Below are some of the more colorful tweets that I have recently seen on Twitter:
2/2 One can reach an LGBT-affirming position based on thoughtful study, reason, experience, & compassion. #AmplifyWomen— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) May 18, 2017
This is one position people take sometimes: to make accommodation of this un-Biblical activity look like a smarter-than-thou, kinder, less savagely anti-intellectual position rooted in erudition, rather than like the destructive loss of discernment that such statements betoken. Here is another tweet:
@Mike_Chitwood Yes. It becomes so much more difficult. But I no longer feel like I'm checking my brain at the door. Now I can wrestle honestly.— Matt Nightingale (@mattnightingale) May 18, 2017
In this one, self-proclaimed "gay Christian" Matt Nightingale explains that there is some kind of healing or medicinal katharsis to be gained by giving oneself over "honestly." He mentions wrestling but intends, from what I can gather, capitulation to the thoughts of his own mind, which loudly tell him to ignore Scripture or disfigure it, so that he can indulge worldly forbidden lusts and feel no shame or guilt about it (or conviction).
@Baptist4freedom @LwTOWT @davidpickuplmft Too much control of what? Their own stories, voices and narratives? They should let those maligning and marginalizing them to continue? 🙄— O. Emmanuel (@olutrain) May 19, 2017
In this tweet, someone offended by my defense of Romans 1 emphasizes "stories, voices, and narratives," and accuses those who do not grant such stories the right to override Scripture of "maligning and marginalizing" them. Hence, in this worldview, gay people's feeling that they have suffered for being gay grants them a prophetic, almost antinomian veto on the Bible, a right to insert themselves into conversation between a believer and God to make certain exegesis off-limits.
And here's another predictable LGBT flourish--the condescending one-liner designed to gather likes and applause from imaginary people in cyberspace:
Being told you're wrong isn't character assassination, honey. #BlessYourHeart https://t.co/kFnXNVGLVi— Kathryn Brightbill✒ (@KEBrightbill) May 19, 2017
This tweeter, Kathryn Brightbill, seems a young lesbian blogger. To her mind, when people are told they are wrong to engage in homosexuality it is character assassination, but when people are called haters and forced out of their jobs for upholding Scripture it is not character assassination--it is just being told they are wrong, and as she later says, "the truth hurts."
Ironically she jumped onto my timeline because I had posed the question, "do LGBT-affirming Christians ever address the character assassination and smears perpetrated by LGBT groups against Christians who oppose sodomy?" Her response was the tweet above. It would merit laughter if not for the fact that this individual actually thinks that by "character assassination" I was referring to "being told you're wrong," as opposed to being accused of violating Title IX for taking students to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, getting branded fascist and Nazi by chanting psychopaths, losing one's employment (including tenure), being tear-gassed, and having blatantly false information about you blasted all over Google and Wikipedia (and so much more that I don't have time to discuss). Her tweet, striving for sardonic supremacy, indicates that either:
(1) she has no idea about how many false allegations and/or truly crude attacks GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, Right Wing Watch, and Southern Poverty Law Center, along with filthy commentators Jeremy Hooper, Scott Rose, Straight Grandmother, Claire Potter, Cathy Brennan, Sheena Malhotra, Wayne Besen, and Joe Jervis have made against tons and tons of people, or
(2) she knows that these things go on and, as I posed in a question in the first tweet, she refuses to resist such behavior by LGBTs because she thinks gay people are beyond any code of good and evil and she is herself a sadist who enjoys and justifies seeing innocent Christians suffer in her name. This would imply that she is faithfully LGBT, yes, in the sense that she has placed her faith in gay identity politics (all of her faith, with none left over to place elsewhere).
I pointed out to her that actually everything she tweeted at me would make more sense if she tweeted it at herself:
@KEBrightbill Total projection. The truth hurts your side. Being told your wrong doesn't mean you're hated. Everything you allege is really your problem.— Robert Oscar Lopez (@Baptist4freedom) May 19, 2017
This triggered a chain of similarly childish tweets, none acknowledging the conundrum into which she'd worked herself. What was the "truth" that supposedly hurt me, which she claimed I deserved and which she claimed was not character assassination? That I "hated" gays, as Human Rights Campaign claims, because I said homosexuality was wrong. So wasn't her statement, "character assassination isn't the same as being told you're wrong" absolutely more applicable to her own camp, and not to me? Gays should not claim they are the victims of a hate crime just because Robert Oscar Lopez states that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Duh.
And finally there is this:
@Baptist4freedom @BryanJFischer God doesn't shame anyone. God is the universal source of love, the foundation of all energy and creation. Man turned "God" into fear.— Simon Curtis (@simoncurtis) May 7, 2017
Here this person claims that God does not shame anyone and therefore no godly person would say anything that would cause him personally to feel ashamed (regardless of the speaker's intent). This reading of God, utterly unrecognizable from the Bible, conveniently allows him to engage in his pet vice of sodomy without having any doubts about his innocence presented to him, purposefully or otherwise, while his own refusal to examine himself allows him to shame and disgrace and condemn those who read Scripture more faithfully.
In the midst of so much banter, exhaustion looms as the only possible endpoint. While in love I say this, I say it nonetheless: these sad people, trapped in their darkened thoughts, cling desperately to the only weapons available to them: sarcasm, snark, personal attacks, confusions, posturing, deflections. That they wield such weapons leads to the question--what are they fighting against? They war, with such venality and relentless bitterness, against something to do with homosexuality.
Why when homosexuality arises do people find so much darkness? Sin! Sin! Sin! Their gay sex is a sin, they abuse their flesh, they abuse the flesh of others, and they abuse God. The act alone might be bad enough, but as these tweets and the thousands of similar ones attest, the things they must say to justify their act lead them much more ominously into the world of darkness and vice. Something about homosexuality warps their thoughts, blinds them to reason, forces them to project what they do upon others, feeling themselves the victims and others the aggressors even as those whom they attack and shame and humiliate try to behave graciously toward them.
And it's exceptionally vicious. People sensitive about their divorces do not organize and hunt down anyone who says divorce is wrong. Promiscuous people may dislike Christians who denounce premarital sex but they have not, to date, formed armies of tweeting accusers and trolls like the gays have.
Homosexuality Is Not Like Other Sins
In a recent podcast I recorded with Peter LaBarbera, we realized that we had different approaches to homosexuality as an issue. One approach is equivalence, which Peter leans toward. In our podcast, he noted that if you substitute homosexuality for other sins in people's parlance and say things like "we should have an adultery pride parade" or "you are adultery-phobic and that's bad!" it becomes obvious how ridiculous it would be to protect one sin, like homosexuality, so zealously from criticism. He has a point.
Yet I do not follow his path. I look at gay exceptionalism, as I started to do here in 2015. Homosexuality is exceptionally emotional, exceptionally rancorous, exceptionally divisive, and exceptionally convoluted as an issue, because it is not like adultery, rape, pedophilia, fornication, or other sins. It is in a class by itself, and not in a good way. It is one of the deadliest human evils precisely because it has a tendency to collapse personhood with sin ("this is who I am and how I was born") despite the truth that nobody really is homosexual or gay. These adjectives describe acts, not lifelong identities for people. Yet there is a tendency to cling to and internalize the logic of homosexuality, which we do not see with other sins.
What will follow is an account of my journey of discovery, which has to do with how I read Paul's letter to the Romans as a young man in the 1990s, and now as an older man in the 2010s.
I am not going to focus on the other "clobber verses," except perhaps tangentially, such as the Sodom story or Leviticus. This deals specifically with the strange appearance of a categorical vilification of homosexuality in Romans 1. That homosexuality would be singled out and given such an extraordinary focus in the first chapter of Paul's important epistle contains a great deal of meaning. Nothing in the Bible is there by accident.
So let us begin.
Paul states in his first letter to the Corinthians that when he was a child, he thought like a child, and then he became a man and put away childish things. Reading falls under such age-based evolution for me. When I was a child, I thought I was gay. The whole world told me I was gay. My late mother had been gay. I had had sex with many men and had had no sex with women. So in my childish reasoning, I applied the way everyone around me discussed sexuality to myself. They said "gay" was something people were, and what they described as "gay" sounded vaguely like things about me. Therefore I was gay.
My mother died in 1990. She had raised me liberation-theology Catholic. I wanted very badly to be Christian. More precisely, I wanted to be religious. But like so many young men, I wanted "religious" to mean something that would affirm who I was. "Gay" was so important to me, such a huge component of my identity, that anything about being "religious" that conflicted with homosexuality had to be tamped down, twisted around, or rejected. I was studying then under John Boswell, an especially seductive theologian at Yale who convinced many people that the Bible did not really ban homosexuality. He drowned his listeners in antique linguistic references and erudite cultural facts so people felt unable to counter him. Everything he said made sense to me then.
I knew, back then, that Jesus had never mentioned homosexuality (or so I thought, but more on that in a bit) and that Paul had referred to homosexuality as a sin in his letters. Paul was not one of Jesus's disciples. Armed with John Boswell's manipulative theological flourishes, I added two and two to come up with twenty thousand. Paul wasn't really the word of God, he was just some guy whose writings happened to capture the attention of the councils that finalized the Bible. I didn't have to pay attention to his dictates.
Moreover, the passage in Romans 1 could not be what Christ intended, as far as I could see. Christ was about love and forgiveness, I had been told, and Paul's statement about homosexuality sounded so harsh with its references to "unnatural lusts" and "reprobate minds" and whatnot. When I looked logically at the sex act between two men, I knew it was unclean. I knew it was painful. I knew it was shameful enough that even proud gays didn't talk about the various problems caused by anal sex. But all this, I thought, was not enough to justify the claim that somehow homosexuality would be a curse upon an idolatrous society and would result in so many social cruelties unleashed.
At that young age, circa twenty-two years old, I assumed that a description of something as cursed or ungodly had to make sense to me in the terms I had at my disposal. If I had no evidence of homosexuality leading to such a fall from God, and I could not reasonably anticipate that one thing (sodomy) would lead to the other (falling from God), then the cause and effect must not hold true. Still too arrogant to know that I was not God and could not see everything, I assumed that my own thoughts were strong enough to form the basis for what parts of the Bible I accepted and what parts I rejected.
I felt, ultimately, that I had the right to tear out Paul's letters if I wanted to. They were boring and vague, in my mind poorly written and not very literary. They had all the verses that sounded closed-minded and (worst of all!) judgmental. They made pronouncements that did not match what I could certify through reason and empirical observation. And the people quoting Paul the most always seemed the mean people I didn't like. The "Bible thumpers."
Paul's letter to the Romans
As a man in my forties, I discovered things about Paul's letter that I had no way of understanding. With more scholarly attention the purpose of the epistle fell into better focus. With maturity I had come to understand that patience in reading mattered more than the text's immediate satisfaction of my requirements. Failures and hardships had humbled me so that I now came to scriptures understanding that I was nothing but a filthy sinner, no better than any other man, lucky to have been given a chance by God to even read His word. As a result, I knew, as I did not know before, that it was not the text's job to validate itself to me. The onus was on me to see if I could understand it, and see whether I was living by it. Some of this maturity and perspective came from reading Jesus's words in their entirety rather than quoting the parts about love and forgiveness and everything being great.
To understand Paul's letters correctly, I had to have read through the whole Bible and particularly Jesus's words in the Gospels. Jesus explains why he uses parables when he says, "because the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given for you to know, but it has not been given to them. For whoever has, more will be given to him." Revelation from Jesus Himself was structured so that His Word would be misunderstood by many, probably most. The less you "get it" already the less you are going to get going forward. Once you start "getting it" all of a sudden more will keep coming to you. As a young man who got almost none of the Bible yet thought he knew everything, scriptures like Paul's letter could seem like a useless and dumb passage about homosexuality, but now I saw it was actually full of wisdom.
I might try to dismiss Paul as someone who wasn't there when Jesus ministered. But I gradually realized from reading Jesus's statements that Paul's words were not a random offshoot but integrally connected to what Jesus said too. Jesus did not see sexuality as a free-for-all and occasion for nothing but good times, love, and forgiveness. In Matthew 15, while Jesus does seem to minimize the role of the older ceremonial laws related to eating, he does so in a passage that simultaneously reinforces the role of sexual purity in His new law. When challenged about eating without having washed his hands, Jesus says: "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, that defiles a man...what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this defiles a man. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies." (Matthew 15:10-14).
"Defilement" was the same general word used to describe men lying with men, in Leviticus. So Jesus was willing to free mankind from some of the more ritualistic rules in the old law, but He was not waiving the laws about sex. In fact, He seemed to be giving them more importance and specifying that the thought and speech justifying or romanticizing sexual immorality was "defilement" even apart from the act itself. None of the usual exegetical tricks I had used in my youth to brush this aside and give myself a green light to hook up with men worked anymore. Especially because of other parts of the Bible where Jesus warns His disciples to beware false teachers and those who place stumbling blocks before children, I contended with the reality that people do get things wrong to justify themselves. There was no reason for me to believe that I had not been misled by people telling me the Bible did not really condemn homosexuality. In Ephesians Paul warns not to be deceived by empty arguments. Had I fallen for such arguments?
The door creaked open in my mind. Could I have gotten everything wrong when I was studying under John Boswell? It seemed that way. And then, now open to the possibility that God was infinitely huger than the small, cramped world that my stupid mortal brain could process, I turned to Paul's letter to the Romans. And one day, it dawned on me what had happened.
Paul's exceptional letter to the Romans
Paul writes to Rome saying he is excited to go there and connect with his "brothers" who are also spreading the Gospel in this powerful city. In 1:16, Paul states, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek." Why the mention of being "not ashamed"? Paul states this because he acknowledges that in a worldly city such as Rome, where people come from many walks of life, the gospel will likely clash with what people want to hear. The reference to Jews, who hated sodomy, and Greeks, who practiced it quite voraciously, offers us a clue as to the progression of Paul's thoughts. His mind is on practices, habits, physical actions, which may differ from group to group, and which frame the way people think about things.
Then he states this line, which will change Christianity permanently: "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: the righteous will live by faith."
The most important point of this opening chapter from Paul is that in a world where many people will cross one's path and will have many habits and tastes and appetites, the righteous will have to live "by faith," trusting that the Gospel's rules are the way to God even if they do not make sense given the way people live. In fact, even if the Gospel demands things that would make one "ashamed" before people whose ways of life clash with the Gospel, one must be faithful to the Gospel, whether it makes sense or not.
Then Paul jumps to describing God's wrath. The lines progress starkly, stating that some people "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Paul states that such people who suppress truth do not have an excuse no matter where they come from, because God has revealed His "eternal power and divine nature... clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made." (Romans 1:20). Throughout this chapter Paul refers to the imperfection of the mortal mind, the fact that so often what makes sense to man is not what God means, and what makes sense to God does not make sense to us. God gave mankind the natural world, from which one could, if one were brutally realistic with oneself, extrapolate the general rules of God. For instance, one could notice that humans are born male and female, and that almost all males desire females and vice versa, and they can only have children with the opposite sex. One could figure out: a man sodomizing another man or two women seeking pleasure without the ability to achieve intercourse both would be, at the very least, strange and contrary to what God ordered. But note that Paul does not mention sexuality just yet.
But even if people did not "get it" from watching the natural world, by the time Paul wrote this letter, God had also revealed Himself in the Mosaic law and through Jesus Christ. So by now they really have no excuse. Yet Paul takes the time to tell a story about homosexuality, as a way of reinforcing yet again this point. The point is: human beings are not God. They easily make mistakes. They often err by trying to get truth to match what they with their foolish heads can understand. They can only find righteousness by saying:
I give up.
I am not God.
Whatever God says, I believe.
I may not get why God said it, but I am nothing but something God has the mercy to love even despite all the reasons He has not to love me.
I will surrender to God's Word. If He says not to do something, I will not do it.
If He says something is defilement, I will not do it. I will not tell others that they can do it.
It is within this context that Paul introduces homosexuality into the story. Paul explains, for the benefit of our flawed minds, how people can go wrong when they do not live by faith. At the beginning they know God, but they do not glorify Him. Then their thinking becomes nonsense, and the senseless minds were darkened. "Claiming to be wise, they became fools." In this self-deluded state, they begin to exchange the true immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.
The birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles might be easy for me to dismiss saying, "ah, that was Rome but not now-- we don't get crazy like that!"
But there is that clause that doesn't let me off the hook. Paul says, they "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal men."
What does that mean? That refers to people saying things such as "God does not shame anyone" and "God wouldn't want people to hate homosexuals," based on what we think a generally good person would do, not on who God is in His immortal glory. With clouded thoughts, some redefine God as a nice person in the terms we understand from fellow men. Because we with our foolish minds think a nice person would never shame someone, and because we think God is basically just a nice man like the people we like here on earth, we then think "God does not shame anyone." But this is precisely the terrible error described by Paul.
And then, at this stage, God "delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity..." Just before jumping into the description of homosexuality, Paul returns briefly to the misrecognition error, saying, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator, who is praised forever."
Two things come just before the bruising description of homosexuality: the lie displacing God's truth, and creation as mentioned with references to the created and Creator. Here it is important to remember that Paul referred, earlier, to the fact that nature has revealed God's truth since the creation of the world. When God created the world in Genesis, He created male and female (only one of each in Eden) and He did so with an explicit purpose for future generations: so that they would cleave to each other, become one flesh, and create children.
Sex and sexuality are absolutely crucial facets of creation. Paul seems to imply that their centrality to God's creation of the world, and His gift of procreation to men, mean that human beings have an extremely useful litmus test to see when they have fallen into the nonsense of their own minds, no longer even know when they are worshipping a real God, and sink deeper into defilement. You know these things are happening, basically, when homosexuality thrives and when people accept it. The act itself, while vile, is actually not as bad as the entire set of delusions, lies, false statements, and social coercions that become necessary to perpetuate homosexuality and shield it from criticism.
The clincher, for me, was when I finally had a clear mind and read through to the end of Chapter 1 of Romans. The description of homosexuality is straightforward (and it is not, as some have alleged, merely a description of abuse or rape or pederasty--it is about men and women of equal status mutually coupling for the purpose of pleasing each other's "unnatural" and "shameless" lusts). There is a line about males receiving "in their own persons the appropriate penalty of their error," which I take to mean that the physical damage caused by anal sex afflicted men, punishing them for following the lead of their own darkened minds rather than the common sense available to any who observe the natural world.
When I read Paul's letter in my twenties, the gay movement was still in its adolescence. It had not become powerful as it is today. It was easy for me, then, to see gay people as struggling individuals, often victimized by prejudice, untethered to any political structure that would demand accountability from them. By my forties that had changed. Gays faced very little stigma, had amassed wealth beyond people's wildest dreams, and were represented by powerful political groups like Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Lambda Legal, and the Southern Poverty Law Center--groups with real power and impact on people's lives.
Because of this change, the laundry list of negative things resulting from homosexuality in Paul's letter (Romans 1:28-31) made sense to me in my middle age in a way it could not have made sense to anyone in the 1990s. The truth is, the gay lobby, perhaps unwittingly, in its zeal for power, fulfilled Paul's admonition and vindicated this entire damning passage. For here is what Paul said came after the widespread acceptance of homosexuality:
And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong. They are filled with unrighteousness, evil, greed, and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, and malice.
Another tier of negatives ensues, different from the list above. The list above recounts evils or vices in themselves. But the next list recounts types of people, implying that in the final stage, people become their sins. Their selfhood and their sinning become inextricable. See here:
They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful.
As recently as 10 years ago, these two daunting lists of evils could have been treated as completely hypothetical. But now the gay lobby has real power and is a structured political force in itself. Unfortunately, all these evils are easy to document as things that the gay lobby actually does and encourages. The warning is fulfilled. Below I will present certain examples from my journey and from general knowledge:
Gay pride parades are universally vulgar. Not only are they full of nakedness but also rudeness and inhumanity. Often sadomasochists showcase scenes of beating and whipping people. Children of gay couples are often dragged to these parades and suffer through hours of traumatic obscenity to please their parents. In the video above, the small boy shows that he is already well versed in pornographic dancing, and enormous crowds cheer him on. When conservatives saw this footage and were outraged that nobody in the crowd stopped this exploitation, gay trade journals accused them of being white supremacists because the parade was in Brazil. But Gay Pride Parades universally descend into filth and callousness, real indifference to the harm people do to each other.
Gay Americans have enormously high incomes. Crystal Dixon, a black Christian working in Ohio, was actually dismissed from her job over charges that she was anti-gay because she published an article about the massive wealth and high incomes hoarded in the gay community. She pointed out that gay men living together had a median income of $130,000 per year, over twice the amount of a median household in the United States. Yet even with this bevy of capital, it is common for gay student groups on college campuses to demand wildly extravagant budgets relative to other groups. While about 2% of the US population is "LGBTQ" but over 50% is pro-life, one university in California gave the LGBTQ student group $296,000 in funding for one year and $0 to the pro-life group, resulting in this lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom.
In 2014, with the help of a dozen investigators, I published this list of 300 instances of extremely vicious behavior from LGBT activists. The list would be double this long today. The crimes range from smashing windows to opening fire on the Family Research Center to getting countless people fired and sending hundreds of death threats to children who did not support gay marriage.
The entire movement for gay marriage and gay adoption found fuel in a wellspring of envy. All the arguments hinged on the accounts of gay people suffering because they saw other people receive things they could not have for themselves. Texas recently passed a law stating that adoption agencies could choose to place children only in homes that met the parents' and the agencies' criteria, which might mean excluding two homosexual parents. Gay activists were furious and waged a massive campaign exaggerating horror stories to the public to make it seem as though Jews, single moms, and Muslims were being unfairly targeted along with gays. This fury boiled over even though the entire field of adoption exists for the benefit of the child and to be faithful to the decisions of the biological parents who entrust a baby to the state. The envy embittering gay writers' rhetoric was unmistakable since no Jews, single moms, or Muslims had ever had the audacious idea that they had a right to bring other people's children into their home to raise.
Currently the HIV rate is rising, with the highest infection rate found among teenage boys who engage in unprotected anal sex. Among drug users, heterosexuals, and hemophiliacs, the rates have declined but now the vast majority of the increase is coming among men who have sex with men. While early hopes for a cure led to some expensive drugs that can reduce the virus to undetectable levels, nevertheless many people find the drugs too costly to obtain or they are insufficient to forestall the onset of AIDs. While people can live longer with HIV, many of these newly infected cases will die of it. Fifty percent of black men who have sex with men get HIV before the age of fifty. Gay males have inflicted death on each other through a culture of callous sex and disregard for one's sex partners. This is so preventable and unconscionable, it can be called murder.
If you go to any of the articles I published on American Thinker, you can scroll down to the comments section and notice something. If the article is about homosexuality there are hundreds of comments, many of which consist of ad hominem and vicious attacks from gay people hiding behind pseudonyms. There is no group of people that swarms with more invective and nastiness than homosexuals on the internet. This reflects, in fact, the state of affairs within the gay community itself, where people often find the constant bickering and drama unbearable.
Many of the gay lobby's key victories have resulted from personal attacks or embarrassment of those considered their opponents. Often such victories depend upon gay activists having secrets or private information about people and revealing such things at a time and in a manner suited to humiliating them. In Alabama, the state's first openly lesbian lawmaker even warned the public that if the laws did not move in her direction, she would start dropping people's secrets into the press. Soon the governor, Robert Bentley did resign in the midst of scandal. GLAAD has a Commentator Accountability Project, which consists of webpages that preserve embarrassing things that GLAAD's informants catch people saying. Josh Duggar's fall from grace based on leaked juvenile correction documents got cited many times by gay activists wanting to present the self-described religious as hypocrites who are as likely to abuse as help people. The Human Rights Campaign used contacts within the Internal Revenue Service to release confidential tax returns in order to embarrass donors to the National Organization for Marriage. Once such details are leaked and posted on the internet, scouts will eagerly forward the URLs in the comments section, in reviews, or in Twitter/Facebook exchanges, wherever the target of the smear campaign appears to have made it into the news. Mark Foley was brought down by gossip, as was Ted Haggard. Sometimes the gay community outs people through gossip but the person tries to redeem themselves as an openly gay man. Such was the case with Ken Mehlman. Other times gay activists repeatedly accuse public figures of being gay (like Tom Cruise) and this starts to lose its effect. When I came under fire from the gay lobby, activists contacted my father, my siblings, my wife, my co-workers, cousins, and others, either to plant incendiary ideas in my social networks or to troll for information.
Here are some names attached to people who pretended to be new friends or supporters, befriended me, and then seemed to have sought to get information from me through email or Facebook exchanges: "Yisroel K," "Diane E," "Mark Miner," "Gattoparda," and "Magenta." There are many more, too many to enumerate here. The pattern with them was the same: they would email me saying they were somewhere out in the public and just wanted to converse with me because they really liked my work. After a few exchanges they would start forwarding me links from things about me online, saying, "I just came across this--is it true?" The links were often from Jeremy Hooper's blog, Good as You; from Wayne Besen's site devoted to tracking down and "exposing" ex-gays; or other blogs run by gays hostile to me, including Towle Road, Equality Matters, or ThinkProgress. After a while I began to feel suspicious of such people and found ways to cut them out of my activities. They would reappear magically whenever another controversy arose, often mailing me things with my name on a list with many other conservatives in the CC field. At times they hope to get people to hit "reply all" and began exchanges where others are also hitting "reply all." This way they can do as Jeremy Hooper did to embarrass some conservatives and bring down Exodus--at some point they insert another person into the distribution list when people do not know, now allowing a gay operative to see everything in the conversation. My friend in Utah found a passage from one of her emails suddenly quoted in the city's newspaper, attacking her. Gossip appears so repeatedly among gay activists, one can say that the LGBT movement has a unique affinity toward it as a political tool, probably because of the long history of "outing" and public shaming that shaped early gay culture.
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights organization in the world, put up a website and included my name on a list of people involved with a study by Mark Regnerus, with which I was not involved. They did this, one might suppose, so they could have a reason to post insulting information about me, most of which was twisted around. The HRC also sent an email blast to all its members claiming that I spoke at a conference in 2014 when I was not even there. They claimed I gave speeches at National Organization for Marriage marches which I never attended. A gay student at CSU Northridge accused me of causing him to fail my class because I let him attend a conference I organized at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley. According to the investigator, Susan Hua, the student claimed he was just coming to terms with himself and couldn't deal with the content targeting gays. But there was no content targeting gays in the entire day--none of the four presentations of 83 exhibits targeted gays at all--and he was actually an officer in a campus gay group, not a newbie coming out. He also was not in the class he claimed to be in, attended five classes all semester, and did not turn in any work. The number of lies gay activists tell is shockingly long. Homosexual Sean Patrick Maloney, a current member of Congress and former partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, served as counsel for the Matthew Shepard Foundation, and this was key to his political rise. Yet the Foundation was founded based on a lie: Matthew Shepard was not murdered by homophobes because of anti-gay bigotry. The two murderers were actually dating daughters of homosexuals and they had gotten along with the gay parents. They seemed to have had an argument over a drug deal gone wrong. The case of Tyler Clementi likewise led to a cottage industry of advocacy and an act of Congress passed in Clementi's name. Yet Clementi was not the victim of a homophobic roommate--though his roommate served time in jail and was hounded by gay activists to get more time. Clementi was having sex with gay adults twice his age he did not know, whom he was meeting on the internet, and this reckless behavior was an obvious factor making him suicidal.
In the video above, one sees a typical display from an unhappy gay man railing against those who believe in God. Mr. Ruff, an Assistant Vice Principal in North Carolina, harangues and berates two teenagers who exercise their free speech rights by advocating against abortion. Mr. Ruff, pro-choice, screams at the students that the aborted babies will go to Hell and that he does not care about God, because he is "gay as the day is long." His anger against God is linked to his homosexuality even though the students are addressing abortion, an issue that does not affect him.
Homosexual organizations such as GLAAD have such large egos that they assume they can destroy anyone's career who says anything remotely critical of them. GLAAD and other gay advocacy groups warred against the Robertson family of Duck Dynasty, the Benham Brothers, and even shows that merely depicted "gay" men who married women in a positive light.
The homosexual advocacy community has becomes so self-aggrandizing that massive efforts persist to force children across America, as young as four years old, to learn about homosexuals. See the work we do at Mass Resistance Texas. Part of the lesson plans put forward in such efforts involve teachers testing students on questions such as, "is it normal for a child to be raised by two gay parents?" And the child must answer yes or be marked wrong. Though representing a tiny part of the population, the gay lobby sees itself as so important that entire units must be devoted to them, displacing basic subject such as math and reading, even in poor urban schools, schools where children have not yet learned English, and schools populated by conservative rural Christians.
No other group can compare to the gay community's tendency to exaggerate accomplishments. In recent years gay groups have tested the limits of truthfulness to claim they make better parents than straight people, they are more creative and better for the economy than straight people, and their achievements against sexual mores equal those of African Americans overcoming slavery and segregation. Tim Cook, the homosexual in charge of Apple, said his homosexuality was a "gift from God." Many gay Christians have taken to claiming that their homosexuality makes them special and they have particular gifts to offer the church. Gays sometimes claim they need special housing just for them, bathroom access for transgenders denied to other students, and separate awards ceremonies.
Inventors of Evil
Paul alluded to the fact that with the distortion of sexuality come new evils that one would be unable to foresee. And so it has come to pass. Since the normalization of homosexuality, gestational surrogacy has exploded--this is, in a nutshell, the traffic in cash-for-babies with extraordinary trauma caused to carrier mothers. Three-parent embryos are now being developed after the UK legalized them, largely at the behest of homosexuals who want children genetically related to both of them. And finally, the transgender movement has fueled a growth in hormone drugs, destructive sex-reassignment surgery, and untested scientific procedures imposed on "transgender" children as young as pre-pubescent.
Disobedient to Parents
Gay activists have been circulating a fake statistic claiming that 40% of homeless teenagers are gay. This is the result, supposedly of vicious Christian parents kicking them out of the house for being gay. Upon closer examination, it seems the narrative must be broken down. Children can be emancipated by age 15 or 16, so it is strange to say that 17-year-olds have been "kicked out" by parents. That they cannot hold down jobs and find roommates or Section 8 housing stirs curiosity. Many cases seem to involve the child being difficult toward their parents and actually running away from home. But collectively, gay activists use cases like the suicide of Leelah Alcorn to demonize parents and blame them for their children not being fully happy as gay or trans.
The political narratives so useful to gay activism often cloud the judgment of gay people, such that they cannot interpret or understand events around them objectively. For example, when Barack Obama invited gay activists to the White House, they took pictures of themselves making obscene gestures at Ronald Reagan. They still blame Ronald Reagan for the AIDS crisis, a pandemic caused by gay men having wild and irresponsible sex without condoms starting in the late 1970s. Ronald Reagan was president between January 1981 and January 1989. The AIDS crisis only became noticeable by about 1983, and especially with the death of Rock Hudson in 1985. How Ronald Reagan could have caused the crisis remains utterly incomprehensible, but the lack of discernment allows many politicized gay narratives such as this to persist. In this podcast, Brittany Klein and I discuss the widespread gay reaction when a major online prostitution ring was busted by authorities. Many gays viewed this as violation of their right to free speech.
In the fall of 2016, a young actor whose father was my friend told me he was interested in auditioning for a role in a play I wrote. The play was about me, so he was going to play me. He told me he was gay and biracial but interested in looking into the play with an open mind. I set a contract with him, and directed him for a week of rehearsals, during which he spent much of the time bad-mouthing the co-author and trying to convince the other actress that he was an innocent victim of my and the other author's cruel treatment. I paid him thousands of dollars in salary and flights, to bring him to London where the show was to premiere. He then told his father he was angry at the London producers, told the London producers he was mad at me, and told me he was mad at the co-author. Sabotaging rehearsals and making it look like the co-author was to blame, he then quit the play in a melodramatic email sent to all the principals involved that he could not perform because he did not feel safe and protected--two days before the play was set to go forward. At the age of 45, with no acting experience and having rehearsed none of the play, I had to play myself at the age of 15. It was humiliating, and he stayed in London for five extra nights at our expense, not even showing up to work or doing anything to earn his keep. He never repaid me his salary which I had advanced him. I messaged his father, who simply stopped returning my messages but continues to publish pro-family articles in the same circles where I move, feigning an identity as an honorable Christian spokesperson when his adopted son plays with Tarot cards, seems to flirt with Satanism, runs frauds on people, and apparently carries out acts of sabotage such as this with his contacts in the gay community. By the end of this horrible episode it seemed likely this was a hit job and some gay group sent him there to interfere with my life. This is not atypical of gay life. This is how gay groups do their political work. This is also, unfortunately, how many gay people act.
When listening to Dan Savage, Wayne Besen, or most famous gay spokespeople, they are cruel. Dan Savage laughs about raping Rick Santorum and wishing Republicans dead on national TV. He starts rumors that Michele Bachmann's husband is gay. He is raising children but behaves like an adolescent still rudely trying to assert primacy in the schoolyard. Like many "gay parents," he shows few instincts that are kind. Yet he is seen as such a gay leader that Barack Obama received him at the White House and his "It Gets Better" project was taken up in Congress. When the vicious attacks came against children raised by gay parents who criticized gay marriage, not a single "gay parent" came forward to ask the community to treat its own children respectfully. The gays who did come forward, such as Paddy Manning and Jean-Pier Delaume-Myard, were homosexuals that were not raising children. Rosie O'Donnell and Elton John both made high profiles of their family life and then behaved in unconscionable ways as parents, yet nobody can criticize them. This is not a community that has shown it can be loving. It has shown, rather, that it can be exceedingly unloving, and it usually is.
Kim Davis went to jail because some gay men who were not from her county looked her up and drove to her county office to start trouble for her. When she got out of jail, they continued to sue her. Eric Walsh was driven out of his job in Pasadena and moved to Georgia, where the gays drove him out of his job again. His crime? He once preached a sermon, much like this essay, on homosexuality from a Christian perspective. The long list of people hounded out of their jobs and harassed by gays for the rest of their lives, often over nothing more than differing from their opinion, is long and ominous. The one thing that the gay community has never shown--ever--is a collective sense of mercy. Their grudges are epic, their punishments against perceived enemies epic
There is no doubt left in my mind
When I was a young man, I could not see that something as simple as accepting gay people, and telling them they could have sex without it being a sin, would be as complicated and traumatic as the modern gay movement has become.
I am not God. I cannot see what God sees. God said to stick to a vision of sexuality, set down at the beginning of the world, that involves man and woman cleaving together. Homosexuality is an exceptional problem because it creeps into our lives so easily, it distorts our thinking so totally, and wreaks destruction that we cannot imagine.
Live by faith. Some things are not understandable to our fragile sense of reason.
Homosexuality is wrong. I must say it. I must live by that credo. I cannot choose the predilections or vanities of fellow flawed mortals over what God commanded. And now I have all the proof I need that Paul meant what he wrote, and he was right, 2000 years ago.