In Christianity 2.0, I devote four pages to the subject of homosexuality. Here are the key points:
What I wrote in Christianity 2.0 was good enough to make the points I wanted to make, but there is much more that can be said about this subject.
To begin, here are more findings from peer-reviewed studies revealing the dangers of homosexuality (Links for these studies are at the end of this article):
It is important that we understand the origin of the modern-day “gay rights” movement. It didn’t truly begin until 1989 with the publication of a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Hatred and Fear of Gays in the ‘90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
At this time, the homosexual community was reeling from the AIDs disease which was mostly infecting gay males, and many of them were dying from it. Given the public’s fear of contracting AIDS, this could have forever ended any chance for homosexuals to gain societal acceptance of their lifestyle.
But Kirk and Madsen came up with a plan. The AIDS crisis offered an opportunity to generate sympathy for homosexuals in that they could be portrayed as victims. Also, the authors in their book encouraged the use of propaganda to achieve their aims.
To start, they recommended using the term “gay rights.” By adopting the word “gay” instead of “homosexual” and portraying their struggle as a battle for “rights,” these changes made a big difference. First, they helped remove the stigma attached to homosexuality since “gay” is a much more benign word. Also, they portrayed homosexuals as a victimized minority engaged in a battle similar to the one fought by the Civil Rights Movement. Of course, the word “homosexuality” was also eventually replaced with “LGBT” (later expanded to “LGBTQ” and then “LGBTQ+”).
Another tactic was to claim that long-dead historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln were gay (regardless of evidence or proof). But the most important facet of this propaganda would be to push the idea that all gays are born the way they are. Why? Because they realized that if they admitted homosexuality was a choice, this would allow Christians to make the “sin” argument. But if they could deny that any choice regarding sexual orientation was possible, they would be able to insulate themselves against the traditional Christian argument that homosexuality is morally wrong.
But all this meant telling lies and selling false propaganda to the public. How could the authors justify this? Kirk and Madsen argued that it was okay for the movement to promote lies because it was being done for the common good.
If this wasn’t bad enough, their book suggested a three-pronged strategy: Desensitize, Jam, and Convert.
The first prong meant that they would use a sympathetic Hollywood to flood television and movies with lots of gay characters (always portrayed in a positive light), enough so that it would eventually get to the point where people would become desensitized to them. What also would aid their cause was a sympathetic left-leaning news media that could be counted on to slant any debate about the morality of homosexuality in their favor.
The second prong (Jam) meant that they would launch vicious, well-coordinated attacks on anyone who dared criticize homosexuality. We have seen this happen time and time again over the years.
The third prong (Convert) is rather self-explanatory. By using propaganda to make homosexuals seem like normal people who were part of a victimized minority and using intimidation to silence anyone who dared to publicly suggest otherwise, they would win societal acceptance of homosexuality. This strategy ultimately prevailed.
It is important to properly define this. The battle between the Christian church and the gay rights movement is essentially a battle between the wisdom of the ages and a propaganda campaign that started in 1989. Which one do you think is more likely to be true?
The Danger of Following Your Feelings
The main argument that has been made for homosexuality is that if two people want to be together, if they love each other, then why should they deny their feelings? After all, they can’t help the way they feel because they were born this way.
Of course, this argument is dishonest because it claims that gays are “born this way” and have no choice in the matter. But the main gist of it is that the way that two people feel is all that matters. All that matters is that they love each other.
But what if a father and daughter said that they loved each other and wanted to get married? Would this argument about feelings apply? Of course not. No one would ever dare suggest that incest can be justified because the two people involved are “in love.”
Another somewhat less extreme example would be polygamy in which one man is allowed to have multiple wives. Polygamy has always been destructive to society and has ultimately led to its collapse (You cannot allow a small group of men to take most of the women for themselves without the other men eventually revolting in a violent way). The point here is that some relationships are destructive (not just to individuals but to society as well) even if the people in these relationships desire to be in them. Adulterous relationships also fall into this category.
Sadly, our popular culture heavily reinforces this idea about following one’s feelings. For example, there are more than a few classic Disney animated films that have a female character who “follows her heart” and is ultimately rewarded with a happy ending. Following your heart seems to have been accepted by our society as the only true path.
But reality is actually very different. The unfortunate truth is that allowing your feelings to guide your actions is actually one of the most dangerous things you can do (and not just when it comes to relationships). The examples of this are many.
If you follow your feelings when you invest, you will probably lose all your money. Why? Because successful investing requires a sound game plan and taking all the emotion out of your decisions. Sadly, most people are driven by greed, and this inevitably leads to ruin.
If you follow your feelings when you choose a career, you are likely to choose the wrong career path. Most people out of college wind up working at jobs that have little or nothing to do with the degree they earned. Why? Because they focused on studying something that they loved. A better approach would have been to study for a career that is in high demand and learn to love that career. For if you can learn to enjoy serving others, you can find meaning and fulfillment in almost any job.
Women by their nature are attracted to dangerous men. Therefore, if they choose to blindly “follow their heart,” they are likely going to get into one bad relationship after another. Women are also attracted to high-status men. Many women are willing to commit adultery just to be with these men. And all because they allow their feelings to guide them.
Hopefully, you can see my point that you should never let your feelings solely dictate your course of action. Therefore, the idea that homosexuality can be justified because of a person’s feelings is simply ridiculous. You cannot justify a self-destructive lifestyle just because it may, in the short term, feel good.
The Privacy Argument
“What do you care about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? They’re not hurting you.”
This is a common statement by supporters of homosexuality. But the answer is really quite simple. The purpose of Christianity is to help people attain salvation so that their souls will go to heaven. However, one cannot attain salvation if they are living a self-destructive lifestyle. And there is no getting around the fact that homosexuality is a self-destructive lifestyle. Christians therefore believe it is their duty to call out such behavior and label it what it is.
Besides, many homosexuals do not confine their behavior to the privacy of their bedrooms. Just look at all the gay parades in which the public is subjected to displays of nudity and debauchery. Children are often exposed to these displays. Also consider that many child predators are homosexuals. So they are indeed hurting people, and some of those people happen to be children. In fact, there are gay couples who have adopted children for the express purpose of molesting them and even sharing them with other pedophiles (see article links below). Gay rights advocates will no doubt counter that children also get molested in homes with heterosexual couples. Yes, but it happens at a far lower rate.
Our society’s unwillingness to admit the danger that some of these people pose is putting children in harm’s way. The radical Left keeps pushing for homosexuals to be given leadership roles in churches and groups like the Boy Scouts which would allow them unsupervised access to children despite the fact that child predators are the ones who are most likely to seek out these positions. Blinding ourselves to reality for the sake of “equality” or “tolerance” would seem to be a very foolish move.
The desire of homosexuals to prey on children is not exactly some big secret. In a New York City drag queen parade in June 2023, gays openly chanted, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” (See video linked below)
But even if the vast majority of homosexual behavior occurs between consenting adults, these people are still hurting themselves and each other. They are still engaging in self-destructive behavior.
Hopefully, you can now see just how empty the whole “they’re not hurting you” argument truly is.
During the battle over gay marriage, how many times were we told that homosexuals just want to quietly live their lives the way they see fit? Well, homosexuals have shown us that they have no intention of quietly living their lives. Look at how they are using the public schools to peddle homosexual ideas to young children. Without question, they are determined to shove their lifestyles down our throats whether we like it or not.
The Disturbing Truth about Gay Marriage
When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2016, I remember seeing a picture of people celebrating outside the courthouse. One person was holding a sign that said: Love Wins.
But love didn’t actually win that day. The truth is that the victory belonged to something truly insidious.
To start, the whole notion of “gay rights” (as well as gay marriage) was incongruent from the very beginning. Homosexuals wanted their movement to be seen as identical to the Civil Rights Movement, but this never quite made sense given that they can hide their sexual orientation while blacks cannot hide the color of their skin. The idea that these two groups faced the same struggles and hardships is simply ridiculous.
The push for gay marriage was disingenuous because homosexuals were never technically denied marriage as they claimed. The truth is that homosexuals have always been allowed to get married… as long as they married someone of the opposite sex. My point is that what they really wanted was to change the definition of marriage, yet they dishonestly framed the debate as being about a group that was being denied their rights. Almost no one likes the idea of anyone being denied a right, so this put the debate on much more favorable terms for the gay marriage side. Otherwise, the debate might have been about legitimate questions such as: “What is the purpose of marriage? Is it merely an expression of romantic love? Or is it a social stabilizer, the best means of providing a suitable environment for the raising of children? And is it worth it to risk damaging this institution just to satisfy the desires of a tiny minority?” If these questions had been the focus of the debate, the final outcome might have been different.
Also, the idea of gay marriage never made much sense, at least not on the surface, because marriage is rooted in monogamy, and most homosexuals have no interest in monogamous relationships. The support for gay marriage by the political Left also seemed odd in that they had spent decades trying to diminish the institution of marriage (even Oprah Winfrey once publicly said that marriage was no longer necessary). If this was true, then why the need for gay marriage? Why didn’t they simply tell gays that they didn’t need no stinkin’ piece of paper?
The reason many on the political Left supported gay marriage was not because they actually cared that much about homosexuals or their cause. Their reasons were actually more self-serving. It was partly due to the Left's hatred of conservatives, about wanting to support anything that conservatives opposed. But it was mostly because they saw a unique political opportunity. For decades, the Left had searched for ways to effectively attack conservatives and the political Right, yet it was hard to demonize them over their support for lower taxes and limited government. But what if they could be portrayed as haters and bigots? Now that would pack more of a punch. And “gay rights” would be the perfect weapon for doing this. Even better, once gay marriage was achieved, the Left could use anti-discrimination laws to attack religious freedom.
So gay marriage was a modern-day Trojan Horse. It was never really about gays getting married. It was about bringing conservative Christians to their knees.
The homosexual community was on board with this. They certainly didn’t need gay marriage as few gays have taken advantage of the option, and many of the ones who have are in open marriages which allow them to still see other people. Clearly, they wanted gay marriage because they believed it would mean societal acceptance of their lifestyle. It would also give them the legal means to attack any Christians who opposed their agenda. Which is exactly what they have done (See articles linked below).
This shows the fallacy of the whole “live and let live” argument. It’s often been asked, “When it comes to homosexuality, why can’t Christians just live and let live?” A better question to ask would be: “Why can’t homosexuals just live and let live?” Many Christian churches have only asked that they be allowed the freedom to teach morality as they see it, but the homosexual community will not tolerate even this. There can be no détente. They will never accept a Christianity that does not affirm their lifestyle, regardless of how destructive that lifestyle may be.
Why Christianity Must Never Bend the Knee to Homosexuality
The biggest mistake that some churches have made is to allow homosexuals into their congregations. Christians should rightfully be suspicious of unrepentant homosexuals who want to join the church. The question must be asked: Why would they want to join a religion that takes a position that is opposed to something they firmly believe in? After all, there are other religions they could join that accept homosexuality. It would be like a pro-abortion person joining a pro-life group. It really doesn’t make any sense… unless there is a hidden agenda. They likely either want to join so they can subvert the church or, more disturbingly, they want to get in a position that will give them unsupervised access to children.
Am I saying that we should throw these people out the door if they show up? No, I think they can be allowed to attend church services (as long as they aren’t there to cause trouble), but they cannot become members with any kind of voting privileges. And they certainly cannot be part of the church staff or leadership, especially in positions that would give them unsupervised access to children. Protecting our children must be a priority. Perhaps the best argument against the church embracing homosexuality is that if we are going to err, it is better to err on the side of keeping our children safe.
Unfortunately, a number of Christian churches have blindly ignored these dangers and have accepted homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. They have even allowed homosexuals into the church leadership. But there is one positive thing about this: We don’t have to resort to speculation as to how this can go awry.
The most glaring example of this are the sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church. While that church hasn’t officially embraced homosexuality, it did turn a blind eye to gay men becoming priests which was a terrible mistake that damaged and destroyed countless young lives.
In 2015, a lesbian bishop in a church in Sweden decided to remove all of its Christian symbols on the grounds that it would make the church more inviting to visitors from other religions. Think about that. A church leader is so embarrassed by the church’s symbols that she deems they must be removed.
Another example: After allowing gay bishops, the Presbyterian church soon became a laughingstock when it proposed changing the names of the Trinity because the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are supposedly sexist. They also changed the Communion offering to milk and honey and considered renaming God to Our Mother Sophia.
More recently, a progressive church replaced the Nicene Creed with the Sparkle Creed: “I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural. I believe in Jesus Christ Their child who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads..."
This is the mocking of divinity. It is a cardinal sin. And it is what inevitably happens when you allow radical left people into the church leadership (which is what most homosexuals are). These people view traditional religion, wisdom, and common sense as oppressive, sexist, and racist. Therefore, they have little respect or reverence for Christianity and, as the above examples demonstrate, cannot be trusted to uphold its teachings and values. They will most likely try to subvert them and even outright mock them.
The example of the Sparkle Creed shows how trans ideology is now creeping into the church. And once you violate one teaching, it becomes easier to violate more teachings. Critical race theory, another destructive radical-left idea, is also making inroads. My own church (now former) has given sermons about white privilege. Once the slide begins, it isn’t easy to reverse.
We also know what happens when a church takes a far-left turn: A collapse in church attendance (see the Episcopal church). This should not be surprising. People turn to religion for moral guidance. But if the religion offers little or none, if it basically says that you can do pretty much whatever you want, then what is the need for it? And if the church is ashamed of itself and its traditions, if it openly mocks those traditions, then why would anyone want to join it?
Many Christians have trotted out the “Love Thy Neighbor” argument in response to the idea of disallowing homosexuals from joining the church. “Jesus told us to love our neighbor!” Yes, he certainly did. But he also told us not to allow ourselves to be played for fools (i.e. Do not throw pearls before swine). He also warned that there would be those who would try to subvert the church’s teachings.
If we truly wish to be “loving” towards our homosexual neighbors, then we must tell them the truth (even if they don’t want to hear it). We must tell them that they are living a self-destructive lifestyle that will ultimately lead to no good end. We should also share with them the new tools available such as Letting Go and Iboga which can allow homosexuality to be transcended. These people need to know that there is now a clear path to freedom and salvation.
In closing, Christianity and homosexuality are simply not compatible with one another. The aforementioned examples clearly demonstrate that a Christianity that affirms homosexuality will inevitably devolve into an unserious religion that betrays the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But despite all the doom and gloom, there is good news. The tide of the culture war may finally be turning. There are signs that homosexuals have pushed their agenda too far. As of this writing, support for gay marriage is starting to decline. There is every reason to believe it will drop even further.
It may be hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel, but I believe societal acceptance of homosexuality will not stand the test of time. Why? Because the level of consciousness of mankind is now in the positive range. What this means is that anything that is inherently negative (below 200 on the Map of Consciousness) will eventually fall. Therefore, the decline of homosexuality is not a question of “if.” It is merely a question of “when.”
List of peer-reviewed studies regarding homosexuality
Sandfort TGM, de Graaf R, Bijl RV, Schnabel P. Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(1):85–91. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.1.85
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481699
King, M., Semlyen, J., Tai, S.S. et al. A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people. BMC Psychiatry 8, 70 (2008).
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-244X-8-70
Significant increase in STD, HIV/AIDS and psychological morbidity in LGBT people
Susan D. Cochran and Vickie M. Mays, 2007: Physical Health Complaints Among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual and Homosexually Experienced Heterosexual Individuals: Results From the California Quality of Life Survey. American Journal of Public Health 97, 2048_2055.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2006.087254
Suicide among homosexual men higher than heterosexual men
Cochran SD, Mays VM. Lifetime prevalence of suicide symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting same-sex sexual partners: results from NHANES III. Am J Public Health. 2000 Apr;90(4):573-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.4.573. PMID: 10754972; PMCID: PMC1446201.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1446201/
Attempted suicide rate among LGBT youths is 31%; Mental disorders like serious depression, conduct disorder much higher
Brian S. Mustanski, Robert Garofalo, and Erin M. Emerson, 2010: Mental Health Disorders, Psychological Distress, and Suicidality in a Diverse Sample of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youths. American Journal of Public Health 100, 2426_2432
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.178319
Longitudinal study on LGBT youth found suicide attempts at 31.2%
Mustanski, B., Liu, R.T. A Longitudinal Study of Predictors of Suicide Attempts Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth. Arch Sex Behav 42, 437–448 (2013).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-0013-9
Discrimination does not account for the disparity in mental health between LGBT and Heterosexual people. Journal of LGBT Health Research 2008.
Burgess, D., Lee, R., Tran, A., & van Ryn, M. (2007). Effects of Perceived Discrimination on Mental Health and Mental Health Services Utilization Among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Persons. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(4), 1–14.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15574090802226626
Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest or molestation by a parent by a factor of about 50
Cameron, Paul; Cameron, Kirk. Adolescence; Roslyn Heights, N.Y. Vol. 31, Iss. 124, (Winter 1996): 757.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/67bcdd654b9a3faae8a46316fa0d4fcd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819054
Modal range of sexual partners for older gay men between 100-500
Van de Ven, P., Rodden, P., Crawford, J., & Kippax, S. (1997). A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 349–360.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499709551903
Increase in sexual partners increases depression
Denise D. Hallfors, Martha W. Waller, Daniel Bauer, Carol A. Ford, Carolyn T. Halpern, Which Comes First in Adolescence—Sex and Drugs or Depression?, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 29, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 163-170, ISSN 0749-3797
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379705002138
Most occurrences of domestic abuse among lesbian women
Authors: Waldner-Haugrud, Lisa K.; Gratch, Linda V.; Magruder, Brian. Victimization and Perpetration Rates of Violence in Gay and Lesbian Relationships: Gender Issues Explored. Source: Violence and Victims, Volume 12, Number 2, 1997, pp. 173-184(12). Springer Publishing Company
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1997/00000012/00000002/art00006
Life expectancy for gay men is 8 to 20 years shorter than heterosexual men
R S Hogg, S A Strathdee, K J Craib, M V O'Shaughnessy, J S Montaner, M T Schechter, Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men., International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 26, Issue 3, Jun 1997, Pages 657–661.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/26/3/657/742184/Modelling-the-impact-of-HIV-disease-on-mortality
40% suicidality among transgender people; Schools teaching gender spectrum to elementary students:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/02/526067768/a-new-generation-overthrows-gender?sc=tw
Gay couples are adopting children for the purpose of molesting them
The Ugly Truth About Gay Adoption - Crisis Magazine
Georgia husbands who abused 2 adopted sons are sentenced | Fox News
Many gays participate in drug-fueled orgies known as “chemsex”
Canada Activists: Meth-Fueled Orgies Should Be Celebrated - City Journal
Stories of LGBT persecution against Christians
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/if-you-think-christians-arent-being-persecuted-in-the-u.s.-its-because-your
https://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/
https://stream.org/gay-totalitarianism-coming-persecution-christians/
Additional References
William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE, and Gail B. Slap, MD, MS, “Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management,” Journal of the American Medical Association, December 2, 1998, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/21/1855.
Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), 308.
Article: Lesbian couples likelier to break up than male couples. CBS. 3/30/16. (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/13/lesbian-couples-likelier-to-break-up-than-male-couples)
Jones, Jeffrey. Article: One in 10 LGBT Americans Married to Same-Sex Spouse. Gallup. 2/24/21. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/329975/one-lgbt-americans-married-sex-spouse.aspx)
Glatze, Michael. Article: How A ‘Gay Rights’ Leader Became Straight. 2007. https://massresistance.org/docs/events07/Michael_Glatze/.
Rosin, Hanna. Article: The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous. Slate. 2/26/13.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/most-gay-couples-aren-t-monogamous-will-straight-couples-go-monogamish.html
Rosin, Hanna. Article: The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous. Slate. 2/26/13.
Cain, Sarah. Article: The Ugly Truth About Gay Adoption. Crisis Magazine. 12/13/24.
Georgia couple molested two adopted boys. Fox News. 12/24/24.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/husbands-who-abused-adopted-sons-house-horrors-slapped-massive-prison-sentences
Article/video: New York City drag queen parade, June 2023
- Homosexuality calibrates at only 196. (See the Map of Consciousness; anything that tests below 200 is negative/lacks integrity)
- A study from 1998 found that the vast majority of gays have been sexually abused/molested. Muscle testing reveals this number to be 91%. This largely dispels the notion that anyone is born gay. Homosexuality is mostly a product of sexual abuse.
- A study from 1978 found that 43% of homosexuals had more than 500 sexual partners over the course of their lifetime. This is a culture that rejects monogamy. It also explains the low rate of gay marriage in the U.S. (10%) as most gays have little interest in being in a long-term monogamous relationship.
- Gay men engage in sodomy (an extremely dangerous practice) which is why so many of them contract AIDs, Monkeypox, and other sexually transmitted diseases. This is clearly a self-destructive lifestyle.
- Lesbian relationships are not as dangerous in regard to STDs, but they have high break-up rates.
- The American Psychiatric Association used to consider homosexuality a mental disorder. They changed their position in 1973 not because of any new scientific evidence but due to political pressure.
- This is never acknowledged by the liberal media, but it is pretty well-known that gay men are attracted to young boys. This is why many acts of child sexual abuse (i.e. the Catholic Church sex scandals) are committed by gay men. This puts the current push by our public schools to teach homosexuality to young children in a very disturbing light. If this isn’t “grooming,” it is dangerously close. Too close.
- Muscle testing reveals that homosexuality can be transcended using the Letting Go method as well as Iboga. If homosexuality indeed stems from sexual abuse, then releasing the negative blocks associated with the abuse should allow one to transcend it.
What I wrote in Christianity 2.0 was good enough to make the points I wanted to make, but there is much more that can be said about this subject.
To begin, here are more findings from peer-reviewed studies revealing the dangers of homosexuality (Links for these studies are at the end of this article):
- The LGBT community is one of the most psychologically unhealthy groups. The rates of depression, suicidality, anxiety, self-harm, and risky behavior are much higher than those of heterosexuals.
- The rate of suicidality is 30 to 32 percent for gay men and women. It is 40 percent for transgender people. Studies have also shown that these are not due to societal discrimination, bullying, or harassment.
- Lesbian couples have a domestic violence rate of 48 percent.
It is important that we understand the origin of the modern-day “gay rights” movement. It didn’t truly begin until 1989 with the publication of a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Hatred and Fear of Gays in the ‘90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
At this time, the homosexual community was reeling from the AIDs disease which was mostly infecting gay males, and many of them were dying from it. Given the public’s fear of contracting AIDS, this could have forever ended any chance for homosexuals to gain societal acceptance of their lifestyle.
But Kirk and Madsen came up with a plan. The AIDS crisis offered an opportunity to generate sympathy for homosexuals in that they could be portrayed as victims. Also, the authors in their book encouraged the use of propaganda to achieve their aims.
To start, they recommended using the term “gay rights.” By adopting the word “gay” instead of “homosexual” and portraying their struggle as a battle for “rights,” these changes made a big difference. First, they helped remove the stigma attached to homosexuality since “gay” is a much more benign word. Also, they portrayed homosexuals as a victimized minority engaged in a battle similar to the one fought by the Civil Rights Movement. Of course, the word “homosexuality” was also eventually replaced with “LGBT” (later expanded to “LGBTQ” and then “LGBTQ+”).
Another tactic was to claim that long-dead historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln were gay (regardless of evidence or proof). But the most important facet of this propaganda would be to push the idea that all gays are born the way they are. Why? Because they realized that if they admitted homosexuality was a choice, this would allow Christians to make the “sin” argument. But if they could deny that any choice regarding sexual orientation was possible, they would be able to insulate themselves against the traditional Christian argument that homosexuality is morally wrong.
But all this meant telling lies and selling false propaganda to the public. How could the authors justify this? Kirk and Madsen argued that it was okay for the movement to promote lies because it was being done for the common good.
If this wasn’t bad enough, their book suggested a three-pronged strategy: Desensitize, Jam, and Convert.
The first prong meant that they would use a sympathetic Hollywood to flood television and movies with lots of gay characters (always portrayed in a positive light), enough so that it would eventually get to the point where people would become desensitized to them. What also would aid their cause was a sympathetic left-leaning news media that could be counted on to slant any debate about the morality of homosexuality in their favor.
The second prong (Jam) meant that they would launch vicious, well-coordinated attacks on anyone who dared criticize homosexuality. We have seen this happen time and time again over the years.
The third prong (Convert) is rather self-explanatory. By using propaganda to make homosexuals seem like normal people who were part of a victimized minority and using intimidation to silence anyone who dared to publicly suggest otherwise, they would win societal acceptance of homosexuality. This strategy ultimately prevailed.
It is important to properly define this. The battle between the Christian church and the gay rights movement is essentially a battle between the wisdom of the ages and a propaganda campaign that started in 1989. Which one do you think is more likely to be true?
The Danger of Following Your Feelings
The main argument that has been made for homosexuality is that if two people want to be together, if they love each other, then why should they deny their feelings? After all, they can’t help the way they feel because they were born this way.
Of course, this argument is dishonest because it claims that gays are “born this way” and have no choice in the matter. But the main gist of it is that the way that two people feel is all that matters. All that matters is that they love each other.
But what if a father and daughter said that they loved each other and wanted to get married? Would this argument about feelings apply? Of course not. No one would ever dare suggest that incest can be justified because the two people involved are “in love.”
Another somewhat less extreme example would be polygamy in which one man is allowed to have multiple wives. Polygamy has always been destructive to society and has ultimately led to its collapse (You cannot allow a small group of men to take most of the women for themselves without the other men eventually revolting in a violent way). The point here is that some relationships are destructive (not just to individuals but to society as well) even if the people in these relationships desire to be in them. Adulterous relationships also fall into this category.
Sadly, our popular culture heavily reinforces this idea about following one’s feelings. For example, there are more than a few classic Disney animated films that have a female character who “follows her heart” and is ultimately rewarded with a happy ending. Following your heart seems to have been accepted by our society as the only true path.
But reality is actually very different. The unfortunate truth is that allowing your feelings to guide your actions is actually one of the most dangerous things you can do (and not just when it comes to relationships). The examples of this are many.
If you follow your feelings when you invest, you will probably lose all your money. Why? Because successful investing requires a sound game plan and taking all the emotion out of your decisions. Sadly, most people are driven by greed, and this inevitably leads to ruin.
If you follow your feelings when you choose a career, you are likely to choose the wrong career path. Most people out of college wind up working at jobs that have little or nothing to do with the degree they earned. Why? Because they focused on studying something that they loved. A better approach would have been to study for a career that is in high demand and learn to love that career. For if you can learn to enjoy serving others, you can find meaning and fulfillment in almost any job.
Women by their nature are attracted to dangerous men. Therefore, if they choose to blindly “follow their heart,” they are likely going to get into one bad relationship after another. Women are also attracted to high-status men. Many women are willing to commit adultery just to be with these men. And all because they allow their feelings to guide them.
Hopefully, you can see my point that you should never let your feelings solely dictate your course of action. Therefore, the idea that homosexuality can be justified because of a person’s feelings is simply ridiculous. You cannot justify a self-destructive lifestyle just because it may, in the short term, feel good.
The Privacy Argument
“What do you care about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? They’re not hurting you.”
This is a common statement by supporters of homosexuality. But the answer is really quite simple. The purpose of Christianity is to help people attain salvation so that their souls will go to heaven. However, one cannot attain salvation if they are living a self-destructive lifestyle. And there is no getting around the fact that homosexuality is a self-destructive lifestyle. Christians therefore believe it is their duty to call out such behavior and label it what it is.
Besides, many homosexuals do not confine their behavior to the privacy of their bedrooms. Just look at all the gay parades in which the public is subjected to displays of nudity and debauchery. Children are often exposed to these displays. Also consider that many child predators are homosexuals. So they are indeed hurting people, and some of those people happen to be children. In fact, there are gay couples who have adopted children for the express purpose of molesting them and even sharing them with other pedophiles (see article links below). Gay rights advocates will no doubt counter that children also get molested in homes with heterosexual couples. Yes, but it happens at a far lower rate.
Our society’s unwillingness to admit the danger that some of these people pose is putting children in harm’s way. The radical Left keeps pushing for homosexuals to be given leadership roles in churches and groups like the Boy Scouts which would allow them unsupervised access to children despite the fact that child predators are the ones who are most likely to seek out these positions. Blinding ourselves to reality for the sake of “equality” or “tolerance” would seem to be a very foolish move.
The desire of homosexuals to prey on children is not exactly some big secret. In a New York City drag queen parade in June 2023, gays openly chanted, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” (See video linked below)
But even if the vast majority of homosexual behavior occurs between consenting adults, these people are still hurting themselves and each other. They are still engaging in self-destructive behavior.
Hopefully, you can now see just how empty the whole “they’re not hurting you” argument truly is.
During the battle over gay marriage, how many times were we told that homosexuals just want to quietly live their lives the way they see fit? Well, homosexuals have shown us that they have no intention of quietly living their lives. Look at how they are using the public schools to peddle homosexual ideas to young children. Without question, they are determined to shove their lifestyles down our throats whether we like it or not.
The Disturbing Truth about Gay Marriage
When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2016, I remember seeing a picture of people celebrating outside the courthouse. One person was holding a sign that said: Love Wins.
But love didn’t actually win that day. The truth is that the victory belonged to something truly insidious.
To start, the whole notion of “gay rights” (as well as gay marriage) was incongruent from the very beginning. Homosexuals wanted their movement to be seen as identical to the Civil Rights Movement, but this never quite made sense given that they can hide their sexual orientation while blacks cannot hide the color of their skin. The idea that these two groups faced the same struggles and hardships is simply ridiculous.
The push for gay marriage was disingenuous because homosexuals were never technically denied marriage as they claimed. The truth is that homosexuals have always been allowed to get married… as long as they married someone of the opposite sex. My point is that what they really wanted was to change the definition of marriage, yet they dishonestly framed the debate as being about a group that was being denied their rights. Almost no one likes the idea of anyone being denied a right, so this put the debate on much more favorable terms for the gay marriage side. Otherwise, the debate might have been about legitimate questions such as: “What is the purpose of marriage? Is it merely an expression of romantic love? Or is it a social stabilizer, the best means of providing a suitable environment for the raising of children? And is it worth it to risk damaging this institution just to satisfy the desires of a tiny minority?” If these questions had been the focus of the debate, the final outcome might have been different.
Also, the idea of gay marriage never made much sense, at least not on the surface, because marriage is rooted in monogamy, and most homosexuals have no interest in monogamous relationships. The support for gay marriage by the political Left also seemed odd in that they had spent decades trying to diminish the institution of marriage (even Oprah Winfrey once publicly said that marriage was no longer necessary). If this was true, then why the need for gay marriage? Why didn’t they simply tell gays that they didn’t need no stinkin’ piece of paper?
The reason many on the political Left supported gay marriage was not because they actually cared that much about homosexuals or their cause. Their reasons were actually more self-serving. It was partly due to the Left's hatred of conservatives, about wanting to support anything that conservatives opposed. But it was mostly because they saw a unique political opportunity. For decades, the Left had searched for ways to effectively attack conservatives and the political Right, yet it was hard to demonize them over their support for lower taxes and limited government. But what if they could be portrayed as haters and bigots? Now that would pack more of a punch. And “gay rights” would be the perfect weapon for doing this. Even better, once gay marriage was achieved, the Left could use anti-discrimination laws to attack religious freedom.
So gay marriage was a modern-day Trojan Horse. It was never really about gays getting married. It was about bringing conservative Christians to their knees.
The homosexual community was on board with this. They certainly didn’t need gay marriage as few gays have taken advantage of the option, and many of the ones who have are in open marriages which allow them to still see other people. Clearly, they wanted gay marriage because they believed it would mean societal acceptance of their lifestyle. It would also give them the legal means to attack any Christians who opposed their agenda. Which is exactly what they have done (See articles linked below).
This shows the fallacy of the whole “live and let live” argument. It’s often been asked, “When it comes to homosexuality, why can’t Christians just live and let live?” A better question to ask would be: “Why can’t homosexuals just live and let live?” Many Christian churches have only asked that they be allowed the freedom to teach morality as they see it, but the homosexual community will not tolerate even this. There can be no détente. They will never accept a Christianity that does not affirm their lifestyle, regardless of how destructive that lifestyle may be.
Why Christianity Must Never Bend the Knee to Homosexuality
The biggest mistake that some churches have made is to allow homosexuals into their congregations. Christians should rightfully be suspicious of unrepentant homosexuals who want to join the church. The question must be asked: Why would they want to join a religion that takes a position that is opposed to something they firmly believe in? After all, there are other religions they could join that accept homosexuality. It would be like a pro-abortion person joining a pro-life group. It really doesn’t make any sense… unless there is a hidden agenda. They likely either want to join so they can subvert the church or, more disturbingly, they want to get in a position that will give them unsupervised access to children.
Am I saying that we should throw these people out the door if they show up? No, I think they can be allowed to attend church services (as long as they aren’t there to cause trouble), but they cannot become members with any kind of voting privileges. And they certainly cannot be part of the church staff or leadership, especially in positions that would give them unsupervised access to children. Protecting our children must be a priority. Perhaps the best argument against the church embracing homosexuality is that if we are going to err, it is better to err on the side of keeping our children safe.
Unfortunately, a number of Christian churches have blindly ignored these dangers and have accepted homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. They have even allowed homosexuals into the church leadership. But there is one positive thing about this: We don’t have to resort to speculation as to how this can go awry.
The most glaring example of this are the sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church. While that church hasn’t officially embraced homosexuality, it did turn a blind eye to gay men becoming priests which was a terrible mistake that damaged and destroyed countless young lives.
In 2015, a lesbian bishop in a church in Sweden decided to remove all of its Christian symbols on the grounds that it would make the church more inviting to visitors from other religions. Think about that. A church leader is so embarrassed by the church’s symbols that she deems they must be removed.
Another example: After allowing gay bishops, the Presbyterian church soon became a laughingstock when it proposed changing the names of the Trinity because the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are supposedly sexist. They also changed the Communion offering to milk and honey and considered renaming God to Our Mother Sophia.
More recently, a progressive church replaced the Nicene Creed with the Sparkle Creed: “I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural. I believe in Jesus Christ Their child who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads..."
This is the mocking of divinity. It is a cardinal sin. And it is what inevitably happens when you allow radical left people into the church leadership (which is what most homosexuals are). These people view traditional religion, wisdom, and common sense as oppressive, sexist, and racist. Therefore, they have little respect or reverence for Christianity and, as the above examples demonstrate, cannot be trusted to uphold its teachings and values. They will most likely try to subvert them and even outright mock them.
The example of the Sparkle Creed shows how trans ideology is now creeping into the church. And once you violate one teaching, it becomes easier to violate more teachings. Critical race theory, another destructive radical-left idea, is also making inroads. My own church (now former) has given sermons about white privilege. Once the slide begins, it isn’t easy to reverse.
We also know what happens when a church takes a far-left turn: A collapse in church attendance (see the Episcopal church). This should not be surprising. People turn to religion for moral guidance. But if the religion offers little or none, if it basically says that you can do pretty much whatever you want, then what is the need for it? And if the church is ashamed of itself and its traditions, if it openly mocks those traditions, then why would anyone want to join it?
Many Christians have trotted out the “Love Thy Neighbor” argument in response to the idea of disallowing homosexuals from joining the church. “Jesus told us to love our neighbor!” Yes, he certainly did. But he also told us not to allow ourselves to be played for fools (i.e. Do not throw pearls before swine). He also warned that there would be those who would try to subvert the church’s teachings.
If we truly wish to be “loving” towards our homosexual neighbors, then we must tell them the truth (even if they don’t want to hear it). We must tell them that they are living a self-destructive lifestyle that will ultimately lead to no good end. We should also share with them the new tools available such as Letting Go and Iboga which can allow homosexuality to be transcended. These people need to know that there is now a clear path to freedom and salvation.
In closing, Christianity and homosexuality are simply not compatible with one another. The aforementioned examples clearly demonstrate that a Christianity that affirms homosexuality will inevitably devolve into an unserious religion that betrays the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But despite all the doom and gloom, there is good news. The tide of the culture war may finally be turning. There are signs that homosexuals have pushed their agenda too far. As of this writing, support for gay marriage is starting to decline. There is every reason to believe it will drop even further.
It may be hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel, but I believe societal acceptance of homosexuality will not stand the test of time. Why? Because the level of consciousness of mankind is now in the positive range. What this means is that anything that is inherently negative (below 200 on the Map of Consciousness) will eventually fall. Therefore, the decline of homosexuality is not a question of “if.” It is merely a question of “when.”
List of peer-reviewed studies regarding homosexuality
Sandfort TGM, de Graaf R, Bijl RV, Schnabel P. Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(1):85–91. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.1.85
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481699
King, M., Semlyen, J., Tai, S.S. et al. A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people. BMC Psychiatry 8, 70 (2008).
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-244X-8-70
Significant increase in STD, HIV/AIDS and psychological morbidity in LGBT people
Susan D. Cochran and Vickie M. Mays, 2007: Physical Health Complaints Among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual and Homosexually Experienced Heterosexual Individuals: Results From the California Quality of Life Survey. American Journal of Public Health 97, 2048_2055.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2006.087254
Suicide among homosexual men higher than heterosexual men
Cochran SD, Mays VM. Lifetime prevalence of suicide symptoms and affective disorders among men reporting same-sex sexual partners: results from NHANES III. Am J Public Health. 2000 Apr;90(4):573-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.4.573. PMID: 10754972; PMCID: PMC1446201.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1446201/
Attempted suicide rate among LGBT youths is 31%; Mental disorders like serious depression, conduct disorder much higher
Brian S. Mustanski, Robert Garofalo, and Erin M. Emerson, 2010: Mental Health Disorders, Psychological Distress, and Suicidality in a Diverse Sample of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youths. American Journal of Public Health 100, 2426_2432
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.178319
Longitudinal study on LGBT youth found suicide attempts at 31.2%
Mustanski, B., Liu, R.T. A Longitudinal Study of Predictors of Suicide Attempts Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth. Arch Sex Behav 42, 437–448 (2013).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-0013-9
Discrimination does not account for the disparity in mental health between LGBT and Heterosexual people. Journal of LGBT Health Research 2008.
Burgess, D., Lee, R., Tran, A., & van Ryn, M. (2007). Effects of Perceived Discrimination on Mental Health and Mental Health Services Utilization Among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Persons. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(4), 1–14.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15574090802226626
Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest or molestation by a parent by a factor of about 50
Cameron, Paul; Cameron, Kirk. Adolescence; Roslyn Heights, N.Y. Vol. 31, Iss. 124, (Winter 1996): 757.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/67bcdd654b9a3faae8a46316fa0d4fcd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819054
Modal range of sexual partners for older gay men between 100-500
Van de Ven, P., Rodden, P., Crawford, J., & Kippax, S. (1997). A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 349–360.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499709551903
Increase in sexual partners increases depression
Denise D. Hallfors, Martha W. Waller, Daniel Bauer, Carol A. Ford, Carolyn T. Halpern, Which Comes First in Adolescence—Sex and Drugs or Depression?, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 29, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 163-170, ISSN 0749-3797
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379705002138
Most occurrences of domestic abuse among lesbian women
Authors: Waldner-Haugrud, Lisa K.; Gratch, Linda V.; Magruder, Brian. Victimization and Perpetration Rates of Violence in Gay and Lesbian Relationships: Gender Issues Explored. Source: Violence and Victims, Volume 12, Number 2, 1997, pp. 173-184(12). Springer Publishing Company
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/1997/00000012/00000002/art00006
Life expectancy for gay men is 8 to 20 years shorter than heterosexual men
R S Hogg, S A Strathdee, K J Craib, M V O'Shaughnessy, J S Montaner, M T Schechter, Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men., International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 26, Issue 3, Jun 1997, Pages 657–661.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/26/3/657/742184/Modelling-the-impact-of-HIV-disease-on-mortality
40% suicidality among transgender people; Schools teaching gender spectrum to elementary students:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/02/526067768/a-new-generation-overthrows-gender?sc=tw
Gay couples are adopting children for the purpose of molesting them
The Ugly Truth About Gay Adoption - Crisis Magazine
Georgia husbands who abused 2 adopted sons are sentenced | Fox News
Many gays participate in drug-fueled orgies known as “chemsex”
Canada Activists: Meth-Fueled Orgies Should Be Celebrated - City Journal
Stories of LGBT persecution against Christians
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/if-you-think-christians-arent-being-persecuted-in-the-u.s.-its-because-your
https://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/
https://stream.org/gay-totalitarianism-coming-persecution-christians/
Additional References
William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE, and Gail B. Slap, MD, MS, “Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management,” Journal of the American Medical Association, December 2, 1998, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/21/1855.
Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), 308.
Article: Lesbian couples likelier to break up than male couples. CBS. 3/30/16. (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/13/lesbian-couples-likelier-to-break-up-than-male-couples)
Jones, Jeffrey. Article: One in 10 LGBT Americans Married to Same-Sex Spouse. Gallup. 2/24/21. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/329975/one-lgbt-americans-married-sex-spouse.aspx)
Glatze, Michael. Article: How A ‘Gay Rights’ Leader Became Straight. 2007. https://massresistance.org/docs/events07/Michael_Glatze/.
Rosin, Hanna. Article: The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous. Slate. 2/26/13.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/most-gay-couples-aren-t-monogamous-will-straight-couples-go-monogamish.html
Rosin, Hanna. Article: The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous. Slate. 2/26/13.
Cain, Sarah. Article: The Ugly Truth About Gay Adoption. Crisis Magazine. 12/13/24.
Georgia couple molested two adopted boys. Fox News. 12/24/24.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/husbands-who-abused-adopted-sons-house-horrors-slapped-massive-prison-sentences
Article/video: New York City drag queen parade, June 2023