Sexual preference or Sexual orientation?

simple-300x388

Watch closely when words change because controlling the vocabulary is essential to controlling people.

Homosexuals once used the words “sexual preference” to talk about their choice. But the term “preference” was later rejected and replaced with “orientation” to facilitate a shift to normalize homosexual lifestyles in America.

Homosexuals also use to say, “All we want is to be left alone to live the way we desire.” This was partly due to ways that gays were wrongly mistreated for choosing different sexual lifestyles. All decent citizens should oppose mistreatment and violence against others. Since same sex behavior between consenting adults is legal in every state, those who target gays for abuse or violence should expect to be punished for criminal behavior. 

But somewhere along the way, the effort moved from seeking protection to demanding normalization. A strategic change of terms from preference to orientation came as part of that move.  And the change has been largely based on an effort to promote the misleading and manipulative argument that equates race and gender with the kind of sex people want.

The change had noting to do with the emergence of any new scientific evidence but was solely based on a strategy to lead society to embrace the necessity and normalization of same-sex lifestyles. 

The entire agenda of gay marriage depends upon the comparison of same-sex behavior as an unalterable and necessary condition of a person’s nature equal with race and gender. The comparison, however, is false and manipulative. Ironically, this agenda has turned into a weapon to bully, intimidate and abuse anyone who dares to think or speak differently. Are homosexuals using the same behaviors toward others that were wrongly brought against them? 

As a matter of clarification, it should be understood that while a person can be born with many inclinations or desires — even a variety of sexual ones, it is foolish to elevate each person’s sexual desires to something intrinsically necessary to their nature.

While we can clearly argue that heterosexual behavior is necessary to the survival of humanity, this does not mean that we should validate all heterosexual choices as necessary and acceptable by claiming it to be part of one’s nature. Sexuality is inseparable from behavior — not a condition of birth like race or gender.

As with all sexuality, we should speak of homosexuality in a context of human choosing — not as a civil right. Two men could be caring friends with a deep affection for each other without being homosexual. Homosexuality is not part of their relationship unless they choose to engage in same-sex acts with one another.  

What do we say to the many people who have left a homosexual lifestyle on moral grounds? What do we say to people who willingly try to resist homosexual lust out of obedience to God? 

Even if I could prove that I was born genetically conditioned to be sexually attracted to women, it wouldn’t mean that acting on the attraction would always be the ethically right decision.

Sexuality is necessarily connected with volition. As long as we make laws that regulate sexual behaviors, we are implying that sexuality is not the same as race or gender (no matter how much one claims that the laws step on his rights by refusing him equality). 

Consider, as an example, an adulterous woman who complains that her act of adultery (i.e. her wrongful heterosexual behavior) was because of her distant and uncaring husband. Sympathy toward her for being in a troubled marriage is understandable but it doesn’t mean that her act of adultery was the morally right choice.

All law making involves impositions of morality to varying degrees — especially if someone can claim that the law excludes him or discriminates against him. Most laws also have religious connections. What do we mean when we talk about equality for all? The very nature of lawmaking easily conflicts with absolute options of equality.

Deceitful word games are not new. They’ve been used in similar ways when “fetus” was substituted for “baby” to push a pro-abortion agenda. The plan has been to use the terms often enough to change the way people think. Yet neither change (for same-sex preference or for abortion) was based on scientific evidence that required different terms. The changes are based on specific agendas to re-engineer culture around the morality of those using the new terms.

I realize that America is a free society where people are free to do this. But it doesn’t mean that everyone else must accept the deception and the agenda. This is where it gets ugly because a militant wave of hate has been directed from radical homosexuals toward anyone who dares to see things differently about same-sex behavior.

The more widely the false comparison is accepted, the more people fear being accused of racial or gender discrimination. Who wants to be label a bigot or a racist or a homophobe? 

Radical homosexuals are free to sell their agenda but when they get ugly, Americans need to stand up and say, “Enough is enough!” “We don’t buy the false comparison and we won’t let you use it to bully others with your sexual lifestyles any more than we would let Phil Robertson move from his beliefs to hateful treatment of homosexuals.”

So what’s the difference between Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) and gay activists? True tolerance. 

Phil stated his beliefs but didn’t demand nationwide conformity to them. Gay activists state their beliefs and demand nationwide conformity. And then they quickly demonize anyone who disagrees — repeatedly accusing good people of being racists bigots for holding a different viewpoint. 

If homosexuals want a radical revision of historic marriage laws from the standard used for most of human history, American history and the only one validated by Jesus (Matthew 19), they should expect to have to make a very strong case and to hear why others disagree or do not accept their case. This is just the way it works. It’s not about discrimination, bias or intolerance. These accusations must be firmly rejected as tools of manipulation to coerce and silence others. 

Steve Cornell

See also:

Big difference between Phil Robertson and Gay Activists

simple-300x388-1What’s the difference between Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty) and gay activists? Tolerance.

Phil stated his beliefs but didn’t demand nationwide conformity to them. Gay activists state their beliefs and demand nationwide conformity. And then they quickly demonize anyone who disagrees — repeatedly accusing good people of being racists bigots for holding a different viewpoint.

How did we fall for this? Why do we allow it?

Answer?

A seven point strategy has been used - 7 tactics for promoting gay marriage

Steve Cornell

Are you a hate-monger and a bigot?

There is no public safe zone for disagreeing with gay marriage.

Is it possible to hold a moral opinion that marriage is meant for male and female without being accused of hate or bigotry? It’s not if we grant the premise that being gay is equal with one’s race. But we need to be more honest about this comparison and where it is leading us.

If we make the sexual choices of individuals civil-rights comparable to race and gender, we will open a social and legal Pandora’s box. Citizens will not be permitted to morally oppose homosexual behavior without risking accusations of discrimination and racism. Federal law will be used against the freedoms of Americans to believe and teach a different view of marriage and sexuality.

Sexual preferences should not be elevated to the level of race or gender. There is no conclusive evidence that supports this comparison. But this comparison is what feeds the accusations of bigotry, hate and legal claims of discrimination. I know many people who are morally opposed to homosexuality but are not at all discriminatory to people based on race or gender. Neither are these people hateful toward those who choose a different sexual lifestyle.  
-
We must expose the race comparison as manipulative and a threat to civility and liberty. It also runs the risk of creating a counter group who could claim discrimination against their freedoms to believe and teach their own morality. 

Where will this path lead us as a nation? Where is it leading us now?

In most public settings, if someone dares to say that he does not agree with gay marriage, he is likely to be reprimanded and warned not to say anything about it. But those who openly flaunt their homosexuality must not be challenged in any way. 

Those who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds are being subjected to discrimination and exclusion in ways that only incite anger. To deny people their freedoms and falsely accuse them of hateful motivations only causes civil unrest. 

Those who take a different view on homosexual behavior are now the targets of condescending ridicule, hate speech, name-calling and scornful ad hominem. This behavior is a violation of the kind of civil debate we need in the democratic process. It’s also manipulation of the worst kind.

If you oppose gay marriage, you’re told that you have irrational phobias; you’re a hate-monger, a bigot, and guilty of discrimination. Why do people allow this kind of school-yard bullying scare them into acquiescing to a militant agenda to force a sexual lifestyle on the vast majority of Americans?

Teaching people to treat each other with respect is a better alternative to forced affirmation. Tolerance is about treating others with respect when you disagree with them. Telling people they’re not permitted to disagree is coercion, not tolerance.

It’s ironic how the intolerance and bigotry that was once wrongly shown toward people who chose a gay lifestyle is now aimed at anyone who dares to oppose homosexual behavior. 

We must see through the vicious rhetoric and courageously hold our convictions about marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. This isn’t about the rights of consenting adults to do what they wish sexually. They have those rights. This is about an arrogant insistence that the entire nation change its definition of marriage to conform to the sexual choices of two percent of the people.

Steve Cornell

 

See - Sexual preference or Sexual orientation?

 

 

Watch your political tone

The tone of politics on the Left is becoming notably worse. Just watch MSNBC.

There is no room for fair and balanced political commentary on MSNBC. They give new meaning to agenda-driven journalism. They only employ opinion journalists who fit a predetermined point-of-view.

Commentators like Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O’ Donnell share a bitter partisan spirit aimed at trashing the Republican Party. Currently the network seems to be in overdrive to win the House of Representatives to Democrats in the 2014 midterm.

But this tone is hurting political dialogue in America. It’s a tone of intolerance mixed with sneering and condescending arrogance.

It has been particularly disappointing to see Chris Matthews devolve into a cynical and sarcastic commentator with a venomous (and, at times, irrational) hostility toward Republicans.

It’s more than a little scary that these commentators actually believe that they represent mainstream America. Their ratings alone should snap them into reality. And it’s widely known that Americans thirty-five and under are turned off by angry partisan politics.

Perhaps I shouldn’t trouble over networks like MSNBC given their dismal ratings. I’d prefer to see this as more of a problem on the far left, but the tone is slowly dominating liberal politics. Lately the President himself appears to be taking his tone and talking points from MSNBC. This was particularly clear during the government shutdown.

The last time I wrote about this concern I received emails from liberals who concurred and expressed similar dismay over the tone that is slowly dominating politics on the left.

It was the extreme Right side of politics for many years that was labeled narrow-minded and controlled by litmus tests. The Left side is now competing for those labels — and winning.

The spirit taking over the Left is based on an insistence that there is only one correct and permissible way to think about a growing number of issues.

Party acceptance (socially) requires complete (and often irrational) rejection of Republicans, unquestioned support for abortion (disguised as women’s rights or only a “fetus”), total embrace of gay marriage (disguised as a civil right or sexual orientation) and commitment to big government (disguised as compassion for the less fortunate).

But along with these litmus tests comes a tone of mocking ridicule toward poor ignorant people who dare to see things differently. Do you want to be identified with that tone?

There is no longer any safe zone on the Left for those who oppose abortion or for those who disagree with homosexual marriages. Yet a few bold members willing to self-check the radical extremes and divisive attitudes of liberal politics could bring sanity to the Democratic Party before it’s too late.



Fair-minded liberals should be asking if this is what they want for their side of politics. If you’re bothered by the tone and direction consider organizing an internal revolt and demand changes before it’s too late.

Perhaps you fear the consequences of opposing the tone or failing the litmus tests. But I believe you could find enough courageous members who are willing to hold the Democratic Party accountable.

Steve Cornell


7 point strategy to redefine sexuality and marriage

Since the Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage, the topic has been headline news.

Although a majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage, many believe that the institution of marriage will be redefined. They believe that the historic position of our nation (and of human history) will be rejected as a relic of ignorance and bigotry.

A number of years ago, I suggested that legalization of gay marriage as a civil right will open a legal Pandora’s box throughout the nation. When I said this at an Open Forum, a visiting law professor rejected my assertion. She was then countered by a highly recognized lawyer in the audience who listed cases currently in the courts that validated my concerns.    

Earlier this year, I stated that it would be more politically and legally amendable and create less social unrest if the gay community said, “All we want is marriage and the benefits that come with it. We are not asking for civil rights status as a minority group along the lines of racial identity.  We are not asking for businesses and Churches to be forced to affirm gay marriage. We are not asking for curriculum changes at the schools to include gay marriage and families.”

Instead of this approach, we’re seeing growing number of lawsuits aimed at those who hold religious convictions against gay marriage (See: Bakery Owners and Price of Citizenship). Religious freedoms of Americans are under attack.

Gay activists are determined to force the public to bow to the sexual preferences of a very small percentage of our population. If they are successful, people will not be permitted to teach the historical view of our nation and the view Jesus taught that marriage is a gift from God for male and female (Matthew 19:4-6). If you hold this view, you’ll be forced into public silence or threatened with the accusation of discrimination.

We must remind ourselves of the explicit and deceptive strategy that has been used to change public opinion. Beyond media efforts to normalize the homosexual lifestyle, the public has been subjected to an endless manipulation of words and ideas to promote the sexual lifestyle chosen by those who prefer same gender sex.

The seven points below survey the distortions of truth used to change the way the public thinks about sexuality and marriage. My purpose in exposing this agenda is not to force my beliefs on others or to suggest that I am more righteous.  

I offer this to expose manipulation and deception and to encourage discernment and rational dialogue. 

The strategy has seven key tactics

  1. Use the language of civil rights: Associate gay rights with battles for racial and gender equality. Claim that a desire for homosexual sex is an inborn condition, not a choice. Assume that a gullible and ignorant public will fall for the false comparison. Repeatedly mention gays and lesbians as if talking about Asians and African Americans or men and women. Associate opposition to gay marriage with intolerance and prejudice.
  2. Use the language of hate and irrational fear: Convince the public that those who speak against gay marriage are racist haters who hold irrational phobias. Those who do not support homosexual behavior must be considered homophobic and hateful bigots. Make them out to be irrational religious fanatics who destroy civility. Deceive the public into thinking that opponents of gay marriage are dangerous people who cling to bigoted ancient laws of a by-gone era.
  3. Expose heterosexual hypocrisy: Talk often about how marriage as an institution has failed. Make Christians appear to be hypocritically unconcerned about their own marriage crisis in order to silence them on opposition to gay marriage. Use the divorce crisis among heterosexuals to make a case for allowing gays to participate in marriage.
  4. Use the language of justice: Make those who oppose gay marriage appear to be unfair perpetrators of injustice. Make them out to be selfish for wanting to keep marriage for themselves and denying loving people the opportunities to have the same rights and freedoms other people enjoy.
  5. Use the language of religion: Connect gay rights to religious freedom and claim God’s approval of gay relationships. Manipulate people into thinking that religion should only be about love and tolerance. Although every major faith for most of history denounced homosexual behavior, convince people that it’s the view of only a radical fringe group of fundamentalists.
  6. Play the victim card: Use every crime or death that can be connected in any measure to homosexuality in order to make it appear that homosexuals need special laws to protect them from violence. Lure people to believe that outspoken opposition to gay marriage incites hate and violence. This will especially play on the gullibility of Christians and silence them.
  7. Use judicial coercion: Since State after State has approved constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage, we must bully them into acceptance of gay marriage by judicial force. In Massachusetts four justices unilaterally imposed their acceptance of gay marriage on the entire state (even though surveys indicated that the majority of residents did not favor gay marriage).

These tactics have been used to pressure the public to embrace homosexual lifestyles. Our country has been deceptively coerced to create special status for the kind of sex desired by a very small percentage of citizens.

Those who prefer homosexuality are free as consenting adults to engage in the behavior in every state of this country. If treated wrongfully for their choices, they have the same laws to protect them that cover the rest of society. But a radical redefinition of the institution of marriage and family will cause significant social unrest in this nation.

Are we really prepared to make the kind of sex people desire a civil right? This is not about discrimination because discrimination (of the civil rights kind) injures people for what they are by nature not for the sex they desire.

Steve Cornell

(see: Tolerance as a strategy, not a virtue)

4 Links Worth Seeing

1. The False Narrative of Gay “Marriage”

A few weeks ago the state legislature took up the issue of same-sex marriage. The outcome was regarded as a foregone conclusion. Illinois is President Obama’s home state, and his party enjoys commanding majorities in both houses. Same-sex marriage enjoyed the support of both the governor and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The president had even personally lobbied state legislators.
-
Given all that, the vote in favor of gay “marriage” in Illinois was inevitable, right?
Well, no one bothered to tell the state’s African-American pastors. As Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage wrote in the National Review, the pastors “worked hard to reach and convince African-American legislators to stand tall for the truth of marriage.”
-
The pastors demanded that legislators acknowledge that marriage “is an institution created by God to bring men and women together for the benefit of children that can only be created through the union of men and women.”
-
Their efforts paid off: Illinois did not succumb to the “inevitable.” They defeated “gay-marriage advocates and their supporters in the legislature in the bluest of blue states.”
-

2. Henninger: Big Government Implodes

ObamaCare’s failures are not the only sign of a great public crack-up.

If the ObamaCare meltdown were a one-off, the system could dismiss it as a legislative misfire and move on, as always. But ObamaCare’s problems are not unique. Important parts of the federal government are breaking down almost simultaneously.

3. Gay Couple Sues Colo. Bakery for Refusing Wedding Cake

Months after facing a media storm for their refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding due to their Christian faith, husband and wife owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Ore., are now facing new attacks from gay advocates whom they say are determined to run them out of business.
-

4. 10 Things Every Christian Should Know About Islam

Islam is a fast-growing religion, especially in the Western world. Christians increasingly need to be aware of Islam and, most importantly, how to engage its adherents with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Here are 10 things I learned about Islam during my 20 years as a missionary in a Muslim-majority country.

Is there a better way to resolve the gay marriage debate?


For several decades, gay rights advocates have used civil rights language to defend their desire for same-sex marriage. Slowly but surely a growing percentage of society has bought into the comparison between the kind of sex people want with unalterable matters of race and gender.

But this strategy has turned gay rights into a divisive and polarizing debate that is threatening the very respectful acceptance desired by homosexual couples.

Why can’t we find a better way to resolve this matter without portraying those who disagree as hateful bigots who discriminate against a minority?

Before going further, allow me to offer a few words of clarification.

First, I realize that sexual desire is one of the most powerful passions of human beings. We would cease to exist on the planet without sexual desire. Yet both heterosexual and homosexual desires have been behind some of the most horrific crimes against humanity. Because we are corrupt beings, our sexuality, like every other part of our existence, requires laws to restrain, protect and punish abuses of our passions and behaviors. There is not a person on the earth who can claim total innocence with regard to sexuality. Jesus exposed this truth to hypocritical religious leaders when he said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

This leads to my second concern. Whether one claims to be heterosexual or homosexual in orientation, the desires and actions associated with orientation must be treated as willful choices capable of restraint. Otherwise one cannot speak of actions like adultery, rape or incest as culpable moral behaviors.

While we cannot tell a person of race to restrain or stop being Asian or African-American anymore than we can tell a woman to stop being female, we must require people of both heterosexual and homosexual orientation to restrain and control their sexual behavior under threat of punishment for wrongful expressions of it. If a society intends on making laws regarding sexual actions, sexuality (whatever orientation one claims) must be treated as a chosen behavior.

My final clarification is to firmly reject unlawful and evil treatment of those who identify themselves as oriented toward homosexual behavior. Sadly, we have witnessed far too much cruelty toward people based on differences. This is where there are some legitimate comparisons between the way homosexuals and people of certain races have been wrongly treated. But why can’t these matters be addressed without making an area of behavior comparable with one’s unchangeable nature?

When gay rights advocates attached their cause to civil rights language, they went too far with the comparisons and invited disagreement from those who simply observed the illogical inconsistencies. But when advocates went to the level of coercion and manipulation by demonizing anyone who disagrees, they’ve engaged in the very acts of intolerance that were wrongly aimed at them.

Despite their gifted intellects, it appears that five Supreme Court justices have carelessly accepted emotionally charged and counter productive false comparison. While the court stopped short of making gay marriage a constitutional right and left in place state laws banning same-sex marriage, the 5-4 decision clearly used inflammatory civil rights language to pave the way to a constitutional civil right for gay marriage. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy slandered those who disagree by implying that they “disparage and injure” the “personhood and dignity” of gays and stand in “violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Evidently one is not capable of treating homosexual couples with respect if he takes a view of marriage as an institution divinely intended for heterosexual unions. Do we want a society where those who believe this way about marriage must keep it to themselves or face accusations of being hateful and discriminating bigots? Does this support the promotion of tolerance and respect for a fellow human being who chooses a homosexual relationship?

Shouldn’t there be a more rational and less divisive way to secure legal provisions of shared benefits and experiences among homosexual couples? Stop and think about the unnecessary and polarizing ways that this issue is being handled. Consider how it produces some of the very behaviors once opposed, and creates another set of victims of discrimination.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia exposed the intention of the decisions writing, “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,”

It appears that President Obama has also bought the illogical comparison. He called DOMA “discrimination enshrined in law.” Of the court’s decision, Obama said, “when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.” Implication? Anyone who sees things differently on gay marriage is guilty of discrimination. This is a manipulative and divisive way to frame a needed conversation.

Wouldn’t it be better to avoid the civil rights language and look for ways for the state to offer more equitable treatment? Is it possible to find a way to address core concerns without polarizing the public and denigrating those who have different views. Does it really help to characterize those who do not support gay marriage on religious or moral grounds as people of hatred, bigotry and irrational phobias?

Although I do not believe in gay marriage, I am neither hateful nor fearful of those who choose a gay lifestyle. In opposing a change to marriage to include homosexual unions, I have no intention or motivation to portray homosexuals as evil people or to support wrongful treatment of them. In my worldview, we are all sinners in desperate need of the grace of God. We are clearly going in the wrong direction with this debate by seeking freedoms for one group by denying freedoms for another.

The path currently sought by radical homosexual activists is to force all of society to see things their way or face severe legal consequences. They are already attacking the religious and moral freedoms of Americans with this agenda and we are only seeing the beginning. Anyone who tells you that this approach will never threaten religious liberty is lying to you. If this becomes a matter of civil rights with the full force of federal law behind it, churches throughout this nation will be attacked with the strong-arm of law if they fail to offer full endorsement of gay marriage.

The Supreme Court carelessly and recklessly sent an implied mandate to lawmakers to conform to gay marriage or be numbered among the hateful bigots. I hope that lawmakers will not cave to the manipulation and false comparisons, but will expose the agenda as a means to silence and coerce Americans against their moral and religious convictions.

More importantly, I think we can find a better way to have this discussion so that the state can offer equitable treatment without sharply dividing people against one another by threatening the freedoms of fellow citizens.

Steve Cornell
Senior pastor
Millersville Bible Church
58 West Frederick street
Millersville, Pa. 17551

Did Jesus welcome unrepentant sinners?

I read an article this morning emphasizing a response to the Supreme Court decisions about marriage based on the grace of the gospel.

While I appreciated the tone and many of the reminders, a particular line from it troubled me. The author invited us to reflect on the way that, “Jesus first welcomed and received unrepentant sinners” before saying, “Go and sin no more.”

The word “unrepentant” is what concerns me.

The author rightly suggested that, “The love that is meant to mark us as Christians is meant to receive people in the generous and gracious way Jesus received people.”

This emphasis, however, could be a little misleading when it comes to unrepentant people — even in relation to the courts’ decision.

First, in keeping with the theme of the article, Jesus was often ran with the “wrong people” of society. Why do you think they labeled him “the friend of sinners” (Matthew 11:19)? The self-righteous crowd shook their heads in disgust at the people he spent time with and used his associations to renounce him. Even at the end of his life, when he died for us on the cross, Isaiah foretold his final association — “He was numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12).

Secondly, Jesus also clearly and repeatedly jolted the self-righteous religious establishment with culturally scandalous statements and stories. Imagine their response when he said, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31). How could he tell a story that placed a tax collector in the temple and sent him home justified before God instead of the Pharisee? Wow! There is no softly and tenderly Jesus is calling in this – just bold truth to cut to the heart of our self-righteous ways!

Yet the unrepentant sinners of Jesus’ day were mostly the religious leaders. And we could hardly say that he warmly welcomed them. Broken sinners, yes; self-righteous, arrogant (“see and do things my way, or else” sinners), no. It’s important not to be confused on this matter so that we don’t melt everything into a non-Christ-like kind of “just accept everyone no matter what” approach.

When His disciples began to mimic the behavior of the religious leaders, asking about greatness in the kingdom, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven’” (Matthew 18:2). Yes, changes must be made because “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5). Without these changes, you will not even enter heaven. It is reserved for the poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3). 

Now I certainly agree with the author that, “To receive an ‘other’ as they are, without first mandating behavior changes, requires us to tolerate a bit of anxiety or discomfort. It demands that we release, or at least relax, our natural impulse to announce our opinions. To receive another as they are, and not as we wish them to be, is to agree with the apostle Paul’s conviction that it is God’s kindness that leads to repentance.”

But many of those who argue for gay marriage mirror the intolerant religious leaders of Jesus’ day more than the broken and contrite ones to whom the kingdom is open. They are not the “sinners” who seek grace but act more like the self-righteous who condemn and ostracize any one who disagrees.

Many of those promoting gay marriage have become some of the most intolerant people in our country. They operate with a “see things my way, or else” approach. If you hope to show them kindness it will only be accepted if it comes with full endorsement and celebration of what they want. The slightest disagreement with them wins one labels like “hate-monger, bigot, racist, homophobic, etc…

Many don’t realize that anger and bitterness underlies much of the homosexual lifestyle, not because of society but because of personal histories of those who choose to live it. This is one reason that gay relationships are notorious for domestic problems. 

I hope this balanced perspective leads to deeper discussions on our calling as Christ followers — especially in a context of responsible citizenship in a democratic form of government. 

Steve Cornell

7 links worth seeing

1. A Nation of Wimps 

Parents are going to ludicrous lengths to take the bumps out of life for their children. However, parental hyperconcern has the net effect of making kids more fragile; that may be why they’re breaking down in record numbers.

2Gay marriage: a case study in conformism

In truth, the extraordinary rise of gay marriage speaks, not to a new spirit of liberty or equality on a par with the civil-rights movements of the 1960s, but rather to the political and moral conformism of our age; to the weirdly judgmental non-judgmentalism of our PC times; to the way in which, in an uncritical era such as ours, ideas can become dogma with alarming ease and speed; to the difficulty of speaking one’s mind or sticking with one’s beliefs at a time when doubt and disagreement are pathologised. 

3. Tolerance as a strategy, not a virtue

This strategy of social coercion to approve the sexual preferences of a small number of people who want to engage in same-sex behavior has gotten out of control. We’re not being asked to tolerate, but forced to approve and celebrate homosexual preferences. Is this the kind of tolerance we want for our country? What happened to freedom for all? Can’t there be respect without coercion and control? 

4. If only gay marriage was all they wanted

It certainly might be more politically and legally amendable and create less social unrest if the gay community said, “All we want is marriage and the benefits that come with it, but we are not asking for civil rights status as a minority group along the lines of racial identity.  We are not asking for businesses and Churches to be forced to affirm gay marriage. We are not asking for curriculum changes at the public schools to include gay marriage and families.”

5. What a week of groceries looks like

Photographer Peter Menzel started this intriguing series of one weeks of groceries from around the world, taking traditional food photography to a much larger scale.

6. Every Every Every Generation Has Been the Me Me Me Generation

Millennials are the “ME ME ME GENERATION,” writes Joel Stein for the cover of Time magazine, which is apparently a marked departure from the Baby Boomers, who were the plain old “Me Generation” (one me, no caps) and who created the “Me Decade” in the 1970s, and who coined the phrase, “But enough about me… what do you think about me?” in the 1980s when they were raising the next narcissists, Generation X.

7. Petraeus Concerned Over Edited Benghazi Talking Points, According to Email

As the Benghazi story heats up, reporters grilled Press Secretary Jay Carney at the White House on Friday after ABC reported that the CIA’s talking points on the Benghazi attack were revised 12 times.

Extra: A Picture of Earth through time

When the facts expose the agenda

How do you respond when facts emerge to expose the deception behind agenda-driven news?

Please don’t retreat into frustration that leads to inaction and non-participation. I realize that sometimes it’s hard to tell who is being honest. It’s appealing to take a knee-jerk reaction that says, “Politicians are all a bunch of crooks that are going to do what they want no matter what we do.”

Inaction by citizens is a sure path to the loss of freedom. 

We simply must persevere in finding the truth behind the agendas and making our voices heard if we hope to protect the freedom we have enjoyed for our children and grandchildren.

I am not suggesting that any of this be done with anger or arrogance but with a simple demand for the truth and a refusal to allow deceptive agendas to hijack our freedoms.

Consider two of the most prominent examples and please take the time to be fully informed. Follow the articles linked below and think carefully through the facts. 

Exhibit A - Gun related crime.

A new from the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011. Non-fatal gun crimes dropped by 69%. During the same time, gun ownership has increased significantly.

Despite this fact, one survey revealed that more than 80 percent of Americans think that gun violence has either remained the same or increased (56 %) (see: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware).

Why? The answer is as simple as it is disturbing. A certain group wants you to think their way on the issues and they dominate as much media as possible to conceal truth and twist facts.

They disguise as journalists and news anchors. But these “reporters” don’t care much about the facts unless they align with the agenda they want for America. Journalism has increasingly become a business of selling deeply biased versions of “news.”

There are few journalist who are brave enough to question the deceptive tactics used to push the radical social agenda of the extreme parts of the liberal side of politics.  Networks like ABC, CBS and NBC are particularly guilty of journalistic cowardice. 

But Americans are without excuse. We have access to all the information we need via the Internet. We don’t have to be duped! We don’t have to become the fools of the talking heads of network news. 

Exhibit BThe very same truth applies to the gay marriage debate.

We’ve been sold misleading impressions that well over half of the country favors gay marriage. This is a distortion of fact for propaganda. While a growing number care less about gay marriage, that’s different from favoring it. The majority of Americans by a large margin do not favor gay marriage.

Further the whole issue is driven for 2-3 percent (at the very most) of Americans. Listening to the dominant focus on the subject in the news has wrongly lead many to believe that there are far more people choosing a gay lifestyle. So the matter shifts to discrimination of a minority and false comparisons of race with sexual choices. One distortion of truth after another has been used to deceive an unsuspecting and gullible public (see: The strategy for gay marriage is working (7 point plan).

Perhaps you say, “Who cares if they want marriage!” “It not going to affect me.” Again, you’re being duped. Marriage is only a beginning. If it was all they wanted, perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion about it. But they want recognition as a minority under federal civil rights laws equivalent to racial status. If this happens, everyone in every situation (business, church, etc…) will be required to offer full endorsement no matter their moral or religious beliefs.

Don’t let anyone fool you about this. 

Exhibit A and B

The big push for background and mental health checks related to guns could easily have a hidden agenda. Follow the logic closely. If you oppose a homosexual lifestyle, you’re immediately accused of hate and bigotry today. What if the mental health check included questions to find out if you’re a “bigot” or a “hater”? Won’t happen? Don’t be so sure.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, get the facts and watch out for deceptive agendas. Be a voice. Vote. Do it all with grace and humility based in love for the truth. 

See also:

Steve Cornell