Friday, January 30, 2015

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Enter Jack Nicholson, playing the president of the United States in the movie Mars Attacks. Tall and stately, in suit and tie, he addresses three seemingly harmless, little, green-blooded, big-headed, large-eyed Martian leaders who are nevertheless in the process of  successfully conquering the world. He smiles his famous smile, reaches out his arms, digs deep for all the charm, diplomacy, and fine words he can muster. He speaks slowly, calmly, but with great feeling.

"Why are you doing this? Why? Isn't the universe big enough for both of us? HA-HA-HA-HA! What is wrong with you people?  We could work together. Why be enemies? "Cause we're different? Is that why?"

The president steps confidently closer to the Martians, over a smoking human skeleton.

"Think of the things that we could do. Think how strong we would be. Earth. And Mars. There's nothing that we could not accomplish! Think about it. Why destroy when we could create? We can have it all. Or we can smash it all. Why can't we work out our differences?  Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?"

It's quite a speech. A big tear trickles down the head Martian's cheek. He holds out his alien hand. He and the president shake. Immediately the arm detaches from the Martian's body and crawls all over the president, stabbing him in the back clear through his chest. He falls down dead.

"Ack," says the Martian matter-of-factly. 

Very funny in a dark comedy way. Also cautionary. "Why can't we all just get along?" drawls Jack Nicholson, arrogant, condescending, and incredibly naive in the face of a merciless and deadly enemy. Why can't we all just get along? Here's why: because individuals and groups of human beings often go wrong and create evil viewpoints diametrically opposed to God's standards for humanity. The evil and the good worldviews contradict and cancel each other out; they cannot peacefully co-exist. One will win out over the other. For example, one view---arbitrary, permissive, experimental, foundationless--- insists that it is essential that we teach the normalization of things such as masturbation, homosexuality in all its forms, and fornication ("safe sex") in public schools, while the other view---supported by God, science, history, culture, and experience--- proclaims that these things are licentious, immoral, risky, harmful, the teaching of which to school children amounts to child abuse, that sex doesn't belong in school, that as a society we should continue to uphold God's rules for human sexuality and behavior for the health and well-being of all. We can plainly see which view is coming off conqueror in today's world. Morality and religion are being mocked, silenced, and punished in favor of sexual freedom. 

Sad to say, our culture has been attacked, not by extra-terrestrials but by our own fellow earthlings who wish to overthrow God along with His standards for human sexuality. Some of these are people claiming what they call alternative sexual orientations. It's a clever phrase very few people bother to think through. Right now the country is all about it. People should not be "discriminated against" or denied "rights" (since when are housing and jobs rights?) because of LGBTQI, etc. sexual orientation. For one thing, there is no evidence that gay people are being denied these things on this basis; it's just a trumped-up idea that seeks to obliterate the rights of others---those with religious and moral objections. For another thing, do we not see how intellectually bankrupt and dangerous and pointless all this contorted  finagling and concession-making is? People want to appear inclusive and fair to gays who demand society's approval and protection of their sexual ideas and choices, and at the same time the aforementioned people rightly wish to retain their own moral and religious rights (guaranteed by the Constitution) to disapprove of those sexual ideas and choices. Besides not making any sense, it's not happening and it's not going to happen. It was almost 15 years ago when the late Richard Wilkins told us that the way things now are, personal sexual freedom will trump religious freedom every time in the courts, which can now be extended to include the court of public opinion. The ack ack ack is being sounded across the nation, people are showing their true colors---that they care more about human relations than relations with God, and true principles are dropping like, well, like humanity in Mars Attacks. Supposed conservative Christians think they can win over willful sinners with kindness; instead they are the ones being won over to willful sin.

Scott Lively in Redeeming the Rainbow, wrote, "Neither should any believer expect to persuade pro-'gay' opponents. Self-evident proof is its own proof, but at the same time is so foreign to the reprobate mind that there is no common ground possible in a debate between truth-loving and reprobate thinkers. We speak completely different languages." Like Earthlings and Martians. In short, the nonvirtuous do not understand or value virtue.

Let's look at the phrase sexual orientation itself. If this sophistry is not exposed (which it looks like it won't) there will be no end of trouble. Here's a reality check. There is absolutely no evidence that sexual "orientation" of any kind is genetic or permanent. Human beings are sponges. They come to earth as babies and are taught everything they come to know. People are born male or female, and their sexuality (attitudes and beliefs and perceptions about gender roles and about sexual behavior) develops as they grow up and begin to experience sexual feelings and thoughts. Yes, a person's sexuality develops over time. Even some gays admit that sexuality is liquid, changeable, whimsical. Hence, you have bi-sexuals, the B in LGBT, that is, people changing their behaviors back and forth from gay to straight and straight to gay, which truth is conveniently covered up in the gay movement. For all sorts of reasons, especially today in our permissive, oversexed, information-glutted, temptation-advertized world, people drift in and out of all sorts of sexual experiments and escapades. The modern  phrase sexual orientation opens the door to any and everything on the sexual sins menu. Count on it, there are more letters to come in that LGBTQI alphabet soup. For example, what's to stop pedophiles, rapists, masochists, and beastialists from demanding nondiscrimination and equal opportunity and treatment?  If we don't reaffirm our formerly crystal clear, righteous discriminations, there will soon be no limits at all. It sounds like science fiction, but it is feasible that the "right" of someone to fulfill any momentary sexual whim could come to trump any other freedom.

Let's also take a look at the notion of "rights." As Dostoyevsky and C. S. Lewis and numberless other great thinkers have said: without God, that is, without God and His timeless standard for human conduct such as sexual morality, there are simply no reasons for limitations; all may come to be permitted. A new and arbitrary and most likely nonbenevolent "morality" will become established by those wielding power to take the place of God's rules. Bingo. In the last decade we have seen the unearthing of perverted and unhealthy views of sex and sexuality--- from a dark and shameful and disgusting thing to what Lewis called a position of "preposterous privilege." The result is, and will increasingly be, treachery and tyranny. Yes, in your neighborhood, in your church, in your schools, in your government.

Much as we would wish to come together, hold dialogue, appease, and downplay these issues, it is not possible. Sexual freedom and Godly conventional sexual morality are two diametrically opposed views which can never get along. Call them "extreme" if you wish, but one will be favored, says Robert Bork, and the other harmed.

Apparently we as a society, and especially church leaders from a wide range of sects who Scott Lively says are showing themselves to be gullible and weak of faith, are giving in to the idea of unlimited, individually-determined sexual orientation(s), and one result (among others immediately and eternally destructive to individuals) will be the death of our moral conscience and the destruction of religious freedom, all forfeited on the altar of "peace." We must ask ourselves: Why does giving up my religious freedom to any degree amount to any sort of peace? Historically, this has been more accurately proclaimed to be cause for war.

We should care what kind of culture we are bequeathing to rising and future generations. We should care what youth and children are being taught and what they will teach their children (if they have any). At this juncture it certainly looks like we don't care about our posterity, not to mention knowledge or God or common sense or good and evil or the souls of men at all, but about some false and vaporous and dangerous notion of  "getting along"  with those who are determined to have their way at the expense of the right way. What can be the result of such arrogance and gullibility and politically correct maneuvering on the part of those who are supposed to be valiant in the cause of God and goodness and truth and decency?


Friday, January 9, 2015

The Only Reason Unrepentant Mormons are Now Public With Their SSA

There's a new show on TLC called "My Husband's Not Gay" getting all sorts of attention from all sides. Some people like it, others hate it. We hate it, but not for the same reasons homosexualists hate it.

The whole premise of this program is intellectually dishonest (which is one reason homosexualists hate the show). It depends entirely on semantics. Of course gay and homosexual and same-sex attracted mean the exact same thing. People who make excuses for Mormons, rationalizing that Mormon gays are somehow "moderate" or "celibate" do not have a leg to stand on. (See our previous post:  The "Noble" "LDS" "Gay.") Of course these pathetic women's husbands are essentially gay, however you define the word. Basically, they lust, and yes, it's sexual lust, sexual lust after people of their same gender. Having sex with other men, which culminates in sodomy, is what they desire, what they think about, what they fantasize about. If they deny or omit the fact that this attraction is sexual, as they do on this program, then there's no reason for gay rights or special attention or this program, unless you admit they need mental and emotional help. It's just aesthetics. Who cares?  All they are saying is that they are attracted to beauty. Everyone with eyes can appreciate beauty or physical attractiveness in both sexes, but decent people don't lust after anybody. They don't sexualize strangers or anybody but their spouse. Decent, faithful people confine their sexuality only to their spouse and in the proper way. If obsessing over beautiful people is "who you are" you have OCD or some other disorder. You need help. But this isn't it. They aren't just looking; they are lusting. It's only the sexual component that makes a person SSA, what we more accurately call SSSA (same-sex sexually attracted). There is no homo without the sex, said Paul Mero. Somewhere along the line the sexual development of these people went awry, or they just plain rebelled against God, and here they are. Whatever else is involved, you can bet same-sex internet pornography and gay associations continue to play a huge role. In the program the gay husbands go to a clothing store and are waited on by flamboyant gays and enter into conversation about gayness. To quote Herman Melville in Billy Budd, "I doubt it's ignorance that motivates their actions."

And yes, using porn and proclaiming to the world that you are same-sex attracted are definitely actions expressing homosexuality. Perhaps more than any other type of sex addiction, these people have to pro-actively feed their lusts to keep them thriving. Think about it. If a person is troubled with SSSA, he will keep it private and resist it and get help and work at repentance and give up his bad habits however long it takes, and above all, protect and support his wife and children if he has them. Only those who are not troubled by their SSSA, who enjoy it, will make it public and/or abandon their families as we've seen happen often. Apparently the newest trend is to not only publicly and continually justify and cling to this proclivity, but to drag your exploited wife and children into advocacy of it as well, as seen on this program and other places. Please note that on this program, contrary to scripture, there is no language regarding SSA being a problem or sin necessary to resist and overcome.

We won't spend much time on the state of these "wives'" intelligence or emotional health. Why you would hitch your wagon to a man who publicly and quite proudly confesses he is not attracted to you, and who makes this known to his children, we can only attribute to some sort of mental, spiritual, and/or emotional disorder. It almost sounds sociopathic, as in no conscience and no empathy. Incredibly, on this program the wives talk as if they actually encourage homosexuality in their husbands; they enjoy having a live-in "girl friend." Yikes. How's that for emasculating your own husband? And yet they make public how often they enjoy sex with their husbands. What? Are they sodomizing their wives? This is all crazy. If these people are happily married and engage in normal healthy sexual relations, this program is a huge hoax.

Be that as it may, men who make this proclivity public, or make a pretense of it, are putting some sort of outrageous selfishness ahead of the virtue, modesty, and protection of their wives and children. They put them in danger of being called homophobes and being ridiculed and persecuted in all sorts of ways. Who would do that but a narcissist? Who would allow it to be done but an ignorant or emotionally ill person? At one point one husband says he is going camping with other apparently gay guys. The wife is understandably uncomfortable with this situation. Duh! It's like sending your straight husband overnight with a bunch of women with illicit sex on their minds! Oh, but she trusts him; it's the other guys she worries will tempt and seduce him. What a dream-world. What self-serving trumped-up sensationalism. It's sounds more and more like a hoax. Whatever it is, the SSA men in the show come across as oversexed adolescents trying to pull the wool over their parents' eyes (read: wives and church).

What we will spend a little time on is what should be obvious to everybody but evidently isn't. No one seems to wonder why these "mixed orientation marriage" people are coming forward. There has to be a why. And we submit that reason in this post. The only reason (perhaps along with emotional or mental illness) these Mormons are making their perverse and unnatural sexual proclivities public, in the case of this TV show in a very big way, is to validate their wickedness and to further the cause. The cause? To bring everybody around to the the false notion that homosexuality in desire and in deed is righteous, permanent, safe, orderly, and healthy instead of what it really is: sinful, changeable, dangerous, disorderly, sick. In other words, they wish to promote homosexuality, whether as it affects one's friends and family or in the wider culture, as here to stay and we better get used to it--- oh no, not just as an "identity" but with all its corresponding behaviors.

Make no mistake: "men burning in their lusts toward one another" is about homosexual behaviors. These lusts quickly escalate and sooner or later are acted upon. This is part of what they want and what they are aiming for, step by step. We believe these actions are now, and will increasingly be, unquestioned, unpunished, winked at, tolerated--- all without a murmur coming from ecclesiastical leaders and fellow church members, even from such wives as appear on this program. It's a don't ask-don't tell deal when it comes to acting out. One example we know of (there are certainly others) is a publicly gay man who lives the lifestyle, i.e. apparently commits sodomy regularly, who is well received and allowed full fellowship and participation in his LDS ward and church services, it appears to the approbation of all. Whether people who push their homosexual presence or people who allow or celebrate homosexuality in their midst are pawns or activists makes no difference in the desired result, which result is perfectly in line with the world's homosexual agenda. Sad to say, modern Mormondom is playing right into the world's Godless hands, though a decade or so behind; perhaps LDS homosexualists needed a little time to think up their pseudo-religious spin and condition the rest of us.

We also will spend a little time on the anti-God, anti-Christ aspect of this movement. God has made the rules for sexual purity and conduct among human beings; all this pro-homosexual nonsense in its divers forms is contrary to those rules. (Everyone needs to read C. S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, not to mention the Standard Works.) What's worse is when homosexualists practice priestcraft, when they take upon themselves the form of angels of light and become false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing. These are people who use the pretense of religion to cover their sins. While using the name of Christ, they are essentially anti-Christ because they insist that there is no need for faith or repentance in Christ as Savior, that is, Jesus Christ who can save us from our sins if we repent. 

Very little critical thinking will unveil this variety of wickedness, which is well-documented in the Book of Mormon. All the various anti-Christs had one thing in common. It wasn't some sinful behavior or other. It was this idea that there is no need for repentance. This fits right in with the Mormon movement promoting homosexuality. Homosexualists today, Mormon or not, never mention sin and repentance, not where it concerns homosexuality, no, not for claiming the identity, not for the lusts, and increasingly not for the behaviors, if anyone even bothers to define homosexual behaviors.

By the way, this anti-repentance trend is widespread, not just as regards to homosexuality but to all human failings. We're going soft on sin in general. We're losing all sense of sin. Instead of admitting our fallen human state, we're working our heads off puffing ourselves up. After all, we wouldn't want to "lose" anybody! Roger Scruton said, "The triumph of sin comes with our failure to perceive it." Bingo. Pride, the biggest sin of all, is running rampant and leads to all other sins. The result is a bunch of miserable church-going sinners, quite lost, who appear righteous but who have made a false and hellish inner world for themselves, not to mention reserving a spot there eternally unless some serious repentance occurs.

The truth is, God doesn't change. His word on important things is the final word, no matter what sophistries humans of this or that generation come up with to justify and popularize ideas and behaviors that are really very ancient sins.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

The Right to Vote and the Right to Homosex: Apples and Oranges

People who compare giving the vote to blacks and women to societal acceptance of homosexuality are comparing two completely different issues that have no true relation whatever. The false comparison being forced on society today between these issues is a social construct based on rebellion against God, political pressure, and intellectual dishonesty.

For one thing, homosexuality is about certain sexual lusts and behaviors. Contrary to popular conditioning, gayness is not an identity. What gay really is is bad sexual manners, not a race or a gender. For those few who insist their same-sex sex partner is also their soul mate, here is some news: Not everything has to be sexual. For normal decent married people, only one person on earth is ever sexual: their opposite-sex spouse. Soul-mates don't have to be sex mates; they are called friends. Same-sex sex is a dead end. And no, it's not about love; real love would not sexualize the loved one if that sexualizing is out of bounds. This would be lust. Homosexuality and other perverse sexual problems are about sexualizing people it's harmful to sexualize, and any love for a person in this instance is not love at all because it selfishly harms.

For another thing, voting is not about sex. Voting is a constitutional publicly exercised right, whereas homosexual behavior is about sex, is not a constitutional right, and should be private (as should heterosexual sex).

And yet another. Being black or being a women is not a sin or a learned mindset or a behavior.  They are self-evident requiring no act of any sort in order to be legitimate. They are biological identities, recorded in the DNA of every cell of the body. Homosexuality has to do with acquired lusts and behaviors, not innateness, not genes. They are sins. Great efforts have been made to find a gay gene, but even gay scientists have been unsuccessful. If gayness was inborn, identical twins would both claim to be gay, every time. And studies have shown that a very small percentage of both twins ever claim to be gay. Human DNA contains no record of political, social, personal, religious, or sexual proclivities. These are things we learn. And in today's sexually permissive and oversexed world, many young people are learning gayness.

And yet one more point. Women and blacks getting the vote did not harm white men's right to vote. These were not opposing views. Some may say homosexuality and heterosexuality are not opposing views. But of course they are. Many people have strong common sense and religious convictions about sexual rules and stick to the fact that homosexuality is maladaptive and Godless. HIV/AIDS aside (the latest stats have 63% of these cases coming from homosexuals which constitute 2% of the population), if homosexuals were private about their lusts and behaviors, perhaps these two views would not publicly clash. But this is not the case. Homosexualists and their pawns refuse to leave the rest of us alone. The promotion of homosexualism as normal and healthful is increasingly pervasive in all societal entities today and is being forced on the general public (including children) through all societal institutions including marriage and family, schools, business, government, entertainment, and churches.

As Robert Bork said, when two truly opposing views clash, in this case, homosex versus heterosex, they cannot peacefully co-exist. One will be preferred and the other harmed. This clash is obviously happening on a grand scale today because homosexuality is now protected and celebrated in America, while people who take a personal stand against it, even just to promote heterosexual marriage, are now being marginalized and punished.Yes, mainstream Americans in their private lives are allowed to behave sexually morally and heterosexually and be unmolested---so far. Of course in some hidden or foreign instances such as sexual slavery, rape and murder of Christians, and forced abortion in China, this is definitely not so and no government is doing anything about these treacheries. An  important thing to consider is, even here in America today, some people are not being allowed publicly to live, work, make donations, speak, worship, preach, teach, make choices, or run their businesses with the view that proper heterosexuality is right and homosexuality wrong without being persecuted.

Truth be told, God-centered, sexually-moral minded people are not being won over by rampant homosexualism or "getting used to it" as they are told they must; they are being intimidated, bullied, forced into silence. This is the beginning of the end of our society as it used to be, that is, God-fearing, when it not only promoted proper heterosexuality, but discouraged dangerous sexual sin. And history proves that the opposite sort of society won't last long. 

On a topic so important to the health and well-being of fellow human beings, the future of our posterity, and the welfare of immortal souls, people really ought to think these things through. Making ludicrous comparisons in the attempt to justify sin and cut off intelligent thought and discussion is the oldest and most destructive trick in the book.