Homosexuality... what to make of it?

This one is a bit touchy of a subject... oh but wait that is kind of the point huh?
Originally published, Saturday, February 7, 2009.


I recently read an interesting article in One news now.
I found the information in said article interesting because I heard a debate on the radio the night before on a similar subject.
First the radio broadcast was a debate about whether Homosexuals should be allowed in the military.
As a former member of the armed forces myself I believe that they should NOT be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces; for two reasons. One because of their safety.
Two because of the needs of the other members of the service.
One of the arguments I heard in the debate was that certain members of the military are very uncomfortable with homosexuality and this unease might grow to resentment which could result in a friendly fire incident.
The opposition to this view said "don't you believe that the military commanders can control the behavior of their troops?".

I would like to point out that whether the commanders can control their troops or not may not enter into it. Many cases have been found of friendly fire incidents in the past and more will be found in the future! Why add to the number by bringing in this issue?
Also we are fighting most of our battles today in the middle east and places where sharia law is practiced.
Our opponents are committed to killing everyone who doesn't follow their beliefs anyway.
If we have openly gay soldiers serving; not only will they fight against us more vehemently, they will also find it MUCH easier to recruit more people to their ideology...
("see, see what did we tell you these Americans are perverted and twisted and they practice all forms of evil immorality!")
These people will also increase their cruelty towards our soldiers in the field.
Personally I am not too worried about getting shot, it has happened before and I survived it, it hurt but I got over it, but I really don't want to get tortured just because someone in my unit is gay.

As for the other issue... I have known several openly gay men. Out of all those I have known only 30 percent ever left me alone. 40 percent of them tried to force themselves on me one way or another and the other 30 percent harassed me all the time. For that reason I would not, I repeat NOT want to be in a foxhole alone with one of them.
I would always be wondering when they would try to take advantage of me.

Having said that, The following section is the news/opinion report of another and I have faithfully copied the whole thing verbatim for your reading pleasure. This article came to me in my email from www.onenewsnow.com.

to read it in it's original format...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=408758

Homosexuality & the laws of moral physics

It makes front page news when conservative elected officials are accused of selling-out to monolithic corporate lobbies like "Big Oil" or "Big Tobacco." Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests.

Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House website updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., "Big Homo"). By announcing to the world his pro-"gay" agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy.

But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled "gay rights" and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called "same-sex marriage," something occurred to me. Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality -- period.

I know -- pretty black and white, right? Evangelical Christians are habitually accused by the left of being too "black or white" on most of the highly polarizing moral issues which affect public policy and shape our larger culture. And so, in an effort to marginalize the so-called "religious right" and diminish its influence in society, evangelicals are pejoratively stamped "fundamentalist" by those who fancy themselves among the enlightened and view the world, instead, through delightfully murky and accountability-free shades of gray.

But despite the best efforts of "gay" activists, secular humanists, and religious leftists to muddy the moral waters, absolute truth -- like a nautical buoy pulled below with rotting rope -- has a way of heaving to the surface with a profound splash once the tenuous line snaps. It's a matter of moral physics.

Of course, "fundamental" simply means "basic" or "important." Hardly negative features from where I stand. In fact, it really is fundamental, isn't it? I mean, either the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, as maintained throughout both the Old and New Testaments, or it's just a nifty old text full of creative tales and loose philosophies no more relevant to our daily lives than a Tony Robbins self-help book.

If it's the latter, then today's liberal elites have it right. The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt, enjoyed simply for its literary and historical value, or ignored altogether. However, if it's the former -- if the Bible really is the inerrant, inspired Word of God as it purports to be -- then wouldn't it be in the best interest of every man, woman and child to pay close attention to what it has to say? Shouldn't we make every effort to live life according to its express principles for our own sake and for the sake of others?

So, what does the Bible have to say about human sexuality? Specifically, what does Scripture say about homosexuality?

Again, it's fundamental. Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality is, under no uncertain terms, classified as sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. The historical and biblical records are unequivocal. In order to reach a contrary conclusion, people like President Obama, who rationalize that the Bible somehow affirms homosexual behavior -- or at least remains neutral on the subject -- are forced to cast aside any pretense of intellectual honesty and engage in gold-medal mental gymnastics.

So, for the sake of national unity, let's clear up any confusion about marriage and sexual immorality once and for all, shall we? And afterward, I expect all you leftists who've been badmouthing us "fundamentalists" to apologize, 'kay?

First of all it was God, not Jerry Falwell, who both created and defined the institution of marriage. Conversely, it's pro-homosexual extremists who wish to radically redefine it. In fact, Christ, in His own words, reaffirmed the true definition of marriage, saying, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV).

Evidently, Christ failed to clear His marriage definition with Barack Obama and Big Homo. Notice that -- rather conspicuously -- He did not say: "At the beginning the Creator made them gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT). For this reason a male, female or shemale will leave his, her or whatchahoozie's father and mother, father and father or mother and mother and be united to his or her wife -- and/or husband -- and the two or more will become one flesh. Not that there's anything wrong with that."


Despite fairly successful attempts by self-described "gay" activists to equate behaviorally driven "gayness" to immutable and neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being "gay" has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is, and has everything to do with what someone does.

It's all about feelings and behaviors. Behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology have universally rejected as both immoral and destructive.

Just a few examples: Leviticus 18:22 commands us, rather unambiguously, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Romans 1:26-27 warns, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Christ's Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Fortunately, as untold thousands of ex-"gays" can attest, God's Word also offers hope and freedom from the homosexual lifestyle. 1 Corinthians 6:11, says, "And that is what some of you were. 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."

To the delight of truth seekers -- and to the consternation of "gay" activists everywhere -- the mere existence of ex-"gays" brings the biologically incongruous and politically motivated "born that way" house of cards crashing down. It further undermines Big Homo's already frail justification for demanding special rights based on aberrant sexual behaviors. That's why ex-"gays" are so hated by the left and so viciously maligned by homosexual activists.

So, again, President Obama, as a self-professed Christian, needs to be reminded that either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality. If the homosexual lifestyle is just another "sexual orientation," then what possible justification can there be for opposing other biblically condemned "sexual orientations" like fornication, adultery, polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality? If one is moral, all are moral. Then again, if one is immoral, all are immoral.

This means that "gay affirming" churches, which engage in what I call "a la carte Christianity" (take what you like, leave what you don't) are really just "sin affirming" churches. And "gay friendly" politicians, like Barack Obama, who push an anti-Christian homosexual agenda, are really just "immorality friendly" politicians.

It really is that black and white -- that fundamental. We're either with God on sexual morality, or against Him. We just can't have it both ways.


Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. This column is printed with permission.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.