So Gay Marriage Biblically Offends You? A Response to Whitney Kay Bacon, Part 1

In the weeks following the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” across all 50 states of the U.S., a host of articles, blogs, and other media have been circulating the internet both defending and critiquing the judicial fiat which redefined marriage. Within the Christian community, the issue of whether or not homosexual behavior is consistent with biblical teaching has once again become a hot topic of conversation, though in recent years it has never been too far from the forefront. Indeed, American churches have been split over this issue and the Supreme Court decision promises to ensure this matter is not going to go away any time soon.

Amongst the flurry of articles and blogs addressing this topic, of most interest to me have been those which attempt to defend the compatibility of homosexual behavior with Biblical teaching. This should be of interest to all Christians considering that for nearly 2,000 years the historical and consistent position of the Church has been that homosexual behavior is sinful and prohibited by Scripture. And prior to Christianity, this was also the historical position of the Jewish people which they based on the teachings of the Old Testament.

There is a reason of course that both Jews and Christians have been in agreement on this point, and it is not because of bigotry, intolerance, or hatred. It is because the univocal teaching of Scripture on homosexuality leads to this conclusion, and one must try very hard to deny or twist numerous verses addressing this topic in order to avoid their force. Unfortunately this is exactly what you see within the “gay Christian” movement. Given the clear teaching of Scripture and the historic position of the Church, I was shocked and dismayed to see the number of self-professing Christians who supported and celebrated this landmark decision of the Court.

Same-Sex Marriage: Equal Rights, Religion, and Bigotry

When it comes to controversial moral debates like same-sex marriage, trite sayings such as this one on the left are echoed quite often in a culture where the make-up man has become more important than the speech writer. It’s short, it’s rhetorically powerful, and it can be repeated, tweeted, and regurgitated faster than you can say “Anti-disestablishmentarianism.” Using only eighteen words, it gets the intended job done.

But often the truth of the matter takes a bit longer to unpack than can be offered in a thirty-second sound bite. A false assertion can be uttered in seconds, while offering a well thought out response which exposes the problem or mistaken assumption requires clear thinking, patience, energy, and time, virtues and luxuries many people either can’t afford or don’t want to.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a hot topic that is not going away anytime soon. Christian apologists need to be persistent in clarifying the issues, especially in the face of saucy slogans such as this.

So what’s wrong with this oft-repeated cliché?

A Former Homosexual Testifies to God's Transforming Power

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." - 2 Corinthians 5:17

Same-Sex Marriage

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Either there’s a natural teleology to marriage or there’s not

Who are you to say?”  That challenge works both ways.  First, if my disapproval isn’t legitimate, then why is my approval legitimate?  If I don’t have the right to judge something wrong (“Who are you to say?”), I certainly don’t have the right to judge it right (“Who am I to say?”).  Second, why is it that I can’t make a moral judgment here, but apparently you can?

The appeal for a change in marriage laws is an attempt to change the moral consensus about homosexuality.

You invite me to make a moral judgment, then you challenge my right to make a judgment when I don’t give the answer you want.  Who am I to judge? You asked for the peoples’ moral opinion by asking for the people to vote on an initiative giving homosexual unions equal status with heterosexual unions.

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?  Because it’s “fair.”  In what sense is the present situation unfair?  Because homosexual relationships don’t get legal/social recognition equal with heterosexual relationships.  You’re right, they don’t, but why is that unfair?  Because those relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships?  But that’s the very thing under dispute.

If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention.  We can define it how we want.  Now, I don’t accept that view, but even if I did, this doesn’t help homosexual marriage.  Society has voted, and they’ve voted it out.  On what grounds do you appeal for a change?  Moral grounds?  You’ve surrendered that opportunity when you claim that there is no right or wrong definition of marriage.  If so, I have no moral obligation to opt for one view over another.   If marriage is merely defined by society, well then, we voted and defined it as one man and one woman.  You asked for a social consensus, you got it. 

Second, if marriage is merely what we define it then what keeps us from expanding the definition of marriage beyond the inclusion of homosexuality to other kinds of relationships?  Can I marry my daughter, or another man and his wife?  Can two men marry the same woman simultaneously?  Believe me, these aren’t outlandish examples.  There are already groups moving for further redefinition if that’s all marriage is.  There is no limit to how marriage might be defined in this view.

The only way a claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal.  But that depends on an objective standard, and that is a concept already jettisoned when society is asked to define marriage as they wish.  If there’s a moral standard of fairness to appeal to, then there’s a moral standard for marriage to appeal to, as well.

"Free to Live and Love as We See Fit?"

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, "elections have consequences." President Barack Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.

The bill, named for two men killed in vicious attacks, extends the definition of federal hates crimes to include attacks "based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability."

Referring to Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, the President said:

It's hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It's hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who'd offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.

Those words are eloquent in exposing the deep evil that resides in far too many human hearts. If anything, the President spoke too cautiously. It is not only "hard" for any morally sane person to imagine the mentality behind these attacks, it is and must be impossible. Such crimes of violence against any human being should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But defining these crimes as "hate crimes" shifts the legal issue from the criminally violent act itself to the thoughts and intentions of the criminal. This is a dangerous and unnecessary step, for the very idea of a hate crime requires the government to play the role of psychiatrist and also requires a list of those who deserve special protections. How can government stop the extension of that list? If criminalizing hate is legally justifiable, should not every citizen be granted these same protections?

Even more ominously, the logic of hate crime laws inevitably leads to the idea of laws against what is defined as "hate speech." It is not fair to suggest that this specific legislation includes a hate speech provision. It is fair, however, to sound the alarm that very important rights involving the freedom to speak openly against homosexuality, for example, are now at far greater risk.

There was no surprise in the fact that President Obama signed the bill. The shock came, not in the fact that he signed it, but in what the President said in his comments. "This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition," said the President. "Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we've been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit."

Does President Obama actually mean what he said here? Does he really call for a society "in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit?" The hate crimes bill he signed into law covers gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The courts will have to sort out all that is covered in those categories.

But the "free to live and love as we see fit" language was set in a context larger than the hate crimes bill. President Obama is an intellectually serious man. He knows that words matter. When he speaks of all citizens being "free to live and love as we see fit" he opens the door far beyond the categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Does he mean to include polygamists in this vision? The "polyamorous?" Incest? The catalogue of sexual interests claimed by some as "loves" goes far beyond these.

We are living in an age increasingly marked by what Sigmund Freud called "polymorphous perversity." I do not believe that President Obama meant to include any and all sexual interests and lifestyles under his blanket category of living and loving "as we see fit." But words really do matter, and this President now bears responsibility for signing a dangerous bill into law and then for compounding that act by using language that was self-congratulatory, dishonest, and dangerous.

In another sense, the President's language was revealing. The logic that leads to the celebration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships cannot stop with those sexual categories. In an age that elevates "consent" as the only meaningful moral and legal issue, any effort to refuse similar recognition to any consensual sexual relationship, lifestyle, or practice is doomed to eventual failure. It is all just a matter of time.

Yes, Sen. McCain, elections have consequences. But words have consequences, too, President Obama. Do you really want to live with the consequences of your words spoken on Thursday?

"Simply Unprecedented" - President Obama and the Gay Rights Movement

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented." Those words were spoken by Joe Salmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, just after President Barack Obama spoke to the group's 13th annual national dinner.

The Human Rights Campaign is one of the leading organizations promoting what it describes as "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights." The group's annual dinner, held Saturday night, featured well-known politicians and entertainers popular in the LGBT community, as well as an appearance by the President of the United States. President Obama's speech was a matter of controversy long before he arrived. Though pledging soon after his election to be what he called a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, the President has frustrated the gay rights community with what they see as inaction and hesitation in dealing with their agenda.

Indeed, the Obama administration has been under sustained pressure from the gay rights community -- a crucial sector of its political support -- and the HRC dinner was seen as an opportunity for the President to reassert his identification with gay supporters. Mr. Obama was the second sitting president to appear at an HRC dinner. President Bill Clinton appeared before the group in 1997.

Addressing the group, President Obama spoke of the obstacles in the way of the agenda hoped for by gay activists. The President told the group that they faced a continuing fight, adding: "I'm here with you in that fight."

In the course of his address the President took credit for a federal hate crimes bill that was passed last week by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. He also pledged to push for an employee non-discrimination bill and fully-inclusive hate crimes legislation.

But the greatest attention was directed at the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars openly-homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. "I will end don't ask don't tell," the President pledged. "That's my commitment to you." Nevertheless, the President did not stipulate any timetable for this action -- a fact noted by his audience.

The President's perceived lack of action -- and his refusal to hold his administration to a timetable for action -- meant that many in the crowd were disappointed. Though his speech was repeatedly interrupted by eager applause, a good many activists complained that his speech was politically expedient. At TIME.com, John Cloud summarized the President's message with these words: "I'm with you. But I can't do much for you."

Nevertheless, in contrast to that reading of the President's comments, others understood Mr. Obama to make a sweeping series of promises. In addition to pledging a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the President also pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

The President said:

And that is why -- that's why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, stipulates a federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protects any state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage legal in another state. The law was passed by huge majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The opposition of the homosexual community to the law has multiplied since the advent of legalized same-sex marriage in a handful of states.

In a significant portion of his address, President Obama spoke of the fact that gay and lesbian concerns "raise a great deal of emotion in this country." He did not counsel the homosexual community to be patient, but he did ask for understanding. He spoke of advances made over the last three decades, but then reflected that "there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open." Furthermore, "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking."

The President's promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would "see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Then he spoke these words:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are "just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this -- to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.

The attendees at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?

Perspective on Arnold Signing Homosexual Indoctrination Bills

(SaveCalifornia.com) by Randy Thomasson

Despite the hard work and moral cries of pro-family parents, grandparents and other concerned Californians, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Gay Day” for schoolchildren, into law.

CLICK HERE FOR MILK DOCUMENTATION AND BILL FACTS

This morning, SaveCalifornia.com issued our response to the media (see news release below). Pro-family Californians are appropriately outraged today (see comments on our Facebook). I want to give you perspective and direction.


Thank you for your hard work and prayers to protest “Harvey Milk Gay Day.”

Your phone calls, emails, faxes, and petitions were admirable and pulled off four Democrats in the State Assembly. But sadly, Arnold Schwarzenegger has plugged his ears to parents. In the face of opposition, we must always stand strong for our values and do what we can.


California voters are reaping what they have sowed.

In 2003 when he was first elected, Schwarzenegger was on record supporting giving all the rights of marriage to homosexuals (later he flipped and now supports homosexual “marriage” licenses too); he supported homosexual couples adopting children; and he had posed nude in a homosexual magazine in his body-building years.

A couple years ago, he hired a homosexual activist, Susan Kennedy, as his chief of staff. Now, by signing SB 572 and SB 54, which recognizes out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in clear violation of Prop. 8, Schwarzenegger supports the ENTIRE homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, just like Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom do.


What’s worse? A liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican?

Since they do the same damage to family values, a liberal Republican is worse. Because a liberal Republican dumbs-down pro-family voters with a unbiblical “lesser of two evils” standard, dumbs down conservative talk-show hosts, and dumbs-down the Republican Party. By infiltrating from within, a liberal Republican can do more damage to “his side” than a liberal Democrat. A liberal Democrat in office will actually unite pro-family citizens in opposition and motivate them for the next election. Look at the national picture. If you’re a pro-family citizen who voted for Schwarzenegger, an anti-family-values liberal Republican, please learn from this.


You may want to express your anger by calling a live staffer in Schwarzenegger’s office at 916-445-2841 or at any of his five regional offices.

You should also expose this terrible deed (supported by 68 Democrat lawmakers, 1 Republican named Abel Maldonado, and California’s liberal Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) by posting comments to online news sites and social networking sites, and by calling talk radio shows.


Here is our Oct. 12, 2009 news release:

SaveCalifornia.com Appalled at Signing of ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’

SB 572, opposed by overwhelming majority, signed by “People’s Governor”

Sacramento – SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is appalled that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Day,” into law.

“Harvey Milk* was a sexual predator of teens, an advocate of polygamous relationships, a public liar, and is in no way a good role model for impressionable schoolchildren,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. “Sadly, children in public schools will now have even more in-your-face, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination. This provides the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools.”

“’Harvey Milk Day’ teaches children as young as five years old to admire the life and values and the notorious homosexual activist Harvey Milk” said Thomasson. “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses — everything Harvey Milk supported.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed ‘Harvey Milk Day” last year, he signed it this year. The Governor also previously claimed to oppose same-sex “marriage,” but now supports destroying the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, in court, and by his signing of SB 54, to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in violation of Prop. 8.

For several months, SaveCalifornia.com has been leading parents and grandparents to call, email, fax, and petition Governor Schwarzenegger to veto “Harvey Milk Day.” The clear majority of correspondence to the Governor was opposed to SB 572. As a whole, Californians are 4 to 1 against the notion of statewide day of significance honoring the San Francisco gay activist.


For documentation of Harvey Milk’s values and further analysis of “Harvey Milk Day,” see SaveCalifornia.com’s SB 572 veto request letter.

* Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (1982)

It's High Noon for 'Harvey Milk' Day

(Onenewsnow.com) by Charlie Butts

A final push is under way to defeat legislation in California that would honor a deceased homosexual activist.

The "Harvey Milk Day" bill calls for recognition, in public schools, of the former homosexual San Francisco supervisor who was assassinated in 1978. The measure now sits on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk, and he has until Sunday night to sign or veto it.

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com tells OneNewsNow the skirmish over SB 572 is a war on behalf of children.

"The homosexual activists want to sexually indoctrinate children to believe in their agenda of homosexuality, trans-sexuality, bisexuality," he states bluntly. "They are going against pro-family citizens who in larger numbers are calling the governor and saying veto SB 572, Harvey Milk Gay Day."

And the danger if the bill is signed? "Children would be taught every year that cross dressing, that gay pride parades, that homosexual weddings are good and natural, [and are] something to aspire to," Thomasson laments.

SaveCalifornia.com has launched a final weekend phone blitz to convince the governor to reject the measure. Another California-based group -- Traditional Values Coalition -- is calling on its supporters to do the same.

Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part 3 of 3

A special thanks to Sean McDowell and Barb Sherrill of Harvest House Publishers for allowing us to re-post this series on Apologetic Junkie.

(Conversantlife.com) Sean McDowell

The following article is written by Alan Shlemon and is from Apologetics for a New Generation, edited by Sean McDowell (Harvest House, 2009), used with permission.

Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part 1 of 3
Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part 2 of 3


I recently taught on apologetics at a university. My goal was to show how to make our message persuasive, yet gracious. After the event, I stopped at a local coffee shop for a dose of caffeine before the long drive home.

The barista served up my coffee, then asked about my day. I told her I gave a talk about how Christians can share biblical truth in a more friendly, relational, and winsome manner. “Oh! You need to speak at my university,” she insisted. “We’re sick of ‘evangelistic alley.’ It’s a walkway in the center of campus where Christians hold signs and yell at students. Some of them shout that God is going to judge fags. There’s no discussion with them. They just want to be heard. You should teach them."

Though my heart sunk, I realized the barista was on to something. The Christians of “evangelistic alley” were settling for a short-term goal – declaring that homosexuality was sin that should be “repented” of – while squandering their long-term opportunities. Stopping sin can be worthwhile, but it isn’t the only goal. It certainly shouldn’t be pursued at the expense of making a more critical, long-term impact.

The long-term plan with homosexuals should be obvious – help them to know Christ. It’s the same strategy we have with any non-Christian regardless of their sin. But it’s not a quick process.[i] It rarely is with any non-Christian, but this is especially true with homosexuals. We often act, though, as if our most important goal is to change homosexual behavior in the short term rather than waiting patiently to make a more significant difference in the future.

God can give you opportunities to speak the truth with compassion anytime in a person’s life. Don’t try to make a moral statement today if it jeopardizes your chance of influencing them at a more opportune time tomorrow. Think long-term.[ii]

One time when I was teaching at a church on homosexuality, the parents of a 25-year-old gay man asked me for advice. “He wants to bring his boyfriend over for dinner,” they said, “but we told him that homosexuality is against God’s design. He can come over, but his boyfriend must wait somewhere else. They need to know where we stand.”

I’m sympathetic to their moral concern, but making a moral statement today might lessen their influence tomorrow. It’s also unnecessary. Their son already knows their view on homosexuality. Why hurt his feelings and alienate him? There may come a time when their son is disillusioned about his life and he’s more open to hearing the truth. If his parents have been careful not to judge and harass him unnecessarily,[iii] he’s more likely to turn to them for guidance. If, however, his parents have burned their bridges with him, he’s not likely to turn to them for advice.

Once, while teaching at a church on homosexuality, the parents of a lesbian woman approached me. They were pleasantly surprised by my emphasis on truth and compassion. As they told their story, however, it was clear to me they were living out this principle perfectly.

Their daughter lived at a substance-abuse group home with other gays and lesbians. Every weekend the parents invited their daughter and her gay friends to their home and treated them like family. Their daughter’s friends even called them mom and dad. Loving them was only the first step, though. These gays and lesbians needed both love and truth. So the parents invited them to church. After several months, the daughter and her friends accepted the offer because the parents showed them the kind of love and acceptance they’d expect from their own family. There wasn’t a misguided attempt to make a short-term statement, only the parents’ long-term plan to have an influence.

There may be times when you’re asked a direct question and you have no choice but to respond in a way that sounds offensive. Sometimes that’s unavoidable.[iv] But we don’t want to unnecessarily damage our relationship with gays and lesbians. Remember to focus on the influence you can have over the course of their life.


The Value of the New Approach

Homosexuality is here to stay. In fact, it’s becoming more a part of our culture every day. Each successive generation is more accepting of the gay lifestyle. Barna’s research found that, “People 35 and younger are…substantially more likely to consider homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle; and notably more likely to approve of clergy conducting or blessing gay marriages.” Barna concluded that, “Over the long term, we expect to see a growing acceptance of…homosexuality as Baby Busters and Mosaics, the youngest generation, become more influential in public policy and business policy."[v]

As a result, we need to know the truth and speak it with compassion more than ever.[vi] Our youth will be our future leaders. They’ll be our doctors, teachers, and lawyers. In 30 to 40 years, one of today’s youth will be leading our country as President. The minds of young people today carry ideas that will affect our world tomorrow. Although Barna’s findings paint a dim picture of our future, we can brighten our prospects by reaching out to young people in the right way. We’ll minimize the drastic changes that are expected in public policy as a result of the influence of pro-gay generations.

Young believers will also find this approach refreshing. Rather than being faced with the choice of keeping their faith or their gay friends, now they’ll keep both. Their lasting friendships will give them opportunities to graciously share their convictions – not only about homosexuality, but ultimately about Jesus.

The most important reason to use this new approach is this: We know it works. It’s been tried and tested. When we know the truth and speak it with compassion we see the difference it makes. We build lasting friendships with gay men and women. We improve our chances to communicate our convictions on homosexuality. Gays and lesbians reconsider their lifestyle. And people who thought Christians only hate homosexuals now know we care.

We still have a long way to go, but our journey now has more direction. Though we’re still locked and loaded, we’ve exchanged our bullets for truth and our clichés for compassion. Once ill-equipped to meet the challenge of homosexuality, now we’re ready to answer the gay community’s need for truth and healing. And though we forced Kyle back into the closet, our new approach will reach in to draw him out.

____________________________________________________

[i] Certainly some people turn to Jesus quickly, but this is the exception. It’s more common for people to take months or years before they follow Jesus.

[ii] If the opportunity arises when you can make a difference in the short-term, by all means take it. Don’t forsake the immediate opportunity just because you’re only thinking long-term.

[iii] Remember, you’re still likely to irritate people even if you make the right decision. Just don’t irritate them unnecessarily.

[iv] I’m not suggesting abandoning all your convictions to accommodate everything. You still have to stand for what is right and wrong. But take care not to needlessly alienate a gay or lesbian in your life just so things go your way. This will take discernment.

[v] “Born-Again Adults Remain Firm in Opposition to Abortion and Gay Marriage,” The Barna Group, July 23, 2001.

[vi] For more resources on how to live out this principle, see God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door: Reaching the Heart of the Gay Men and Women in Your World by Alan Chambers and 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley.

Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part 2 of 3

A special thanks to Sean McDowell and Barb Sherrill of Harvest House Publishers for allowing us to re-post this series on Apologetic Junkie.

(Conversantlife.com) Sean McDowell

The following article is written by Alan Shlemon and is from Apologetics for a New Generation, edited by Sean McDowell (Harvest House, 2009), used with permission.

Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part 1 of 3


Speak it with Compassion

There is one more critical element we need to add to temper our approach. If we know the truth and know how to help others see it, yet don’t communicate it in a way that shows we care, we’ll botch the whole thing. We need to exhibit empathy. It might be difficult for us to relate to having same-sex attractions, but we’ve all been in tough situations and struggled with things we knew were wrong. When we’re not compassionate, we come off as cold and harsh. We forget we’re talking to human beings who have feelings just like us.

The combination of truth and compassion works. It’s biblically consistent and cultivates healthy relationships with gays and lesbians. This is a delicate balance, though. If you come on too strong with your religious views, you’ll be labeled homophobic. If you get too friendly with the gay community, you’ll be tagged a compromiser by someone in the church. It doesn’t have to be that way. You can hold that homosexual behavior is wrong, but still have a Jesus-like influence on gays and lesbians by nurturing positive relationships with them.[i]

What does it look like to speak the truth with compassion? Three principles can help us live this out practically. One, treat homosexuals like you would anyone else. Two, don’t make the gospel more difficult than it is. And three, aim to make a long-term difference, not just a short-term statement.


Treat Homosexuals Like Anyone Else

This may seem like obvious advice, but the truth is many Christians act differently around homosexuals. They get uneasy. Their non-verbal communication, their behavior, and the direction of their conversation all change.

When gay men and women come to church, we create new rules. I remember teaching at a church that asked a lesbian to change seats because she was sitting next to another female. That’s strange. I doubt this church splits up people who gossip. It’s unlikely they ask unmarried couples living together to sit in different sections. Why treat a gay person any differently?

The simple answer is, we shouldn’t. We should treat homosexuals as we would any other person. Show them the same dignity, kindness, and respect you would show someone who isn’t gay. Here are two specific suggestions for doing this.

First, make friends with a gay man or woman. Get to know them personally, their dreams, their fears, and their challenges. Play tennis with them. Go to their social gatherings. Get to know their families and friends. Be vulnerable about your own struggles and failings. When you treat them like your other friends, they’re likely to reciprocate. They’ll be vulnerable too.

I know this may sound radical to some, but it’s very powerful. I remember one friendship I had with a gay man. Though he knew about my Christian beliefs, I was sensitive not to bring up homosexuality unless it came up naturally in conversation. I simply focused on our friendship, just the way I would with any other person.

Then one day he brought up his own doubts about the gay lifestyle. He asked me about his options. He asked me about Christianity. That’s when knowing the truth – and how to defend it – really helped. We talked for hours about his lifestyle, the truth of Jesus, and where his life was headed. That kind of vulnerability and honesty is what you can expect from a real friendship. When we treat gays and lesbians like anyone else, we build relationships that create healthy intimacy. This increases our ability to make a difference in their lives.

A friend of mine made great friendships with two gay men he worked with, even though he was outspoken about his Christian convictions. He never tried to change them, confront their behavior, or hammer them about their lifestyle. Instead, he treated them like his other friends and waited patiently for an opportunity.

One day his gay friends approached him. “You’re different from other Christians we know. Most harass us about being gay, but you treat us like your other friends. We appreciate that.” From that point on, his relationship with them turned a corner. There was a new level of honesty in their conversation that allowed my friend to share the truth about this faith with them.

Second, don’t expect homosexuals to change their lifestyle before they come to church. Several years ago, two gay men showed up to a church. They walked in, holding hands, and sat down. People next to them went ballistic. “That’s disgusting,” they snickered. I realize it’s difficult for some believers to tolerate homosexual affection, but they should be grateful those men even came to church. Besides, gay men and women don’t need to come to church after they’re gay, but because they’re gay. We’re all guilty; we all need transformation and forgiveness. Gays and lesbians are no less welcome than gossipers and gluttons.

By treating homosexuals like anyone else, you create opportunities to speak the truth. This first principle can be put another way: When it comes to homosexuals, our desire for them is not heterosexuality, but holiness. We’re not trying to make gays straight. We’re trying to lead them straight to Jesus, just like we would anyone else. Once they trust Him, He transforms their life from the inside out. So to know the truth isn’t merely about the truth of homosexuality – whether it’s right or wrong – but the truth of Jesus and His power to transform men and women.


Don’t Make the Gospel More Difficult than It Is

“The gospel is offensive enough,” Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason says. “Don’t add any more offense to it.” The basic Gospel message is the bad news of sin and judgment before the good news of grace. We all need a pardon. That message doesn’t initially give people a warm, fuzzy feeling. In fact, it’s offensive to most people. That’s a big reason so many reject Jesus. We should never remove the offense that’s inherent to the Gospel, but there’s no need to make it more difficult than it already is.

Here are a few ways we can apply this principle. First, let’s stop saying we’re “anti-homosexual.” The Bible isn’t anti-homosexual; it’s anti-homosexual behavior. This is a critical difference. When asked, “Are you anti-homosexual?” it’s better to be precise. Answer that you have nothing against homosexuals[ii] – your concern is their behavior. Christians are not anti-drunks. We’re against drunkenness. We’re not anti-liars. We think lying is wrong. We’re not against the person who sins. Rather, we oppose the sinful behavior. Following Jesus’ example, we love and care for people regardless of their shortcomings. Saying we’re anti-homosexual confuses the issue and compounds an already difficult situation.

Second, let’s avoid offensive ways of presenting our arguments. A common tactic to respond to the since-homosexuality-is-natural-it-must-be-moral argument is to offer a counterexample. “Well, pedophilia is natural to some people, but that doesn’t make it moral.” Though this response might be technically sound, it is unnecessarily harsh and often misunderstood. People erroneously infer that you mean homosexuals are pedophiles. An alternative and less crass response might be to ask, “If lying to keep yourself out of trouble was natural, would that make it right?” This counterexample makes the same point, but without the offensive content.

Third, don’t treat homosexual behavior as the most detestable crime against God. When we make it the supreme evil, we add unnecessary offense. Gays will conclude that we think all sin is bad, but their sin is the worst. And if their sin is the worst, then they’ll conclude they are the worst. The Bible doesn’t teach, however, that homosexuality is the greatest evil. In fact, it’s listed right along side other “ordinary” sins like stealing, coveting, getting drunk, and lying.[iii]

Next, don’t call homosexuality a choice. It’s not. This is hard to swallow for many Christians. Although homosexual behavior is a choice, homosexual attraction is not. While I have no reason to think there’s a “gay gene,” I don’t believe people choose to be attracted to the same sex. Homosexual attraction is a condition that often begins to develop at a very young age – too early to be a product of choice.[iv]

When you say, “Homosexuality is a choice,” this is a tip-off that you don’t understand homosexuality or homosexuals. It becomes obvious you have no idea what gays and lesbians experience. “You think it’s a choice?” they ask. “Why would I ever choose to be gay? It’s too hard and painful to be gay in this world. I would never choose this for myself.” Not only are they offended, they’ll disqualify other things you say because you don’t understand them. You’ll lose your ability to be an influence.

Sometimes even saying homosexual behavior is a choice will not get you off the hook because it’s too easily misunderstood. The problem is the word “choice,” in this context, carries with it the idea of choosing one’s sexual orientation. My suggestion: Avoid the word “choice” all together when talking about homosexuality. It’s too confusing.

Finally, avoid the cliché, “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.” It rarely gives hope to gay men and women. One former gay man confessed that he could never process this statement when Christians said it.[v] Gays don’t see themselves as people who struggle with a homosexual problem. Being gay is who they are, not just what they do. Telling them that God hates their sin strikes at the core of who they perceive themselves to be. It’s unhelpful and produces the opposite effect you intend.

Now that we know what not to do, let’s talk about our strategy to move us forward.

________________________________________________

[i] As one who has worked hard to have a Jesus-like influence in the gay community, I can assure you I’ve been accused of being both homophobic and compromising at different times. One thing is for certain, you won’t be able to please everyone, nor should it be your goal. I’m not suggesting you disregard everyone’s feedback, but you will have to endure many unfair criticisms. Make it a priority to pray and ask for wisdom and discernment to determine how to handle each situation. You’ll also need to have a group of people who you can bounce ideas off of. I’d strongly recommend including people who are not only spiritually mature, but have significant knowledge or experience with this subject (i.e. former homosexuals, people committed to homosexual ministry, and friends/family of homosexuals). This will help you navigate difficult decisions you’ll undoubtedly have to make.

[ii] I don’t mean that homosexual thoughts, feelings, and attractions are normal or healthy. Like other thoughts and temptations, they can lead to sin. The distinction I’m making is important, though, because it helps us avoid the perception that we are against homosexual individuals.

[iii] 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

[iv] I’m not suggesting people are born with homosexuality, but that it’s developmental. The causes and influences happen before the child is making conscious decisions on such matters. To gain insight into factors that lead to homosexuality I’d recommend reading Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Santinover, You Don’t Have to Be Gay by Jeff Konrad and A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi, or his more scholarly work, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. See also NARTH’s website at www.narth.com.

[v] I owe this insight to Mike Haley, head of the Homosexuality and Gender Issues Department at Focus on the Family.

Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part 1 of 3

A special thanks to Sean McDowell and Barb Sherrill of Harvest House Publishers for allowing us to re-post this series on Apologetic Junkie.

(Conversantlife.com) Sean McDowell

The following article is written by Alan Shlemon and is from Apologetics for a New Generation, edited by Sean McDowell (Harvest House, 2009), used with permission.


It’s not surprising people think Christians hate homosexuals. They see how we often treat them.

Kyle’s sad story was one I’d heard before. After 25 years of deep immersion in the gay lifestyle, he wanted out. His choice to follow Jesus meant a day-to-day struggle to stay celibate because simply becoming a Christian didn’t change his same-sex desires. With God’s help though, he was winning the battle.

Kyle thought his church would be a safe harbor during the storm. When he “came out” to his pastor and a counselor, though, both told him to never speak of his plight again. His church forced him back into the closet.

Fifteen years of celibacy later, Kyle came out a second time. Surely things have changed, he thought. It must be safe now. After all, everyone has struggles and temptations. This time he hoped his new church would come alongside and pray for him. But he was mistaken. They turned a blind eye to his struggle, discouraged him from serving, and relegated him to attending and tithing.


Back into the Closet

Our formula for gays[i] is predictable: Condemn and convert. Rebuke their behavior, blast them with the Bible, and then try to win them over with a cliché.

“Sodomy is sin,” we proclaim. Then we quote our “clobber passage,” a verse that condemns homosexuals or even commands their execution.[ii] “But there’s hope,” we reassure them. “God hates the sin, but He loves the sinner.” That’s not what they hear, though. They hear, “God hates the sin and He hates the sinner.”

Armed with Bible verses for bullets, we’re locked and loaded, ready to fire at the first sign of a homosexual. But there’s no grace in a gunshot. Instead of offering hope and healing, we inflict more injury.

We shouldn’t be surprised when gays go back into the closet after they try to come out in the church. Worse, many go back into the lifestyle, sometimes through a “gay church” that shows them the love, grace, and respect they had hoped to get from us.[iii]

Predictably, younger people often perceive Christianity negatively. The Barna Group, a research organization that focuses on religious cultural trends, found that young people think Christians aren’t merely opposed to homosexuality, but show “excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.” Ninety-one percent of young non-Christians and 80% of young church-goers perceive Christianity as “anti-homosexual.”[iv]

More tragically, Barna found that younger Christians complained their church failed to help them apply biblical principles to their friendships with gays. Young people lack arguments and tactics needed to maneuver in conversation and navigate moral dilemmas in a thoughtful, but loving way. Consequently, young people think they must choose between their faith and their friends who are gay. If their friendships mean more to them than their theology, they will choose their friends over their faith every time.

Something is wrong here. Clearly, we need a new approach. Our young people think they’re faced with a difficult moral dilemma. But they don’t have to abandon their gay friends just because homosexuality is wrong. There is a third option, but it’s something that’s rarely taught or modeled in church.


Know the Truth

Our new approach incorporates two key elements: truth and compassion. Truth speaks to the content of our message. Compassion addresses the manner in which it’s conveyed. It’s a winning combination based on principles found in 1 Peter 3:15 – defend the truth, yet with gentleness and respect.

Truth starts with a biblical understanding of homosexuality. Although there are six main passages on the subject,[v] for strategic reasons I recommend using Romans 1:26-27 as your primary text. Since it’s in the New Testament, you sidestep the challenge that the Old Testament verses don’t apply to us today.[vi] Romans also addresses both male and female homosexuality and outlines the real problem: rebellion against God and rejection of His created order. This makes it difficult to argue that the behavior condemned in the passage is something other than homosexuality.[vii]

Knowing the biblical truth about homosexuality is important because many people deny that God condemns homosexual behavior. Indeed, they go to great lengths to reinterpret those six passages.[viii]

Although they’re not successful, their claims sound appealing to people who don’t carefully interpret the Bible. If we learn and understand these verses, it’s easy to clear up this distortion.

Religious arguments, however, are often immediately dismissed by non-Christians. So knowing the truth doesn’t mean we learn only biblical arguments. An effective strategy also incorporates secular arguments. This includes appeals to natural law, the common good, and public health.[ix]

If you can base your views on evidence that make sense even to non-religious people, you’ll be able to speak with anyone. Getting them to consider your ideas can be difficult, though. That’s why it’s critical to present our views in a conversational manner. We’re not typically trained to do that. Too often we try to persuade by making statements instead of asking questions. This immediately raises defenses. Suppose you’re discussing whether homosexuality is genetic and say, “Even if being gay is genetic, it doesn’t mean that it’s right.” Your friend replies with, “Sure it does! I can’t deny how I’ve been created.” Now what? Another statement? Their defenses are up, and the conversation grinds to a halt.

Questions, on the other hand, are friendly and more engaging. They invite discussion. Rephrase your statement with a question: “I’m curious to know your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you think if something is genetic, then it must be right?” This is disarming. It doesn’t provoke the same knee-jerk reaction. Instead, there’s a give and take. People naturally respond to questions and the discussion moves along. Or, you can gently challenge their belief with a question like: “Do you think any behavior is morally appropriate simply because it has a genetic link?” Notice that even though you’re asking a question, you’re still making your point. Just because a behavior has a genetic component, that doesn’t make it right. Making your point with a question sounds friendlier.

Another way to incorporate questions into your conversation is to use the “burden of proof” rule. Applying this rule makes discussions about homosexuality less difficult and more engaging. The burden of proof is simply the responsibility to give proof – credible reasons – in favor of a point of view. The rule is simple: The person who offers an opinion bears the burden to give reasons for it. If they make a claim, it is their job to defend it, not yours to refute it. Too often Christians ignore this rule. Someone says something like, “Christianity is a homophobic religion,” and off we go defending ourselves. This is unnecessary. Why should we do all the work when they made the statement? Since they made the claim, it’s their job to defend it.

Simply ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” or “What reasons do you have for thinking that’s true?” Then sit back and quietly listen. The question gently shifts the burden back where it belongs – on the person who made the claim. It asks them to give reasons for their view, which is a legitimate request. It also makes our job easier by taking the pressure off us to respond.

Questions allow us to make our points and advance the discussion in disarming ways. When we incorporate questions, our discussions about homosexuality become less intimidating. We can make our points without sounding like we are simply pushing our views on others. And we spend less time in the “hot seat” responding to claims we have no obligation to address.

___________________________________________________

[i] Although I use the terms “homosexual” and “gay” interchangeably in this chapter, I believe they have different meanings. “Homosexual” describes a person with predominately same-sex attractions. “Gay” is a social term to describe a homosexual who affirms the homosexual orientation as their identity. While all gays are homosexual, not all homosexuals are gay. Some homosexuals, although they have same-sex attractions, reject the gay identity.

[ii] Leviticus 20:13.

[iii] By love and grace, I don’t mean agreement with the gay lifestyle. Many people like Kyle don’t even get basic respect.

[iv] “A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity,” The Barna Update, The Barna Group, September 24, 2007.

[v] Genesis 19:4-8, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

[vi] Some pro-gay theology advocates suggest that the Old Testament passages that condemn homosexual behavior do not apply to New Testament Christians. Regardless of the whether this argument is valid, the Romans passage sidesteps this objection.

[vii] The 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages merely name homosexuality as sin. Moreover, the Greek word translated homosexuality is a word coined by Paul and, according to pro-gay theology advocates, does not necessarily mean homosexuality (I disagree with this conclusion, however). Consequently, these New Testament passages are more prone to being reinterpreted as referring to some other sin. That’s why it may save you unnecessary debate by focusing on the Romans passage.

[viii] For a refutation of pro-gay theology, see The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas. Dallas is not only a former gay man, but was also involved in the pro-gay theology movement. His treatment is truthful and compassionate.

[ix] For an introduction in these arguments, I’d recommend Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Santinover, Homosexuality and American Public Life by Christopher Wolfe, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-sex Marriage and Parenting by Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier, and articles on Stand to Reason’s website www.str.org.

Obama to America: Accept Homosexuality

(Onenewsnow.com) Associated Press

WASHINGTON, DC - President Barack Obama says that while he's dedicated to expanding homosexual rights, many Americans still cling to what he calls "worn arguments and old attitudes."

At a White House celebration of Gay Pride Month, Obama said he hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality. ""There are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet," said the president. "That's why I've spoken about these issues -- not just in front of you -- but in front of unlikely audiences, in front of African-American church members."

Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes," he stated.

He added that Congress should repeal what Obama referred to as "the so-called Defense of Marriage Act" -- and that his administration is working to pass a hate crimes bill and to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military.

The audience at the White House ceremony included Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and other homosexual clergy. Obama introduced Robinson as a "special friend."
__________________________________________________

Personal Reflection:
1. Note the rhetoric used by President Obama. He attempts to dismiss the opposing point of view by characterizing it as "worn arguments and old attitudes" yet he himself never addresses the arguments or even mentions what they are. This is rhetoric, not reason, which seems to be more and more commonplace in this administration. If Obama wants to be taken seriously by those who actually reason through these issues he needs to interact with the opposing arguments and show a little more intellectual integrity.

2. Note how Obama attempts to make this an issue of "acceptance." First, he dismisses his opponents out of hand (see #1 above). Then he commits a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting his opponent's position. He implies that those who oppose homosexuality are rejecting the individual rather than rejecting the immorality of the lifestyle. He states, "There are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters." But this assumes that in order to accept an individual you must accept everything about them as good, including a harmful and immoral lifestyle. Embracing a gay or lesbian individual does not mean you must accept the homosexual lifestyle as good, true, and beautiful. In saying this Obama seriously misrepresents and misunderstands the notion of tolerance.

3. Finally, Obama begs the question by assuming that homosexuality is natural and normal. Again, this is something that has to be argued for and not assumed.

82% of HIV Transmissions

(SaveCalifornia.com) Randy Thomasson

We have to tell people the truth, especially when others won’t. In our May 14 news release we reported that “homosexual and bisexual behavior causes up to 82 percent of all HIV transmissions in California.”

Here’s a closer look at these figures gleaned from the March 2009 AIDS Surveillance Report issued by the Office of AIDS in the California Department of Public Health:

Exposure Category: Adult/Adolescent Transmission Modes

67% homosexuality (”men who have sex with men”)
+9% homosexuality (”men who have sex with men and inject drugs”)
+6% bisexuality (called “heterosexual contact,” this is mostly heterosexual women having sex with HIV-infected bisexual men)
= 82% of HIV transmission in California are spread by homosexual and bisexual conduct

The facts are facts. For the love of people, to protect them from disease and early death, no politician, educator or media outlet should ever advocate the homosexual lifestyle.

APA Revises "Gay Gene" Theory

(Onenewsnow.com) Charlie Butts

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.

"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."

Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states. (Hear audio report)

With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.

"It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."

LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."

LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.

Hooray for Gay Day!

Sacramento, California -- SaveCalifornia.com, a leading California organization protecting parents' rights and children's innocence, condemns the committee passage of SB 572, which will instruct all California public schools to "conduct suitable commemorative exercises" in support of the anti-religious, radical sexual agenda of the late homosexual activist Harvey Milk. No parental consent is required.

Today, the California State Senate Education Committee passed SB 572 on a 7 to 2 vote. Voting to establish Harvey Milk "gay day" in public schools was Republican Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria and all six Democrats on the committee: Gloria Romero of East Los Angeles, Elaine Alquist of San Jose, Loni Hancock of Alameda County, Carol Liu of Pasadena, Alex Padilla of L.A.'s San Fernando Valley and Joe Simitian of Palo Alto. Voting against SB 572 were two Republican state senators: Bob Huff of Glendora and Mark Wyland of Carlsbad.

"With their votes, Abel Maldonado and the Democrats are harming innocent children by holding out the homosexual lifestyle as a role model," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which has been generating citizen phone calls and emails against SB 572. "It's absurd that government schools teach children not to smoke or use drugs, yet would teach children as young as kindergarten that homosexuality is good and healthy and maybe even for them. That's just not true. Homosexual and bisexual behavior causes up to 82 percent of all HIV transmissions in California." (Source: California Department of Public Health, Office of AIDS, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report March 2009)

Last year, the same bill (then numbered AB 2567) passed the Democrat-controlled Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In March of this year, a poll by SurveyUSA found that only 1 out of 5 Californians support making Harvey Milk's birthday a statewide "day of significance."

"If signed into law, SB 572 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools, without parental permission," said Thomasson. "This will impact children as young as five years old. Every May 22, SB 572 would encourage public schools to positively portray to children any and all facets of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, and anything else that's 'in the closet.' Governor Schwarzenegger should say no to this very inappropriate bill, which has nothing to do with academic excellence and which tramples parental rights."

SB 572 comes on the heels of school sexual indoctrination laws signed into law in 2007. When fully implemented, SB 777 and AB 394 will teach children in California government schools to support homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality via instructional materials, programs and activities, and school "safety" guidelines. In addition, the California State School Board in 2008 implemented SB 71, requiring public schools that provide sex education to promote unmarried sexual activity with no restraints other than mutual consent.

"SB 572 instituting an official 'Gay Day' in public schools will further motivate parents to remove their children from the anti-family public school system," said Thomasson. "We're encouraging parents to visit RescueYourChild.org to learn how to rescue their children while they still can. With public schools becoming sexual indoctrination centers, homeschooling and church schools are no longer parental options, they're parental imperatives."

The Legislative Counsel's Digest for SB 572 states, "This bill would provide that the Governor proclaim May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day, and would designate that date as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date."

The text of SB 572 states that "On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state" should be conducted; specifically, "all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe...and...conduct suitable commemorative exercises."

Under SB 572, what will children in government schools be taught and how will children's minds be "exercised?" The answer is whatever Harvey Milk believed or is said to have believed:

• Religion is dangerous: "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978. Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harvey_milk/)

• All doors of sexual experimentation must be opened: "If a bullet should go through my head let that bullet go through every closet door." (Harvey Milk. Source: www.sacbee.com/111/story/1112044.html)

• If you have homosexual feelings, you must declare yourself gay or lesbian: "Milk believed strongly that coming out was the responsibility of every gay man and woman." (Source: http://everything2.com/node/153707)

• Gay and lesbian marriages are good and natural: "So much of the spirit represented with the Supreme Court's decision last week is the spirit of Harvey Milk and his legacy manifesting today in real change." (San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on the unveiling of a bust of Harvey Milk at city hall, May 28, 2008. Source: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/22/BA3B10PV5C.DTL)

"This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk," said Thomasson. "For the love of God, respect for parents, and defense of impressionable children, Governor Schwarzenegger must veto SB 572 if it reaches his desk."

'Hateful Words' May be Prosecutable

(Onenewsnow.com) Jim Brown

A Democratic congresswoman's candid remarks in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday bolster the fears of Americans who are concerned they one day may be convicted of a "hate crime" for merely publicly expressing their opposition to homosexuality.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was reported out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday in the House (see earlier story). The bill, which is expected to face a vote in the full House on Wednesday, would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

Proponents of the hate crimes bill claim that Christians and others who speak out publicly against homosexuality are not threatened with the same type of prosecution that criminals would face for committing acts of violence against homosexuals and transgender people.

In response, Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan), a co-sponsor of the measure, stated: "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way."

However, during the Judiciary Committee markup yesterday, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) reinforced the notion that people could be prosecuted for having a particular belief. "We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts," said the Democratic lawmaker.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, offered several amendments that would have provided religious-freedom protections from hate crimes prosecution, but they were all rejected by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

"Luca Was Gay" ("Luca Era Gay")

Songs have the ability to communicate ideas in a very powerful way. This song is an excellent example.

"Luca Era Gay" (Luca Was Gay) is the name of an Italian pop song performed by Giuseppe Povia. The song tells a story of a man named Luca who developed a homosexual orientation as a result of negative childhood experiences. Later in life he was able to overcome his struggles and effectively change his sexual orientation to heterosexuality. It should be no surprise that the song has sparked controversy in Italy and has been labeled by gay activists as "homophobic."

You can watch the video here with subtitles.

Also, read the article telling the story of the song and the reaction before and after it was performed at Italy's "Festival di San Remo."

Roberto Marchesini, the writer of the article, notes, "The popularity of 'Luca Era Gay' has given courage and dignity to the ex-homosexual community in Italy, who, until now, have been thoroughly intimidated by gay activists. The text's real-life insights regarding the ex-gay experience are undeniable."

NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) is an organization which "upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care." Check out their additional articles and resources.