Like it or lump it, the naked bullying demand to approve wrong has now been let loose and people are being penalised at law and stigmatised and demonised for refusing to go along with evil under false colour of law.
But, how dare you call people wrong for acting in the way their genes make them act!
And, only intolerant fundy bigots reading an outdated book can think that way -- serves them right!
Perhaps, you need to think again as to why you are in such a topsy-turvy position that wrong looks right and bullying people of good conscience under law for refusing to approve objective wrong looks right.
Not for nothing does the scripture so many are tempted to despise rebuke those who call evil good and good evil: WOE!
But this is not going to be settled on the scriptures.
Instead, we can begin with setting the "my genes made me do it" talking point straight: kindly click and read here, then come back.
Bet, you did not hear that side of the story and much of that evidence before.
No prizes for guessing why.
Next, let us hear Mr Houston in the Economist, himself a gay movement homosexual troubled by where the agenda he has supported is now plainly heading: bully-boy homo-fascism, imposed under false colour of law.
Hard words, yes; but that is what we are ever so plainly looking at, and it is time to think again.
I remember reading Andrew Sullivan's "Virtually Normal" a few years [after leading a homosexualist lifestyle during university years], and how nice but fanciful the idea of legal gay marriage seemed to all of us then. If someone had told us that same-sex marriage would become legal in our state before we hit our forties, we wouldn't have believed it.But, there are several questions being begged here in this seeming counsel of moderation.
We certainly didn't imagine that in 2014 Colorado bakers and New Mexico photographers would be subject to lawsuits for refusing to bake cakes for and shoot photos of same-sex weddings. On one level, it's deliriously gratifying that it has come to this. Not only can lesbians get hitched in New Mexico, which is an incredible fact all by itself, but Christian photographers who decline to work gay weddings can get sued for it and lose. Amazing! On another level, however, it's clear something has gone awry. The aim of legal same-sex marriage is equality under the law, not the criminalisation of a certain popular strain of Christian doctrine. The freedom to run a business in accordance with religious convictions that were recently all-but-universal is, like the freedom of same-sex couples to marry, a freedom worth having. Can't we have legally-binding gay weddings and photographers who won't shoot them? That seems nice for everybody. Let's do that . . .
Linda Harvey of WND gives some sobering food for thought:
Objective reasoning shows us that skin color is unchangeable and that racial discrimination is unjust. We can in the same way objectively reason that same-sex “marriage” is indefensible because homosexual conduct itself is disordered for human beings . . . . the only reason for this dispute is because people want to engage in anatomically challenged behavior that is observably unnatural, medically risky, improper as an example for children, and changeable
And it’s a behavior God calls sin. There is no other biblical description of homosexuality except always and only a big taboo.
So in view of marriage law or public accommodations, could the immorality of homosexuality be a rationale for refusing to honor same-sex nuptials? Absolutely, it should be. There are multiple grounds including but not limited to religious faith. In most states where this was a dispute – New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois – same sex marriage was not even legal, and the couples had other options.
How in the world do judges rule against photographers, bakers and bed-and-breakfast owners whose religious convictions also happen to uphold state law? Only in a time of universal deceit – and their failure to adhere to law is evidence their arguments are built on sand.
It’s time to pull the curtain on this wizard, folks. Homosexuality itself is wrong.
The constructed identity of being “gay” is harmful and should not be considered a worthy defense in light of reality. The evidence clearly points to the truth that everyone is intrinsically a heterosexual.
We need to have the guts to stand up and say so. Our defense should not be because we Christians just hope to somehow preserve narrow rights over here in our holy huddle . . . . Just as we understand race to be a neutral, unchanging characteristic, rational thought arrives at the conclusion that homosexuality is neither. This recognition just confirms facts and is not hateful but helpful to others.Of course, many will want to dismiss such a response on grounds that they believe that "Science" proves that homosexuality is genetically in-stamped. For such, the immediate response, again, is to call for a pause and to take a read here.
Pull back this curtain. Expose the truth, because it’s a positive one.
Christian business owners can in good conscience decide to serve people they perceive might be homosexual, if a “wedding” isn’t in play, by selling them goods or services just as Jesus ate with people He knew were sinners, because He was not condoning their sin through His actions. He was just eating. He did not help prostitutes solicit new customers in the streets; He did not assist tax collectors in cheating new clients; He did not say to the woman caught in adultery, “Hey, hon, is there another married guy I can fix you up with?”
No, it was only a meal, and we, too, must be “in the world” in this way, available to help people in need while speaking out against sin.
Yet if a business owner is concerned about the perceived endorsement of certain behaviors, then it’s OK to refuse service . . .
Let's clip, just as a sampler from an earlier KF post:
Let us pause, and think again before we do even more harm than we have already done. END. . . The West has been subject to such a campaign of misinformation and disinformation in the last 20-30 years that its public institutions, from legislatures and judiciaries to the church and mental health professions widely believe that the homosexual orientation is innate—in the sense of biologically imprinted—and therefore unchangeable.
The implications of this are that anyone who makes the scientifically true statements below is considered the one who is misinformed.
• sexual orientation is not inborn but develops over some years in response to an individual’s response to life events— as many human predicaments doThe West has lost its way on this issue, and today we are seeing the outcome . . .
• homosexual orientation can change, i.e half the homosexual population naturally moves towards heterosexuality over time (without any therapeutic interventions), and further and
faster with counselling and support
• The same-sex attracted are not 10% of the population but (including bisexuals) much closer to 2.5%Those are quite strong words, but they are backed up. Clipping the summary from Ch 1 in the 2010 online downloadable version (and of course, there is much more, with a lot of details; especially note the rebuttals to common myths):No mainstream geneticist is happy with the idea that genes dictate behaviour, particularly homosexual behaviour.
• Genetically dictated behaviour is something that has so far been discovered only in very simple organisms.
• From an understanding of gene structure and function there are no plausible means by which genes could inescapably force SSA or other behaviours on a person. Genes create proteins not preferences.
• No genetically determined human behaviour has yet been found. The most closely genetically-related behaviour yet discovered (aggression in Dutch males) has shown itself remarkably responsive to counselling.
• If SSA were genetically dictated, it would have bred itself out of the population in only several generations, and wouldn’t be around today.
• Generally, geneticists settle for some genetic influence of rather undefined degree, most agreeing that many genes (from at least five or six to many hundreds) contribute to any particular human behaviour.
• A genetically dominated SSA caused by such a cluster of genes could not suddenly appear and disappear in families the way it does. It would stay around for many generations. So SSA is not produced by many genes.
• The occurrence of SSA in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance mutation in a single gene. So a single gene is not responsible for SSA. Nor would many genes all mutate at once.
• SSA occurs too frequently to be caused by a faulty pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate in that sense either.
• The widespread age-range of first homosexual attraction is very unlike the narrow time-spread of genetically driven phases of human life, e.g gestation time, puberty, menopause, making homosexuality very unlikely to be genetically driven. The histone system which controls genetic expression is strongly affected by the environment, e.g nurturing, making searches for individual genes responsible for certain behaviours, mostly pointless.
• Same-sex attraction could be about 10% genetically influenced and opposite sex attraction about 15%. But this is weak and indirect, e.g genes making a man tall don’t also produce basketball players.
• SSA falls more naturally into the category of a psychological traitIn an earlier version of the book, the following comparison is used, to present a helpful comparison:If a girl becomes pregnant at age fifteen, we could argue that she is genetically
predisposed. We could say that in her culture, her genes gave her the kind of
face and figure that send male hormones into orbit and bring her under a level of pressure that she is unable to resist, and she is fertile. But that’s about the strength of the genetic influence. There are a huge number of environmental factors that could also have brought the pregnancy about, from cancellation of the basketball game she was going to watch with a girlfriend, permission to use her boyfriend’s father’s car, her boyfriend’s company, the movie they had just viewed together, and failure to use a contraceptive, to big environmental factors like personal values systems, peer group pressure, and an emotionally distant father.In short, there is no responsible way to escape the implication that -- whatever influences we are exposed to and however they may help shape our choices -- the common sense view that on the whole we are significantly responsible for our behaviours makes excellent sense, and that by and large the habits we form are significantly influenced by cumulative choices we make. That includes cases of bondage to life-dominating destructive sins, habits and addictions. (And, the "on the whole" is meant to take in the genuine cases where people are immature or insane or sufficiently retarded or senile etc. as not to be responsible. Notice, the significance of age of consent laws and the premise that to engage in unlawful carnal knowledge with someone under that age is statutory rape.)Such a general conclusion brings forward the relevance of the well-proved 12-step addiction recovery process pioneered by Alcoholics Anonymous as a context of hope for many of us who are caught up in such life-dominating downward spirals (and, these days, I put pornography addiction as challenge no 1 here beyond even that notorious old demon rum) . . .