Not surprisingly, nothing is said to kids about the extensive medical and psychological dangers of homosexual behavior, including a range of diseases, addictions, domestic violence, and other social pathologies.
And those problems are there in much higher percentages than for the general heterosexual population (where they are also not "normal") and are higher regardless of the degree of "acceptance" of homosexuality and homosexuals.
It's not love when you're knowingly harming each other and others, and it is always harmful to one degree or another. It runs contrary to the proper ordering of things. It is a mistake. That it is a disease manifesting in a whole host of ills and requires compassion doesn't alter that fact.
Two people of the same sex loving each other certainly doesn't mean they need to be sexually attracted to each other. Plenty of people have loved others of the same sex down through the ages without sexual behavior with those others ever having even entered their minds.
Aren't the children finding out about this subject earlier and earlier largely due to not only having it introduced into their academics but also from the "entertainment" industry? Of course, they'll learn from their parents and peers.
I first learned about homosexuality when I first heard the term "queer" and asked my father to explain what it means. I was quite young: perhaps 5 (6 at most).At that time, the concept of homosexuality struck me as extremely confused. I had difficulty accepting that such deviation from male-female bonding could occur. I was sure on the face of it that homosexuality was an error. My belief in that hasn't changed, and no amount of indoctrination will alter the fundamental truth about homosex and homosexuality in my mind.
Children have been being deliberately brainwashed for decades by the homosexualist movement. It wasn't, still isn't, and never will be a good thing.
A great deal of homosexuality arises out of homosexual sexual-abuse of youths. Many homosexuals who know this full well hang back to let those who claim never to have been abused to be the false front for the movement.
Even though such homosexual abuse imprints the confusion of homosexuality on especially boys, the homosexualist movement is trying mightily to make illegal the rendering of professional mental-healthcare to the boys to help them overcome the confusion and to return to their pre-abuse state of sexual "attraction" solely to the opposite sex.
That alone should tell you the very low caliber of persons we are dealing with: evil incarnate, struggling to be "accepted" in their evil ways rather than working to overcome, to changed, to be healed.
They refuse to acknowledge the proper design of the human being and what the introduction of error does. Their view of diseases is hypocritical.
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)