GAY TRUTH

Authors Name Changed . Anytime I write about the ever-controversial topic of homosexuality, I anticipate and mentally prepare for some push back. Everybody seems to have a strong opinion on this issue, and many are not shy about expressing those opinions (as long as they can do so behind a computer screen). Most of the time, the arrows of criticism are launched from the bows of gay-affirming unbelievers or theologically liberal “ Christians ” who believe God blesses same-sex relationships. However, there are exceptions. Earlier this year, after one of my pieces was republished on the The Gospel Coalition’s website , most of the critical responses were composed by Bible -believing Christians who, like me, believe homosexual behavior is sinful. But, unlike me, they also believe merely experiencing same-sex attraction is a willful act of sin. A number of readers commended me for turning away from same-sex behaviors, but they also insisted that my ongoing struggle with same-sex attrac

The official pin features the iconic Rising Sun badge wrapped in the rainbow colours of the same sex marriage campaign. It is a blatantly political symbol , disrespecting the Anzac spirit in order to make a contentious political point, in direct contravention of official Army guidelines in place since 1903 to protect Australian Army emblems. The rising sun badge “cannot be redrawn, recoloured, renamed, modified, cropped, rotated, manipulated or altered in any way...or used a part of a new logo”. And yet, here it is, authorised in 2013 by the diversity-mad former Army Chief David Morrison to be pinned on Army uniforms , where no pin for any other cause is ever allowed. Vietnam veteran Charlie Lynn , for one, is furious that the Rising Sun has been wrapped in the imagery of identity politics. “That’s the biggest insult I have ever seen to a badge that means so much to both serving and retired veterans. It wasn’t designed to be a catalyst for social change. It’s a symbol of sacrif

Love confused with lust - banner incorrect A new study challenges progressives’ tall tales about sexuality. Here is the world according to the LGBT Left: Just as there are black and white, there are gay and straight. One’s sexual orientation, like one’s race, is fixed and immutable at birth. The process of “questioning” one’s orientation isn’t a process of deciding but of discovering. Similarly, when it comes to gender identity, there is “cis” and there is “trans.” A cis person’s gender identity matches the sex they were “assigned” at birth.  A trans person — well, a trans person is any one of the fifty-plus other genders on the entirely reputable Facebook spectrum. This, you see, is science. Anyone who contradicts it — whether relying on ancient, discredited “holy” texts or outdated notions of morality — isn’t just ignorant, but bigoted. And when it comes to bigots, why draw minute moral distinctions? Is there really much difference between a Klan member and a Christian cons

In contemporary discussions of homosexuality, it is commonplace to distinguish homosexual orientation from homosexual behavior. Usually, the distinction goes something like this: Orientation refers to one’s inner disposition while behavior addresses one’s moral choices. John and Paul Feinberg state it this way: Homosexuality as a sexual orientation means that a person has a strong and abiding preference for members of the same sex and desires to act on that sexual preference… Homosexual behavior refers to specific sex acts between members of the same sex. [1] Some Christian ethicists take this observation a step further and argue that we must make a moral distinction between orientation and behavior. On this view, homosexual behavior is a choice and thus morally blameworthy. Homosexual orientation is not a choice and thus not morally blameworthy. This point of view has become routine even among some who identify themselves as evangelical. A couple examples to illustrate the point. D