GAY TRUTH

Andrew Sullivan , an openly homosexual pundit and influential voice, is anything but pleased about the successful boycott against now-former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich . In the wake of Eich’s resignation after a targeted campaign over his $1000 donation in 2008 to California’s Proposition 8 , Sullivan fears that “ gay rights” activists are becoming “bullies.” Brendan Eich “If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out,” he  wrote  Thursday. “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.” “Will he now be forced to walk the streets in shame?  Why not the stocks?” he asks. In his article, “The Hounding of a Heretic,” Sullivan writes, “He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy!  There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents

IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states. Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans , most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage. So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.  If one looks at the results of the 1960's sex revolution today emboldened and always promoted by Hollywood, everybody sleeps with each other, promiscuity rules, no one marries and if they do they commit adultery, people rarely marry but live together for various reasons, have kids out of wedlock, single mums get dumped by irresponsib

Conservative pundit Erick Erickson says that " Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a gay person."* In fact, he says that if any Christian owns "a bakery or a florist shop or a photography shop or a diner," then he or she "should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person." In his telling, almost everyone agrees. "The disagreement comes on one issue only—should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding ," he says. "That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians , view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship." He continues: This slope is only slippery if you grease it with hypotheticals not in play. There are Christians who have no problem prov

Former homosexuals like Chris Keane say their voice is being suppressed by the media, and as a result Christians do not hear the full story. He believes the issue of homosexuality is far more complex than the way it is portrayed in the secular media. One of the great tragedies in the continuing debate about homosexuality is the lack of acknowledgement of the many Christians struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction who are part of the Church but choose to be faithful to God ’s teaching in the Bible about sexuality. I didn’t make a deliberate choice to be attracted sexually to men. I very much doubt anyone chooses to be homosexual. But I did make the choice to live as an active homosexual for 15 years. In time, I found it to be a destructive and unhappy experience. Realising that homosexuality hadn’t worked for me, I decided to leave it and to try to live my life by the standards God has revealed in the Bible. I wasn’t seeking change; I wouldn’t have thought change was possible

Image via Wikipedia A so-called conservative writer parroted  some silly arguments  for same-sex marriage in the  Sunday Age  recently. He finishes by saying that marriage is a good thing (which it is), so it should be available for homosexuals as well. He is wrong big time here. First of all, it is heterosexual marriage which is good for couples, not any old relationship. The wonderful interaction of a man and a woman in the complementarity of heterosexual marriage is what makes it so special and beneficial. This is not true of other types of live-in situations. But there is an even more important reason why this writer is so very wrong. The truth is, homosexuals do not at all have in mind what most of us understand marriage to be. Indeed, they have something radically different in mind. Most seek to radically expand and alter the common understanding of marriage. Long-term monogamous fidelity is seldom part of this new understanding. Simply reading through the homosexual press t