GAY TRUTH

Brendan Eich, Mozilla Corporation Taken by AcidJazzed 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 11/21/2006 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) A man I know was a top executive at a major American media company, one of the biggest and most influential in the world. A young man came into his office one day asking to display a rainbow sticker with the words “safe space.” This was a decade ago and this man, a faithful Catholic, felt confident he could demur without reprisal though he could see the veiled threat of being “outed” as less than gay friendly, as a homophobe. But, in these post- Brendan Eich days, it is doubtful my friend would feel as safe to say no because things have gotten exponentially worse since then. Two weeks ago more than 300 corporations issued a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case that would impose same-sex “marriage” on the whole country. These corporations would impose faux marriage on the 60 percent of the population in 34 states who have voted to ens

English: Drawing of a Macaroni or Molly, an 18th Century term for effeminate homosexual. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) There are many in today’s culture that do not recognize the Bible as any kind of moral authority, especially on the matter of homosexuality. It should come as no surprise that atheists and skeptics hold this position; for example, the late Christopher Hitchens once remarked, “What do I care what some Bronze Age text says about homosexuality?” 1  As noted apologist William Lane Craig has observed, “One of the best ways to defend the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is to become an atheist.” 2 There are, however, a number of practicing homosexuals and activists who are not atheists and argue that the Bible legitimizes general homosexual behavior . Their core argument is that the Bible has been misunderstood and misinterpreted where homosexuality is concerned. Let’s be honest: if they’re right, and God’s Word really does not condemn homosexual behavior, t

Governor Rick Perry of Texas   recently made waves  when he was asked whether he thought homosexuality is a disorder. He replied that he was not professionally qualified to pronounce on a medical or mental health question, and then added, “Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that . . . I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.” As you might expect, this answer—which many millions of Americans might honestly have given—caused a bit of a ruckus. If you wonder whether you would feel confident giving Perry’s answer, or have doubts whether it is even a defensible answer to give, you should read Robert R. Reilly’s latest book,  Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything . This is a very important book, and Ignatius Press should be commended for publishing it

President Obama seems to have been in a jovial mood during his  bizarre  fundraising tour of Texas and Colorado last week. While persistently ignoring the pleas of legislators from his own party to make a side trip to the Mexican border to address the humanitarian crisis as  thousands of abandoned children  make their way into the United States , the leader of the free world found time to  play a game of pool ,  laughingly decline a marijuana joint  offered to him in Colorado (where the drug was recently legalized), and  cut in line  to drop $300 on barbecue at an Austin restaurant. But perhaps most baffling was his reaction to the cross-dressing cashier at the barbecue joint, who – while not dressed in drag during their encounter – decided to use his thirty seconds of interaction with the president to promote the gay agenda. “Equal rights for gay people!" shouted Daniel Rugg Webb, a stand-up comedian, musician, and part-time employee at Franklin Barbecue, slamming hi

May 9, 2014 ( FRC ) - Activists use a number of arguments in support of the homosexual political agenda (that is, the push for things like a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples, or the inclusion of “ sexual orientation ” as a protected category in civil rights laws). One of the more ridiculous arguments is the claim that such measures would actually improve the economy of a state. I was in Indiana earlier this year when that state’s legislature was debating a state constitutional amendment, like those already adopted in thirty other states, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual activists (and their fellow travelers in some large corporations)  asserted  that preserving the existing definition of marriage would make it hard to recruit employees. (Legislators ended up trying to have it both ways — passing an amendment but watering it down in a way that prevented it from going to voters for approval this year.) Then just last week,