September 28th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

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?

Posted in Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

September 17th, 2011 by Eric Gilmour

“When Man Repents, God Relents.”

Last week, I was sitting in a bright yellow waiting room, waiting for my Ford Taurus to get an oil change. While I was there, a minister that had fallen into sin a few years ago was on television. I couldn’t help but watch, interested to hear his heart. This was the second time I had seen him on TV since his moral failure and every time I have seen him, he states that he has gone through extensive therapy, heavy counseling and has finished the restoration process.

He is still married to his wife and finds himself struggling with thoughts of homosexuality to this day. Concerning his failure he states the classic line, “No one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes.” Homosexuality is not a mistake. A mistake is when you forget to close the refrigerator door or forget to take out the trash. This was a gradual hardening of the heart that led to such a moral decline. A heart that has no conviction for lusting for a passing stranger is in a bad state, but a heart that enters a continual affair, with a man is a heart that is need of a deeper work of the Spirit, especially because he was a minister of the gospel (James 3.1). The red flag for me was that I never heard him mention the word repentance or the power of God in his life to overcome, or most importantly the blood of Jesus. Nor did he mention taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ or anything about putting off the old man and putting on the new (2 Cor. 10.5;Romans 13.14). Is this horrible mindset alive in other Christians living in America? Is there forgiveness without repentance? Read these words from William Booth’s prophecy one hundred years ago.

“The chief danger of the 20th century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, “salvation” without regeneration, politics without God and heaven without hell.”

Notice in the middle, General Booth speaks of, “forgiveness without repentance.” I believe in forgiveness and reconciliation to all no matter what social class or level of wickedness they come from. But there is a difference between what we have seen in this pastor and the repentance seen in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke chapter 15).

For those of us who are not familiar with the parable, there are two sons. The younger of the two said to his father, father, “give me my portion of goods; my inheritance, I am entitled to the money that is to come to me” (paraphrased).

The word of God states that not many days after that, the younger son gathered all his things together, took his journey into a far country and wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all of his substance, there arose a mighty famine in the land and he began to be in want. His situation got so bad that he went and joined himself to a citizen or joined himself to a total stranger of that country; and he was sent into the citizen’s fields to feed pigs.

Here is a young man who was once rich and now is in poverty. On top of that, there rose a mighty famine. Things have gotten so bad that he had to join himself to a citizen of that land. The word, “join“ here means, “to cleave to or to be glued together.” It has the same meaning as when a man joins himself to a woman in marriage.

At this point the young man hits rock bottom longing to fill his stomach with the food that the pigs were eating. In the proceeding verse, it states that the young man starts to come to his senses and he begins to remember his Father and his Father’s house. He asks himself, “Why am I here starving to death?”

I believe a lot of individuals, especially the young, are starving to death, maybe not from a physical hunger but for the Word of the Lord. They are wondering, “Are there any absolutes in life?” There are absolutes in life. It is the word of God.

In the book of Amos, it describes that there will come a day when there will be will be a famine not of food or of thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the Word of the Lord. America is at this point.

This young man heard the words of his Father and he didn’t cry out, “Father I have made a mistake” or “nobody is perfect.” He cried out, “I have sinned” and “I have sinned against God.” Not the church. Not his family. But, “I have sinned against heaven and against God.”
Notice the same response from David in Psalm 51, “against You and You only have I sinned.”

At this very point the restoration process began and the young man was restored to his Father’s house and he was clothed in his right mind.
Now, back to the anonymous preacher, not once during the interview did this pastor state that he sinned against God or against heaven. He did not, at all, seem to be concerned about his relationship with Jesus. How do I know that? Well, he didn’t mention Him once. He spoke like a man who was only sorry because he got caught. I know this because; his sorrow didn’t cast him upon the blood of Jesus, but on a “restoration” process. My friend, this is worldly sorrow, which leads to death.

To the individual that is reading this, ask yourself, with a sincere heart, “Have I truly repented of my sins and turned to God?” Do I really know Jesus? Do I really have a relationship with Jesus, not just with a church or a religion? Jesus states that He is the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through Him (John 14.6). Jesus is the door. Now I charge you, to walk through Him, but before you do, make sure you COMPLETELY close the door to your past.

“Repentance must be a change of mind that produces a change of conduct and ends in salvation. Have you forsaken your sins? Or are you still practicing them? If so, you are still a sinner. You may have changed your mind, but if you have not changed your conduct, it is not Godly repentance…False repentance is the sorrow of the world; sorrow for sin arising from worldly considerations and motives connected with the present life.” (Charles Finney, “You Can Be Holy”)

“Jesus doesn’t save you in your sins but from your sins.” (Dr. Michael L. Brown, “How Saved Are We?”)

“You say, “When so and so preached, I got saved.” Well, what are you saved from? Are you saved from lying? Are you saved from cheating? Are you saved from lust? Are you saved from rebellion against your parents? Come on! What are you saved from?” (Leonard Ravenhill, Audio Messages)


Posted in Featured Articles, Revival & Prayer Tagged with: , , , , , ,

September 15th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

When I wrote the article, “Did Gay Activism Play a Role in the Murder of Lawrence King,” I knew the reaction would be shrill and almost hysterical. I also knew that most of the attacks would not even deal with the substance of the article. Sad to say, but on both counts, I was not disappointed.

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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Posted in Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

September 1st, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

Jonathan Dudley’s June 21 article on CNN’s Belief Blog, “Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?” has received over 6,000 comments and more than 31,000 Facebook recommendations. Unfortunately, the author has seriously misled his reading audience.

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.

Posted in Featured Articles, News, Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , ,

August 19th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

Editor’s Note: Also published on Part 1 and Part 2

The recent cover of the French edition of Vogue magazine caused considerable controversy, and it was not because of the all too typical, female model featured in a sensual pose. Instead, it was the fact that the model this time was a 10 year-old girl.

The headline of an article appearing on announced that, “Vogue Blurs the Line between Fashion & Pedophilia with 10 Year Old Model,” and the article’s author, Ilana Angel, rightly noted that, “A 10 year old is not able to distinguish between playing dress up in mommy’s make-up and high heels, and proving a sexual aid to pedophiles.” How true!

But this is only one, extreme example of the way our kids are being sexualized. How many children watch MTV and VH1, mimicking the moves and memorizing the lyrics of the latest song by Britney Spears or Lady Gaga, having no clue that the moves they are making and the words they are mouthing are sexually charged. These kids are too young to have any understanding of sexuality, and yet it is no secret to the TV execs that these same children are a major part of the viewing audience.

And was anyone really surprised when Miley Cyrus outgrew Hannah Montana and discovered pole dancing instead? What are her youthful followers to make of her now? Perhaps they’ll follow her lead? Perhaps they’ll ask mom and dad for a pole of their own at home?

But there’s more. There is the sexualizing of our children in the public schools, and I’m not talking about sex-ed classes. I’m talking about teaching gay history to elementary school children, as now mandated by law in California with the recent passing of SB 48, thereby introducing sexual categories to little ones who haven’t the slightest clue what sexual orientation is, let alone have the ability to wrap their minds around “bisexual” or “transgender.”

To add insult to injury, parents will have no right to opt their kids out of these classes, a hard lesson parents in other states have already learned, where the courts have sided with the schools rather than the parents. Already in Massachusetts, a couple was so upset with this state-sponsored sexualizing of their first grader that they took their battle to court, where Judge Mark Wolff of the US Court of Appeals ruled that the schools have a greater responsibility to teach “diversity” than to honor the requests of the parents. In other words, “Sorry, moms and dads. We know what is best for your children, and when we decide it’s time to introduce them to ‘diversity’ – our codeword for gay activist curricula – we will do so. You, on your part, have no right to interfere, so don’t even think about it.” (For more details, see Chapter Three of my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

What is unique in California is not that gay-themed lessons will be taught to little children. Rather, it is that these lessons will be mandated across the entire state for all schools and all classes, which, of course, will be reflected in the textbooks that will be used. And, as is well known, what happens in California doesn’t stay in California, meaning that the textbooks printed for our most populous state will be used throughout the nation.

In the specific language of SB 48, the bill amended “the Education Code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.” And note that previous bills relating to LGBT issues – including AB 537, AB 1785, AB 394, SB 777, SB 572 – were not enough. SB 48 had to go one step further.

What exactly will this mean? For starters, it will demand that the categories of “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” be introduced to six year-olds. I have watched videos of classes taught in different parts of the countries where elementary school children are shown pictures of artists or musicians or politicians or other famous figures and are told, “He (or she) was gay,” as if they had the slightest real concept of what “gay” actually meant. (As I recall, in the early years of elementary school, boys like boys and girls like girls. Does that make all of them “gay”?)

Of course, we are told that introducing this curriculum will reduce bullying of LGBT kids in schools, but the best way to reduce bullying is to teach that bullying is bad rather than gay is good. And does anyone really think that, say, showing kids images of a fat Buddha will stop the bullying of fat kids? More to the point, who gave the public schools the right to sexualize our children?

But this is just the beginning. It gets worse. Stay tuned for more.

There are some important things that can be lost and then recovered. Health. Finances. Friends. Even reputation. Innocence, however, is not one of them, especially the prepubescent, sexual innocence of a child.

My wife, Nancy, and I are blessed to have four amazing grandchildren, aged four to 10. They can be silly. They can be mischievous. They can be sarcastic (having been trained well by their grandfather). At times they can even be disobedient (although hardly ever to their doting grandparents). Yet they are profoundly innocent when it comes to sexuality. Why is it that some people are determined to shatter that innocence?

Every few years, there is a push to “out” the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie, claiming that they must be gay (I kid you not). Even now, there is a petition on the website, stating, “For over 40 years, our beloved Sesame St. characters, Bert and Ernie, have been living as ‘roommates’ and we would like PBS and Sesame St. to allow them to live as a gay couple and maybe eventually, marry. It would show children and their parents that not only is it acceptable but also teach children that homophobia is wrong, bullying is wrong and that Sesame Street should recognize that there are LGBT relationships, families, and include them in their show.”

Putting aside the obligatory references to “homophobia” and “bullying” (does anyone really believe that turning Bert and Ernie into gay characters will combat homophobia and bullying?), it appears that the folks at have failed to realize that the kids watching Sesame Street are, on average, between two and five years old, and they no more understand the concepts of gay or lesbian or bisexual than they understand the concepts of quantum physics. And Bert and Ernie are Muppets, for heaven’s sake.

Sadly, as absurd as this latest petition drive is, the queering of elementary education (to borrow the title of a well-known book) is no laughing matter. What, then, are some of the implications of the recently passed Senate Bill (SB 48) in California, which mandates “social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people,” with no way for parents to pull their kids from the classes?

On the one hand, LGBT pioneers will be celebrated, including people like Leslie Feinberg, the “transgender warrior,” author of Stone Butch Blues, among other books, a woman who dresses like a man, is partnered to another woman, and prefers to be called “ze,” as opposed to he or she. (She is already celebrated in some gay educational curricula.) What will our little ones make of “hir” (again, the preferred pronoun, in contrast with him or her)?

Should we also assume that every figure highlighted in history classes who is not LGBT will be identified as heterosexual? “Today, children, we’re learning about Thomas Jefferson, who was straight.” Is this what we can expect? And why must our kids be told the sexual or romantic inclinations of historical figures?

But there’s more. There will be people like George Washington Carver, a man often claimed as gay by LGBT historians and already featured in gay class lessons. Would his alleged sexual orientation now become a topic of instruction? If so, consider first that there is no clear evidence that he was homosexual, simply speculation among some of his biographers. Second, even if he was same-sex attracted, and even if he acted on those attractions, that was certainly not something he wanted to be known. Will he now be posthumously outed? Third, the real story about this important historical figure is what we do know, namely, that he overcame racism, that he was a committed Christian, and that he made many important discoveries. Why in the world should we bring allegations about his sexuality into the classroom?

Yet there’s more still. On a recent radio interview, GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia stated that if he was learning about men like Walt Whitman and Oscar Wilde in school, he would want to know that they were gay. The problem, however, is that they were not simply gay. 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, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. 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.”

We won’t get into a discussion of Shakespeare’s sexuality here (or most of the others on this list), but Kepner’s point is well taken. Shall we tell the young teenage boys the whole story, namely that Oscar Wilde had a preference for boys their age?

In my opinion, it is just as outrageous to introduce the categories of adult homosexuality and bisexuality to elementary school children, and now is the time to draw the line. Otherwise, your 8 year-old daughter might come home from school to tell you that she just learned that Joan of Arc was transgender. (After all, wasn’t she a cross-dresser?) Or perhaps your little boy will tell you how exciting it was to learn about the drag queens who started a riot at the Stonewall Inn in 1969.

The fact is that our educational system is having a hard enough time teaching our kids the three R’s. Must they now learn LGBTQ’s? Now is the time to stop sexualizing our children. They should not be casualties of the culture wars. Do you agree?

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.

Posted in Culture, Lead Article, News Tagged with: , , , , , ,

July 2nd, 2011 by M. French

Check out these quick ‘one minute apologist’ videos with Dr. Brown…

Jewish Salvation?:

[Link to Video]

Leviticus Laws & Homosexuality:

[Link to Video]

Homosexual Forgiveness:

[Link to Video]

Posted in News, Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , ,

May 24th, 2011 by M. French

A Queer Thing Happened to America has been out for 2 months now, and feedback continues to come in (see here for previous coverage of the book).  A review of the book was posted by Christian commentator Bill Muehlenberg on his site on May 16th.  Below is a section from it:

All in all, this book is a devastating rebuttal of the homosexualist agenda. It is filled with many hundreds of quotations from the homosexual press, from homosexual activists, and from reputable medical and scientific journals. It is one long volume allowing the other side to speak for itself, condemning itself in the process.

There are very few people who are still qualified to write a book like this today. One needs to be a careful scholar, a person of courage and conviction, aware of social trends and movements, filled with God’s love and compassion, and dedicated to telling truth in the public arena, even when it is very costly to do so.

Fortunately Michael Brown fully meets these qualifications. Thus his new book can be recommended without reservation. It deserves the very widest hearing. Well done Dr Brown.

The Gay Christian Movement Watch blog discussed the book as well:

In April, just a month after Dr. Brown interviewed with Sid Roth, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 58. This legislation would require California public schools to add gay history to its already overcrowded curriculm. This bill is now waiting to be approved by the California State Assembly. A Queer Thing is Always Happening in California that is for sure… This is further confirmation of what Dr. Michael Brown has spoken in his interview and written about in his book.

With regard to negative feedback, gay activist sympathizer Kathy Baldock did a lengthy review of each chapter on her blog, Canyonwalker Connections.  A response from Dr. Brown was posted here a few days ago. Below is a section from his response:

Kathy continues,

I think AQTHTA manipulates the facts, presents the worst of situations, travels to the fringes to find the extremes and  interjects damaging oddball situations and thinking to  horribly skew and demonize an entire class of people, the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.  And, the cover is wildly offensive.

To the contrary, I did not go to the fringes or cherry pick but rather gave a fair representation of the whole, as much as possible, with constant qualifying remarks so as to avoid any stereotyping. And there is not a single fact cited that has been manipulated. As for the cover, I understand that Kathy finds it wildly offensive, but we surveyed many people from all walks of life – including gays and lesbians – and the cover was quite popular with almost all of them. Had we consistently heard from people that it was wildly offensive – as opposed to eye-catching and inviting – we would have used a different cover.

Gay activist website Ex-Gay Watch posted an article concerning the book in which the author is assured that they know what the quality and veractiy of the contents will be without reading it, saying:

Brown and his supporters will probably protest that I haven’t yet read the book. I know enough of Brown, the movement he represents, and what I’ve read about the book so far to confidently predict what kind of thing it contains and how accurate it is. I’ve based my comments only on what I know so far, and I’m not building up my hopes of finding anything different in the book itself.

The feedback is, to this point, to be expected. Conservative Christian commentators are sympathetic to the book and its claims, while pro-gay commentators are dismissive of its contents and the points it and Brown are making.  What will be of greater interest to me personally will be to see if a few key people will get hold of a copy of the book, lay hold of its contents, and seek to change the course of our nation through the means given to them, with regard to sexuality, gender distinctions, and covenantal marriage in law and culture.

Marcus French is Editor of Voice of Revolution, and also helps produce the daily radio show, The Line of Fire. Contact him at

Posted in Culture, News Tagged with: , , , , , ,

May 23rd, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

On her CanyonWalker blog, Kathy Baldock has written the first lengthy review of A Queer Thing Happened to America, and immediately after it was posted, others began to read and refer to it rather than interact with the book itself. Unfortunately, her review is riddled with serious omissions and misrepresentations, because of which I have taken the time to respond in detail

While Kathy and I have never met, both of us profess to be committed followers of Jesus and to love the GLBT community, yet we have markedly different perspectives on what the Bible says about homosexual practice and on what our response to homosexuality should be. That being said, I don’t doubt her sincerity any more than she doubts mine, and I appreciate her kind words in her introductory comments. As stated, however, despite her professed efforts to write a fair review, readers of her review will get a misleading and at times glaringly inaccurate picture of A Queer Thing Happened to America.

Kathy begins her review by stating, “‘There’s your truth, my truth and the truth.’ Christians should make it standard operating procedure to stick closer to the truth. Too often we tilt on over to the ‘my truth’ side if it bolsters our fears. The tilt, however, has more damaging effects when the ‘truth’, yours or mine, is manipulated.”

Ironically, that is the very thing she has done, although I honestly believe her misrepresentation of my book was unintentional. It was simply a matter of “her truth” getting in the way of “the truth,” in this case, a truthful assessment of the contents of the book. While it is tempting to point out every inaccurate statement in her review, I will simply illustrate where the reader of her review would get a totally false impression of A Queer Thing Happened to America.

She takes issue with the thesis of Chapter One, “A Stealth Agenda,” writing:

The statement by Dr. Brown that stunned me was : “Ironically, when it comes to denying the existence of a gay agenda, there is immense unity in the gay community. Why? It is because the denial of that agenda is part of the agenda (although for some, it might be a sincere, heartfelt denial.” (pg 43) What? I asked my gay friend Jeff if keeping the agenda a secret is indeed part of the agenda and he said, “I can let you borrow my copy. I keep it behind my ear on microfilm for secret meetings.” (Gotta love Jeff.)

You can ask one hundred gay people what the “gay agenda” is and you get an almost unanimous answer: “equality”.

Readers of Kathy’s review might be surprised to know that I begin this chapter by asking, “Is there really a homosexual agenda? Is there truly an insidious gay plot to undermine traditional values and subvert the American family? The very idea of it appears to be laughable – especially to the gay and lesbian community.”

In fact, the first seven pages of Chapter One explain why most GLBT’s deny there is such a thing as a gay agenda, with statements like this, “A gay agenda? What a joke! Simply stated, a ‘gay agenda’ does not exist anymore than a ‘Head Homosexual’ exists – at least, that’s what many gays and lesbians would surely (and sincerely) say.” And this: “Of course, most gays and lesbians do have an ‘agenda.’ They want to live productive, happy, fulfilling lives, just like everyone else. Beyond that, they probably want others to accept them as they are. That would be the ‘agenda’ of the majority of homosexual men and women worldwide.”

Yes, that is written in my book, and that is what I believe. What I also note (with detailed documentation) is that there are a plethora of gay activist organizations with clearly identified missions and goals – in other words, an agenda – yet it is common for these organizations,  such as GLAAD, to urge that terms like “gay agenda” be avoided and to use terms like “gay rights” instead. Thus the “agenda” is a stealth agenda. It’s quite simple, and the facts are what they are: Facts.

On a more specific note (but once more, giving a good example of misleading information), Kathy writes:

“After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fears and Hatred of Gays in the 1990′s” is referred to dozens of times in AQTHTA. It has a six-fold plan for the “gay revolution”. Sounds terrifying. Again, a Google search has all the conservatives referring to the plan and not one GLBT organization. If it is part of the “gay agenda”, shouldn’t some gay group be using it or alluding to it?

Apparently she failed to read the lengthy discussion of this very question in endnote 29 – and Kathy has reiterated that she read every endnote – which ends by saying, “If Kirk and Madsen didn’t invent the strategies, they helped articulate already extant strategies for advancing a gay agenda.”

In summarizing Chapter Two, “Jewish Hitlers, Christian Jihadists, and the Magical Effects of Pushing the Hate Button,” Kathy fairly states:

So yes, we see in this chapter that people call each other nasty names in heated dialogues that disintegrate to yell-matches. That is going to happen on both sides when you keep telling someone that they are unacceptable. Dr. Brown suggests we “bring [ing] the real issues into the light [so ] that we can render the hate button obsolete. Isn’t it time?” I fully agree. But we widely disagree on the “real issues”.

What she fails to grasp, however, is the main point of the chapter: Those of us who graciously say that marriage should not be redefined or who hold to biblically based sexual morality or who do not celebrate homosexuality are branded bigoted, intolerant, haters – and much more – yet the hate speech and invective constantly flies our way from the so-called tolerant crowd. What a double standard! (And yes, I fully agree with Kathy’s assessment that lots of people claiming to be Christian express all kinds of hatred and venom.) My appeal, then, remains the same: Let’s quit pushing the “hate” button and let’s talk civilly about the issues. What is wrong with that?

Kathy’s review of Chapter Three, “Boys Will Be Girls Will Be Boys,” is extremely short, although she does try to justify gay-slanted children’s curricula. At the same time, she recognizes that some parents may choose to homeschool their kids and to keep them from unwanted influences. What about those parents who simply are not able to homeschool their kids or send them to private schools? She provides no answer. Readers of her review would do well to look carefully at the actual contents of this chapter and ask: Is this what schools should be doing? Do we really need lessons for elementary school students like, “Discovering Your Inner Trannie?” or, “What’s With the Dress Jack?” Is the policy of the Los Angeles United School district something commendable, when it states, “‘Gender identity’ refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex”?

The review of Chapter Four, “Something Queer on Our Campuses,” is also very short, ending with, “College students have and always will push the edges of what parents would like them to. This is not exclusive to queer kids.” True, but the chapter is not only about what the kids are doing on campus but rather on what the professors are teaching and modeling. Not only so, but it is one thing for  college kids to party and sleep around; it is another to boast about being a “21-year-old genderqueer lesbian” with multiple identities.

Turning to Chapter Five, “Hollywood’s Celebration of Queer,” Kathy once more misses the point of the chapter, first noting that, “All of media is not like it was in the Hollywood Moral Code days. The same chapter could be written on stupid sexual stuff straight people do. All the filth cannot be laid on the backs of gay people.” But that is not what the chapter is about, and there is not a single sentence that attempts to lay “all the filth . . . on the backs of gay people.” Once again, the “review” is not a review but rather a response.

Kathy asks, “Why are there so many gay people on TV? Maybe because they really are the most talented people musical note for musical note or performance per scene?” That’s possible, but again, it has nothing to do with the point of the chapter, nor does Kathy’s comment that, “Television and movies are more sexual than when I was younger; making gay people go away will not make media PG again.” Rather, the point of the chapter, which was once again missed or ignored, was simply that Hollywood has served as a convenient and very effective tool through which gay activists have helped shape American thinking, as proudly owned by gay leaders themselves. How could that point have been missed?

The review of Chapter Six, “Is Gay the New Black,” is also quite brief, and Kathy rightly recognizes that no “gay gene” has yet been found. She also understands my argument that scientists have claimed to have found a violent gene and an obesity gene and an adultery gene – among others. Thus, just as the argument that, “‘I was born that way’,” cannot be used as a justification for, say violence or adultery, so also it can be used as a justification for homosexuality. Her response, however, is a non-sequitir: “Well, until someone finds the gene that made me straight, I am just not willing to insist that GLBT people find the gay gene so that they can be validated as acceptable.” That is actually the opposite conclusion to draw, since it is GLBT people who are constantly seeking to validate their orientation by claiming “I was born that way,” whereas the whole point of the chapter is that even if they were born that way (which I see no scientific reason to accept), that would not validate their orientation.

It is as we turn to Kathy’s treatment of Chapter Seven, “Speaking the Unspeakable,” that we find the most egregious part of Kathy’s “review,” the part that is producing especially hostile reactions from gay activists and professing gay Christians. After noting that I begin the chapter with the emphatic statements, “MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT EQUATING HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE WITH PEDOPHILIA. MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT CALLING ALL HOMOSEXUALS PEDOPHILES,” she writes, “However, the next FORTY pages are about pedophilia. So repulsive, it amazed me that Dr. Brown would include it. Why does he say he included it then? Pedophiles say they are born that way and the slippery slope to including homosexuals with equal status will open the doors to pedophiles wanting equality and acceptance too.”

She continues:

This section made me angry. Just because you say “I am not saying this . . . ” and then publish FORTY pages of trash in the midst of a book on the dangers/damage of/by homosexuals does not negate the impact of the natural association that people will make to homosexuality. This is one of the most disgusting ploys, intentional or not, of the entire book. Dr. Brown could have stated his concerns in one paragraph, yet, I was subjected to reading the NAMBLA boy-love trash???

. . . How many potential GLBT readers will you thoroughly offend by this most egregious, don’t-think-about-the-pink-elephant tactic? So offensive and incredibly subtly manipulative. Completely gratuitous porn. No wonder no publisher would touch this manuscript. This may have been one of the two major disqualifiers from options other than self publish.

It would appear then, that in her anger, she failed to understand the purpose of the chapter, a chapter that was carefully vetted by philosophers and lawyers and theologians, and a chapter that compares arguments and not acts. (This, of course, is explicitly and repeatedly stated.) In the chapter, I present eight principle arguments used by pedophiles (or pederasts), namely: 1) Pedophilia is innate and immutable. 2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.  3)  The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate. 4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child. 5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society. 6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles. 7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias. 8) This is all about love and equality and liberation. (Note that some of the same psychiatrists and psychologists who argued for the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the 1970’s are today arguing for the declassification of pedophilia, based especially on argument #5.)

What was the purpose of this chapter? It was to expose the weakness of these arguments, the very arguments used by gay activists to prove the rightness and acceptability of homosexual practice. My appeal was straightforward: “Whatever you do, just don’t use [these] same shelf-worn, ineffective arguments anymore [to prove the morality or acceptability of homosexual practice], since they just as easily make the case for pederasty (how dreadful), and, in reality, they do not prove the morality or rightness of homosexual practice, nor do they give us a single good reason to queer our educational system, redefine marriage, create special categories of protected peoples, or undermine gender.”

Not only was that missed in the midst of Kathy’s acknowledged anger, but those reading her “review” will surmise – totally falsely! – that the chapter contains “completely gratuitous porn.” God forbid! The wrong and misleading associations, which are sure to outrage GLBT readers, come from her pen, not mine, and rather than me being guilty of some kind of “disgusting ploy” (intentional or otherwise) I was actually raising points that do need to be addressed. But why address a point of substance when you can simply accuse someone of equating homosexuality with pedophilia? Why deal with a difficult message when you can shoot the messenger? As for the length of the chapter, it was important to document every argument, since GLBT’s I have interacted with have claimed that such arguments do not exist.

Kathy’s response to Chapter Eight, “Diversity of Perversity,” is to state that: 1) plenty of heterosexual events are marked by immoral and vulgar displays and, 2) if corporate America wants to make money, they need to get the gay dollar. She does not write one syllable interacting with the main point of the chapter, namely, that the word “diversity” has become a codeword for gay activism (often quite intolerant gay activism at that), and that it can include some of the most perverse imaginable displays. She also fails to interact with the widely acknowledged fact (in “conservative” gay literature as well) that gay pride events have historically been (in)famous for their sexual displays.

As for Chapter Nine, “Lavender Language,” Kathy offers only one line, encouraging readers to learn the new jargon. (This, once again, underscores why her “review” is not really a review.) Well, she can have Androgeny, Androgenous, Bigendered, Bi-Dyke, Boi, Boidyke (or, Boydyke), Bro-sis, Butch, ButchDyke, Camp, Cross Dresser (CD), Cross-Living, Drag (In Drag), Drag King, Drag Queen, Dyke, FTM or F->M or F2M (Female to Male), Femme, Femme Dyke, Female Bodied, Female Impersonator (FI), Fetishistic Transvestite, Gender Illusionist, Gender Neutral, Gender-Bender, Gender-Blender, Genderqueer, Genetic Boy, Genetic Male/Man (GM), Genetic Female/Woman (GF/GW), Genetic Girl (GG), Grrl, Half-dyke, Heteroflexible, Hir, Intersex, MTF or M->F or M2F (Male to Female), Male Impersonator, Metamorph, Monogendered, Multigendered, Neuter, No-gendered, Non-op, Omnisexual, Pansexual, Pre-operative Transsexual (Pre-op TS), Polygendered, Post-operative Transsexual, Queer, Queerboi, Shape Shifter, Stem (a feminine-identified lesbian), Stud (a masculine-identified lesbian), Trannyboi, Trannydyke, Trannyfag, Transboi, Transgendered, Transgenderist, Transitioning, Transmale, Transsexual (TS), Transvestite, Transidentified, Trisexual, Two-Spirit, Ze. I’ll stick with “male and female.”

Turning to Chapter Ten, “Queer Theology,” Kathy expresses outrage and shock at my alleged misrepresentation of what gay and lesbian “Christians” believe. She writes,

Almost everything Dr. Brown presented as “normal” belief/behavior for gay Christians, I have never heard. Who did he speak to? What kind of fringe spiritual people did Dr. Brown drag up?  Prayers for cruising? Fantasizing about taking off the loincloth of a crucified Christ? Come on! This is presented as what gay Christians think about/do?

Where then did I get the material for this chapter? Straight from the major gay commentators, theologians, and leaders, both Jewish and “Christian.” The fact is, I didn’t go looking for this. Instead, when I bought the major books written by the major, respected leaders – some of the top names in the MCC churches – I was shocked and disgusted to read the material.

She writes,

Dr. Brown did not call Todd Ferrell, President of  The Evangelical Network, a group of  gay affirming churches. Or Yvette Flunders of City of Refuge Churches. Or personally speak with Rev. Troy Perry, who, by the way, aside from being the founder of MCC is an amazing man of God. Yes. Or Ralph Blair of Evangelicals Concerned.  Or Ross Murray of Lutherans Concerned. Or even attend  an affirming body of believers and get to personally know the pastors over a meal. Or go to any one of many GLBT Christian conferences . Ahhhhh!  Or even talk to me personally or Andrew Marin, personally. This is unbelievably negligent.

Once again, her charges are totally misguided. First, she ignores the fact that I acknowledge that, “Of course, there are conservative ‘gay Christians’ who would be appalled by such sexual depictions,” while also pointing out that “‘gay Christians’ are not lining up to denounce the writings of [“gay Christian” leader Robert] Goss and to express their revulsion at his words. Instead, many are lining up to praise his moral courage and spiritual sensitivity.” It would appear, then, that Kathy associates with those “gay Christians” who would be appalled by these deplorable interpretations, but that only begs the question: Why aren’t they denouncing the writings of men like Robert Goss rather than celebrating him as a key “gay Christian” leader? It can also be asked whether the standard gay reading of the close friendship of David and Jonathan as a homosexual affair is any less ugly, or if her “gay Christian” friends follow the common “gay Christian” interpretation (which is really quite blasphemous) that the servant of the centurion healed by Jesus was his gay teen-lover, healed by Jesus so they could continue their illicit relationship. (How repulsive!)

As to her specific charges, I read Troy Perry’s story and watched a recent documentary on his life; I read the Ralph Blair material and watched some Justin Lee videos; and I went out of my way to make an appointment to have lunch with Kathy and a gay friend of hers while in California, but they cancelled at the last minute. As for Andrew Marin, I have tried to contact him at least four times, twice through associates of his and twice directly, inviting him to join me on my radio show and asking if I could meet with him personally while in Chicago, and I never received a single response. What is “unbelievably negligent” is that Kathy would make these charges without first checking on the facts.

I should also mention that Kathy completely ignores over sections of the chapter where I state:

To be sure, many gays and lesbians have not been treated with grace by the Church, as if, in Christian eyes, homosexual acts were worse than all other acts and as if homosexuals were lepers not to be touched. The common attitude of all too many Christians seems to be: “Don’t go near them or you’ll get the cooties, and don’t dare confess that you’re struggling with same-sex desires. If you do, you’ll be disqualified for life from any meaningful position or place of service in the Church. Stay away from those gays!”

Certainly, in many ways, the Church has failed to reach out to the homosexual community, and, speaking personally as a leader in the Church, I am ashamed at the way we have often treated LGBT men and women. Many times, when reading their stories, especially those who experienced rejection and shunning by the Church, my heart has broken for them. Their pain is palpable, and their hurt anything but silent.

Why leave this out unless the intent is to paint a certain picture that is far from accurate?

She closes her section on this chapter by writing:

This chapter and the pedophile chapter alone should completely disqualify anyone from publishing this book. Careless, deceptive. Sure, the shock value is wonderful, but, is it the truth? Is it a good view of the reality of the norm in the gay Christian arena? Simple answer, no.

Again, she indicts herself, not the book, with the charges of, “Careless, deceptive.” As for the material presented here being “the reality of the norm in the gay Christian arena,” it is certainly the reality of the norm in major works like The Queer Bible Commentary or Queer Commentary on the Hebrew Bible or Queering Christ or Torah Queeries and many other works, all of which are praised as seminal works by leading “gay Christians” (or, gay Jews). Let the “gay Christians” Kathy knows rise up with one voice and renounce such blasphemous trash.

Regarding Chapter Eleven, “So It’s Not About Sex,” Kathy once more misses the intent of the chapter, also ignoring the many qualifying statements that I make. She writes, “Dr. Brown tells us it is not really about equality, it is really about sexual behavior and gay people want to be affirmed in their sexual behavior.” Not so. As I wrote early in the chapter:

Now, to be quite clear, for the gay and lesbian community, this is perceived as a matter of civil rights and as a struggle for equality and justice. In other words, this is not merely a matter of rhetoric or good PR strategy. Gays would emphasize that they are regular people who live their lives like everyone else, going to school, working jobs, paying their taxes, falling in love, having families. Why stigmatize them because of their sexual orientation or sexual behavior?

I also stated clearly that,

. . . it’s also possible that the gay man or lesbian woman who lives next door to you is the best neighbor you’ve ever had, very kind, helpful, and courteous. It’s also possible that you have a lesbian coworker or boss or employee, or a gay teammate or colleague or fellow-student, and it’s possible that each of these people is hardworking, honest, and ethical. I have no doubt that in countless thousands of cases, this is true.

The argument of the chapter is simply that: 1) behavior cannot be separated totally from identity, and, 2) there are good reasons to draw attention to the problems of gay sexual behavior, especially male. But in a glaring example of quoting me only to misquote me, Kathy states,

This one sentence “Why should people be put into a special class of citizens equivalent, say, to race or ethnicity–based upon the way they have romantic and sexual relationships?” tells me volumes.  Being gay or lesbian of bisexual is not about the way someone has sex.  That one sentence tells me the shallowness of the knowledge and understanding of the gay community.

Compare her critique of what I wrote with what I actually wrote – defining sexual orientation as the way a person has romantic and sexual relationships – and you get a snapshot of the flawed nature of this review. And how else should sexual orientation be defined if not referring to one’s romantic and sexual attractions?

Kathy has an obvious ax to grind in her treatment of Chapter Twelve, “The Ex-Gay Movement,” stating,

It is a fact that the ex-gay movement does exist. It is a fact that some people find reconciliation of faith and sexuality in these groups. It is a fact that some people do get heterosexually married or remain celibate for the rest of  their lives.

It is fiction however, that people change their orientation.  When I see the footnotes  and quotes citing Nicolosi, NARTH and Gagnon, I know Dr. Brown has  gone to the extremes for his research.

First, it is not fiction that people change their orientation (or, in faith terms, God changes their orientation). My own late brother-in-law is a close to home example. Countless other former gays and lesbians whom I have known attest to this. I have also met many who are celibate and still same-sex attracted, along with those who have experienced a degree of change in their orientation. The fact is, there are decades of scientific and clinical reports documenting change in orientation, and, more importantly, the Bible specifically addresses this:

But you yourselves wrong and defraud- even your own brothers!  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 Corinthians 6:8-11, ESV).

When we come to the Lord, He changes us to the very core of our beings – we are, in many ways, rotten to the core and in need of redemption – and that change can include (and for many, does include) change in one’s sexual orientation. Unfortunately, Kathy has listened to those who say change is impossible – where, by the way, does the power of God factor into that hopeless equation? – and ignored those who have experienced change.

As for those cited in the chapter, as in every chapter, I cite a wide range of evidence, and the sources I use from NARTH, for example, are sound and scholarly, while as a biblical scholar myself I can attest to the fact that Robert Gagnon is the foremost academic authority on the subject of the Bible and homosexual practice. But why deal with facts when it’s easier to fling mud?

As for the famous failures among former “ex-gay” leaders, they are just that: famous. Why do I need to repeat every story that is endlessly repeated on anti-ex-gay websites, when my purpose here is to give the other side of the story? (For the record, in the endnotes to this chapter I do make mention of some of the very people whom Kathy mentioned, but this was somehow glossed over as well.) And why does Kathy choose to ignore the many places where I talk about the terrible struggles many gays and lesbians have had – to the point of suicide – trying, without success, to change their orientation? Again, why leave this out?

As for her claim that, “Dr. Brown . . . focuses on Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out, gay activist extraordinaire and recounts the  tiffs he and Wayne have had” (my emphasis), that is completely misleading. I do quote Wayne a lot in the chapter since he is the most outspoken (and perhaps well-known) anti-ex-gay activist, but the quotes have nothing whatsoever to do with me or any “tiffs” we have had, the only mention of my interaction with Wayne coming in two lines in endnote 51. In other words, Kathy’s statement, yet again, presents a completely untrue picture, which is all the more unfortunate when it becomes quoted as if true by Evan Hurst, Wayne’s colleague on the Truth Wins Out website.

The comments on Chapter Thirteen, “The Stifling of Scientific Evidence,” again give the impression of a slanted use of sources to buttress a point, whereas the main lines of the story rely on accounts accepted, for the most part, by parties on both sides of the debate. Kathy does take issue with one specific account in the chapter, but her argument is true only if gay activist Episcopalian Bishop Eugene Robinson is not a gay activist. Enough said.

Kathy’s treatment of Chapter Fourteen, “Big Brother Is Watching,” is remarkable, since I cite scores of cases – sometimes from legal summaries themselves – from America and around the world, yet she claims, “I researched all the stories in this chapter. I could make a case for the opposite side of each story. When you read something completely ridiculous and say to yourself  ‘no way’, be sure to check it out and not just believe it .” She researched all the stories? Really? It would take years of backbreaking work to research all the stories – I took many months to research many of the stories and then had to ask a senior attorney and his colleagues to vet the content of the chapter carefully – yet in a few days, Kathy researched all the stories and found another side to each of them?

What is more scary, however, is that Kathy would want to argue the other side of these cases, which include police investigations at the homes of elderly couples in Britain for alleged homophobia (in one case, when they took exception to the vulgar public displays at a gay pride event in their city) and the case of a Christian college student being discriminated against and barred from graduation because of the actions of one department in the school – actions which were so egregious that, upon the school’s own investigation, the whole department was shut down and the president of the school paid for the graduate school education of the aggrieved student. Kathy could argue the other side of these cases?

Regarding the last chapter, “GLBT and Beyond,” the comments are brief, but some are worth repeating: “Legalizing gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage and polyamorous marriage.  We are going to have to accept all kinds of people. Is this really so so scary?” Read that again and ask yourself, “Is this a professed evangelical Christian stating that incestuous ‘marriage’ and polyamorous ‘marriage’ are not ‘scary’ propositions for the future?” Candidly, I find it “scary” that such a position could come from the pen of an “evangelical Christian.”

In her concluding comments, Kathy is gracious enough to say, “I can say this to Dr. Brown’s credit; he did not say directly  hateful things about GLBT people.” She adds, however, “I think it is a grievous flaw to write about a group of people from a distance. I know Dr. Brown’s  brother in law ‘struggled’ and he has had meals with Matt Comer, but nothing will ever substitute comfortable, regular everyday relationships. The rules all change when you like someone.” In reality, there are plenty of gay people with whom I’ve interacted at length that I find friendly and kind and enjoyable human beings, quite likable in many, many respects. And I did not just have a meal with local gay activist Matt Comer. I have met with and had meals with a number of “gay Christians” and gay activists, not to mention the many conversations I’ve had with gays and lesbians on long flights, not to mention that my first organ teacher (when I was just five) was gay, or the fact that he and his partner had meals with my family on a good number of occasions. Again, a misleading picture must be presented so as to delegitimize my conclusions.  More seriously, Kathy has the temerity to change the facts regarding my own, late brother-in-law – whom she obviously never knew – stating that he “struggled,” rather than accepting his own testimony and the testimony of his wife and family. Perhaps Kathy has to rewrite the facts in order to support her own views? And what of the fact that some of the readers of the manuscript before publication included same-sex attracted but celibate men who between them have countless thousands of gay friends and associates – and who confirmed every detail of what I wrote? Are they ignorant as well?

Kathy continues,

I think AQTHTA manipulates the facts, presents the worst of situations, travels to the fringes to find the extremes and  interjects damaging oddball situations and thinking to  horribly skew and demonize an entire class of people, the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.  And, the cover is wildly offensive.

To the contrary, I did not go to the fringes or cherry pick but rather gave a fair representation of the whole, as much as possible, with constant qualifying remarks so as to avoid any stereotyping. And there is not a single fact cited that has been manipulated. As for the cover, I understand that Kathy finds it wildly offensive, but we surveyed many people from all walks of life – including gays and lesbians – and the cover was quite popular with almost all of them. Had we consistently heard from people that it was wildly offensive – as opposed to eye-catching and inviting – we would have used a different cover.

Re: transgenders, Kathy wrote, “I was appalled by the many comments about transgender  people. I have an unusual burden for this community and only God knows why. I never even knew a transperson a few years ago. Now I weep over the abuse of them and ignorance towards them.” This too surprises me, since I frequently talk about the struggles of those who identify as transgender, and I have an older male cousin who now legally identifies as a female. I also know former trans-identified people, and I firmly believe that the best case scenario remains for them to be changed from the inside out rather than endure sex-change surgery and hormones for life, among many other indignities. What is unloving about that position?

Kathy states in bold, “I do know that with every ounce of me, I am convicted that God is orientation and gender  blind.” That, of course, is her conviction, but what is indisputable from an unbiased reading of the Bible is that God is not blind to sexual activity, and the only sexual activity sanctioned by God is that between a man and woman in the context of marriage (needless to say, the only marriage recognized by the Scriptures is that between a man and woman).

Kathy does take additional time to argue for the rightness of her position, and there is no need for me to interact with that here in the context of this response to her response to my book. I do concur with her closing words, though, namely, “We really need to move beyond fear to understanding and love. God help us.” That is one main reason I wrote the book.


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.

Posted in Culture, Featured Articles, News Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

April 27th, 2011 by M. French

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:

[Link to Video]

You can watch the DVD he mentions on YouTube by clicking here (it’s in 11 parts). To order a copy of the DVD, you can email Trace at May God be glorified in Trace’s life!

Posted in Featured Articles, News, Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , , ,

April 19th, 2011 by M. French

(I-Newswire) Orlando, FL, April 17, 2011 – CONTACT:
Domenick Nati
(530) 346-3342

“SAME SEX MARRIAGE: Should it be legal in America?” Debate at the University of Central Florida: Dr. Michael L. Brown vs. Dr. Eric Smaw

University Professors to Tackle Questions Homosexuality and the Family Morals in America.

ORLANDO, FL – On April 21, 2011 at 7:30pm at UCF’s Health and Public Affairs Building (Room 119), Rollins College professor, Dr. Eric Smaw and author and seminary professor Dr. Michael L. Brown will debate the question “Should same sex marriage be legalized in America?” The event will be held at 4000 Central Florida Blvd and is open to the public. After the formal portion of the debate, Brown and Smaw
will field questions from the audience.

Dr. Smaw will be responding in the affirmative. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Kentucky in 2005. His areas of expertise are philosophy of law, international law, human rights, ethics, and modern philosophy. He has published articles on human rights, terrorism, and cosmopolitanism. His most recent publication is “Swaying in the Balance: Civil Liberties, National
Security, and Justice in Times of Emergency”.

Dr. Brown will be responding in the negative. He earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is a nationally known evangelical lecturer and radio host. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles and twenty books, including the recently published study A Queer Thing Happened to America, which is quickly being recognized as the definitive work on the history and effects of gay activism on American culture.

“I believe this debate will address key issues which we cannot avoid, issues pertaining to ‘gay civil rights’ and the redefining of marriage,” said Brown. “But I’m confident that the debate will be conducted with civility and respect, hopefully presenting a model as to how the public debate of such volatile issues can produce more light than heat.”

The debate is part of Dr. Brown’s book speaking tour, The Campaign for Religious Tolerance and Intellectual Diversity. Moderating the debate will be John Stemberger, the President of the Florida Family
Policy Council.

The event is sponsored by Resound Missions Base; a southern Orlando school of ministry and a church, centered around a house of prayer.

Dr. Michael L. Brown is host of the daily, nationally syndicated talk radio program, the Line of Fire and serves as a professor at a number of leading seminaries, holding a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He has spoken in over twenty-five nations and has made numerous TV and radio appearances, while his work has been featured in newspapers such as the Washington Post, the Charlotte Observer, and the Baltimore Sun. His most recent book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, proved so controversial that no major publisher was willing to touch it, but it reached #1 on Amazon’s Gay and Lesbian Nonfiction list just days after its release. To request a review copy of the book or to schedule an interview with Dr. Michael Brown, please contact: Domenick Nati at or 530-346-3342. More information can be found on

Posted in Culture, News Tagged with: , , , , ,