Cynthia Nixon chose homosexuality, wasn't "born that way"!

I don't know why this is "news." Cynthia Nixon is just famous, I guess. I'd never heard of her until now; then again, I think I saw about 5 minutes of "Sex in the City" before coming to the conclusion that it was very immature, at least for me at the time. My tastes haven't become less mature, so I don't need to tell you that I'd be even less interested now. Really, the name should have been "Sin in the City."

Anyway, the reason I don't think this should be news is because everyone knows that the number of people who feel strongly compelled to engage in homosexuality is not large and that most of them have simply been conditioned into it as a result of a multitude of things, not the least of which is abuse, neglect, peer pressure, a hyper-sexualized culture, and/or a host of other bad aspects. What homosexuality is not is genetically determined in the way eye color is determined. I have not doubted that genetics plays a role, but it's not the determinant unless in cases where it is so rare that the exceptions would make the rule, so to speak.

What I've noticed over the last few weeks is that the homosexuals are coming to realize that their previous claims are coming undone (being exposed as falsehoods, etc.) and are quickly changing tactics to saying, "so what?" What they appear to be doing is encouraging the whole of society and humankind in general quickly to surrender to hedonism regardless of the very negative consequences. There have always been such types, but they appear to have become much larger in number over my lifetime, sad to say.

Supposedly, you are to come to understand who you really are according to whatever has or does tempt you. So, Jesus was tempted by the devil; and therefore, by the illogic of certain, many, homosexuals (though many would lie about it), he was/is the devil and should have surrendered to being Satan's number one. They don't realize whether or not it was a struggle for Jesus though. I for one am very glad he didn't cave in.

Today, the homosexuals say to cave in -- just cave in. Even to people who aren't homosexuals and don't want to be, there are Internet trolls jumping at everything they can to encourage as much homosexual behavior as possible. It's called proselytizing. They are frantic about it.

I keep running into people who continue claiming falsely that if one is saying homosexual anal intercourse is wrong because penises do not belong in anuses, then the one saying it has to be a homosexual. It makes no sense at all. A person can say that anal intercourse is wrong a thousand times, a million times, and that doesn't do anything to show that the person is a homosexual. It's completely irrelevant in that regard.

You might be interested in this that I wrote on the subject because the State of Washington is about to sanction homosexual buggery on a par with vaginal intercourse as healthy and natural, etc., and perfectly valid for "marriage," which it most certainly is not.

If you read the article (linked below) by Chuck Colson, I want you to know that I don't agree with the closing paragraph. A Christian does not have to respect anyone's choice to be a homosexual. Love is one thing, compassion is one thing, but respect is something else. The term "respect" is contextual of course. I'm simply pointing out that it is not to be applied in a blanket fashion as if there is no place for disrespecting others for their choices.

I would expect decent people to disrespect me were I to murder innocent children for instance, were I to fly a predator drone armed with Hellfire Missiles to an Afghani wedding or funeral and fire off a few to "get" a Taliban leader, even though his little grandchildren are there with him and he has only been fighting foreign invaders and occupiers and in no way intends or has ever intended to attack the US. I'm not saying I would agree with his religion or governmental policies or practices, but not agreeing with him doesn't license me to murder him. He could be a very "honorable" person, loving of his family, etc., and not out to harm anyone but just not be swept up by the homosexual, globalist agenda or other Westernisms.

Some people have more problems with someone saying that anal intercourse is wrong than they do with others murdering innocent children. Saying one is against anal intercourse supposedly makes one a homosexual. Saying one is against the CIA using missiles on babies does not make one a rabid militarist/imperialist. It's not very consistent, is it? Well, since when have homosexuals and their most activist promoters and supporters been consistent?

I'm just passing through. When Heaven and Earth conflate, that will be different. I do know that one doesn't get there by lying that anal sex is fine, not harmful, natural, not sick, etc.

via Gay by Choice?, Christian News.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.