Jesus was not a homosexual, and He did not condone homosexuality. He upheld heterosexuality as the only acceptable expression of sexuality; one man and one woman as the only definition of true marriage; and one man and one woman with children as the only proper image of the family.
"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning of creation 'Made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [woman], and the two shall become one flesh'?" —Messiah Jesus of Nazareth (see Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9; Gen. 1:27; 2:24)
First, notice that male and female are the only two genders/sexes.
Second, notice that the child leaves his/her father and mother; and not father and father or mother and mother.
Third, notice that the man is joined with his wife [woman]; and not to his "husband," or a woman to her "wife."
The reason my words always get you into your feelings is because intrinsically (deep down) you know what I am saying is true. I am one of the few who has the courage to tell you the truth. You should thank me.
Let's get something straight! (No pun intended.) Homosexuals (and the ignorant, gullible people who support them) do not like when you compare them to pedophiles and zoophiliacs, arguing that children and animals are not able to "consent."
Okay. Fair enough. Let's use their argument then.
In The 1972 Gay Rights Platform, article 2 under "State Level" states, "Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons." In the Platform of the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation, the first demand states, "We demand...repeal of all sodomy laws and other laws that criminalize private sexual expression between consenting adults."
They provided the argument, so we are going to follow that argument and provide a comparison that does involve "consent." By their argument, any two people who "love" each other and "consent"—being of legal age—should be allowed to "marry" each other and spend the rest of their lives together happily. Right? This argument logically includes age-of-consent incestuous relationships. According to their argument, any age-of-consent relationship—brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, uncle/niece, aunt/nephew, grandfather/granddaughter, grandmother/grandson (and the gay equivalents to these)—should be permissible. To use the ignorant argument of pro-gay supporters, "Who are you to say anything against them? Love is love!"
The gavel sounds. Case closed.
Consensual incest, or for that matter consensual polygamy, is no different than consensual homosexuality. You cannot argue "consent" and a false concept of "love" for the one but reject it for the others. Either that argument applies to all relationships where "consent" exists, or it applies to none of them! You do not get to pick and choose! Homosexuals and their anti-intellectual know-nothing half-wit supporters use this argument because it benefits homosexuals. But as soon as you apply it to a legitimate comparison, they fight back against their own argument. Why? Because they are inconsistent and they are hypocrites!
Just as "consenting" incestuous relationships are depraved and disgusting, so too are "consenting" homosexual relationships depraved and disgusting. Science, nature, logic, reason, and common sense all prove homosexuality to be unnatural, abnormal, and immoral. Whether you like it or not or want to accept it or not, Yahweh God made it clear that: "You shall not lie down with a male as one lies down with a female; it is an abomination." According to Romans 1:26-27, it is unnatural. The laws of men are irrelevant. Yahweh God defines what constitutes a marriage. Yahweh God defines what constitutes a family. If you are not in agreement with Yahweh, then you are disobedient and rebellious, dead in your trespasses and sins.
If you are going to try and argue for homosexuality, I suggest you bring something more substantial to the table other than subjective feelings and opinions. Facts trump feelings! If you do not like the facts, then slink away to your "safe space," stuff your thumb in your mouth, and cry yourself to sleep.
https://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/p/table-of-contents.html#Homo
The argument about how "nice" homosexuals might be is irrelevant. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, Jeffrey Dahmers, Charles Manson, and others like these were also "nice" people. Otherwise they could not have gotten away with what they did. If they were creepy and mean, do you think they would have been able to do half of what they did? "Niceness" is not a determiner for morality or acceptable behaviour.
Wake up to the homosexual agenda, people! In 1925 and 1926, Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (his manifesto) was published in two volumes, detailing exaclty what he planned to do. Despite this, people were still taken by surprise as everything he set out to do came to pass over the next 20 years. Homosexuals have done the exact same thing (as you are about to see). Yet ignorant, uneducated, gullible, naive, bigoted blind straights who are too arrogant to admit they got duped, and are intolerant towards those trying to wake them from their stupor, still try to defend them with their misplaced and overdeveloped White Knight syndrome. Sad and pathetic.
In Michael Swift's article, Gay Revolutionary, also known as The Homosexual Manifesto, written in 1987, he wrote:
"The family unit—spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence—will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated."
This is not the only homosexual document that exposes its hatred and utter disdain for the family unit and how they want to destroy it. People today are going along with it, none the wiser. They have been lulled to sleep by lies and false representations of the gay community, which you will now witness from other homosexual sources.
In Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill's article The Overhauling of Straight America, written in 1987, they wrote this telling paragraph as to the homosexual agenda:
"Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary—it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!""
Here is a brief excerpt taken from the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, first published in 1989 (based on the article The Overhauling of Straight America):
PRINCIPLE #5:
PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly nonconformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly to such an extent that we undermine our Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and igniting their hostile paranoia—"They are all around us!"—on the other.
The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their anti-gay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion.
Take note of the fulfillment of the above principle in modern society. Also, have you noticed how in film homosexuals are never portrayed as bad guys? This is because it harms the image they are trying to brainwash the public with. Homosexuals are always portrayed as "good guys." People can continue sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring what is going on, but it will be to their own detriment. Pick up a history book and read about the fall of the Roman Empire; you would think it was talking about our time. The warning bell will continue to sound by non-conformists, because much is at stake.
[ If you want to educate and inform yourself as to the truth, you can read more of their agenda here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/mv7191ukczim2st/HomosesexualAgenda.pdf/file ]
If you are not afraid of hearing the truth and having your eyes opened, here is the complete Principle #5 excerpt taken from Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (pgs. 183-187), exposing the full agenda to portray homosexuals as "victims" in order to desensitize straights and convince them that "they were born that way" and that we should "accept them as they are." As their agenda declares: "Desensitization works gradually or not at all." Society has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Pay close attention to how this agenda acknowledges that no one is born gay: "We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay—even though sexual orientation...seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate...environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence." Any number of psychological articles will confirm this, showing that if you look into the lives of most homosexuals, they have been sexually abused by someone close to the family or by a close family member.
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly non-conformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and igniting their hostile paranoia--"They're all around us"--on the other.
The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.
To this end, an effective media campaign would make use of symbols and spokespersons that reduce the straight majority's sense of threat and induce it to lower its guard. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, "They are not like us (so they deserve to be punished)." Persons featured in the media campaign should be wholesome and admirable by straight standards, and completely unexceptional in appearance; in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we'd like to reach.
In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leather-men, drag queens, and bull dukes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations. Conventional young people, middle-aged women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays. One could also argue that lesbians should be featured more prominently than gay men in the early stages of the media campaign. Straights generally have fewer and cloudier preconceptions about lesbians and may feel less hostile toward them. And as women (generally seen as less threatening and more vulnerable than men), lesbians may be more credible objects of sympathy.
It cannot go without saying, incidentally, that groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), must play no part at all in such a campaign. Suspected child molesters will never look like victims.
Now, two different messages about the Gay Victim are worth communicating. First, the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay--even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.) To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choice and sin' and give the religious Intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. In fact, it is simply a matter of the odds--one in ten--as to who turns out gay, and who straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.
Second, gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. Straights don't fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays, and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation, etc.
Bear in mind that these arguments are no more than an appeal to rationality and as such would scarcely make a dent in an emotional condition like homohatred. What arguments can do, however, is suspend the straight viewer's rush to judgment just long enough to slip in front of her visual images that either arouse shame over her homohatred or else build favorable emotions toward gays.
More than any other single element of our blueprint for a media campaign, this principle of Victim Imagery has been criticized by the gay community. Few have questioned whether it will have the desired effect on straights; we are convinced it will. But some are offended, even so, by the proposition that gays should be portrayed as victims. They fear that this will make our community look weak, miserable, and self-hating, equating homosexuality with some dreadful disease that strikes fated 'victims.' If gays point out that they never chose to be gay, it is claimed, this implies they would rather not be gay, and so suggests that gays themselves view homosexuality as a bad thing. All very negative for the community's self-image.
We can only reply that gays indisputably are victims of circumstance, regardless of whether their leaders pretend otherwise. A victim of circumstance is someone thrust by events into a tough spot--like a black child who happens upon a gang of racists. The child has ever reason to be proud of his identity but also has good cause to remind his persecutors that there is no sense or justice in condemning him for his skin color. The campaign can and should make this distinction clear.
It's nonsense to claim, as some do, that a person who acknowledges himself in any way a victim thereby accepts that condition and becomes a victim; such is merely magical thinking. Not is it true that straights will look down on gays more than they already do, simply because we have managed to arouse in them feelings of shame for past bigotry and a new protectiveness toward the gay community. This has not happened to the Jews, who have effectively leveraged widespread sympathy for themselves as past victims of circumstance. The plain fact is that the gay community, like the Jewish, is a permanent minority: it is weak and must deploy the special powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy and tolerance. The arousal of protective instincts doesn't require that homosexuality be cast in a negative light.
Others worry that, by our techniques, gays will gain the world but lose their souls. They fear that victim imagery will mean that homosexuals, who have struggled so long to get beyond guilt and self-hatred, must now forego self-affirmation and smother their gay pride. After all, gay pride parades can be wonderfully positive exercises for their participants, even if their excesses disturb straight onlookers.
We recommend a compromise: March, if you must, but don't parade. Drop the Mardi Gras foolishness and assemble yourselves into a proud, dedicated legion of freedom fighters, like the civil rights marchers of the '60s. Such marches would certainly enable gay self-affirmation yet would be taken more seriously by straights. Don't expect too much, though.
For some critics, it isn't so much the idea of victim imagery that offends, but whom we will present as victims: all-American types so starchily conformist in appearance that they can barely bend their knees, let alone stoop to fellatio. Some fear that a media campaign featuring only 'ordinary-looking' gays would disdainfully disenfranchise drag queens, bull dykes and other exotic elements of the gay community. This is not our goal, and it is painful to think that such people might begin to feel like second-class members of their own outgroup.
Our ultimate objective is to expand straight tolerance so much that even gays who look unconventional can feel safe and accepted. But like it or not, by the very nature of the psychological mechanism, desensitization works gradually or not at all. For the moment, therefore, unconventional-looking gays are encouraged to live their lives as usual, but out of the limelight. Drag queens must understand that they gay stereotype is already heavily skewed in their direction, and that more balance should be achieved by leaning in the opposite direction for a while. In time, as hostilities subside and stereotypes weaken, we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image. This would be healthy for society as well as for gays.
Homosexuals have been playing the long game for over 50 years! Read the above passage again, and then carefully think about what Gay Pride parades looked like in the 90s and what they look like today. In the 90s, they looked innocent and harmless. A march rather than a parade. Today, the perverts are displaying all sorts of kink in front of the children of degenerate parents who expose their children to displays of perversion. The book detailed the precise plan. All wicked individuals play the long game to make sin acceptable. Look at the history of eugenicists and what they have thought, said, and planned, and then look at where our world is as of 2020. Even these evil people have been playing the long game, trying to get all their ducks in a row before attempting to execute their goals. Do not be gullible and naive. Pay careful attention!
How to Deal with Cockroaches and Gutter Rats Wearing Human Skins:
The next time your BlueAnon, Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Millennial, Snowflake, NPC, SJW friends use ad hominem to falsely label you with the ignorant terms “homophobe,” “transphobe,” or “Islamophobe” (terms they project upon you that are actually true of themselves because they are the ones who fear and are afraid of these people), laugh and then apply whichever of the following terms rightly applies to them (frequently it is all of them):
Alethephobe = they have a fear of hearing the truth
Allodoxophobe = they have a fear of opinions (especially those different from their own and based on facts and evidence)
Gnosiophobe = they have a fear of knowledge
Phronemophobe = they have a fear of thinking; especially for themselves
Sophophobe = they have a fear of learning (they suffer from pride, arrogance, and egotism)
Veritaphobe = they have a fear of the truth, or absolute truth
Deitiphobe = they have a fear of God
• When they accuse you of being a "hateful bigot," laugh and hand them a mirror.
• When they accuse you of "hating" minorities, women, and the ”marginalized,” point out their hypocrisy and how their agenda is actively persecuting those people every single day, and then make sure your own life reflects the opposite.
• When they accuse you of being “judgmental,” laugh and point out their hypocrisy by reminding them that they are judging you for supposedly being judgmental. Pot, meet kettle. Log, meet speck. (Just because they accuse you of such, doesn't make it true; but if it were, they are engaging in the exact same thing.)
• When they accuse you of being “intolerant,” laugh and point out their hypocrisy by informing them that they are not tolerating your supposed intolerance. Pot, meet kettle. Log, meet speck. (Just because they accuse you of such, doesn't make it true; but if it were, they are engaging in the exact same thing.)
• When the blind self-defeating activist asks, “Don’t you want them to be happy?”, ask them if they want murderers or rapists to be happy murdering and raping. If "happiness" is the means with which to measure right from wrong, then whatever makes a person “happy” is acceptable and permissible, whether you agree or not. (Such a ridiculous and asinine position opens several cans of worms...)
• When the blind self-defeating Progressive demands, “They should be allowed to marry whomever they love!”, ask them if that is also true for incestuous relationships, polygamists, zoophiliacs, and pedophiles (because, after all, even the mental state of zoophiliacs and pedophiles is now being re-assessed and re-cast as a "sexual orientation," something they were “born with” and “cannot change”).
• When they scream at you to shut up, speak louder.
• Above all, never, ever back down! You hold the moral high ground. Do not ever allow them to sling falsely misleading labels intended to silence and manipulate you. These people must resort to ad hominem, name calling, character assassination attempts, smear campaigns, framing, and threats of physical violence because they know they are in the wrong and have no leg to stand on!
Homosexuals and transgenders are not born that way. It is a choice! You can change your mind; you can re-orient your disorientation. Especially if you encounter the Living Christ!
"Such were some of you." 1 Corinthians 6:11
"The majority of children with gender dysphoria, who identify more with the opposite sex than their birth sex, will outgrow these feelings by puberty. So it isn’t helpful to outlaw therapeutic approaches." —Dr. Debra Soh
Regardless of what lies you have been told, Conversion Therapy does work, but the perverts and their advocates want to deny and reject it, ignore and gaslight those who have undergone it, and attempt to silence their message of hope. Perverts love their perversion and they have no intention of giving it up, so they try drowning out the voices of reason among us.