Fox News journalist, Shep Smith, welcomed President Obama into the 21st century and declared those who still oppose same-sex marriage to be on the wrong side of history.
May 9, 2012 was indeed an historic moment. Though President Obama bathed his decision in Christian principles: “…our faith…is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf but it’s also the golden rule…treat others the way you’d want to be treated…” For the first time ever, a sitting US president, considered the most powerful political leader in the world, has endorsed a marital arrangement that formally constitutes the pagan “worship of the creation rather than worship of the Creator” (Romans 1:25).
“How do you get there?” you may ask. My statement is neither panic nor exaggeration, since it comes from the theological reasoning of the inspired Apostle Paul: “For this reason,”he says, “God gave them up to dishonorable passions [of lesbianism and homosexuality] contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26–28). The “reason” to which Paul refers is what he stated in the previous verse (25), namely the exchange of the truth for the lie, and the worship of creation rather than the Creator. That process includes an exchange of sexuality for a practice “contrary to [created] nature.”
Historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, once a radical Marxist feminist, observed (as a chastened older observer of the Cultural Revolution in which she had enthusiastically participated): “within a remarkably brief period …has occurred a cataclysmic transformation of the very nature of our society.”
The speed of this “cataclysmic” change takes our breath away. At the same-sex Stonewall riots of 1969 few people had even heard of homosexuality. Just forty-three years later, a president publicly announces support of same-sex marriage. In the 1960s, thanks to the Beatles and the hippies 1960s “Christian America” discovered for the first time the spirituality of the East. In August 2009, Newsweek announced: “We are all Hindus Now,” as yoga studios outnumber Starbucks cafes in New York City, and we massage our karma with mantras and meditation.
The “cataclysm” is due to the invasion into the “Christian” West of pagan spirituality, with its strident intention to “eliminate the binary.” The foremost “binary” is the distinction between the Creator and the creature. Other binaries then fall like dominos—the binary of right and wrong, for example. “We must beware of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites,” says a leading theorist. Modern psychologists tell us that a binary view of reality (as made up of opposites) produces guilt, the hallmark of neurosis. The Hindu notion of Advaita, “not two,” dominates spirituality and “non-dual spirituality” is taught even in some “evangelical” schools. Lesbian activists ask: “Can We Put an End to the Gender Binary?” (The Advocate.com)because “there is no one way a person should be.”
On all these levels we see Twoism undermined for the promotion of a Oneist worldview. Of course, it is said that same-sex “marriage” will not harm anyone. However, its legalization will introduce a God-denying civilization that will erase 2000 years of Christendom based on Twoism (theism). The past will be labeled “homophobic.” Nursery rhymes, literature and art that consider heterosexuality normal (including the Gospel) will be declared illegal and obsolete. Christians will be outside the law. Already the fifteen Christian groups (Catholic and Protestant) at Vanderbilt have been kicked off campus for refusing, by principle, to allow gays on their leadership teams. This is a classic preview of what the future holds.
May 9th 2012 is in many ways the final “sacralization” of the Sixties, where behind the pretext of the Golden Rule, the “revolution” fraudulently covers its unrestrained libido in the white robes of bridal purity.
We must not panic or exaggerate, nor cease to love homosexual individuals. But we must not re-interpret “Christian” love, so that our contemporary culture can reject God the Creator in favor of self-serving desires. The Gospel love story of creation and redemption must be heard via a clear witness to the biblical worldview, as Paul articulates it in Colossians 1:19–20:
For in Christ…by whom all things were created…[God] through him reconcile[d] to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
The President’s “Christ sacrificing himself” is not a decorative element of the Faith but the very essence of all things, expressed distinctively in male/female marriage as the love of the other for the different. In this way, Christ the Creator loves his people. Paul in Ephesians 5:32 calls this a “mystery,” the deep meaning of all things on earth and in heaven. The radicals rightly call their same-sex marriage “the sacrament of monism,” and see in it a pagan celebration of Oneist sameness and of the divinity of self-creating Nature. Alas, Paul would call this a part of “the mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:7).
Peter Jones PhD Executive Director of TruthXchange Scholar-in-Residence and Adjunct Professor Westminster Seminary in California
I would love to take a break from writing about gay-related issues, but it’s hard to keep silent in light of some of the things taking place here in America and in the UK.
Consider this brazen case of censorship in London, coming straight from Boris Johnson, the mayor. In 2007, gay activists in England launched a campaign “to tackle homophobic bullying in schools” with a simple message: “Some people are gay. Get over it!”
According to the Stonewall.org website, “After the launch, 600 billboard panels, kindly donated by Titan Outdoor Advertising Ltd, depicted this legend in giant, tabloid-style capital letters, on a bright red background at sights in England, Scotland and Wales. In September 2009 the simple, striking poster campaign appeared on 20 major railway stations advertising screens and on 3,500 interior bus panels in November 2009 for Anti-Bullying week.”
In response, an ad campaign was recently launched by Core Issues, which describes itself as “a non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as ‘gay’ who do not seek change.” The Core Issues group purchased ads to be carried on a number of buses reading, “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it!”
This was too much for Mayor Johnson, who explained, “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.” What a remarkable statement.
Aside from the fact that the ads did not say that “being gay is an illness that someone recovers from,” it is absolutely outrageous that the mayor of London – “one of the most tolerant cities in the world” – would deny the right of free expression to those who identify as “not gay, ex-gay, or post-gay,” especially in light of the ubiquitous “Some people are gay. Get over it!” campaign.
Some observers suggested that Johnson had ulterior motives in his actions, specifically, his own campaign for reelection, and his main rival in the upcoming election, Ken Livingstone, criticized Johnson for even allowing the ads to be booked: “London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible. They promote a falsehood, the homophobic idea of ‘therapy’ to change the sexual orientation of lesbians and gay men.” Yes, censorship is alive, well, and being fully justified in “most tolerant” London.
To add insult to injury, after Alexander Boot, a regular opinion columnist for the Daily Mail, published an article entitled, “So attack on free speech is a sign of tolerance,” there was an outcry from the gay community, branding it a “startlingly homophobic column.” The Daily Mail responded by pulling the article.
It appears then that even criticism of censorship is to be censored, with one Facebook comment asking, “Actually isn’t the article a crime or against the law? Because of laws against homophobia or incitement to hatred?”
Turning now to Rhode Island, we move from the outrageous to the absurd, from censorship to moral insanity.
Two weeks ago, a 17 year-old student-artist at Pilgrim High School painted a mural depicting the stages of a boy’s life, from childhood, to teen years, to graduation in cap and gown, to marriage and family. The last image showed the boy, now a man, standing with his wife and son, with wedding rings over the couple’s heads.
This was too much for the school, and the administration decided to paint over the last image, since “some of the members of the Pilgrim High School community suggested that the depiction of a young man’s development from boyhood through adulthood as displayed may not represent the life experiences of many of the students at Pilgrim High School.” I kid you not!
How dare this young artist depict an image of a traditional family, since this “may not represent the life experiences of many of the students.”
Do you see why I call this moral insanity?
The artist, Liz Bierendy, herself raised in a single-parent home, explained, “I felt bad because I didn’t want to offend anyone. I was scared that maybe it would go out to our homosexual community and I didn’t want them to get in an uprise because I was not trying to preach that’s the right thing to do at all.”
Can you imagine this? She “didn’t want to offend anyone” and she was “scared” that it would provoke a negative reaction from “our homosexual community.” And all this over an image of a married couple with their child. What has become of America?
The school ultimately let Liz decide how to complete her mural, and she stood by her initial decision. But as long as incidents like these continue to happen – here and in other parts of the world – I’m going to continue to write about them.
The best way to combat censorship is to speak out more loudly and clearly, while the best way to combat moral insanity is to expose it.
While millions of Americans are rightly sickened and outraged over the alleged pedophile acts of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State, millions more are totally unaware that gay activists have conveniently swept homosexual pedophilia under the rug.
To be clear, I personally believe that the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”
During a radio interview earlier this year on the Rick Amato show, Jimmy LaSalvia of GOProud stated, “I happen to think that a good school teacher, when they’re teaching literature, would mention that Oscar Wilde, when they’re teaching his work, would mention that Oscar Wilde was locked in an asylum because he was gay.”
Would they also mention that he was a boy lover and that he wrote about his passionate sexual encounters with young teens no older than some of the boys allegedly molested by Sandusky?
As noted by Jim Kepner, formerly curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, “If we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, [and others]. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.” (There is, of course, dispute about the sexuality of some of these men on the list, but if, in fact, they were homosexual, they were also pederasts.)
And remember that SB 48, mandating the celebration of LGBT history in all California schools for all children in all grades, is now law.
The outrage over the alleged pedophile acts of Sandusky is only matched by the gay silence over the alleged pedophile (or pederast) acts of Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, and others.
There is already a Harvey Milk Day in California, commemorating the life and death of this gay pioneer politician who has also been celebrated in an Academy Award winning film, but there’s more to the Harvey Milk story.
According to the acclaimed gay journalist Randy Shilts, at age eleven, Milk began attending performances of the New York Metropolitan Opera where he met with “wandering hands,” and soon was engaged in “brief trysts [with grown men] after the performances.” While still in junior high, he “dove headfirst into the newly discovered subculture,” and by the age of fourteen, Milk was “leading an active homosexual life.” As he grew older, the pattern reversed itself to the point that, at age thirty-three, Milk hooked up with a sixteen-year-old named Jack McKinley, one of a number of younger men with whom he was intimate.
And our kids celebrate Harvey Milk Day in their schools? Will they also celebrate the memory of Harry Hay, widely considered to be the founder of America’s gay liberation movement and another well-known friend of NAMBLA? When a gay pride parade in Los Angeles banned NAMBLA from participating, Hay decided to march in the parade carrying a sign that said, “NAMBLA walks with me.”
From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this?
And what are we to make of these statements by Kramer, proudly quoted by NAMBLA? “In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders . . . I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity . . . or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it.” He even claimed that, “And unlike girls or women forced into rape or traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones.”
This is despicable, deplorable, and disgusting, yet Kramer remains a revered figure in gay activist circles.
And I haven’t said a word about gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America (see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
Ross Murray’s article on CNN’s Religion Blog, entitled “My Take: Why Christians are embracing their LGBT neighbors,” is the most recent in a steady stream of editorials and articles on liberal news outlets devoted to promoting a common theme: The Bible really doesn’t speak against homosexual practice and enlightened Christians are recognizing this in ever increasing numbers.
Although Murray repeats much of the standard rhetoric, he does distinguish himself by offering one of more egregious applications of a scriptural passage I have seen in nearly 40 years of studying and teaching the Scriptures. But first a word of background.
Murray is director of religion, faith and values at GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. This is a gay activist organization which would better be called the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement, glaringly demonstrated in their petition earlier this year which called on CNN to stop inviting “anti-gay” guests on their network to offer opposing viewpoints. (Yes, this is the voice of “inclusion,” “tolerance,” “equality,” and “diversity.”)
In his article, Murray argues that while “there is still a variety of scriptural interpretations, an increasing number of Christians are reading scripture and understanding that God’s design for the world includes LGBT people.” Those who with agree with his position he dubs “good Christians”; those who differ are described as “vocal anti-gay activists” who are putting forth “vocal misinformation” and becoming “more shrill.”
This is GLAAD-talk at its biased best, and to decode the language used, you are “anti-gay” if for religious, moral, social, or any other reasons you do not affirm homosexuality, no matter how much you love LGBT people; you are “vocal” if you write, say, or post anything that GLAAD does not agree with (although those on the LGBT side can write, say, or post anything they want without being “vocal”); you are spreading “misinformation” if you have any scientific, academic, or theological differences with the gay activist mantras; and you become “more shrill” if you do not capitulate to gay activist pressure.
And what is it that drives the views of the “vocal anti-gay activists” who by implication are not “good Christians”? It is “fear” and “lies,” since, in the logic of GLAAD, only fear and lies could cause a Bible-believing Christian to think that God is not giddy about homosexual practice. In contrast, LGBT Christians “build up love and break down fear.”
As for the “good [straight] Christians,” they are embracing LGBT people and their practices because they realize that “if God made them, then [they are] called to love and support them.”
But didn’t God make everyone? Didn’t He make the “vocal anti-gay activists” too? Then why does Murray disparage them? Why doesn’t he feel “called to love and support them”? And aren’t there others whom “God made” whose lifestyles or convictions Murray rejects?
Murray observes that, “Whole Christian denominations have accepted and embraced the reality of LGBT believers within their ranks and in their leadership. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ and Unitarians have formally accepted LGBT people within their denominations.”
What he fails to note is that these denominations (or the parts thereof that are gay-affirming) have also moved away from other historic biblical values and beliefs, meaning that their embrace of homosexuality should be seen as a sign of spiritual regress rather than progress.
In similar fashion, he points to the large ideological gap “between those ages 18 to 29 and those ages 65 and older . . . with younger Americans gravitating toward [LGBT] equality,” without pointing out that surveys indicate that less than one percent of these young people have a biblical worldview.
But all this is standard fare. It is his closing (mis)use of Scripture that is so troubling.
He writes, “Those who oppose equality can call it what they like, but the reality is that we are living in a society that has learned how to value LGBT people as they would others. That attitude doesn’t rely on fear or lies, but on caring relationships and trust. It lives out the apostle Paul’s wish for the Corinthians that someday we will know fully, even as we are fully known. It is a biblically informed reality that is helping to make the world a better place.”
What does Murray mean when he speaks of “the apostle Paul’s wish for the Corinthians”? He is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:12, which is not a “wish” but rather a prophetic anticipation of what will happen when Jesus returns. At that time, Paul writes, “I shall know fully, even as I am fully known [by God],” in contrast with our present, earthly state, in which “we see in a mirror dimly” and “know in part.”
So, the glorious hope that we will know God fully at the second coming of Christ is twisted into a wish that we will get to know LGBT people better, thereby making the apostle Paul, arguably the strongest voice in the Bible against homosexual practice, into a gay advocate.
This is what happens when GLAAD does theology. Would it be an overstatement to call this a perversion of the Scriptures?
Dr. Michael Brown is the author of A Queer Thing Happened to America and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.
Wayne Besen is a passionate gay activist and non-religious, liberal Jew who has dedicated himself to opposing the idea that homosexuals can become heterosexual. To that end, he founded the Truth Wins Out organization, and he writes extensively on the subject of “ex-gays,” with a monograph, hundreds of posts, and articles for the Huffington Post to his credit. (As to the question of “ex-gays,” see Chapter Twelve of my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.) Wayne has also appeared on O’Reilly and other TV shows, and he is never at a loss for words, especially when it comes to the “religious right.” In that spirit, he has graced me with several articles, including the not so subtly-titled, “Michael Brown Is an Anti-Gay Monster” (August 31, 2011).
In that article, Wayne claims that my “game is to try inciting followers to possible violence against LGBT people, while innocently maintaining that he loves homosexuals and simply wants them to meet his militant and perverted version of God.” He calls me “a slick dude,” a “sick and cynical” person, someone with “a messiah complex [who] is a diabolical individual who aims to manipulate impressionable followers to launch some sort of holy war,” noting however, that, I’m “too much of a coward to start the war” myself.
He even confesses, “I do strongly believe to my core that Brown’s ultimate goal is to create the conditions for a nasty physical clash.” Indeed, “The madman fully understands that he only has to create a hostile climate to inflame the most unstable of his thugs and they will eventually provoke the type of confrontation that this pathological monster deeply desires.”
God bless dear Wayne! He certainly has a way with words. After all, it’s not every day that you get called a pathological monster, a slick, sick, cynical, diabolical madman with a messiah complex, as well as get accused of trying to incite a bunch of unstable thugs “to engage in a violent physical clash with LGBT people.” (For what I actually advocate, namely, a totally non-violent, moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution, click here.)
Wayne even weighs in again in his own comments section, calling me an “ego-maniac,” while other commenters follow in his footsteps with sophisticated posts like these: “I would not be surprised if ‘Mein Kampf’ were to be found on his nightstand.” (This was followed by other comments too vulgar to print.) What a delightful, thoughtful bunch!
But I am only one of Wayne’s targets. In his most recent attack, “Mainstream Christians Must Stand Up to the Religious Right” (September 19, 2011), he reviles the hundreds of Christians with whom I attended the recent gay pride event in Charlotte, claiming that we “confronted and harassed festival attendees with [our] arrogant slogan ‘God Has A Better Way.’” He refers to us as “despicable bullies” and speaks of our “fanatical behavior,” although, for the record, our group of roughly 400 consisted of grandparents, moms, dads, kids, and college-age singles who handed out about 2,500 free bottles of water (labeled “Jesus Loves You”) and engaged in civil and respectful conversation with any who cared to talk with us. Oh, the horror!
All this, however, is the backdrop for Wayne’s heartfelt appeal. He is desperately concerned that religious “extremists” like me, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachman will “defile America – and permanently define Christianity.” Instead, Wayne wants the “Religious Left” to rise up and show America what Christianity really is. He writes, “It is time to stand up, speak out, and give voice to our values. If not now, when? Are we going to wait until it is too late and we have lost our country?”
The problem, of course, is that the “Religious Left” has rejected most of the fundamental tenets of the historic Christian faith, denying the authority of Scripture, espousing religious pluralism, defending abortion, and championing homosexuality. Could this be why these so-called “mainstream” churches are in such numerical decline while conservative churches are growing exponentially in many parts of the world? And could it be that the conspicuous lack of moral and spiritual absolutes in many of these “mainstream” churches is part of what fails to inspire their constituents?
Wayne himself is not optimistic about the prospects, writing, “This reluctance to stand up and speak out has created a hazardous vacuum where only the shrill and unreasonable voices of fundamentalism are heard. Instead of the dialogue that many progressives of faith claim to desire, this perceived weakness creates a lopsided right wing monologue, which is having a deleterious effect on our nation and the world.”
The reality, of course, is that the “Christianity” Wayne calls for bears little resemblance to the faith of the Scriptures or the faith of history, but that should not surprise us. After all, what else should we expect when a non-religious, gay Jewish liberal tries to redefine Christianity?
Alonzo wrote, “Dr. Michael Brown is truly a heartless monster!” Similarly, Brandon said, “You, sir, are a monster. . . . It is a shame that you [evangelical Christians] cannot be the victims as well as the perpetrators: that would save the rest of us a lot of grief and despair.” Dave stated, “You are an idiot. You are a bigger reason for this type of crime than any gay rights activist. . . . You’re a narrow minded, ignorant bigot.” (I took the liberty to correct any typos in the comments cited.)
According to Jari, “The level of sheer satanic evil demonstrated in this ‘article’ is mind boggling. If there is someone contributing to anti-gay violence, suicides of gay teens and yes, murder of this poor kid it is people like Dr. Brown and their message of hatred and venom.” Similarly, Denise claimed, “Yeah, Dr. Michael Brown is an activist . . . actively encouraging and supporting the murder of children,” while Jonathan wrote, “What a worthless stain on humanity you are.”
Over at the GoodAsYou.org website, Jeremy could only find one word to describe the article, namely, “Monstrous,” while Chrislove at Daily Kos referred to me as a “viciously anti-gay personality,” encouraging readers to continue reading only if they had the stomach. Brent commented, “I have no words for this evil article,” and Veda seconded with, “Evil and disgusting.”
Limelight asked, “Who Is the Greater Monster? Mr. Brown, or young Mr. McInerney [the murderer of Larry King]?” According to Steven, “Michael Brown is one sick . . . oh, h-ll, there aren’t enough expletives in the world to describe what he is.” Finally, David wrote, “You should be ashamed of yourself. I’m sure the young people in your family are ashamed of you already.” (Note to David. Quite the opposite!)
What did I write that caused such outrage? It was that gay activism was complicit in the senseless murder of Lawrence (“Larry”) King. This, apparently, was more than many people could bear to hear.
JUSTIFYING THE MURDER?
Some commenters claimed that I said Larry’s killing was justified or that I was defending his killer. God forbid! To the contrary (and all in the space of less than 850 words), I stated that “under any circumstances” this was “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act,” speaking of Larry’s “terribly tragic death,” twice referring to it as being carried out in “cold blood,” four times referring to it as “murder” (including in the title of the article), and stating at the outset, “Of course, there is only one real killer, Brandon McInerney.”
In spite of this, Ezra wrote, “The kid is gay and therefore must be punished? He ‘flaunted’ his sexuality and therefore must be stoned to death? He ‘flirted’ with other boys and therefore must be shot down in cold blood?” Coming from another angle, Scott stated, “Notice how Dr. Michael Brown says he is a Jew [this is printed in my bio at the OneNewsNow website], but is defending an anti-gay bigot who bedecked his bedroom with Nazi symbols.”
Could someone please go back to the article and tell me where I wrote a single syllable in defense of the murderer or in justification of the murder?
Yet Derek went even further, claiming that I am “someone who had to twist himself into a knot to avoid explicitly saying, ‘I think it’s a good thing that boy murdered that gay kid.’”
I guess calling Larry’s murder “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act” and describing his death as “terribly tragic” was not clear enough.
BLAMING THE VICTIM?
A constant refrain was that I was blaming the victim. Willa wrote, “The spinelessness of this article is typical of the ‘blame the victim’ approach,” while the Daily Kos article was entitled, “Larry King, the Anti-Gay Right, and Blaming the Victim: Or, ‘Murder is Wrong, But…’”
James stated, “It’s time for you bigots out there to take responsibility and stop blaming the victim,” and Craig exclaimed, “Oh good GRIEF! This idiot is blaming King as if he were the female in a rape case. ‘She ASKED for it!’” Ezra commented, “I say good show! Let’s keep blaming the victims for being victimized!,” while Ian wrote, “Talk about taking blame the victim to an extreme . . . .” And Jeff said, “Next Brown will be blaming rape on women.”
Remarkably, not only did I not blame Larry in the article, but I specifically referred to him as a victim, stating that “gay activists . . . have made Larry into a martyr for the cause of gay activism when, in reality, he was more a victim of gay activism.”
When you call someone a victim, you are not blaming them! And when I spoke of his troubled upbringing, that was not to demonize him but rather to create sympathy for him.
Later in the article, I also asked if it was “fair to Larry” for school administrators not to step in when teachers reported that his dress and behavior were causing disruption among the students. My whole point is that the school should have been addressing this situation if they saw problems, for his sake and for the sake of the other students.
IT’S ALWAYS HOMOPHOBIA!
While there was outrage over my argument that gay activism played a role in Larry’s murder – something that others have argued, including Larry’s adoptive father – none of the critics had any problem with GLSEN’s contention that “homophobia killed Larry King and destroyed Brandon McInerney’s life.” Instead, my article was described as “religious based, homophobic nonsense,” while Zachary simply stated, “I can’t stand homophobic people.” Brittany posted, ‘This guy is clearly a deluded homophobe,” Trevor said, “I don’t think I have ever read a more clear cut case of homophobia,” and Ian even wrote, “Wow, reading this article made my head hurt. So the killer’s homophobia did not contribute to the victim’s death it was actually the victim’s homosexuality that caused these horrible events.”
Let’s sort this out. I trust we all agree that cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded murder and that Larry’s killing was “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act.” It is also my view that, if Brandon had even punched Larry in the face (rather than shot him twice in the back of the head!) that too would have been unjustifiable. If you are being taunted or sexually harassed, it’s best to simply walk away and, if needed and possible, report the matter to your authorities.
But is it “homophobic” if a straight teenager is upset when a gay teenager openly flirts with him or tells others that they are dating or chases him down the hallway while wearing high-heels and make-up? (There are different reports about how much of this happened between Larry and Brandon, but again, Larry’s adoptive father believes that Larry did sexually harass Brandon, while that was one of the factors that contributed to 7 jurors voting for voluntary manslaughter rather than first or second degree murder.) The politically correct view seems to be that straight guys are now required to be indifferent to gay male flirting (or even harassment), otherwise they are “homophobic.” Talk about overusing an already overused word!
Brandon was obviously a tragically violent, troubled teenager, and for all I know, he was someone who hated gays. He might have been a classic example of a “homophobe.” But that doesn’t mean it is homophobic for a straight guy to have a problem with a gay guy’s sexual interests in him or romantic flirtations with him. The problem – the horrific, deadly problem – was Brandon’s reaction.
FLAUNTING GAY SEXUALITY IS EQUIVALENT TO SKIN COLOR
There was a common line of thinking among the critical comments that went like this: A) Larry’s behavior and actions were perfectly fine and unobjectionable since it was part of his gay identity. B) Being gay is something you’re born with and you can’t change, just like being black. C) Therefore, Larry’s murder was no different than the lynching of a black man.
In keeping with this, Jimbo wrote, “I suppose, with this logic we should blame the black man for flaunting his color before his lynching,” while Stephanie argued, “It’s like saying, ‘Well why didn’t we keep segregation laws in place, because a lot of black people got hanged in response to desegregated schoolsl, we should have just kept things status quo so there were no problems.’”
Jonathan had a more clever approach, commenting, “Breaking: football coach blames anti-intellectual bullying on MENSA activists.” (Question for Jonathan: Are you saying that a teenaged boy wearing women’s accessories and make-up and taunting straight boys is similar to being a Mensa member?)
Bernard also had a clever, sarcastic post: “This guy’s absolutely right. I know that growing up as a Jewish kid in Arlington, Virginia, then headquarters of the American Nazi Party, I was lucky to have parents who always warned me never to disclose my Jewish affiliation to anyone. Really, what business was it of theirs? If I missed a high-holiday service here and there, played softball on Saturdays, brought ham sandwiches to school–it was a small price to pay to ensure that I didn’t make anyone so uncomfortable that they felt inspired to beat me, burn a cross on my lawn, or break my windows. I never forgot that I lived in a majority-Christian country, and that therefore, any hatred anyone showed me was just a confirmation of their basic values, and any toleration they displayed just a demonstration of their ultimate superiority. In fact, I’m happy to say I had the smarts, even at that young age, occasionally to kick a Jew in the face a few times myself–just to throw the Nazis off the scent. I’ll never understand why minorities are so resistant to a little common sense. Why can’t we just go along with the crowd?”
But once again, they’re missing the point. First, just to remind us of the facts, there is no conclusive proof (quite an understatement) that anyone is born gay, while there is ample proof, scientific and anecdotal, that some homosexuals become heterosexual. So, being gay is not innate and immutable, and gay is not the new black, contrary to popular opinion. And how can romantic attraction and sexual behavior be equated with skin color? Second, and more importantly, there were three main issues here, Larry’s disruptive behavior (which was certainly his choice), the school’s failure to take action, and the irresponsibility of gay activists.
To carry out the analogies here, the situation we’re discussing would have been the equivalent of Jewish parents encouraging their kids in a Nazi school district in Germany to come out boldly as Jews and to chase Nazi kids down the hallways while wearing large Stars of David. Would anyone question for a moment that the parent’s encouragement would have been totally irresponsible? (To be clear, I am not comparing being Jewish to being gay, nor am I comparing wearing a Star of David to sexually harassing someone, nor am I comparing our schools to Nazi school districts. I’m simply carrying out the analogy.)
It’s one thing, say, for a black man to decide he wants to expose racism by sitting at an all-white lunch counter, knowing that he might risk his life. It’s another thing entirely for black parents to tell their kids to go play basketball in a white supremacist neighborhood, wearing “Black is beautiful” tee-shirts. That too would be terribly irresponsible, and yet that’s similar to what some gay activists do, encouraging kids to come out in their schools while at the same time telling us how dangerous the schools are. (To be clear again, I am not comparing being black to being gay, nor am I comparing wearing a “Black is beautiful” tee-shirt to sexually harassing someone, nor am I comparing our schools to white supremacist neighborhoods. Again, I’m simply carrying out the analogy.)
Scott opined, “Dr. Michael Brown is making the same argument people make when they say that a girl was asking to get raped because she was wearing a mini-skirt.” Actually, my argument would be this: “If parents were telling us that the schools were not safe for suggestively dressed girls, then they shouldn’t be encouraging their daughters to wear mini-skirts.” And no one said that Larry was asking to get killed! In fact, that’s one of the issues I have with making him into a gay martyr. We can safely assume that the last thing he wanted was to be murdered and that he never thought to himself, “My behavior might get me killed, but that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”
And how do you think gay activists would have reacted if a straight kid was harassing a gay kid, spreading rumors about him to the other kids, and chasing him down the hallway while wearing a “Straight is better than gay” t-shirt, to the point that it was disruptive to the other students and complaints were filed by other teachers, asking the administrators to step in. Yet the administrators replied, “We don’t want to violate the civil rights of the straight student,” after which the gay kid finally got so upset that he killed the straight kid. Do you really think gay activists would not be in an uproar over this, even painting the murderer as a victim himself, even while recognizing that he was guilty of a heinous crime?
Not only, however, were these points not grasped, but extreme comparisons were made, like this one, by David S.: “I want you hypocritical ‘Christians’ to imagine the roles were reversed. Instead of Larry being Gay, he was Christian. Instead of trying to kiss the boys, he was trying to minister to the boys. And instead of being MURDERED for his homosexuality, he was MURDERED for his Christianity. The Christian community would be furious about his death. And believe it or not, so would I. I’m furious over the bigotry and hatred this nation has bred, whether it be from the LGBT community or from the Christian community. I’m not bashing all Christians, just the ones who can’t see past the spine of their Bible long enough to realize what they are saying and what they are doing!”
While I certainly appreciate (and resonate with) his renunciation of all bigotry and hatred, wherever it is found, can anyone seriously compare a Christian boy trying to minister to other boys to a gay kid (or straight kid) sexually harassing other kids?
Finally, Dirk (who is obviously gay) wrote, “And none of us have ever ‘encouraged’ young LGBT kids to come out ‘earlier and earlier’. That monstrous lie comes from Brown’s need to paint all of us as pedophiles – it is absolutely untrue, and just an attempt on their part to get more people to hate us.”
Dirk, may I ask what rock you’ve been living under? From GSA’s (Gay Straight Alliances) in middle schools to GLSEN’s (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network’s) school curricula, and from younger and younger openly gay characters on TV to the fact that kids are coming out at younger and younger ages – you’ve got to be kidding me. This is anything but a “monstrous lie.” As for “pedophiles,” who in the world brought that up in this context? And what does encouraging a young person to “come out” have to do with pedophilia?
This is just a sampling of some of the negative feedback to my article, but enough has been said to make clear that, with rare exception, these posts represent reactions more than responses, barely even touching on what the article was actually about. What then was the purpose of writing this controversial article?
* * *
It seems that every week, we hear another tragic story about an LGBT teen committing suicide, and anyone with a beating heart should be troubled over these reports. (Note to my critics: Despite your perceptions and accusations, my heart beats strongly, and I too have agonized over these young lives cut short. I believe, however, that the best approach to bullying, which occurs for a multitude of reasons, is to teach how wrong bullying is, rather than teaching that gay – or, say, obesity, which is another major cause of bullying – is good.)
The story of Larry King is, in a way, more tragic still, since he was the victim of a brutal shooting in what should have been the safety of a classroom. But gay activists have made a serious error in making Larry into a gay martyr (Newsweek even referred to Larry’s murder as “the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard”), and that is one reason I wrote the article, knowing full well that it would produce such ugly reactions.
In the months before Rosa Parks became a national symbol for the civil rights movement, there were other black Americans who stood up to oppressive white racism. One of them was a younger woman who also said enough is enough and took her stand, but when it was learned that she was pregnant out of wedlock, civil rights leaders immediately realized that she would not be a good poster girl for a national movement. In fact, she might have even played into the negative stereotype of white prejudices.
Yet gay activism is so committed to the mantra of, “This is who we are, we have the right to express ourselves however we desire, and we are always the innocent victims,” that it drew the completely wrong conclusions from Larry’s cowardly killing. This should have been a time for introspection, for asking whether, by wanting to protect Larry’s “civil rights” (this term actually came up in school discussion about his behavior), “pro-gay” administrators neglected the needs of the other students. (Remember that other kids, who did not lift a finger against Larry, were also troubled by his dress and behavior.)
In fact, gay activists have also been irresponsible by pressing whole schools to revolve around the needs of a transgender-identified child who is allowed to use the bathroom and even locker room of his or her perceived gender. They fail to ask, “Is this fair to the other children? Does the ‘right’ of one, struggling student trump the rights of the other students, many of whom are upset and even traumatized by this? And should they be reprimanded for having an issue with ‘the boy who wears the dress’ or ‘the girl who has a penis’”?
Gay activists should have also asked whether they were acting in Larry’s best interests. After all, much of his behavior was not typical for gay teens (in fact, many believe that he was actually “transgender,” which further underscores the fact that he was trying to understand his own “sexual identity”), and he could have gotten along fine while using a little more restraint. But as long as gay activists remind us about gay suicides and the “unsafe” nature of many of our schools, they need to be more wise in their counsel to kids about “coming out.” (I’m not addressing the larger question of whether kids should stay “in the closet” and wait until they’re older and are more certain about their sexuality, or come out and explore their sexuality at the youngest possible ages, or do everything in their power to overcome same-sex attraction. I’m simply saying that, by their own admission, schools are not always “safe” places for kids to “come out.”)
And why is it that any criticism of gay behavior or expression is immediately branded as “hate”? Is constructive criticism never possible? Would it have been right under any circumstances to have counseled Larry to modify his behavior or dress, or would all such counsel immediately be rejected as “homophobic”?
The bottom line is that Larry’s murder should have prompted some soul-searching among gay activists. At the least, they should have said, “We should be more careful.” Instead they said, “We have another martyr.” And that is a real shame.
Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.
Dudley explains that as a result of his seminary studies at Yale, he cast off the evangelical faith of his youth, including the idea that the Bible clearly condemned homosexuality. He now claims that his “childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.” And he exhorts his readers: “So let’s stop the charade and be honest. Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.”
Self-serving double standards? A charade? Could it be that Dudley still has something to learn? Could it be that, had he attended another seminary and studied with other scholars, he would have come to different conclusions? At the least, could it be that there is simply another side to the story?
Dudley’s views were influenced by Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin (whom Dudley failed to point out is openly gay and well-known for his gay-leaning interpretations), according to whom “today’s ‘pro-family’ activism . . . would have been considered ‘heresy’ for most of the church’s history.” Heresy? Really?
Dudley admits that the Apostle Paul felt that “male-male intercourse” was a sin (for the record, Paul said the same things about female-female relations), but he now believes that Paul was mistaken, meaning that Dudley has not only cast off the faith of his youth but also the faith of Paul. He claims that, Romans 1 is “the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations,” and in the chapter, Paul calls them ‘unnatural.’”
In point of fact, the Bible gives numerous explicit or implicit reasons why same-sex relations are wrong, including: 1) God created humankind in His image as male and female, and it is only when the two become one that His image is fully revealed; 2) there is a unique complementarity between a man and a woman, which is why men and women marry; 3) only heterosexuals unions can fulfill the divine command to “be fruitful and multiply”; 4) it is therefore detestable for a man to sexually penetrate another man.
What about saying these actions are “unnatural”? Dudley points out that in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes that nature teaches that long hair is degrading for a man but a glory to a woman. Do we uphold this teaching as well?
Actually, Paul never said that a man with long hair would not enter God’s kingdom, whereas he taught that practicing homosexuals would not enter, so one can hardly compare the two issues. Moreover, Paul used very strong language in his condemnation of same-sex practice in Romans 1, speaking of “shameful lusts” and “shameful acts,” among other terms.
With regard to long hair, Paul was most likely addressing the question of women wearing veils in Christian home gatherings, since it was the normal custom for married women to be veiled in public but not at home. Paul taught that they should be veiled when praying or speaking in the home gatherings, reinforcing his point with the analogy of nature, reminding the Corinthians that it is the common, cross-cultural pattern for women to have long hair and men to have short hair, the reverse being viewed as degrading. That’s it. (Although not mentioned by Paul, his argument is underscored by the fact that for men, baldness is common and not particularly devastating, whereas baldness for a woman is highly uncommon and quite devastating.)
Dudley next tackles the issue of celibacy, claiming that “the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy.”
Again, this is a gross overstatement, if not downright false. 1) The first followers of Jesus were all Jews, among whom marriage was highly prized and celibacy was the rare exception to the rule. 2) The New Testament actually presumed that a congregational leader would be married, stating that he must be the husband of only one wife. 3) Marriage is said to be an earthly picture of a sublime heavenly reality, namely the mystical union of Christ and the Church. 4) It was only over a period of centuries that celibacy became exalted, and at that, primarily for “clergy” (another later concept), while some parts of the Church protested the requirement that priests be celibate. But why quibble over facts?
Dudley’s case is weakened even further when he argues that “the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.” But debates about when life begins (which were largely philosophical, having to do with the nature of the soul) were hardly the issue (not to mention that many prominent, early Church leaders did claim that life began at conception). The real issue is that, for many centuries, the Church was known for its opposition to abortion (and infanticide, which it helped eradicate), beginning with early second-century documents like the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, which either condemned abortion or equated it with murder. This pattern was continued by the second-third century apologists, numerous church councils, and prominent fourth-fifth century leaders like Basil, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom – just to focus on the first five centuries of Church history. So Dudley has misled his readers yet again.
The only time he is somewhat on target is when he claims that evangelicals have compromised the New Testament’s teaching on divorce. Sadly, there is some truth to this claim, but the solution is not to compromise biblical standards even further by sanctioning homosexual practice but rather to reclaim the high ethical ground of the New Testament when it comes to marriage and divorce.
Perhaps some further study would do Mr. Dudley well, this time in an evangelical seminary?
Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.
Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission.
Are you supposed to have sex at work? I guess it depends on your profession, but for most of us the answer is “no.” Why then is corporate America obsessed with training about sex?
As described in several recent columns by Mike Adams, I was fired as a vendor by Cisco for my conservative beliefs about sex and marriage even though my beliefs were never expressed on the job. When a homosexual manager found out on the Internet that I had authored a book giving evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for society, he couldn’t tolerate me and requested I be fired. An HR executive canned me within hours without ever speaking to me. This happened despite the fact that the leadership and teambuilding programs I led always received high marks (even from the homosexual manager!).
How could an experienced HR professional commit such a blatant act of discrimination unless the Cisco culture was decidedly tilted left? Why didn’t Cisco’s relentless emphasis and training on “inclusion and diversity” serve to prevent this? Maybe it’s because “inclusion and diversity” means something different to corporate elites than to normal Americans. That’s why their training didn’t prevent the problem but actually created an environment of intolerance that led to the problem.
Cisco’s chief “Inclusion and Diversity” officer, Ms. Marilyn Nagel, had trouble on the phone defining what “inclusion and diversity” actually means at Cisco, so she sent me several links from the Cisco website. As in our conversation, I found no specific definition on the website but plenty of platitudes, such as Cisco is committed to “valuing and encouraging different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas.”
If that’s the case, then why not value my “perspectives, styles, thoughts and ideas?”
Because only certain perspectives, styles, thoughts and ideas are approved, you see. “Inclusion and diversity” to corporate elites actually means exclusion for those that don’t agree with the approved views. Whoops, there goes “diversity.”
Shouldn’t the real intent of Cisco’s value of “inclusion and diversity” be to ensure that people in that diverse workforce work together cordially and professionally even when they inevitably disagree on certain political, moral or religious questions? It would seem so. In a large multicultural workforce, people need to work together despite political or religious differences. That’s a noble and necessary goal. It’s totalitarian, however, to subject people to “diversity” training and corporate sponsorships that go beyond teaching respect for people to advocacy of what they do in bed.
All employees should treat one another with kindness and respect because they are fellow human beings, not because of their sexual behavior. If people are to be respected simply on the basis of their behavior, then none of us qualify for respect because we have all behaved badly on occasion.
So instead of trying to force all employees to accept any sexual behavior—especially something as controversial as homosexuality—the inclusion and diversity police should be urging us to treat all people with respect simply because we are human beings. That’s all you need to be productive at work anyway.
But as soon as you start telling people from different religious and cultural backgrounds what they must think about homosexuality, you will offend and create conflict and resentment. As a Christian, I am commanded to respect all people. That’s what I was doing at Cisco. But don’t tell me that I have to respect and celebrate what people do in bed. Don’t tell me that I must violate my conscience or my God in order to make widgets. That’s not only immoral and un-American; it’s manipulative and stupid. How does accepting homosexual behavior have anything to do with job productivity? Are we supposed to have sex at work?
There simply is no business reason to judge my beliefs about sexual behavior or anyone else’s. And even if some corporate nanny could dream up a reason, it would not justify the assault on an employee’s conscience or religion.
Notice that Cisco did not have a problem with my behavior. My job performance was deemed excellent, and I was “inclusive and diverse” by working in a respectful manner with people of all moral, religious and political views.
Cisco had a problem with my thoughts. Although I certainly accepted homosexuals, I committed the thought crime of disagreeing with homosexual behavior and homosexual political goals. So despite all their talk about “inclusion and diversity,” Cisco deemed my thoughts about something irrelevant to the workplace as grounds for immediate exclusion. Do you think they would have excluded me if I had pro-same-sex marriage thoughts? Of course not—that’s an approved view that Cisco actually sponsors (even though they deny it).
But people who don’t accept homosexual behavior don’t have to work at Cisco then!
True, they don’t. But if Cisco or any other company wants to make it a requirement that every employee and vendor personally accept the behavior of homosexuality or homosexual political goals such as same-sex marriage, then tell us directly. Broadcast it to the world. Cisco can’t and won’t because such a requirement would be a clear violation of the religious protections codified in the Civil Rights Act, and it would result in a mass exodus of employees and customers.
Instead, they create an oppressive culture of political correctness under the false banner of “inclusion and diversity” to achieve the same ends. They tell the world that they value and encourage “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas” while they punish or intimidate into silence people who have “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas.” While Cisco executives would never admit this, their actions reveal this twisted truth: Cisco values homosexual behavior more than honesty, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
Is it the same at your workplace? Are you tired of having to hide your conservative or religious beliefs as if you live in a totalitarian state rather than America? If you continue to cower in silence before an intolerant militant minority, it will only get worse. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.” It’s time to do something—speak up.
Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. — 1 Cor 6:9-11
I interviewed former self-described ‘demonic drag queen’ Trace McNutt yesterday. We discussed his former life, the Lord’s call to him out of that lifestyle, and the gay community’s perception of him and the church. Listen to the interview below: