Cultural Imperialism on the March: Obama Promotes Gay Pride Worldwide

hillary clinton promotes gay rights

As June approaches, get ready for the official celebration of “Gay Pride Month” by US embassies abroad.

If sodomy and same-sex marriage are constitutional rights, what is their relationship to American foreign policy? Despite the tremendous controversy regarding these issues within the United States, the Obama administration has gone ahead and placed them at the center of US diplomacy. Why? In Libido Dominandi, E. Michael Jones wrote that the rationalization of sexual misbehavior “could only calm the troubled conscience in an effective manner when it was legitimized by the regime in power [which] went on in the name of high moral purpose to make this vision normative for the entire world.”

Therefore, the Obama administration, after promoting homosexual rights and marriage in the US, has undertaken the task of universalizing the rationalization for sodomitical behavior and is doing so with high moral rhetoric—in this case, by appropriating the language of human rights.

The effort began in earnest on International Human Rights Day, December 6, 2011, with a powerful pair of events. President Obama issued a memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, directing them “to ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.” Mr Obama said that, “The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights.”

The departments and agencies included the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and “such other agencies as the President may designate.” All US agencies engaged abroad were directed to prepare a report each year “on their progress toward advancing these initiatives.”

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, explained,

They have directed their embassies everywhere to monitor and assist domestic homosexual movements whether the host country and their people accept it or not. The US is very powerful and can force governments to submit to its social-policy views. They are intent on forcing homosexual “marriage” and homosexual adoption on countries that are offended by such things. They are intent on forcing sexual orientation and gender identity as new categories of non-discrimination that will trump the rights of religious believers. Most people recognize that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to public health and morals. The effect of the Obama policy is to offend billions of people and force this view on reluctant governments. This is most especially offensive to countries that are predominantly Christian and Muslim. In fact, Christianity and Islam are among the chief obstacles of this agenda and policy.

State Department sophistry
While President Obama took the action, Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, gave the rationale in an International Human Rights Day speech on the same day, December 6, in which she proclaimed that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” She also announced that the US would give more than US$3 million to a new Global Equality Fund in order to help civil society organizations promote homosexual advocacy.

Mrs. Clinton came energetically to the defense of those “forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm. I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people,” whom she described with a strong Rousseauian echo as “human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity.” But, if they were born free, why are they not free now? No doubt, because society oppresses them, just as South Africa once oppressed its black population through apartheid—an example Mrs. Clinton gives. But history overcame that, and since, as Rousseau taught, man is a product of history, history can overcome this, too. Thus, Mrs. Clinton ends with the admonition, “Be on the right side of history.” 

It is a testimony to the influence of Rousseau that Secretary Clinton should have appealed to history for the vindication of “gay” rights rather than to moral principle. Had it been the latter, she would have had to say rather that, in order “to protect themselves from harm,” LGBT persons should “suppress” precisely that part of themselves inclined to indulge in disordered sexual acts, just as anyone should resist their inclinations to immoral acts, whatever their kind.

Mrs Clinton averred that “being LGBT does not make you less human.” That is certainly so, unless you consistently give in to one of these disordered inclinations. In a parallel case, being an alcoholic also does not make you less human. However, practicing alcoholism by living life in an inebriated stupor does make you less human in the Aristotelian sense that it impairs your Nature or incapacitates you fulfilling it. If it is virtue that enables man to reach his natural end in becoming fully human, then it is vice that prevents him from doing so, thus making him less human.

Fully embracing the rationalization of the same-sex cause, Secretary Clinton espoused “gender identity” as equivalent to being black or being a woman. It is “who they are.” In a moment of humility, she stated that, “my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country.”

It was? What was it? Being homosexual or lesbian was not a crime in the United States, so what was she referring to? Mrs. Clinton never said, but the it to which she alluded is sodomy, the elephant in the room. She repeated the mantra that “it is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay” and “it should never be a crime to be gay.” One would have to agree in so far as persecution of and violence against homosexuals is concerned but, as Austin Ruse has pointed out, “Such attacks upon individuals are already recognized as violations of human rights in international law particularly in the 1966 Covenants implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other existing treaties.” This, then, is moving beyond that to the moral and legal endorsement of certain behavior. Some governments continue to have laws against homosexual acts, which is not the same thing as violating their rights as human beings. Was Mrs Clinton saying that it is a violation of human rights to declare sodomy illegal?

Apparently, for that would be consistent with an understanding of Section 1 in the Obama directive, instructing agencies abroad to engage in “Combating Criminalization of LGBT Status or Conduct Abroad” (emphasis added). What kind of conduct might this be? The only conduct that is or has been consistently criminalized by many countries is sodomy. Morally speaking, sodomy is a fairly unattractive act. Why should it not be criminalized? Perhaps there are prudential reasons for not doing so, but what might be the moral objections to such laws?

The somewhat evasive answer in the Presidential Memorandum is because “no country should deny people their rights because of who they love.” In her speech, Mrs Clinton echoed this response and set this test: “We need to ask ourselves, ‘How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love?'”

Well, that depends.

What if the person one loves is already married? What if the person one loves is a sibling? How about a teacher in love with a student? Or a pastor in love with a choir boy? Or an uncle with his niece? Acting upon any of these loves in a sexual relationship is, in most places, a crime. It is not so much whom one loves, but how one loves. How it would feel does not really matter since, in each of these cases, it is morally wrong to sexualize the relationship. Feelings do not change the moral nature of an act.

Why, if all the above cases deserve prohibition, do homosexuals deserve an exemption when it comes to sodomy? Secretary Clinton never said why we should feel for them and not for any of those mentioned above, nor did she raise any of the above examples of criminal love as violations of human rights. Why not?

Rationalizing immoral behaviour
As with all rationalizations for moral misbehavior, Mrs. Clinton’s speech was rife with denials of reality, three of which came in one sentence. She said, “Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can become caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true.”

Well, these notions have to be seen as not true for her to promote the “gay” agenda internationally and get away with it. I have never met anyone who believes that all homosexuals are pedophiles, but many of them are certainly pederasts. By setting up the pedophile straw man, Mrs. Clinton avoids this unpleasant reality. Whether homosexuality is a disease or not (it is certainly a disorder), there is ample evidence that it can be cured. Of course, a fair number of people float into homosexuality in their youth and float out again as they mature—no cure required. So much for its being an immutable characteristic.

Others who have become immersed in this life and who later wish to leave it have successfully done so through a variety of therapies. In 1995, the New York Times reported that “Dr Charles W. Socarides offered the closest thing to hope that many homosexuals had in the 1960s: the prospect of a cure. Rather than brand them as immoral or regard them as criminal, Dr Socarides, a New York psychoanalyst, told homosexuals that they suffered from an illness whose effects could be reversed.” Dr Socarides said that his cure rate was about one third. For Secretary Clinton to deny this is an enormous disservice to the very people whose rights she purports to be defending.

Lastly, the bigger the lie, the bolder the assertion—as in Mrs. Clinton’s outright denial that “gays recruit others to become gay.” In my professional career in the arts, I witnessed such recruitment, saw its occasional success, and was several times the object of it. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the homosexual subculture could not possibly make such a statement.

Otherwise, Mrs. Clinton could have referred to homosexual literature, such as Lavender Culture (1994), in which Gerald Hannon described the need for a youth recruitment campaign: “I believe we have to behave in a certain way vis-à-vis young people. I believe that means we have to proselytize. The answer is to proselytize. Aggressively so.” He added that, “To attract young people to the gay movement in large numbers should be the challenge to the next phase of the movement. It is a challenge we have set ourselves.” This is not to say that all homosexuals recruit, but to assert that none do is a complete denial of reality—which, after all, is the point of the rationalization.

The State Department celebrates
What this is all about was very clear from the 2006 Yogykarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, adopted by the International Commission of Jurists, the International Service for Human Rights, and homosexual activists to influence the interpretation of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all UN human rights treaties, and international law as a whole. One requirement of the Principles is to: “Repeal criminal and other legal provisions that prohibit or are, in effect, employed to prohibit consensual sexual activity among people of the same sex who are over the age of consent.” This is the nub of the issue. It is not the status of homosexuals that is so much the matter, as it is the status of their conduct.

In 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, France introduced a statement at the UN General Assembly, titled Joint Statement on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Human Rights. It proclaimed that, “We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.” The Statement was signed by 66 nations.

Under the George W. Bush administration, the United States declined, but in 2009 the Barack Obama administration signed the Statement. While the Statement did not go as far as the Yogykarta Principles, it was clearly headed in that direction. The majority of the criminal penalties it was decrying were not, as the Statement disingenuously suggests, aimed at orientation, but at activity. It is the activity that must be vindicated and blessed as a universal human right.

One of the most immediate results of the priority given to the homosexual cause by President Obama and Secretary Clinton has been the profusion of “gay pride” commemorations and celebrations in US embassies abroad. June is the month singled out for this because, in 2000, President Bill Clinton declared June “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month,” with the last Sunday reserved as Gay Pride Day. June was chosen to commemorate the anniversary of the Stonewall riots as the beginning of “gay” liberation. Ever since, every government agency has observed it. As of 2011, it moved overseas as part of US foreign policy.

Therefore, the US Embassy in Islamabad celebrated its first-ever lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) “pride celebration” with an event on June 26, 2011. The embassy said the purpose of meeting was to demonstrate “support for human rights, including LGBT rights, in Pakistan at a time when those rights are increasingly under attack from extremist elements throughout Pakistani society.” Richard Hoagland, the US deputy chief of mission, was quoted on the embassy website, as saying, “I want to be clear that the US Embassy is here to support you and stand by your side every step of the way.”

However, it is Pakistan’s Penal Code, not extremist elements, that, in Section 377 (introduced at the time of British colonialism), states, “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years nor more than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

If the Pakistani embassy in Washington DC held a public event in which it encouraged that the domestic laws in the United States be changed in order to re-criminalize sodomy, we might be somewhat surprised and irritated. Why should the Pakistani people be less annoyed by the US Embassy telling them to change its laws in order to decriminalize sodomy? Why exactly is that our business?

All Islamic groups in Pakistan condemned the “pride” event as a form of “cultural terrorism” against democratic Pakistan. Students protested against what they called “the attempts of the United States to promote vulgarity in Islamic societies under the pretext of human rights.” One speaker at a demonstration said, “Now the United States wants to project and promote objectionable, unnatural, abnormal behaviors under the pretext of equality and human rights, which is not at all acceptable. If you destroy the morality of the society, you have destroyed it completely.”

In Nairobi, Kenya, June, 2012, the US Embassy hosted what is thought to be the first “Gay Pride” event in that country. John Haynes, a public affairs officer at the US Embassy, introduced the event: “The US government for its part has made it clear that the advancement of human rights for LGBT people is central to our human rights policies around the world and to the realization of our foreign policy goals.” Homosexual acts are illegal in Kenya, just as they were in parts of the United States until 2003. Now, as part of our foreign policy, apparently we tell Kenya to change its laws.

The US Embassy in Vientiane, Laos, proudly displays webpage news from its 2012 “first-ever Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride event on June 25 in Vientiane. The event, called ‘Proud to be Us!’, was produced by a group of young Lao LGBT activists and featured music, dance, skits, and dramas exploring issues faced by LGBT people in Laos today, such as discrimination, gender roles, and sexual health.”

On the webpage of the US Embassy in Prague, Czech Republic, a joint statement was issued which the US ambassador, Norman Eisen, had signed. It declared: “On the occasion of the 2nd annual Prague Pride Festival (2012), we express our solidarity with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities of the Czech Republic in their celebration. The Prague Pride Festival reminds us that ensuring LGBT rights is an important aspect of fulfilling our broader international human rights commitments since the full recognition of those rights is still one of the world’s remaining human rights challenges. Safeguarding human rights and guarding against intolerance requires constant vigilance in the Czech Republic, as in all our countries. Therefore today, we align ourselves with the Prague Pride participants.”

This type of thing at US embassies has become standard. As then-Secretary of State Clinton proclaimed in June, 2012: “United States Embassies and Missions throughout the world are working to defend the rights of LGBT people of all races, religions, and nationalities as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. From Riga, where two US Ambassadors and a Deputy Assistant Secretary marched in solidarity with Baltic Pride; to Nassau, where the Embassy joined together with civil society to screen a film about LGBT issues in Caribbean societies; to Albania, where our Embassy is coordinating the first-ever regional Pride conference for diplomats and activists to discuss human rights and shared experiences.”

Forcing other countries to adopt US standards
As in Pakistan, there has been some blowback from the effort to legitimize sodomy and promote same-sex marriage. When the acting ambassador in El Salvador, Mari Carmen Aponte, wrote an op-ed in a major Salvadoran newspaper, La Prensa Grafica, implying that the disapproval of homosexual behavior is animated by “brutal hostility” and “aggression” by “those who promote hatred,” a group of pro-family associations fought back. On July 6, 2011, they wrote,

Ms. Aponte, in clear violation of the rules of diplomacy and international rights laws, you intend to impose to (sic) Salvadorans, disregarding our profound Christian values, rooted in natural law, a new vision of foreign and bizarre values, completely alien to our moral fiber, intending to disguise this as “human rights.” The only thing we agree with from your article, is to repudiate violence against homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc.; Against these, just the same as against skinny, fat, tall or short … This of course does not mean accepting the legal union between same sex individuals or to add new types of families like bisexual, tri-sexual, multi-sexual and the full range of sexual preferences. Not accepting the legitimacy of “sexual diversity” does not mean we are violating any human right. There can be no talk of progress if this is how “modern” is defined. We prefer to feel proudly “old fashioned,” keep our moral values, preserve our families and possess the clarity of what defines good and evil.

As mentioned above, Secretary Clinton said that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” The problem with this should be self-evident. The promotion of gay rights must come at the expense of the promotion of human rights because the two notions are immiscible. One is founded on the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and the other on moral relativism, which eviscerates the very idea of natural rights and the natural law on which they are based. If you have one, you cannot have the other. You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else—not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.

I deplore, for instance, the persecution of Baha’is in Iran and the persecution of Ahamdis in Pakistan. Being a Baha’i or being an Ahmadi no doubt constitutes the identity of these people who are being persecuted. Nonetheless, there is no such thing as Ahmadi rights or Baha’i rights: there are only human rights. And our defense of them comes precisely at the level of principle in the inalienable right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

Were we to construct such a thing as Ahmadi rights or Baha’i rights or “gay” rights, we would be eviscerating the foundations for those very human rights, which have to be universal by definition in order to exist. If one has rights as a Baha’i, what happens to those rights if one converts to, say Christianity? Does one then lose one’s Baha’i rights and obtain new Christian rights? What happens to one’s “gay” rights if one goes straight?

One does not possess or attain rights in this way. They are inalienable because one possesses them by virtue of one’s human nature—not due to any other specificity regarding race, class, gender or religion. Either they exist at that level, or they do not exist at all. If someone tries to appropriate human rights for something that applies to less than everyone, then you may be sure that they are undermining very notion of human rights. If there are abuses, and this includes abuses against homosexuals, then they should be opposed from the perspective of human rights, not manufactured rights that obtain to just a specific group.

If the United States wishes to promote democratic principles and constitutional rule in other countries, but insists on inserting a manufactured right such as “gay” rights as integral to that program, it will be rejected overall by religious people and by those who, through the examination of moral philosophy, have arrived at the existence of human rights from natural law. If we wish not only to make ourselves irrelevant, but an object of derision in the Muslim and other parts of world, all we have to do is openly promote the rationalization of homosexual behavior, which is explicitly taught against as inherently immoral by Islam and, in fact, by every minority religion in those Muslim-majority countries, including Christianity and Judaism.

If we wish to make this part of American public diplomacy, as we have been doing, we can surrender the idea that the United States is promoting democracy in those countries because they are already responding, “If this is democracy, we don’t want it, thank you; we would rather keep our faith and morals.” This approach not only undermines the foundation of human rights abroad but here, as well.

But, of course, democracy is not the real goal; the goal is the universalization of the rationalization for sodomy. This is now one of the depraved purposes of US foreign policy. The light from the City on the Hill is casting a very dark shadow.

This essay first appeared Monday, May 13, 2013 on Mercatornet.com and is reprinted under a Creative Commons license.

Robert R. Reilly

By

Robert R. Reilly is the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind (ISI Books). He is writing a book on the natural law argument against homosexual marriage for Ignatius Press.

  • AcceptingReality

    Well, Mrs. Clinton, faithful Christians are forced to deny who they are in order to protect themselves from harm everyday. And often that harm is coming from tyrannical governments like the one you represent. So how about some consistency? Oh, I forgot, Mr. Obama is busy telling college students to ignore the voices who warn of government tyranny such as the type he overseas…..geez, these people. They are so transparently ignoble it’s amazing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/gavin.jacobs.338 Gavin Jacobs

      The government is merely representing the will of the majority of the people on this one. You don’t have to agree with the majority, but you can’t impose your minority view on the country. That is what would be “tyranny”.

      • cestusdei

        It is the homosexuals who are imposing their will.

      • Alecto

        Not with my tax money you don’t. And you are absolutely wrong. The majority of Americans in 30 states have voted to prohibit gay marriage and the perpetuation of this perversion of society.

        • Gary Morin

          The number of states doesn’t equate with the majority of Americans. Further, 40% of heterosexual engage in “sodomy” (i.e., anal sex, fellatio, and/or cunnilingus . Why do heterosexuals obsess on anal sex, which SOME gay men engage in? Why do you act as if YOU all don’t engage in those same behaviours? Hypocrisy may not be a christian value but it’s clearly a christian American trait.

    • somebigguy

      Indeed. The incoherent rhetoric of the left never makes sense. But what can one expect from moral relativists? Their morality changes whenever, wherever and to whatever extent necessary to suit their purpose in any particular situation.

    • Gary Morin

      when was the last time you were personally, emotionally or physically harmed for being a faithful Christian (if that’s true) or for being heterosexual? Your cries of harassment or oppression are pathetic and clearly a tactic of last resort. No one gives a toss if you practise your religion – it’s when you arrogantly try to force your religion (in the name of ‘morality’) into civil government and onto everyone else, Christian or not. As a Jewish American, I will never tolerate tax-exempt churches trying to infiltrate civil governments.

      • somebigguy

        As a matter of fact, Gary, Catholics are attacked all the time simply for living our faith.

        When I was in college, a fellow student told me that I should be shot simply for disagreeing with Roe v. Wade. Since then, I’ve received particularly ugly mail, including threats, for nothing more than writing letters to newspapers defending the lives of the unborn, infirm and elderly. The federal government has long used our taxes to slaughter the unborn and suppress populations in the US and abroad. And now the Obama administration is forcing us to fund contraception, abortion, euthanasia and such things as “sex-change” surgery. My son, who was a midshipman at one of the federal service academies, was called a bigot when he voiced disagreement with the official program to normalize homosexuality in his regiment; his Catholic chaplain was advised to either “get on board or get out.”

        This sort of thing has happened to almost every Catholic I know. And, Gary, I’ll bet I know a lot more Catholics than you know homosexuals.

  • Leavened bread

    What an abomination! The State Department can’t even protect an American consulate, leading to the deaths of Americans and then it has the gall to spend taxpayer money promoting homosexuality in foreign countries. So the State Department puts homosexual “rights” ahead of American lives. So now our foreign policy instead of protecting America is to promote homosexuality around the world. Instead of having PhD’s from so called prestigious universities working at the State Department let’s have some people with common sense working there and not only there but in government and society in general.

    Oh, by the way the Department of Education starting next year will replace the outmoded terms “father” and “mother” on all its forms and replace them with “Parent1″ and “Parent 2″ in order to comply with the government’s progressive agenda to be more “inclusive” and “respectful” of “alternative” lifestyles. So let’s forget about those anachronistic, repressive days of celebration known as “Father’s day” and “Mother’s” day” and let’s replace them with the more “progressive” Parent ! and Parent 2 day. By the way how do we decide who Parent 1 and Parent 2 are? Let’s tell our children that it doesn’t take a mother and father to create a child. Through the magic of progressivism we have been enlightened to know that Parent 1 and Parent 2 are all that are needed to create life..And I thought I was a lousy biology student!

    • http://twitter.com/anthonymarks5 anthony marks

      Somehow, some way, we must, as Catholics, find a way to open more schools for our children and make them affordable to middle class families. The government of the US has now become an enemy to all Christians and will do their best to infect our children with their nonsense. Maybe we could recruit retirees with university degrees to work for low wages and teach our Catholic kids.

      • Alecto

        I am down with that struggle. It’s time to leave the herd.

      • muscicare

        For the sake of the children if you have any, it’s past the time for maybe. One has to cut loose from the herd and at least for the period of time that the kids are growing up and vulnerable. You can’t change the entire educational system before they have to attend school, but at lest there is homeschooling.

      • Holy smokes

        That is what I’m preparing to do.

      • musicacre

        Another thing I wanted to say yesterday; You can’t wait for someone to accept “low wages” esp now in these times when health care is going crazy and survival is harder..you need to be pro-active yourself. We can all find the odd person here and there that might teach something for a few months, but few retirees would be able to devote 24/7 for 12 years! That’s dreaming a bit.

      • Proteios

        I’ve often thought we are in a period of contraction. Catholics need to concentrate parishes, schools and other opportunities and limit employment and students to Catholics only. We need to regain our faith and diluting ourselves omong the secular atheists isn’t working. We are sing our identity. Personally, it’s not about increasing numbers, but strengthening the ones we have.

    • musicacre

      We once had a “pro-life” Rabbi give a talk to a homeschooling group and he explained that there is no word for “parent” in the Hebrew language; only Mother and Father.

      • Gary Morin

        sorry, but that’s incorrect. In Hebrew, the word ‘horim’ means parents.

        • slainte

          Mr. Morin,

          “Horeh comes from the root הרה – “to
          conceive, become pregnant”. From this root we get the word herayon הריון – pregnancy”. http://www.balashon.com/2008/07/hora-and-horim.html.

          The word “horim” was originally used to refer to a mother and pregnancy.
          Post-biblically, it was expanded to mean both father and mother.

  • msmischief

    Are there any countries at all in which it is illegal to be homosexual?

    The question then turns on what she means by “be gay”, since many dishonest souls use the term to conflate orientation and action. (For those unfortunates who can not, in fact, control their sexual urges in the age of AIDS, the term is “legally incompetent.” We have nice secure institutions for people who can not control themselves and pose a risk to themselves or others.)

    • http://www.facebook.com/gavin.jacobs.338 Gavin Jacobs

      “Are there any countries at all in which it is illegal to be homosexual?”

      There are at least 76 countries where homosexual behavior is illegal. Most are In Africa (for example, Uganda) or are Muslim nations in the Middle East and Asia. Some of you might want to move there?

      • cestusdei

        We may end up exiled there once the homosexual activists increase the persecution of Christians. That is coming soon enough.

        • http://www.facebook.com/gavin.jacobs.338 Gavin Jacobs

          I suggest you look into moving to Uganda. Lovely climate and homosexuality is criminalized there, as it is in many sub-Saharan African countries.

          • cestusdei

            I am sure that at some point I will have to choose Uganda or a nice camp equipped with the latest shower facilities.

        • Gary Morin

          cestusdei, please do show us how you’ve been persecuted? When is the last time you were kicked out of your parents’ home, fired from a job, lost your housing, or were beaten or killed for being Christian? Certainly not by “the left wing” or by any LGBT person. So, please don’t lie – that’s a sin.

  • publiusnj

    The State Department’s evangelization for a particular code of morality (or, more properly, amorality) is the closest thing this nation has ever come to an unconstitutional Establishment of Religion. Whatever our Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, there is no reason that our lack of concern for morality needs to be adopted by any other nation. Simply put, where is “universal amorality” mentioned in the Constitution?

  • Alecto

    This puts foreign attacks on our embassies located in predominantly muslim countries in perspective. Americans abroad who encourage and advocate homosexualist agendas among people who vehemently oppose this behavior can’t be all that surprised when the morally superior natives kill them. I thought we were supposed to “respect” these native cultures? Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised at Benghazi, rather we should prepare for more of the same?

    • tomm

      Benghazi had nothing to do with the US pro-gay agenda, as ridiculous as that agenda is. Benghazi happened because “infidels, and most of all infidel intruders simply need to be hanged / stoned” according to the islamic religion. Jihad is not so much anti-homo, it is anti-infidels in general.

      • Alecto

        When “infidel” = “homosexual”, we ought not to be surprised. One thing is clear from this, under no circumstances can Hilary Clinton ever be allowed in the public arena again.

      • jcsmitty

        I’m not so sure about that. The Muslims hate the U.S. for pushing immorality and abortion. The allegation that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual and his presence in their midst provocative, fits into the anger.

        • Proteios

          Perhaps. But the cult of Mohamed is one of death and torture. When they can’t do that to enemies they turn on each other just as easily.

  • Alecto

    Is it me, or does the sign beneath Hilary seem Animal Farm Orwellian to you? “Free and Equal in Dignity and Rights” but some are more Free and Equal than others? LOL

    • somebigguy

      Orwellian? That term may well be passé. After all, this is the age of Obama; perhaps “Obamian” would be more appropriate.

      • Alecto

        Apologies, I forgot that most Americans are educated in public schools and wouldn’t be familiar with anything written before 1984.

      • Bono95

        Works just as well either way, doesn’t it?

  • theorist

    This is why there is no good really, in joining the US military since it is now the organized “Red Army” of international perversion and “freedoms”. We should not be too outraged that muslim terrorists then decide to blow us up.

  • somebigguy

    Excellent analysis. And it gets at the counter-productive– indeed, self-destructive– nature of the Democrats’ foreign policy: it seeks to destroy other nations’ cultures. No wonder the Islamic world (and what’s left of the Christian world) hates us. The Obama administration, like the Clinton administration, is undermining peace and stability throughout the world.

    • tomm

      “No wonder the Islamic world (and what’s left of the Christian world) hates us” —

      As I also told Alecto: islamic jihad, as it manifests itself in the Benghazi attacks, London tube bombing, Madrid train bombing, New York 2001, and the embassy attacks in the nineties, is not a reaction to the western gay agenda, as ridiculous as that agenda is. Jihad is waged against infidels in general and not restricted to nations with a pro-gay agenda such as the contemporary United States.

      Which is why jihad also is waged against Nigerian churches (who are not pro gay), Indonesian Christians (who are not pro gay as far as I know) and has also been waged against the Byzantine Empire, Spain and the Balkans, from the 7th century onward. This had nothing to do with any “pro gay imperialism”.

      • somebigguy

        Sure, but pushing sodomy is part of it… along with abortion, pornography and other elements of our post-Christian era.

        • Gary Morin

          Abortion is a heterosexual activity (except where straight men have raped lesbians but that’s still a heterosexual sin and crime), rape – which is epidemic in the US – is a strictly heterosexual crime, and 40% of heterosexual engage in “sodomy” (i.e., anal sex, fellatio, and/or cunnilingus). And pornography is CLEARLY not a gay-only occurrence But, somehow you people seem to find a way to blame everything on homosexuals and never take an ounce of responsibility for a damn thing.

          • somebigguy

            1.) Rape is hardly restricted to heterosexuals.
            2.) Sodomy traditionally refers to homosexual acts.
            3.) Pornography is a grave evil regardless of gender preference.
            4.) Catholics don’t blame everything on homosexuals, but the homosexual agenda opposes the common good. Homosexuals must face the ugly truth about the spiritually and physically destructive nature of their disorder. The answer lies in the very institution you disparage, the Church.

            • Gary Morin

              So, YOUR church is the one and only true religion? Sexual orientation aside, as someone who’s Jewish, I find your pride and arrogance to be sinful and abominable. I don’t disparage religion, even Catholicism – but I do disparage “the Church” – especially one which spends millions of dollars on pomp and circumstance, fancy buildings in which to live and from which to rule, using its members donations to run slanted propaganda campaigns, and covering up sex abuse (all tax-exempt), rather than doing good for the world. That’s hypocrisy of the worst kind. I just read today a Catholic woman describing the Vatican as “the mafia”.

              • somebigguy

                The Catholic faith is the fullness of the truth, Gary. And the Church is the mystical body of Christ, Who is the fulfillment of the promise made to Israel. You are like so many others, Gary: it’s not so much that you hate the Church, Gary, as it is you hate the truth she conveys. And that truth is a Person, Jesus Christ, who is not only the truth, but the way and the life. Your vitriol is sobering, Gary; I urge you to think long and hard about it. Unchecked, your pride will cost you everything.

              • slainte

                Mr. Morin, what do you expect to accomplish by attacking our holy Church and those who follow Our Lord Jesus Christ?
                We do not accept your militant, radicalized hatred and bullying. Please check your ego at the door, lay aside your pride, and when you are ready to engage in a respectful non-violent dialogue, you may find that there are many in this community who will engage you in a civil and respectful manner.
                Thus far, your words and behaviour are both toxic and offensive to our Faith and sensibilities, and serve to completely undermine your advocacy efforts.

              • Proteios

                I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you believe what you just said.

      • Proteios

        Good point. Add to that the European Catholics who kept islam in check for a thousand years. A group that is depopulating through big control and abortion. Guess what. E need young labor. Bring in Muslims. Who bring with them their cult, their values, their hatred of everyone. They reproduce. We don’t. Do the math. Their evil war on all that is good isn’t even necessary. They will win by attrition.

  • Theo

    “Is the Nanny State a Lesbian?” Haaaaaa!!!!

  • WRBaker

    Wonder what would happen if most/all of these countries would declare the U.S. ambassadors to be persona non grata and kick them out? It might send a signal, you think?
    We do need to create more Catholic schools, of every type. Unfortunately, many of our bishops have other priorities that must be changed before it’s too late – perhaps it is already but we have to try.

  • Pingback: Beautiful Music: Come, Holy Spirit - Big Pulpit

  • TomD

    What is so ironic about this is the unreflective, moralistic tone and the unequivocal judgmentalism of the secular humanists that would make Elmer Gantry proud.

  • tedseeber

    So basically, we’re now going to have to what, sew Uganda flags on our backpacks in other counties to avoid getting gay bashed because Obama is spreading the lie that all Americans are wimpy rich homosexuals ripe for mugging?

    • Gary Morin

      that doesn’t even make sense, but no surprise there.

      • tedseeber

        It is a reference to four facts:

        1. Uganda’s method of treating the gay issue with imprisonment and sometimes execution if the person involved has AIDS.
        2. The common practice during the 1980s for USA teenagers to sew a Canadian flag on their backpack while backpacking in Europe, due to negative perceptions about Ronald Wilson Reagan.
        3. The practice of gay bashing which sees gays as easy targets.
        4. The practice of mugging, which sees rich people as profitable targets.

        I put these four facts together with the story to come up with the above statement- that since the State Department is now actively promoting homosexuality in the third world, it will be a reasonable, if bigoted, assumption by the recipients of such “aid” to assume that Americans are a bunch of wimpy homosexuals and easy targets for mugging, and thus to combat this trend American students will have to pretend to be from Uganda.

        But I’m sure you already knew those four facts, and just didn’t piece them together with this story.

  • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

    I have read a number of articles on this site and yet I am still shocked that you would honestly suggest that not only can gay men be cured but that there is serious evidence to show that it is possible. Just because a few gay men have decided to repress their urges towards people of the same sex does not mean that they have been cured, it means they have been brainwashed to believe that what they were doing previously is wrong. This is the same effect that comes when a young person (in late teens or early 20s) goes into the closet because of negative messages about his attractions. If any so called ex-gay man is actually attracted to a woman he marries, most likely he was really bisexual not gay.

    Even recently there have been articles about so called ex-gay men and many admit that they still have sexual attractions to men. Thus they have not been cured, but merely convinced to repress their nature. Thankfully California has banned such damaging therapies on minors and other states should hopefully move to ban those therapies as well.

    • Alt

      Are not homosexuals brainwashed? Your statement that “ex-gays” are brainwashed begs the question: How does one become homosexual? Surely nature does not teach someone to be homosexual. If that were true, humanity would have died off long ago. We learn best from example. Homosexuals likely grew up in the presence of other homosexuals, or had explicit material forced on them, or had persuasive pervasive peers. Whatever the case, they were brainwashed that what they do is natural and, worse than that, moral.

      The fact is, we’ve all been “brainwashed” (if you choose to use that term) by our families, teachers, friends (and, God forbid, the media). But the fact is, we have a right and responsibility to promote morals and values. But not “our” morals and values, true ones. If we only promote what we believe, then we are indeed brainwashing because we are forcing somebody to reject logic and nature and accept relativism. “Cured gay men” are thus not being “brainwashed”, they are, excuse the pun, being set straight.

      You also mention that homosexuals are convinced to repress their nature. What nature is that? Certainly not human nature. You must mean their own “individual nature”. But nobody is homosexual by nature. There is no “gay gene” and therefore no ability to state they have a gay nature. Even if they had urges, that does not grant a right to act on said urges. Therapy to point out that fact is entirely compassionate and moral and must (not should) be encouraged.

      Can gayness be cured? The real question is “can the ill-found beliefs around gayness be cured?” That answer is yes, with hard work. The belief that homosexuals “can’t help it” and “should be able to do what they want” must stop. Being homosexual is not a crime, but performing homosexual acts is. It is a crime against reason, nature, and humanity. Misinforming (or not informing at all) peoples about that will be the ruin of us.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Does not Freud teach that we all begin life with unfocused libidinal drives and pass successively through the oral, anal and phallic stages, usually between birth and the age of five?

        Hence his famous description of the infant as a “polymorphous pervert.”

        • Alt

          Freud was an adolescent when it comes to philosophical debate or scientific studies with any merit. The “id” that he believes we have, he claims is the only thing of substance; the only thing we as human have that give us individuality. This “id” is solely animalistic desires. What a warped viewpoint he has. He is saying all humans are animals, nothing more. Sexual desires thus are natural and “we can’t help it”.

          But anyone of a clear mind can tell you that reason and thought is a unique trait of humans. We are not merely animals who perform whatever dehumanizing thing pops into our mind. We have a mind so that we precisely not do that. Was there any scientific method in Freud’s claims, or rather any science at all? I think not.

          Surely you were not a pervert until you were five. Surely you learned about the world around you and not about your orifices. Surely you were not born with a libido that causes you to wish to and have sex with anything in anyway without your control over it. And surely you don’t mean to extend that age to now and claim that succumbing to your urges are inevitable.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            In the earliest stage, the primary erogenous zone is the mouth; hence, the importance that analysts attach to the weaning process. In the anal stage, the child’s libidinal focus is on the control of the bowel and bladder and on parental responses, during toilet training. It is only in the phallic stage (usually between 3-5) that libidinal interest focuses on the genitalia. Only in subsequent developmental stages do children learn to constrain sexual drives to socially accepted norms. The best modern exposition of this socialisation is Jacques Lacan’s « Le nom du père » [“The name of the father” – the pun on « Le non du père » - “The ‘no’ of the father” is intentional]

            • Alt

              I’m not sure the relevance of your statement with respect to homosexuals who obviously are old enough to have aims and a developed mind. Are you saying homosexuals must try everything simply to gain an experience?

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                You said “Surely nature does not teach someone to be homosexual” I was merely pointing out that “nature” (an hypothesized abstraction) has very little to do with sexual preference, which is a developing process, with well-defined stages

                • Alt

                  Yes sexual preference is a developing process, through puberty and sometimes up to adulthood. But nature has much to do with it and is not an abstraction. Human nature is a collection of morals and rights inherent to humans. Does not nature teach of attraction between men and women? Is there any study where, independent of society (and thus relying on nature), that humans choose the same gender? What about a young child, who only knows nature, who wonders whom her/his father and mother are?
                  If common sense tells us that a man and woman make a child, is it a far jump, or rather any leap at all, to state there is an attraction between the two that we know exists due to our nature?

        • tedseeber

          Freud was a drug addict. I reject all of his writings based on his cocaine addiction.

      • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

        Well we can hardly have a constructive debate because you can’t even accept that men are born gay. It should be sufficient to read the stories of the numerous gay men who were raised in religious households and told from the start that being gay is wrong just like is said here. Yet despite all those messages, these men eventually realize that they are gay and no amount of insistence to the contrary will change that.

        You are right, there is no study to prove that people are born gay but there is also the testimony of thousands of gay men who will tell you that they have been gay since they were young children. The thing is, it shouldn’t even matter whether or not one is born gay, but it seems in order to make the argument that God can’t possibly have intended gay men to remain celibate and avoid relationships with other men it must first be claimed that they were born that way.

        Personally as well, it took me years to accept my own sexuality as a bisexual man but I assure you, the majority of messages I received were in the opposite direction. Yet despite all the messages, I accepted my attraction to the same sex as a part of myself and am now happily involved with another man who I believe God meant for me to meet and be with for the rest of my life.

        • Alt

          What about the thousands of “gay men” who “gave up on” being gay after passing a certain age (puberty)? Being gay is an orientation, not an illness or disease as I’m sure you’ll agree. So it is not physical, but mental. However you are right, this argument is useless and it does not matter to this debate so I propose we stick to the issue of marriage.

          I have no doubt you have an attraction with a man as I would a woman. If you inferred that I meant homosexuals couldn’t have such feelings you were mistaken. This is not the issue either. The issue is how you deal with that attraction in a healthy and celibate way. It is not wrong to be homosexual, or bisexual as your case may be, but it is wrong to perform homosexual acts. Ignoring the religious aspect that many will ignore, it is proven to be unhealthy to both parties (especially in the case of two males) as risk of disease (and death) increases thousandfold. No truly caring person would ignore that fact or let you remain ignorant.

          But as for getting back to debate, homosexual “marriage” is a curse on marriage. I am not stating it is wrong to have a relationship (I don’t wish to get thrown more off topic), but there is something very wrong with calling it marriage. That is the heart of the issue. People are not trying to limit relationships, they are trying to limit the imposition of homosexuals into in institution that would in fact collapse if it was “rewritten”.

          • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

            The problem is that history has shown that attempts to provide alternatives to marriage in the form of civil unions simply don’t provide the stability that is important to all committed couples. There are some same-sex couples who are committed for many years. They at least need the option to avail themselves of the same protections that married couples have, including survivor benefits from social security, hospital visitation, sharing health plans and the many other things that come from the status of spouse in the law.

            Civil unions very rarely start off providing all the protections and benefits of marriage. California started off with a weak domestic partnership status that took many years to gradually reach the point where for the purposes of state law, domestic partners are treated the same as married couples. But what if that couple moves to a state that recognizes same-sex marriage. Are they going to have to marry there to ensure their relationship is recognized? Lawsuits were necessary for a couple who moved to Canada after entering a civil union elsewhere before the courts would treat them as married. Most of the time when a country recognizes same-sex marriage, they no longer recognize civil unions. So a couple who is in a civil union in England and then moves to Switzerland will not be treated as married under the laws there.

            Yes many couples stay in the same state/country for a long time but many others enjoy traveling around. A couple who is domestic partners in California shouldn’t have to research the laws of each state in the US before they decide to travel there in order to determine if their relationship is recognized. What if one of them is injured and in the hospital while in this other state? Will the domestic partner be recognized by the hospital? Some states do provide protections for couples who are in a civil union or domestic partnership in another state but others don’t.

            This patchwork of laws is what will ultimately be avoided once all states recognize same-sex marriage as opposed to civil unions or domestic partnerships. It takes many years to craft a domestic partnership statute that gives all the benefits and protections of marriage but a single piece of legislation is usually all that is necessary to provide those same rights through marriage.

            • Alt

              It’s true civil unions are rarely like marriages. But they remain distinct for a reason. Having a one-fit definition of marriage that includes everyone actually excludes everyone since the definition becomes so vague and dissimilar to what marriage has ever been.

              Nowhere in your lists of protections are any involving children, which marriage has always revolved around. I’m not against civil unions (or at least won’t state it here) and they should have rights such as hospital visitation and possibly health plans and the like, but to call these unions marriages distorts marriage.

              Why should not those in civil unions research laws before moving? You must buy travel insurance before vacationing in another country (and possibly another state) and you must look up laws involving what you can bring (alcohol, fireworks ,etc.). Some regions I’m sure would not even accept a marriage certificate let alone a civil union paper. It is up to the persons travelling to research beforehand. It is not unjust to do it this way. It is simply different in other places.

              Furthermore, changing the definition of marriage does just that; it changes what we call marriage. But it doesn’t change marriage since there are aspects to it that are unchangeable and have existed as long as humans. Giving rights to civil unions is not bad, indeed it should be done. But to give them the same rights as marriage will lead us further to a state of totalitarianism and relativism.

              • Gary Morin

                So, if you do support ‘civil unions’, what advocacy or legislative work have you done to further it? Pissing and moaning against same-sex marriage without working concretely toward a solution is, well, nothing more than pissing and moaning.

    • cestusdei

      Some people have sexual attractions to animals. It is normal for them. Since marriage is only about feelings of “love” surely you have no objections to interspecies marriage? Or are you a hateful speciest?

      • Alt

        Perhaps some people do. But are you suggesting they must simply succumb to their emotions? Does reason mean nothing?

        As for your statement about marriage; it is completely wrong. Marriage has always gone beyond “feelings of love”. It has always revolved around children. The idea that marriage is only an output of sexual desires without consequences is a relatively new idea and eats at the heart of not only all marriages, but society in general. You are also quite vague. What feelings of love are there? To and from whom? This new “marriage” declares love to be temporary and solely in the giving parties’ interest. But that’s not love at all. That’s lust, or at the best, infatuation.

        Letting two persons express a deep love is only one aspect of marriage, and certainly not the must important. Marriage exists to provide a means of commitment for each other, and a sense of cooperation to raise children in a healthy, loving, and understanding environment. Children that grow up in marriage benefit society, and there is proof of that. Marriage goes beyond the parents. It is not just love of each other, it is love of nature, children, and thus society.

        Surely I do object to “interspecies marriage”. Surely you do too. The fact is, if you can’t stand firm on this, you can’t stand firm. I’m sure there are many who support necrophilia. Should we therefore let graveyards be upturned so they can “find someone they love to death”? No. It makes no sense to promote interspecies marriage just as it does necrophilia. We as humans are unique in the world. We have reason. We have human rights. Along with that reason and rights we inherit a duty to act with morals. Understanding that humans do have value greater than other animals is logical, especially seeing as only we can understand enough to say that. Hateful? I most certainly am not. Speciest? That term makes no sense.

        • Gary Morin

          You do realize that your ‘slippery slope’ arguments about bestiality and necrophilia are simply spurious, ridiculous and stupid, don’t you? They’re irrelevant, a distraction, and make you look like a bozo. We’re talking about two consenting, living adults. Copy and paste arguments you’ve been indoctrinated to believe all you want, or stand up on your own and talk real-life in a CIVIL, not religious, society. And, don’t try claiming that your church will be forced to do anything it doesn’t want to – it’s protected from anti-discrimination laws.

          • John200

            “… spurious, ridiculous and stupid, don’t you? They’re irrelevant, a distraction, and make you look like a bozo…. Copy and paste arguments…”

            Mr. Troll, check out that thing you are looking at — it’s a mirror.

    • sparrowhawk58

      I’ve noticed that when a supposedly straight person decides to “come out of the closet,” he/she is applauded for saying Yes to living an authentic life. Yet when a supposedly gay person decides he/she is happier with a hetero lifestyle, that person and his support group is condemned. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

      If the right to express one’s sexuality as one sees fit is so precious to gays, they would totally favor counseling, even if it leads to a rejection of homosexuality….unless they suspect something a bit more nefarious is going on to “encourage” people to identify as gay.

      • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

        That person is most likely either bisexual or in denial depending on how authentic the coming out really was. For a man to admit that he is bisexual but found love from a woman is something I would applaud. To deny that he ever felt anything for the same sex is likely a lie.

        Many bisexuals out there find love with someone of the opposite sex and choose to never come out publicly. Though in order for their relationship to last, it is important that they are at least honest with their spouse about their orientation.

        It is precisely because so many bisexual men have decided to abandon the pursuit of other men in order to marry a woman that we have the perception that being gay is just a phase for some people.

        • sparrowhawk58

          Or maybe the gay person “coming out” is actually straight and is being pressured to identify as gay because of one experience. Human sexuality is complex. The concept that straight-to-gay is an awakening where gay-to-straight is neurotic is pretty simplistic and, actually, a bit on the catty side.

      • Alt

        That hypocrisy stems from the fact that homosexual advocates are blatantly intolerant.

        Homosexuals are not happy with themselves. Perhaps it is their consciences, or their emotions, which force them to gain external validation of themselves. They do not want free expression, they want to be patted on the back and upheld to higher standing than those around, and they want everyone, homosexual or not, religion and state to applaud them.

        • Gary Morin

          Don’t you get it, or don’t you want to get it? “Homosexuals” want the SAME RIGHTS and the SAME EXPECTATIONS as everyone else? There isn’t any homosexual advocate who wants MORE than anyone else? Why is that so hard for you to understand and accept? Perhaps you really just don’t want people that heterosexuals have traditionally oppressed to finally have equality, meaning that you’d have nothing to be superior over. We couldn’t care less what your opinions are – just stop forcing them on us and undermining the US civil government’s democratic laws. You can keep your applause for your pitiful self – who cares?

  • lifeknight

    Again, the comments are being hijacked by pro-homosexuals. Gavin, you are obviously in sympathy with the movement to redefine marriage. In the thread about countries that do not allow homosexual activity, you have left out the fact that until 1973 in the US homosexual activity was considered a diagnosis of mental illness. (It was redefined by a panel of the American Psychological Association that had been hijacked by homosexuals and sympathizers to their cause.)

  • http://twitter.com/alejoelbote Alejandro Mayer

    The only solution, we need to engage more in politics, if not aberrations will grow increasingly

    • Gary Morin

      As long as your churches pay taxes and stop hiding behind their tax-exempt status, let them engage in politics. Until then, they’re breaking the law and being unethical.

      • jcsmitty

        Church-goers pay taxes–and that includes members of the clergy. They have as much right as you to speak out on public concerns. Churches themselves get tax-exempt status because they are charitable institutions that support the homeless, hungry, sick, elderly, etc. They do not engage in politics–with the possible exception of black churches which support Obama and get a free pass. The churches which teach God;s law do teach abortion takes the life of the innocent unborn, sex outside of marriage is sinful, etc. . and have been doing so for 2000 years. Politics is when you support a political party or candidates–which the church is not supposed to do. Are you asking churches to stop teaching morality simply because you prefer immorality? If so, then you favor religious persecution and oppose religious liberty.

        • Gary Morin

          To quote, “the church is not supposed to do” but the fact is that they do it. Telling congregants who to vote for (not how to vote on an issue) is not legally allowed. Let’s get one thing clear: religious doctrine is NOT the same thing as morality. we can agree on what is moral without sharing a religion. I personally don’t care what you do or believe within your church – I DO have something very against any one church or religion having undue influence into civil laws. And, sorry, bub, but you’re not being able to discriminate or oppress others is NOT persecution, however your complex is. YOUR religious liberty does NOT give you the right to infringe on MY religious liberty.

          According to my religion, pork is not a civil right! My religion tells me so – therefore, I believe that I’ve been called to make sure that all pork products are illegal in the US. Also, I’m going to make sure that working on Saturdays is illegal, that no clothes shall be made of polyester and that someone I sanction shall stand at the door of each building in America checking to ensure that no one wears clothes of mixed fabrics. Are you okay with my trying to make the laws of the US based on the Jewish laws and only on the Jewish laws?

          • jcsmitty

            Stop the lies and provide some evidence of your claims. The talking points from your homosexual activist playbook are pure nonsense.

            The fact is that churches do not endorse candidates unless they want their tax-exempt status removed! (Exception: Valerie Jarrett campaigns for Obama in black churches and nothing happens! Not surprising since the Administration orchestrates who gets to violate the law and who doesn’t.)

            Regarding morality: I’m not sure we can agree on what is moral. Murder used to be immoral before abortion became the law of the land. Now it’s legal to cut the arms, legs and head off unborn babies, crush their skulls, etc.

            There’s a huge difference between morality and doctrine. We can disagree over the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of God but sadly we will probably also disagree over the morality of murder, homosexuality, and the morals that were once almost universally accepted. Wrong is now right and right is now considered wrong. Society once saw the family as its cornerstone while today the family is under constant attack.

            You would like to exclude everyone who disagrees with your morality or lack thereof.influence in our society.

          • John200

            We cannot agree on what is moral while you flail around in the dark.

            I am OK with your making a fool of yourself, but I am sad that you claim Judaism is your way. You fool no one with the possible exception of yourself.

            Let’s try a different angle: I doubt your claim to being Jewish. You write like some cut-and-paste dead end offshoot from this-or-that vine. Perhaps you are a “Reformed Jew?”

            You have a long way to go. Best wishes on the journey.

          • Paul McGuire

            Well they try to avoid crossing the line by saying “The Church’s position on this issue is X” as opposed to saying “you have to vote for X” although there have been some cases where pastors told congregations they would go to hell if they voted for Obama because of his stance on abortion.

            I agree with you that churches should not be supporting a specific political stance.

  • Holy smokes

    Can we count on Kerry to reverse the trend or will he continue down the excommunication trail?

  • Holy smokes

    By the way, excellent article. I will be quoting aspects of it in my essays on homosexuality and civil society. Additionally, it was Leo Strauss in his essay “Three waves of Modernity” that stated that Hobbes not Rousseau gave us this notion of rights isolated from natural law: “Machiavelli severed politics and morality from natural law, Hobbes reconnected it by interpreting natural law in terms of self preservation. Natural law came to be understood as the right to self preservation as distinguished from duty/obligation culminating in the substitution of the rights of man for natural law (nature replaced by man, law replaced by rights).” We have to take the fight further back. Pax et Bonum – Will

  • jcsmitty

    The Muslims may be God’s instrument, much as the Assyrians of the Old Testament were used by Him to punish the idolatry of the Israelites. Watching the United States push this evil on other countries, along with abortion and contraception, makes me sick. Come, Holy Spirit, renew the face of the earth!

  • jcsmitty

    Obama is spreading the sexualization of the world faster than anyone could have imagined. As gay marriage becomes normative, our kids will be brainwashed even more than they are now that sodomy is OK. Planned Parenthood already controls much of the curriculum around the country and promotes sexual activity for small children.

    Why is anyone surprised that countries can only receive U.S. foreign aid on condition of promoting this evil. They already had to sell their souls when they accepted abortion and contraception. Forced sterilization and abortion are next.

    Anyone who doesn’t see the face behind Obama is totally mindless.

    • Gary Morin

      Heterosexuals engage in sodomy – are you fighting against that? And, how do you know what goes on in President Obama’s mind? How are you so able to speak for anyone other than yourself?

      • John200

        Wouldn’t you know, I use the same faculties that enable a honmo”sex”ual troll to infect a thread 12 days after it faded out. Golly, how did I do that?

        • Gary Morin

          in trying to be ‘witty,’ you’re only rambled and not say anything informational or enlightening.

          • John200

            If you are the one homo”sex”ual troll who does not like being spanked, don’t present snotty remarks along with your bared behind.

      • jcsmitty

        You don’t have to be a mindreader to view someone’s actions or hear what they say openly.

        • Gary Morin

          You’re right – and how are you with preachers using their pulpit to preach confinement/imprisonment and the death penalty for ‘homosexuals’? Is that appropriate to their position? Is that a Christian response to the inconvenient truth that homosexuals exist and are a part of your family, your neighborhood, community, America’s taxpayers, etc.? How about the preacher who advocates violence toward a boy child who acts “sissy’ or a girl child who’s a tomboy? Or the ministers that DO tell their congregations who to vote for (which is very different than telling congregants how to vote on an issue)?

          • jcsmitty

            I’ve never heard a member of the clergy preaching what you describe, but I have heard of homosexuals who deliberately spread AIDS, intestinal parasites, venereal diseases, raped young boys, physically attacked those who don’t buy into their deviancy, etc. I have seen homosexuals disrupt church services, commit sacrileges and bully those who don’t agree with their perversions. I have heard of homosexual activists who indoctrinate children in schools, etc.

            The proper Christian response to homosexuality is to love those with the disorder, pray for their healing, and offer help. There are ministries such as Courage that work in this area. You don’t carry any heavier a cross than does the unmarried heterosexual who practices chastity. It’s not easy to give up a selfish existence focused on self-gratification, but as long as you continue in such a lifestyle you will remain angry and unhappy, Evidence from your comments is that you are both. Yet it’s not too late to change that. God is merciful and forgives repented sin.

  • Gorky

    Great article. You mentioned Ambassador Eisen in Prague. You can read about his latest antics on the embassy website at http://prague.usembassy.gov/mobile/pride-festival-2013-support.html . Note that the Embassy even provides a financial grant to the Prague Pride event. And we thought there was a sequester on.

  • Irv Spielberg

    Harvey Milk Stamped “Out” Forever !

    The Obama Cabal
    is behind universal GAYety with a “forever” postage stamp issued by the
    US Pederastal Service which idolizes Harvey Milk, a Jewish pederast
    “attracted to boys aged 15-19,” according to WikiAnswers! (Also see
    Wikipedia.)
    Global gaydom was even predicted by Jesus (see “days of Lot” in Luke 17 and compare with Genesis 19).

    And the Hebrew prophet Zechariah (14th chapter) says that during the
    same end-time gay “days” ALL nations will come against Israel and
    fulfill the “days of Noah” at the same time (see Luke 17 again) – a
    short time of anti-Jewish genocide found in Zechariah 13:8 when
    two-thirds of all Jews will die.
    In other words, when “gay days” have become universal, all hell will break loose!

    The same “days” will cause worldwide human government to collapse in
    just a few short years! For the first time ever there won’t be enough
    time for anyone to attend college, have a family, enjoy retirement, etc.
    It will also be the last time anyone like ObabaBlackSheep will be able
    to keep pulling the wool over our eyes!
    One final thought. The more we see gays “coming out,” the sooner Jesus will be “coming down”!

    For more, Google or Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “Jesus Never
    Mentioned Homosexuality. When gays have birthdays…,” “FOR GAYS ONLY:
    Jesus Predicted…,” “USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans!” and “The
    Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”
    (PS: HOMOgenized Milk has been honored by Gov. Schwarzenaggravator as well as ObabaBlackSheep.)

    [Preceding piece seen on the ever present web. Any reactions?]

  • Paul

    The Obama admnistration is not only incompetent but is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Satan’s dirty work. Far from uniting the US and bringinging hope to its people , Obama & the Democrats have shown to be divisive and have nothing but contempt for the law & the Constitution.

MENU