Some parents, who charged that the Tippecanoe School for Arts and Humanities was promoting homosexuality, protested and kept their children at home that day.
What happens to children who do not conform to the rigid fixity of the androgynous mold? "Oh honey," I can just hear a teacher at a gender-neutral school saying to a girl, "you don't want to play with that doll. You only think you want to because you have been conditioned by the pressures of society. Here, play with this dump truck instead."
There remains one natural, final barrier to reaching the gender-free utopia: pregnancy. For all the gender-neutral stereotyping, the fact of pregnancy constantly reminds us of the one thing that the new social architects would like us to forget: that men and women are inescapably different, that men and women have different lived experiences.
The gender-neutralizers are not unaware of the problem that pregnancy poses.
"Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience. Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience.
"For example, before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as Biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation.
"Similarly in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid because it was biblical and part of the God-given order of creation. No one now supports either slavery or Apartheid. The biblical texts have not changed. Our interpretation has."
Jesus never advocated the type of human-on-human coercive (involuntary, forced) slavery or ethnic or racial segregation referred to by Nicholas Holtam. Jesus's teachings always stood squarely against such things. How could anyone say that a Christian could enslave someone coercively that way while following the teachings of Jesus? Is such enslavement following the Second Great Commandment that Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, as taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ? It is not and never has been. That was known then. It is not some new understanding that came as a result of Wilberforce.
On the other hand, Jesus never condoned homosex but rather clearly defined marriage as exclusively between male and female.
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Matthew 19:5)
Early true converts to Christianity always freed their slaves. They did not take up homosexuality at the same time or advocate for a loosening of the prohibition against homosex. There is zero history of the original, real Church ever allowing homosexuality within. The early Church convened over issues that dealt directly with changes from the Mosaic Law, such as over the issue of Gentile circumcision. Nowhere is the subject of allowing homosexuality to be likewise found. The idea would not have even been considered. Nicholas Holtam's reasoning is plainly confused. He is mixed up and leading others astray.
All Nicholas Holtam has managed to do is look at those who went astray while they still claimed (falsely) that they were Christians. He is doing that to use his error to lead people further astray. He's twisting to further twist. He is an apostate and should be required to recant or be defrocked and excommunicated for the cause of gross heresy.
"...if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17)
It has been the watering down of the teachings of Jesus that has led to the reduction in Church membership by those who want the real thing. The homosexuals love it because to a person and among other things, they lack sufficient desire to be healed. Read on.
As for cross-dressing, it's not entirely the clothes. The difference between pants and a kilt is not the difference between heterosexual male and homosexual male or masculine male and effeminate male. But even if there are boys born less naturally sexually outgoing toward females or less rough and tumble, does that mean that homosexuality and/or effeminacy should be "experiences" required by schools for heterosexual and/or masculine types to supposedly better educate them? There is harm in it. It is the slippery slope.
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Matthew 13:15)
Consider that pollution brought forth by "get rich first and worry about the environment later" capitalists is causing much of what is called "gender bending." See: "gender-bending" pollution pollutants.
When has careless pollution resulted in positive developments for humanity over the long run? If much careless gender-bending pollution is resulting in the feminization of the males of the human species, shouldn't you wonder whether the feminization of the males of the human species is a good thing? This is not a natural development unless one defines everything human beings do as natural. That wouldn't fit with the context though, would it. It would be a rationalizing stretch.
So, if the environmental pollution is not a good development, which it is not, then why is deliberately introducing the feminization of the males of the human species into the schools by way of Cross-Dressing Days a good thing? It is not a natural thing. It is a contrived thing brought forth by dramatists, fakes, unreal people, people dead of the Holy Spirit, the tares, the children of the wicked (the Satanic spirit).