marry’ in a less hysterical fashion.
It is always refreshing to see people stand up for the freedom to dissent, especially on an issue like gay marriage, on which there’s an astounding amount of nodding-dog conformity. But there is nonetheless something off, something problematic, something wrong about the past month’s burgeoning critical response to the Eich affair. And it’s this: it treats the illiberalism and intolerance hurled Eich’s way as a one-off, an extreme case, an instance of ‘some activists’ going too far, when in truth what happened to Eich is entirely in keeping with the coercive culture of the politics of gay marriage more broadly. To view the hounding of Eich as an aberration, as a veering off the alleged path of diversity mapped out by the gay-marriage campaign, is utterly to miss the point – Eich’s treatment is better seen as the logical conclusion to what has been a strikingly illiberal movement from the get-go.
This is the thing no one in the gay-marriage lobby, or in political and media circles more broadly, seems to want to talk about – the fact that in every jurisdiction in which it has been introduced, gay marriage has been heavily attended by authoritarianism and coercion.
Sometimes the coercion is soft, taking the form of what John Stuart Mill called ‘the tyranny of custom’, where those who refuse to embrace gay marriage – the most speedily formed custom of modern times – will be branded phobic and hateful and perhaps boycotted by agitators, pressured to choose between their moral opposition to same-sex marriage and their place in polite society; you absolutely cannot have both. And sometimes the coercion is hard, involving, in the case of France most obviously, actual state violence against opponents of gay marriage. But whatever form it has taken, coercion has been the order of the day in every campaign to legalise gay marriage, meaning Eich’s fate wasn’t some abnormality – it was part of a pretty scary ‘new normal’, of a sweeping culture of intolerance that has been fostered by the political set pushing gay marriage.

It is odd that people should be so shocked by what was done to Eich this month considering that, over the past year and more, we’ve already had the hounding of individuals and businesses that refuse to go wild for gay marriage. Indeed, pre-Eich the US National Review published an article appositely headlined ‘Support gay marriage – or else’, which discussed the growing number of cases in which private businesses that refuse to cater to or work at gay weddings – that is, which exercise their freedom of association – are being threatened with punishment under hate-crime legislation. As the National Review said, ‘refusal [to celebrate gay marriage] is now considered tantamount to a crime’. Eich’s treatment only made more explicit this creeping criminalisation of opponents of gay marriage. In Britain, too, one of the first things secularist supporters of gay marriage did when it became clear that their new institution was going to come into being was to agitate against Catholic schools for failing to promote it. They accused Catholic schools of ‘politically indoctrinating’ their students by teaching them only about traditional marriage, and said such ‘encouragement to bigotry’ shouldn’t be allowed. It was another attempted assault on freedom of association, another indicator of an emerging censorious hostility to anyone who doesn’t embrace gay marriage. The mob punishment of Eich – and the stern warning it sent to other traditionalist-minded or religious folk in public life who might foolishly have been thinking of expressing their views on gay marriage – was just an extension of earlier moral assaults on any person or group that didn’t fully buy into the gospel of gay marriage.
Critics of gay marriage have for months faced ‘ostracism from public life’, as the columnist Damon Linker put it – in an article published pre-Eich. As Linker said, there is a morally coercive streak to the gay-marriage movement, which seems to desire not just tolerance of its ideas, but ‘psychological acceptance and positive affirmation’ of them by everyone. To this end, businesses run by individuals who are less than keen on gay marriage have found themselves boycotted against, protested against, demonised by Twittermobs. Individuals who have voted in favour of traditional marriage in referendums have been denounced as ‘hateful’, ‘brainwashed’, ‘knuckle-draggers’. American states that have failed to introduce gay marriage have had their tourism websites hacked and smothered in abusive commentary. The impact of all these shrill assaults on opponents of gay marriage, of this often media-led branding of critics of gay marriage as ‘phobic’ and irrational, has been to chill debate, to encourage one side in the discussion to shut the hell up or risk ‘ostracism from public life’. It was only a matter of time before this striking unwillingness to tolerate the existence of anyone who isn’t thrilled by gay marriage translated into the physical hounding-out of public life of an individual like Eich. The signs were there.
In some places, the mob pressure to silence one’s moral opposition to gay marriage has been backed by the armed wing of the state. In France, mass protests against the introduction of gay marriage have been met with the violence of the truncheon and even the copious deployment of tear gas. Parisians who have gathered in public while wearing pro-traditional marriage t-shirts – which feature a man, woman and child – have been cautioned by police for organising ‘unauthorised protests’. In the words of the Paris-based writer John Laughland, opponents of gay marriage are being treated as ‘ideological enemies’ by the French state, where ‘every effort [is made] to delegitimise those who protest [against] same-sex marriage’. The moral assault on Eich can hardly be considered special, or especially shocking, when it springs from a movement that has already physically assaulted its critics.
Elsewhere, there has been a strong strain of Orwellianism in the advance of gay marriage. States have been busy rewriting official documents to reflect their elevation of a new form of marriage to replace the old one. In France, Canada and elsewhere, words like husband and wife, even mother and father, are being replaced with what officials call more ‘gender-neutral’ – translation: utterly soulless – terms such as ‘partner’ or ‘parent’. Some campaigners claim this is merely a practical step to reflect a new reality, but as Orwell knew only too well, language itself can be used to shape reality. In gay marriage’s great rewriting and renaming of various communal identities that have been a core part of our societies for generations – from mother to wife to child – we can see the implicit diminishing of the value of a certain, more traditional way of life, with the old-style family unit itself being robbed of moral meaning and reduced to a business-like collection of partners and ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’. Here, too, there’s a coercive component, an attempted top-down refashioning of identities that emerged from within communities over a great period of time.
Anyone who over the past few years has paid attention to the moral delegitimation of critics of gay marriage, to the state attacks on anti-gay marriage protesters, to the social ostracism of those who favour traditional marriage, to the attempt to force religious schools to teach about gay marriage, and to the Orwellian airbrushing from history of the words and identities cleaved to by the already married, cannot have been surprised by what happened to Eich. His fate wasn’t the product of a handful of zealous campaigners going too far on Twitter – it was the end result of an intolerant culture, sometimes mob-like, sometimes state-enforced, that has been gaining ground for years, and which showed long before the elbowing aside of Eich that it was more than happy to ostracise, punish, criminalise and censor anyone who dared raise a peep of opposition to gay marriage. Coercion is built into gay marriage. They used to say love and marriage went together – in the gay-marriage movement, it’s authoritarianism and marriage that are bedfellows.
The question is: why? Why has the gay-marriage issue been such a shrill and intolerant affair? It isn’t because some campaigners are overly keen and a bit hotheaded; it’s because gay marriage is not actually a campaign to expand equality, far less freedom, but is better seen as the main mechanism through which modern society now challenges traditional cultural norms, through which society expresses its dislocation from, and its growing disdain for, the old-world values of family life, family sovereignty, long-term commitment, loyalty, and so on.
Gay marriage has emerged as the perfect means through which our post-traditional, relativistic elites can both subtly denigrate older values and also impose a set of whole new values, related to viewing traditional married life and family integrity as problematic, and therefore more individuated, changeable forms of human relationships as good. And because this is fundamentally about eradicating old moral values and enforcing new ones, it constantly verges on being coercive, expressing a hostility towards its opponents that tends to treat them, not simply as wrong or pesky, but as actual blocks, as ‘ideological enemies’, to the elite’s attempted enforcement of a new moral outlook.
One of the most striking developments in Western societies in recent years has been the sacralisation of homosexuality, the transformation of sexuality from a simple matter of who you have sex with into a set of values and behaviours. In a very short period of time, historically speaking, homosexuality has gone from being a crime to being possibly the most celebrated way of life in modern Western nations. Indeed, such has been the sacralisation of homosexuality, everywhere from popular culture to the political sphere, that the criminals are now those who criticise gay sex, not those who have it – as witnessed in such acts of authoritarianism as the imposing of a one-month prison sentence on a Swedish pastor who preached against homosexuality, the arrest of a preacher in Dundee for saying homosexuality was a sin, the banning of an advert in London that offended gays, the sending of American experts to Africa to preach about the virtues of homosexuality (in a similar way that Christian colonialists used to preach to Africans about the virtues of the Bible, including, er, anti-homosexual views), and so on. Gay-friendliness has become probably the key barometer of decency in the modern West; and those who fail the test can expect censorship or some other form of punishment.
There are various reasons for this move from decriminalising homosexuality, which was a very good thing, to the sanctification of homosexuality, which is just weird. But the main one is that over the past two decades, the gay issue has evolved as the perfect way for the new elites to distance themselves from values that have fallen out of their favour. We have seen the weaponisation of homosexuality, the transformation of it by sections of the political and media classes into the focal point for the expression of hostility to the straight world – which means not just people who are sexually straight, but also so-called straight culture and straight values, straightlacedness itself, ways of life that are based on commitment, privacy, familial sovereignty, things that tend to be viewed by the modern cultural clerisy as outdated or, worse, dangerous and destructive. The sacralisation of homosexuality corresponds precisely with the growing denigration by the state and others of the sphere of the family and the ideals of lifelong commitment, because celebrating gayness has become the main and most PC means through which traditional values might be dented and traditional identities called into question, even thrown open to heightened official scrutiny.
This is what explains both the peculiarly speedy and strikingly authoritarian way in which gay marriage has been adopted by governments across the West who otherwise care little for freedom and choice – because officials recognise in it the opportunity to push further their instinctive hostility towards traditional communal and familial ideals that to a large extent exist outside of the purview of the state. Understanding the impulse behind Western officialdom’s feverish adoption of gay marriage is key to understanding what makes this new institution so illiberal and intolerant. Its great driving force is not any commitment to civil rights but rather an urge to coerce, a desire to reshape the views and ideals and habits of the public, to enforce a new morality that elevates individuation over family life, risk-awareness over commitment, and an openness to being guided through life by experts over loyalty to one’s family unit or community.
So when you criticise gay marriage, you’re not just criticising gay marriage, you’re challenging a new moral framework carved out by those who apparently know better than us what our private lives and relationships should and shouldn’t look like. You’re not just an opponent of gay marriage – you’re a moral heretic whose very thoughts and behaviour are seen as deviant, as running counter to a new, apparently better kind of morality. And that, as Eich’s treatment and everything else that preceded it has shown us, simply will not be tolerated.

Written by Brendan O’Neill/spiked

Posted by John the Revelator

I know this is an odd title, but my point is love. The Ecclesia, which stands for called out ones, has left me numbed. I guess I’m lost to how the so called Church isn’t filled with the fruit of the spirit, but something else. To me it seems, the Church is filled with hypocrites (welcome one more). The Church will not banish incendiary remarks by Pat Buchanan whom walks in the cloak of Christendom. He doesn’t represent the body politick at all. That particular list can be quit long, even coming from Ministers who blur the line between religion and politics. My only point in using him is how he invokes God but uses racist and hateful language on the other hand, while never being called out by the Church. Galatians 5:22 speaks of being filled with the fruit of the spirit, against such, there is no law. The manifestation of the fruit doesn’t come from us willing ourselves, in this instance. I have much respect and love for my Buddhist brothers who practice and live a selfless life. Our dealings have to do with the powers of transformation, being transformed into God’s image. This change is a natural progression of wanting to be like the example he sent. The fruit are as follows love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, Temperance. The two I want to use as examples are love and temperance. This is in no way a teaching but an observation.

Homosexuality has been a hot bed issue and it should be discussed, but in a honest way. Gay’s may have it worst than most ethnic groups, but is it fair? I believe how you live your life without harming others is fair enough. Homosexuality challenges men in ways that are unwarranted. It makes us look at ourselves and our manliness in way that makes us feel vulnerable and insecure. I myself disagree with the issue homosexuality all together, but that is my choice and my choice alone. While it is my choice, I’m not going to go out and belittle others, simply because they differ. I have to say this; just don’t use the Bible to support your argument.

To sum this up, let us ask what is missing? Two key elements are missing, love and temperance. If the Church is in the business of saving folks they have to be temperate. Love is us wanting to embrace and understand while temperance allows us to not call them “faggots or punks” or any other demeaning name that we can think of, that also includes foolish jesting (idle chat).

The Church is failing to reach the unreachable with ignorant language. The Church has been guilty of this more than anyone else. If you kick a mule in the head every time you feed it, it will have enough common sense to not go back. I know this puts the Church on the defensive, but really, it shouldn’t. It’s hard for us to empathize since we ourselves aren’t partakers of that lifestyle, and sympathy, who wants that. We are all under God’s umbrella; he wants us to all coexist. All will not be converted to how we may feel about a certain issue. Lastly, lets continue with the hell and brimstone, we don’t know where anyone ends up. The hell and brimstone preaching does have a place to for people who have ears to receive it. The scriptures are speaking expressively of us and how we live and conduct our lives. The plain teachings speak of three resurrections; life, judgment, damnation. We always think we have it figured out, so you’re telling me, we have out smarted God. You’re telling me, people who believe they are gay or people who may practice a different religion who believe they are correct in their understanding; God is going to send them to a ever burning hell; think again my friends. God has a plan for the lost. Remember when God spoke of hot and cold, it is the lukewarm people who will parish.