The Impossible Achievement

U.S. Women's Soccer has accomplished the impossible. They have made the majority of red-blooded Americans cheer for a women's soccer team.

It was the Canadian soccer team, but still...

Come Thursday, when the US Women's Soccer team goes to play for the Bronze, Americans will proudly cheer on the Australian team.

One cannot diminish the massive impact of what U.S. Women's Soccer has done.  Virtually any sports team representing their country would have the support of the majority of their country, so the fact that they got nearly everyone to cheer their failure truly is an achievement.

Then again, one can hardly say this was a "sports team representing their country".  That's why I can't just say, "When the US goes to play for the Bronze." Because they do not represent our country. They represent themselves.  

Perhaps that's why the country didn't support them in return.

Rapinoe famously went on a crusade a mere four years ago to eject Jaelene Hinkle from the team because Hinkle is an evangelical who refused to play in a scrimmage after U.S. Soccer required players to wear a rainbow jersey in it. That makes it all the more delightful that Rapinoe just lost to a Canadian team that has a transgender player on it.

Megan Rapinoe once famously yelled, "I deserve this!"

Yes.  Yes you do.

Who's the biggest threat to homosexuals?

1. In the modern era there's a paradoxical relationship between Christians and homosexuals. On the one hand, many homosexuals feel threatened by biblical norms regarding homosexuality, as well as the political influence of Christians.

2. Ironically, homosexuals are safer in a society that's culturally and numerically dominated by Christians than a secular regime. An exception would be theonomists, who believe homosexual behavior ought to be a capital offense. I've discussed that here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/03/should-sodomites-be-executed.html

3. However, it's my impression that most evangelicals take a fairly live-and-let-live attitude towards homosexuals. Mind you, I think homosexuals should be banned from positions of authority (e.g. occupations like public school teachers, Boy Scout leaders, mayors, governors, judges, attorneys general, military officers).

The reason homosexuals are safer in a Christian culture (theonomy excepted) is because Christians believe in basic human rights, grounded in moral realism. There's a general floor for how all humans should be treated. 

4. By contrast, atheism is dangerous to everyone because it has no moral direction. The protected classes can change on a dime. It's driven by academic fads and power politics. Some groups have more rights than others, and the pecking order shifts arbitrarily and unpredictably. Blacks have been demoted in relation to homosexuals while feminists have been demoted in relation to trans. Your group can be a protected class one year, only to be a targeted class the next year.

5. Another factor is that straight Christians don't want anything from homosexuals, whereas one homosexual may view another homosexual the way vampires view humans: that's food! Because homosexuals want something from each other, that carries the risk of exploitation, rape, and domestic violence. 

Challies goes soft

Question is posed at 26:25.

Is homosexuality genetic or learned?

Someone at Apologetics Academy asked "Is homosexuality genetic or learned?". My response:

1. So a more technical answer is it's multifactorial and polygenic. At the same time, the same could be said for any sexuality (e.g. heterosexuality, bisexuality).

2. Moreover, sexuality (in the way it's used in the post) isn't limited to physical properties alone. There are also significant psychological elements in sexuality. It's the distinction between biological male/female (which is physical and physiological) vs. what does it mean to be masculine/feminine (which is more psychological), even though the one can influence the other.

3. In fact, homosexuals and transgendered persons debate this. Many people aren't aware, but there's an internecine battle waged within the LGBTQ umbrella. In general, homosexuals want to argue biological sex is fixed, whereas sexuality is fluid. (I think I use "sexuality" differently from the way it's used in the post.) So one is a biological male since our genes are fixed, but sexual orientation, behavior, attraction, and so on are e fluid (e.g. butch, femme, dyke, boi, stud, top/bottom).

By contrast, in general, transgendered persons want to argue biological sex is fluid, while sexuality is (usually) fixed. So, for example, a biological man can have sex reassignment surgery and become a biological woman. This would mean biological sex is fluid. However, though they are now a (transgendered) woman, they will argue they continue to have sexual desires for women, hence they are akin to lesbians.

This, of course, angers the homosexual community in general. Such as lesbians. Lesbians don't wish to have sexual relations with a transgendered woman who used to be a man but now believes they are akin to a lesbian.

4. Finally, it depends on one's underlying worldview. If one is an atheist materialist (naturalism), then they might argue we can reduce everything to the physical. That presumably includes psychological properties being reducible to physical properties. Like how the mind is reducible to the brain.

The demise of the BSA

Both the clerical abuse scandal and the BSA graphically illustrate one of the dangers of empowering homosexuals.

Marvin Olasky once drew a useful distinction between Classical conservatives and Christian conservatives. Classical conservative exemplify the old Roman virtues. Robert Gates is a honorable public servant, but he's a Classical conservative, which left him blindsided by the nature of the threat to the BSA. He's a Cold warrior at a time and place where a culture warrior was needed. He just wasn't up to the challenge because he fails to grasp the nature of the enemy and the kind of struggle we're in. Partly it's a generational thing. He came of age before the culture wars. And he lacks Christian discernment to adapt. It's a cautionary tale. 

Secular progressives win if they successfully infiltrate and co-opt male spaces like the BSA, and they also win if they successfully drive male spaces like the BSA out of business. Their objective is to obliterate normative masculinity and femininity. That applies to the destruction of female spaces as well (girls/women's sports).

Mayor Pete's LGBTQ agenda if elected president

Robert Gagnon:

In case you thought that President Buttigieg wasn't going to compel embrace of the entire "LGBTQ" agenda on the nation "just because" he has a "husband," this 17-page list (!) of executive, legislative, and judicial goals will divest you of your naivete. It will be "All Gay" and "All Trans" 24/7 with his administration. Of course, top of the list is the passing of the Get-the-Transphobic-and-Homophobic-Bigots "Equality Act." And oh so much more.

Prepare to lose your free speech and free exercise of religion in every venue of human existence, including in your home with your own children. The White House and Executive Branch will become the main propaganda outlet and enforcer arm for the SPLC and HRC -- as if the MSM, academia, and the entertainment industry is not already enough. Even apart from draconian policy commitments, every SOTU address (and nearly all other speeches), indeed, every public appearance of the President with his "husband" will become an occasion for attacking your views as virulent bigotry that must be stamped out as the moral equivalent of extreme racism.

I suppose that we should thank Buttigieg for disclosing in detail all the terrible things that a Dem President could do to us, our spouses, and most of all our children, grandchildren, and all future generations. But remember, boys and girls, zes and zirs and everything in between, the reelection of Trump poses the greatest danger to the country and to the church (kindly remove tongue from cheek).

I'm in the process of going through the list but here are some starters:

(1) "End 'conversion therapy' nationwide." No one will be able to provide counseling for "trans"-identified or "gay"-identified persons that affirms the client's wish not to live a trans- or homosexually active life.

Remember that draconian California bill that was at the last moment withdrawn, that would put at risk even pastors who counseled people out of a "gay" or "trans" life, if an exchange of funds was involved, including the sale of literature? Well, Buttigieg wants such a law to be passed nationally. "Pete will work to pass the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, which will require the Federal Trade Commission to . . . prohibit, 'conversion therapy' as consumer fraud, and end the dangerous practice across the country."

Be aware that in the California bill, "conversion therapy" included any attempt to change the behavior (not just impulses and feelings) associated with the "gay" or "transgender" life. Publishers will not be able to sell books critical of "LGBTQ+" thinking and behavior because, by the definition of such a bill, any attempt to "change" this mantra will be treated as an act of "consumer fraud." The same applies to any conference that charges a fee for attending, church-related or otherwise.

(2) Regarding "LGBTQ" students:

(a) "Empower the Office of Civil Rights at the federal Department of Education to . . . investigate complaints of discrimination by LGBTQ+ students and families. . . . Reverse the backsliding under the Trump administration, and make sure LGBTQ+ civil rights cases, and in particular, increase efforts to protect transgender students." Translation: Have the federal government breathing down the necks of every school in the country to promote celebration of the "trans" and "gay" life. Any criticism or even questioning will lead to the full weight of the federal government dropping on the alleged offender.

(b) "Support the Student Nondiscrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act, and correctly interpret Title IX to include protection of transgender students." No teacher in the country will be able to stop a male from entering female bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and sports program. All he has to do is say, "I currently identify as a woman."

(c) Provide federal funding for (i) all states to impose "training programs" on all teachers, who will be held responsible for stopping any "lack of acceptance" of "LGBTQ+" students; (ii) for school mental and physical "health centers" and staffing to promote full acceptance of the trans and gay life (since any criticism would damage their mental health); (iii) developing "LGBTQ+ inclusive" curricula "such as including LGBTQ+ people in history curricula."

(d) "Require every school across the country to teach [pro-LGBTQ+] Mental Health First Aid courses."

More to come as time permits.

In addition, consider what has happened in other nations with regard to the LGBTQ agenda. For example, see the following article: "Switzerland votes to make ‘homophobia’ a crime punishable by up to THREE years in prison". Could something like this ever happen in the US? Ultimately it's up to voters to decide. Ultimately it's up to voters to vote for people they want to represent them.

And keep in mind all of the above (as well as consider articles like "Understanding why religious conservatives would vote for Trump") whenever liberals criticize conservative Christians for voting for Trump even though Trump has a blunderbuss for a personality and even though he's an immoral person in many ways. There's far more at stake than just Trump as a person: the bigger picture is it's about stopping the liberal-progressive juggernaut that's attempting to steamroll our political and religious liberties.

The "angry Calvinist" trope

Context: Michael Brown plugged Steve's post "Straining Trumpian gnats while swallowing Democrat camels", in which Steve defends Michael Brown against Randal Rauser's criticisms, then out of the blue someone named Stephen J. Graham decided to call Steve an "angry Calvinist". See here:

https://twitter.com/DrMichaelLBrown/status/1227774795812626432 or https://twitter.com/sjggraham/status/1227856666605039616

I'd add:

Suppose my "normal description" of Graham, who is Irish, is that he's a drunken Irishman, simply because "it's the most fitting", even though there's no reason for me to think Graham is drunk. Suppose I just assumed Graham is a drunken Irishman whenever I read a tweet from Graham, even though there's zero evidence his tweet was sent in a state of inebriation. That would be unfair of me to do, to say the very least! Yet that's evidently how Graham treats Steve: Graham's default setting is that Steve is an "angry Calvinist" even in writings or works which have nothing to do with Calvinism.

Also, ironically, many freewill theists call for universal love, but they defame and malign Calvinists for no good reason.

How monogamous is Mayor Pete?

https://twitter.com/RyanTAnd/status/1227964532284411904

Brown isn't a bigoted homophobe

Some (lightly edited) comments I left on Randal Rauser's post "Is Michael Brown a Bigoted Homophobe? You Decide.":

Rauser is so myopic. He misses the forest for the trees. He can't see beyond the personal character contests or grudge matches to see there are far bigger stakes involved. Heterosexual sexual sins violate the moral standard, but homosexuality seeks to destroy the moral standard itself and raise up an entirely new standard. Homosexuality is fundamentally worse in that respect. It's never solely been about Trump and Mayor Pete as persons but their policies as well.

[The Atheist Missionary:] Homosexuality is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom and I submit that science will soon allow us to predict a child's sexual orientation with a remarkable degree of accuracy while a child is in the womb.

1. This runs into the is-ought problem on atheism and neo-Darwinism.

2. However my reply wasn't predicated on atheism, or even a debate between atheism and Christianity, but it was predicated on conservative Christianity inasmuch as Rauser is attempting to call the conservative Christian Michael Brown a hypocrite given Brown's beliefs. I'm responding as a like-minded conservative Christian as Brown. Rauser needs to put himself into the conservative Christian's shoes if he wants to understand our beliefs and values rather than constantly imputing his own beliefs and values onto Brown and acting like Brown violated his own beliefs and values when at worst Brown violated Rauser's beliefs and values.

Understanding why religious conservatives would vote for Trump

"Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump" by Andrew T. Walker.

Walker is a Southern Baptist professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I don't necessarily agree with everything, but it's a more nuanced reply than someone like Randal Rauser is willing to give conservative Christians like Michael Brown credit for.

Straining Trumpian gnats while swallowing Democrat camels

https://randalrauser.com/2020/02/is-michael-brown-a-bigoted-homophobe-you-decide/

But surely, Brown cannot be surprised about this: after all, nothing riles evangelicals like gays and gay marriage. As Jeff Lowder said on Twitter, “If only [evangelicals] thought gay sex caused global warming, then they might care about global warming.”

Rauser's MO is to impute his own viewpoint to evangelicals like Brown, then accuse Brown of hypocrisy for failing to act in consistency with his imputation. Many evangelicals don't believe global warming. Or they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. Or they may believe it, but think the threat is wildly exaggerated. Or believe nothing can be don't about it because developing countries like India and China are the main polluters, and they won't agree to cut back on carbon emissions. So the comparison is fallacious. 

I am not criticizing Brown’s critique of Pete Buttigieg simpliciter but rather his censure of Buttigieg while supporting Trump. The issue is moral consistency.

i) But he never demonstrates that Brown is morally inconsistent. All he ever does is to impute moral inconsistency to Brown and like-minded evangelicals. 

ii) It's not necessarily or even presumptively morally inconsistent to support Trump's reelection and oppose Buttigieg. That's because not all moral norms are equally normative. For instance, Christian can believe that lying is generally wrong, but also believe it's permissible or even obligatory to lie to save innocent lives. You can grant that some of Trump's behavior is immoral, but the policies of Buttigieg, if elected, will be far worse, so you support the reelection of Trump. There's nothing morally inconsistent about that.

This is the time where Brown should really consider some of Jesus’ other words on religious hypocrisy, as when he called hypocritical religious leaders whitewashed tombs, blind guides, vipers, and even children of the devil. 

Again, he keeps making pejorative assertions without proving the point. Also, a person can be morally inconsistent without being hypocritical. To be hypocritical a person must be willfully morally inconsistent. 

But let’s be clear on what a lie is: to lie, one must believe that-p and communicate to others that not-p with the intention that they come to believe that not-p. Thus, for me to be lying here, I must first believe that it is false that Brown falls over himself to excuse Trump’s gross immorality. But I don’t believe that is false. I believe it is true. So by definition, I am not lying. It’s a false charge.

Rauser's intent is to deceive his readers about Brown. 

Thus, we see that Brown has falsely accused me, a fellow disciple, of lying. 

Once more, he imputes his own viewpoint to Brown, as if it's a given that Brown regards  him as a fellow disciple. 

Even more troubling, what about Trump’s ongoing attempt to subvert the rule of law? 

i) Notice how he chronically imputes his own viewpoint to Brown (and like-minded evangelicals), then accuses him of hypocrisy, as if Brown agrees with his viewpoint but makes excuses for Trump in spite of that. Yet Rauser hasn't documented that Brown shares his interpretation of Trump's actions regarding the rule of law. 

Hypocrisy hinges on the viewpoint of the accused, not the accuser. Rauser keeps blurring that key distinction.

ii) Moreover, even if you did think Trump sometimes bends or breaks the rule or law, Brown also believes the Democrat nominee, if elected, will be far more lawless.

iii) For that matter, there's nothing sacrosanct about the rule of law. Consider the Nuremberg laws or Jim Crow. I'm sure one of your concerns is that if Democrats control the executive and legislative branches (not to mention the judiciary), they will promulgate evil laws and regulations, or "reinterpret" the law to coerce evil. 

If ever there were a case of straining gnats and swallowing camels, this is it.

Actually, Trump is the gnat compared to secular progressive camels in the Democrat party. 

if that double-standard is not evidence of bigotry and homophobia, then what is?

But he caricatured Brown's opposition. As Brown details in his response to Rauser, his primary objection is to the punitive agenda of politicians like Buttigieg. It's about public policy, backed by the force of gov't. (Not to mention the alliance between Democrat politicians and Big Tech.)

https://stream.org/i-will-say-what-the-political-leaders-cannot-say-about-pete-buttigieg/ 

Is Michael Brown a hypocritical bigot?

https://randalrauser.com/2020/02/if-hypocrisy-were-an-olympic-sport-evangelicals-would-get-the-gold/

Like most folks, I am sick unto death of pointing out the morally vapid hypocrisy of American evangelicals when it comes to Donald Trump.

i) What makes Rauser imagine he speaks for most folks? Does he have polling data to back that up?

ii) Why is a Canadian theologian so obsessed with an American president? Why is he constantly attacking Trump but only very rarely has anything to say about Justin Trudeau?

Brown is aware that he will be called a homophobic bigot. But it is worth highlighting why the charge seems so plausible in this case. Evangelicals like Brown fall over themselves to excuse Trump’s grotesque immorality. 

I've seen and read several things by Brown in which he's critical of Trump's personal morality. On the face of it, Rauser's allegation is willfully uninformed and slanderous. 

By contrast, Buttigieg’s sin, being married to a man, makes him unfit for public office. It is on that topic that these leaders suddenly believe morality matters and that they must draw a line in the sand.

i) What's required to show that Brown's position is hypocritical? It's certainly not enough to show that Trump's past sexual behavior violates Brown's moral standards, because a sophisticated ethical system will have a priority structure in which some standards rank higher than others, or where it's a combination of violated standards that makes the difference. So Rauser hasn't shown, or even attempted to show, that Brown's position is hypocritical. 

ii) It's revealing that Rauser keeps comparing homosexual "marriage" to heterosexual marriage, as if they're morally analogous. But sodomites can't cheat on each other. Only straight married couples can cheat on each other. Homosexual activity is sinful whether that's with a so-called homosexual "husband," or callboy, or rentboy, or boyfriend (or lesbian counterparts). Homosexual activity is sinful whether that's with one partner for life or multiple partners.

iii) Moreover, homosexual "marriage" defiles the divine institution of marriage in a way that heterosexual adultery does not. Adultery is a sin against particular marriages, but it doesn't redefine the God-given nature of marriage. While adultery is a grave sin and potentially damnable, it's not sacrilegious–unlike homosexual "marriage". 

iv) Does Brown only draw a line in the sand with respect to homosexual candidates in a queer marriage? Does Brown not also draw ideological lines in the sand with respect to straight Democrat candidates? Is Brown okay with Elizabeth Warren? 

Yeah, that sure does look like homophobic bigotry. Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people.

That's just demagoguery. This isn't about fear of/antipathy towards homosexuals, but about empowering homosexuals to make public policy decisions that punish virtue while promoting vice. 

Rauser's tantrum

@RandalRauser

Steve Hays doesn't know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous.

And I don't know for a fact that Steve Hays isn't a child molester.

See the problem with raising questions about the character of people in this manner? It's absolute *poison*.

Angry Calvinist Steve Hays offers the following response to my question: "Does Rauser know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous?" 

Hey Steve, do you know otherwise? If not, then shut up. There's nothing worse than "Christians" slandering others.

i) It's amusing to see Rauser's duplicity on public display. Rauser is the one who stipulated that Mayor Pete is in a monogamous marriage to a man. He's the one, not me, who made this a character issue. He's the one who insinuated an invidious contrast between Buttigieg's character and Trump's. 

ii) BTW, many homosexuals have open "marriages". That's widely reported. That' admitted by homosexuals. They go into "marriage" with that caveat. Which doesn't mean Mayor Pete is necessarily promiscuous, but there's no presumption that he is, given gay male sexuality in general. 

Rauser made an assertion about Mayor Pete's monogamy. It's perfectly legitimate to ask what evidence he has to back up that assertion. Otherwise, he should just "shut up". After all, that's a key assumption of his comparison. 

iii) The allegation of "slander" is unwittingly revealing on Rauser's part. From the standpoint of biblical ethics, homosexual promiscuity isn't morally worse than (hypothetical)  homosexual monogamy–or fidelity to one catamite. To revert to my illustration, if a pederast only abuses one minor on a regular basis, that doesn't make it good–compared to abusing multiple minors.  

This is one of Rauser's blindspots. He acts like heterosexual and homosexual activity are morally analogous or even equivalent, so that if monogamy is a virtue in heterosexual relationships, then it's a virtue in homosexual relationships. 

iv) Then we're treated to Rauser's robotic "angry Calvinist" trope. What makes Rauser think I have to be angry to comment on his stuff? Does Rauser only critique a position or person when he's enraged? 

Comparing marriages

@RandalRauser
Which marriage is more ethically questionable, in your view: 1. Pete Buttigieg's monogamous marriage to a man or 2. Donald Trump's marriage to his third wife during which he has had multiple sexual liaisons with other women and sexually assaulted other women?

i) Does Rauser know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous? 

ii) Monogamy is no virtue within an intrinsically immoral relationship. Suppose a pederast only has one underage catamite. Does that make his pederasty ethical?

iii) More to the point, the real issue isn't who has the more ethical or less ethical marriage arrangement, but the policies of the candidates. The fact that Mayor Pete, considered in isolation, is homosexual, is not what qualifies him–or even his "marriage," considered in isolation, to another man. 

What disqualifies him is that these are not isolated biographical facts. It's not as if his homosexuality and corresponding lifestyle are neatly compartmentalized from his political views. To the contrary, he has a political ideology that directly corresponds to his perverted lifestyle. If elected, his policies would mirror his depraved life and worldview. 

iv) For whatever reason, by contrast, Trump has largely governed as conservative. 

"I used to be an anti-LGBTQ Evangelical"

I'm not sure this is worth commenting on:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anti-lgbtq-evangelicals_n_5e174d8ac5b600960c61c589

However, the liberal media is pursuing a strategy of redefining Christianity so that "true" Christians, or the only socially-acceptable version of Christianity, will be LGBT-affirming. Part of the strategy is to parade self-styled evangelicals or ex-evangelicals who finally saw the light and became progressives. 

Growing up watching the popular 1980’s sitcom ”Growing Pains,” I found myself going starry-eyed every time heartthrob Kirk Cameron appeared on the screen. When I learned that Cameron was an evangelical Christian, just like me, I admired him even more ⁠— there weren’t many people in Hollywood willing to speak out in the name of their faith, but Cameron was unashamed to do so.

Maybe that teenybopper intro has some pull for female readers, but it bounces right off normal male readers.

In 2012 I watched Cameron tell talk show host Piers Morgan that he believed homosexuality is “unnatural,” and just for good measure, he added, “It’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

Good for him!

Naturally, Cameron received backlash from the LGBTQ community and its allies because of his public comments. But many evangelicals, myself included, rushed to defend him and his views. 

She was right the first time. 

But my most popular blog posts were the ones that offered my take on controversial topics like the value of purity, submitting to your husband and why I didn’t believe women should use birth control.

Was she a member of the Quiverfull movement? If so, she's lurched from one reactionary position to another. 

After Cameron discussed his thoughts on gay marriage and homosexuality on CNN, I felt it was important to show my support for him. I posted a status on my personal Facebook account that read, “It’s important to watch the entire interview when looking at Kirk Cameron’s (and many conservative Christians’) view on gay marriage. I’m so proud of Kirk for saying what he believes, instead of brushing aside this important topic for fear of the very real controversy.” What I didn’t realize at the time was how harmful that single post would be.

How "harmful"? How many of the world's seven billion people even know that she exists? Tells you something about Brianna Bell's inflated sense of self-importance.

After my post I (rightfully) received blowback from LGBTQ friends…

At the time she still identified as evangelical. So what did it mean for her to have LGBTQ friends? What were the terms of the friendship? Was she required to affirm and celebrate their lifestyle as a condition of friendship? If not, why would they be "pained" and "alienated" by her support for Cameron? 

BTW, part of being a good friend to someone is to discourage their destructive lifestyle choices, viz. drug addict, compulsive gambler. 

Then, on June 12, 2016, I woke up to the news of the horrific mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub, an LGBTQ bar in Orlando, Florida, in which 49 people were killed and 53 others injured by a lone gunman. Despite my feelings about the LGBTQ community, I could not fathom anyone doing something so evil. That day was a wake-up call for me, and it marked the first time I truly recognized just how much hatred ⁠— and violence ⁠— the LGBTQ community faces. 

Really? The shooter (Omar Mateen) was a gay Muslim who used to hang out at gay bars and nightclubs. That's gay-on-gay crime. How is a gay Muslim shooting up a gay nightclub supposed to be a wakeup call for evangelicals? 

I explored the victimization of the LGBTQ community and read about the abuse that many in the queer community have faced and continue to face.

What about the way homosexuals abuse each other? High rates of domestic abuse. The damage of anal intercourse. High STD rates. Not to mention AIDS?

What about the way homosexuals abuse children? The abuse scandals in the Catholic church and Boy Scouts. Puberty blockers, chemical castration, and mutilation of normal boys and girls.

Last summer, a writer and queer friend of mine was attacked online by a group of mostly male bullies, many who claimed to be devout and loving Christians, for writing an article about a Pride parade. I watched as my friend was torn apart online for her writing and her activism, as conservative evangelical strangers attempted to silence her and do harm to her with their words. This woman was called a pedophile by some, while others suggested that her children should be taken away from her because she dared to claim that Pride celebrations were appropriate ⁠— and even fun! ⁠— for children. 

Because, as a matter of fact, it's derelict parenting to expose innocent children to the debauchery of gay pride parades. 

As I’ve evolved and shed many of my conservative view, I’ve had to wrestle with how to abandon an old ideology while remaining committed to my faith. While I am still a devoted Christian, I’ve had to work to untangle myself from doctrine that is harmful and strive to adopt an intersectional and inclusive theology.

A cautionary tale of theology based on tearjerkers rather than God's design for human nature.

The stats don’t lie: Most LGBTQ Americans experience harassment, LGBTQ youth contemplate suicide at a rate three times greater than heterosexual youth, and a national epidemic of fatal transgender violence plagues America. 

Actually, the stats often lie since there's a cottage industry of fake hate crimes. 

In addition, it doesn't occur to her that high suicide rates among LGBTQ youth might be due to the fact that homosexuality and transgenderism are intrinsically depressing conditions 

I cannot stand in the shadows anymore, knowing that to do so is to perpetuate stigma and continue shaming the queer community. 

Because it's so brave to switch sides when you have the wind to your back. 

Jesus himself commands, “Love each other as I have loved you,” and that is exactly what I intend to do. 

In context, that's about how Christians are obliged to love other Christians. It's not a statement about unbelievers.

Moreover, the way to love others is not to support their self-destructive lifestyle. And you don't love the innocent by empowering the LTBT lobby to harm the innocent. 

Barebacking politics

https://pjmedia.com/election/michael-gersons-love-affair-with-buttigieg-is-all-smoke-and-mirrors/

Chick-Fil-A chickens out

The irony of the Chick-Fil-A capitulation is that Chick-Fil-A was under no meaningful pressure to chicken out. When the LGBT thugs went after it the first time around, and Chick-Fil-A stood its ground, it won the standoff. Sticking up to the social justice bullies was good for business. So we have the ironic spectacle of Chick-Fil-A capitulating after it won the confrontation. By caving in now, it has nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

By initially standing its ground, Chick-Fil-A demonstrated the weakness of the LGBT thugs. They only have power when people cede them power. They pick on the weak. When, however, they go after something big and popular, their tactics are ineffectual. 

Popular or powerful companies have a particular civic duty to stand up to social justice bullies because they have the clout to beat the bullies. What's especially craven about the Chick-Fil-A cave-in is to compare that to the courage of a persecuted elderly florist. In contrast to Chick-Fil-A, which had nothing to lose by holding firm, she has everything to lose. The Chick-Fil-A Quislings have betrayed her. They threw her over the back of the sled. 

But as I've said before, we live in a winnowing time. This is a test of faith. And God notices which side people take. On judgement day, there will be a reversal of fortunes. 

Civil war in the LGBT "community"

https://www.proginosko.com/2019/10/lgbs-are-kissing-t-goodbye/

Slavery and sodomy

Interesting: "Where the Bible mentions [same-sex sexual] behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well and nowhere attacked it as unjust.. https://t.co/52jL6NDgRu

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) October 23, 2019

That's a standard wedge tactic which atheists and "progressive Christians" deploy. "If you stand by what the Bible says about homosexuality, then you must stand by what Paul says about women, or what the OT says about juvenile delinquents, or warbrides, or shellfish and polyester". 

A pressure point to use against theological moderates or Christians who don't know how to deal with "embarrassing" passages. Make them squirm. 

It doesn't work for Christians committed to Biblical inerrancy and/or Christians with the hermeneutical sophistication to draw relevant distinctions. 

The new emasculinity

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gq-emasculates-itself-masculinity/