Preaching Politics Logo

And The Answer Is…!
Chapter 6 - Homosexuals: Enemies of God

Homosexuals and so-called ‘gay marriage’ are a huge and growing problem in the United States today. They are the vanguard of those attacking the institution of marriage and family, seeking to undermine and ultimately, destroy it altogether. Since marriage and family are the building blocks of a civilized society, they are trying to undermine and destroy our civilization, whether they realize it or not – and in many cases they do realize it; it’s their real goal. They want to destroy it so they can replace it with something completely different. Before we get down to cases though, we need some definitions of the different groups in this struggle and their underlying goals

Heterosexuals are individuals who are sexually attracted to individuals of the opposite sex. Because of this attraction their long-term goals tend toward marriage and family. There are exceptions but generally speaking this is what they’re after. It comes about because men want sex while women want love and security. Women offer sex in exchange for love and security; men offer love and security in exchange for sex. There are endless variations to this arrangement but essentially it’s an exchange of these basic desires to mutual advantage. This arrangement leads to children which are the natural result of sex between men and women. Indeed, it’s instructive to remember, we have to go to extraordinary lengths to prevent pregnancy and childbirth in heterosexual marriages. Children raised in the safety of marriage with a mother and father have a statistically greater chance of being better educated, financially more secure, emotionally stable, motivated to work and treat others with respect. They are statistically less likely to use alcohol and drugs, and far less likely to wind up in prison. These facts have been borne out in study after study. Only the most willfully obstinate would deny them.

Heterosexuals raised in an intact family structure also have a high degree of tolerance compared to other people. Tolerance is defined as the ability or willingness to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. Or to put it more bluntly; if you do not bother me, I will not bother you.

Finally, because men are offering security as their part of the marriage arrangement, this becomes a strong inducement for them to work. Men are action-oriented by nature; marriage simply channels their drives into constructive avenues of work instead of destructive behaviors of war and conquest.

Although similar to ordinary heterosexuals in most respects, Christians have additional goals non-Christians are uninterested in achieving. First and foremost is personal salvation, closely followed by spreading the Gospel to anyone who’ll listen. Notice the caveat here; ‘anyone who’ll listen’. Informed by the illustration of planting seeds, Christians generally don’t push the Gospel on the unwilling. There are unfortunate exceptions of course, but as a general rule Christians abstain from pushing the Gospel on those who don’t want it. We offer it to them and if they refuse or aren’t interested we back off, content we may have planted a seed that will bear fruit later on. This is a perfect example of tolerance in action; offering instead of pushing, allowing rejection instead of demanding acceptance.

Homosexuals are individuals who are sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex. An astounding number of homosexuals have self-identified as victims of homosexual abuse when they were children and pointed to that abuse as the beginning of their same-sex attraction. Due to their physical inability to conceive and bear children as the result of same-sex activity, the goals of marriage and family either do not exist or become modified. Male and female homosexuals both have a higher number of sexual partners than their heterosexual counterparts, thus, sex, in and of itself, becomes a primary goal for many homosexuals. When the normal human desire for marriage and family arises, problems develop. Although they have the same freedom as heterosexuals to marry an individual of the opposite sex, their attraction to same-sex individuals precludes that possibility. They then feel excluded and the natural result is anger; anger and a desire for revenge against those they believe have harmed or excluded them. That their exclusion is the result of their own desires never occurs to them and even pointing it out is perceived as yet another attack, further escalating their rage and accompanying quest for vengeance. Carried to an extreme this fury creates an overwhelming intolerance for anyone opposing them, along with a concomitant intolerance for the underlying ideology motivating their opponents; in most cases, Christianity.

The result is a perfect storm of radical attacks on the institution of marriage; attempting to redefine it while simultaneously claiming to want only an end to ‘discrimination’. They accuse others of the very intolerance they are guilty of, and endeavor to enshrine their efforts into law at the expense of Christians or even those who merely experience the ick factor when contemplating homosexual behavior. This has also resulted in physical confrontations (many caught on video) against people simply because they were holding a cross, or a sign advocating traditional marriage. Then they turn around and claim to be victims of ‘hate’ and ‘intolerance’.

From the, admittedly abbreviated, definitions above, it becomes obvious heterosexuals and homosexuals are on opposite sides of virtually every issue. The fundamental, basic, underlying foundation of sexual attraction alters everything. The disagreement includes, but is not limited to:

• Morality vs Immorality
• Righteousness vs Sin
• Public vs private attitudes
• Traditional, time-proven marriage vs newly defined, unproven ‘homosexual marriage’
• Child rearing; mother-father vs mother-mother or father-father
• Tolerance vs Intolerance
• Christianity vs Secularism
• Peace vs Violence
• Love vs Hatred
• Self-control vs Government control

When two sides are so far apart on foundational issues, any compromise will lead to a total abdication of principles, especially Biblical principles; mutual co-existence becomes utterly impossible. It takes two to make peace but only one to make war. Homosexuals, and Leftists in general, have declared war on Christians and Christianity. Whether you, dear reader, believe it or not is completely irrelevant; they believe it. In essence it is a war of the saved versus the unsaved, a war they intend to win.

For our purposes there are three kinds of unsaved people; those who don’t know the Gospel, those who’ve rejected it and those who actively fight against it. Those who don’t know the Gospel and have never heard it are a rare breed here in the United States, although their numbers are growing in tandem with the increasing secularization of our culture. The second group, those who’ve heard the Gospel and rejected it, are far-and-away the majority. They don’t want any part of it – except maybe for presents at Christmas – and simply want to be left alone to live their lives as they please without worrying about the hereafter. They’ve heard the claims of evolution being a ‘proven fact’ and decided forthwith the Bible is simply a collection of fairy tales. Discarding it, they proceed to live a ‘Christian’ life by cultural default without ever pausing to wonder where our cultural mores and values come from; they just assume them as the operational norm. Intertwined with this group are those who claim to be Christians but don’t live, think, feel or act like it and in fact are not saved at all. The differences between the two factions are vanishingly small so I’ve lumped them together as one group. The third group is the one we have to be concerned with. These are the ones who not only reject the Gospel and everything that goes with it, they actively hate it, fight it and want to destroy it. They are, quite literally, Enemies of God.

These Enemies of God are a different class than the others, so they must be treated differently. In times of war soldiers treat enemies differently than, police for example, treat criminals. There is little attempt at capture, no reading of Miranda Rights, prison conditions and treatment are poles apart as are conditions for release. Attempting to deal with enemies in the same fashion as non-combatant criminals is foolish in the extreme. This logic also applies to the culture war, which, despite what you wish to believe, is a war in every sense of the term.

The Enemies of God are trying to outlaw Christianity. Led by Pelosi, Obama and Reid (POR) they attempt to force unchristian edits down our throats with Obamacare (the Hobby Lobby decision notwithstanding), forcing private prayer out of schools, penalizing bakers and photographers for refusing to take part in homosexuals ‘weddings’, encouraging sin, denigrating virtue, engaging in endless lies, censoring Christian expression in the public square, refusing Christian advertising, sexualizing everything in our culture, attacking and redefining the institution of marriage (holy matrimony), trying to lower the age of consent to enable adult-child sexual activity, coarsening our culture with outrageous language, gratuitous violence and of course, the ever-present sexual activity no matter how perverse. The list goes on and on.

The intolerance of the Enemies of God has been exhibited in countless ways including, as mentioned earlier, physical violence against peaceful protestors. Enemies of God employed as police and judges have targeted Christians on the streets and in court. Bureaucratic Enemies of God single out Christians and affiliated groups for audits, investigations and governmental harassment of every kind. Christianity, the Bible and the Gospel of Christ are under attack as never before by those who, in many cases, proudly proclaim themselves to be, Enemies of God. They are actually proud of it and will say so without hesitation. It is these, who, having hardened their hearts and rejected the New Testament offer of forgiveness and salvation, must be judged by Old Testament standards.

Homosexual activities are the avant garde of the Enemies of God. They are leading the way for the rest, and their leadership unfortunately has been brilliant. A brief history will suffice to explain.

On June 28, 1969, a group of homosexual customers at a popular bar in Greenwich Village called the Stonewall Inn grew angry at what they perceived as harassment by the police. A riot ensued, running off and on for several days. At its height nearly a thousand people were involved at one point. The Stonewall riots marked the beginning of the so-called ‘gay rights’ movement.

1989 saw the publication of a new book, “After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s” by Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Kirk was a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Madsen had a doctorate in Politics from Harvard as well as being an expert in commercial advertising on Madison Avenue. The book is a masterpiece of sophisticated psychological persuasion and mass media propaganda techniques. It is considered a founding work of the modern homosexual movement and focuses on three main areas; desensitization, jamming and conversion.

Desensitization is, in Kirk and Madsen’s own words, “We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.”

Jamming is a bit more difficult to explain without resorting to dense psychological terminology but involves creating two competing emotional responses in people who disapprove of homosexuals. The process is akin to throwing sand in an engine, jamming the engine and preventing it from working correctly. If done properly – according to Kirk and Madsen – the subject will be unable to respond to their own dislike of homosexuals without experiencing internal societal shame. Make Christians ashamed of standing for Biblical values and the battle is half-won. Jamming does exactly that.

Conversion is fairly straight forward, even if underhanded in its implementation. Kirk and Madsen contend, “It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.” In other words, they are actively trying to ‘brainwash’ you. Even the most cursory examination of today’s culture will convince anyone Kirk and Madsen’s campaign strategy has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It’s worked so well they’ve nearly been able to abandon it in favor of an end-game strategy of virtual open warfare.

One proof of Kirk and Madsen’s success can be found in the outrageous court decisions being handed down, virtually on a daily basis in regards to homosexual ‘marriage’. As of this writing, the Associated Press reports homosexuals can ‘marry’ in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The states are Oregon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Mexico and Illinois. But dozens of lawsuits remain pending, in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Virginia. All told that’s 31 states, plus D.C. Over half, nearly two-thirds, of our once-great, once-Christian nation!

These decisions are being made by judges based on ‘penumbras’ and imagined rights which really are nothing more than shadows and distorted reflections of their own biases. Even other judges, normally left leaning in their decisions, have rebelled at the overreach being demonstrated, issuing stinging dissents in case after case. For example:

A California Supreme Court justice, Marvin Baxter, issued a warning when his court struck down the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in 2008. He dissented from the majority’s opinion that created same-sex marriage for a short time in the state, arguing the consequences of the decision were not thought out. He wrote, “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deep rooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep rooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.” Baxter then went on to issue a warning, “Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Later that same year, 2008, voters struck back and overruled the Court’s decision by adopting a state Constitutional Amendment, Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. But a homosexual Federal judge named Vaughn Walker, later overturned that voter-approved Amendment.

More recently, on July 18, 2014, in Oklahoma, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that a voter-approved Amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution defining marriage as one man-one woman, passed by 76% of the voters, must be thrown out and the state must let homosexuals ‘marry’. On the same day, Monroe County Judge Luis Garcia, in Florida, overruled the Florida Constitution and said homosexuals must be allowed to ‘marry’ in his county. Excuse me, but since when does a county judge have the power, imagined or otherwise, to overrule the State Constitution? Unfortunately, Garcia isn’t the first county judge to assume too much power. In Arkansas, on May 9, 2014, Pulaski County Judge Chris Piazza overruled the Arkansas State Constitution, which was amended in 2004 by a majority of the voters to protect marriage as one man-one woman. Piazza substituted his own opinion for that of the state’s voters, ruling their opinions on the matter unconstitutional. Again, how can a county judge, whose office is created by the State Constitution, overrule that constitution? Yet other state officials let them get away with it with nary a whimper of protest about the judicial overreach. Kirk and Madsen must be dancing with joy at what they’ve wrought, but this is only one arena out of many.

There is no doubt the warfare being waged against us is deliberate. The perpetrators know exactly what they’re doing and why. They’re following a decades-long battle plan designed as a zero-sum game; they win, we lose. There is no middle ground, no compromise is possible. So what can be done? How can Christians respond to this decades-long struggle against decency?

And the answer is…the Old Testament.

As already noted above, homosexuals and their fellow travelers, having hardened their hearts and rejected the New Testament offer of forgiveness and salvation, must therefore be judged by Old Testament standards. If they reject mercy, they must suffer judgment. This will be very difficult for you to read, understand and especially agree with. Why? Because Kirk and Madsen’s plan – plot, really – has succeeded so well. They’ve made you ashamed of the Bible’s plain spoken condemnation and penalties for homosexuality.

In Leviticus 18:1-5, God instructs Moses and the Israelites not to do as the Egyptians did nor as the Canaanites (previous inhabitants of Canaan) did. He says that the man (or woman) who obeys His laws will live by them. The following verses, Leviticus 18:6-18, spend all their time forbidding various types of incest. Moving on, Leviticus 18:19-21 forbids sex during a woman’s period, adultery and sacrificing children to Molech, for this would profane the name of the LORD. Then, after all of that, we get to Leviticus 18:22 which states;

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (In the King James, an abomination.)

But for the full context and to really understand what God is saying, we need to look at the rest of the chapter, verses 23-30:

Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. Everyone who does any of these detestable things – such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.

After forbidding bestiality there is a break. Starting in verse 24, God shifts from listing sins (verses 6-23) to describing the results of them, wherein homosexuality is simply one sin among many. God says all these sins defile a person. The word for ‘defile’ is the Hebrew word טמא, taw-may', a prime root word meaning, to be foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense. God says the nations who occupied the land of Canaan (today’s Israel) defiled the land because they defiled themselves with the sins in verses 6-23. Three times God mentions the land being defiled, becoming fouled. He joins this to the concept of nations being driven out of land they had defiled, the land vomiting them out, He says. Furthermore, God promises the same vomiting out if anyone follows in their footsteps. Then the key verse (for our purposes) is verse 29 wherein God says that anyone who does these detestable things must be cut off from their people. In modern language we call that ‘cutting off’ – jail. Admittedly Leviticus 20:13 proscribes the death penalty for homosexuality but Christian nations have rarely, but not never, put homosexuals to death as we feel the New Testament has mitigated some of the harsher aspects of the Old Testament, at least during the Church Age.

So, in addition to the sledgehammer approach advocated in the abortion chapter (smashing ‘gay’ bars and businesses) we must also mount a culture-wide effort aimed at re-criminalizing the practice of homosexuality. Prior to 1962 ‘sodomy’ as it was euphemistically called, was a felony in every state in the Union, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. Although such laws were rarely enforced except in egregious, in-your-face type cases, the mere fact of the law’s existence kept homosexuality safely tucked away out of sight. It was often referred to as the love that dare not speak its name. It was shameful, secretive and illegal. Even the tabloids referred to it only obliquely in coded phrases or ‘dog whistles’ as they’re known today. We must mount an open and unapologetic counter-offensive to return to those saner times. Homosexuality must be shoved back into the closet; the door slammed, locked and barred. The homosexuals have already made clear that compromise is impossible. Their own actions have forced us into a corner with no way out except a straight forward, full scale attack. It is past time to launch that attack. Therefore I propose the following strategy and tactics.

First: use the sledgehammer approach on ‘gay’ bars, businesses and overt homosexual sympathizers. Sympathizers would include, but not be limited to, activist judges ruling, as already mentioned, on the basis of ‘penumbras’ and imagined rights which really are nothing more than shadows and distorted reflections of their own biases. Leave the courthouses alone though. Instead focus on their personal homes and property. Christians are being impacted daily in their homes and businesses; it’s time for judges to feel the same pain. The same logic applies to physical attacks on the homes and businesses of homosexuals themselves. Monetary pain is a universal language. We should also use the sledgehammer approach on businesses who actively promote homosexual themes. A painful example of this is Disneyland and/or Disneyworld. It’s painful because I’ve enjoyed myself numerous times visiting Disneyland when I lived in California. Nonetheless, in recent years Disney has gone overboard with ‘gay days’ at their parks and promoting homosexual issues on their television networks such as ABC, ESPN, the Disney Channel, SOAPnet, A&E and Lifetime. A&E, the cable network that runs ‘Duck Dynasty’, recently tried to ban the Robertson clan patriarch, Phil Robertson, from the show for his comments about homosexuals in GQ magazine. The pro-homosexual strain runs throughout their entire corporate structure. Due to Disney’s outsized footprint in our modern culture, they should be a major, frontline target for our sledgehammers. Nothing gets a company’s attention faster than physical damage costing millions of dollars to repair. If every part of Disney’s empire was attacked and damaged on the same day nationwide, with specific emphasis on their support for homosexuality as the cause of the attacks, the impact on them, other businesses and sympathizers, including the homosexual movement at large, would be overwhelming. Fear of God, and fear of His Church, would come rushing back into this nation in a heartbeat, especially if these attacks followed close after the attacks on abortion clinics.

NOTE: I haven’t said anything about boycotts and aside from this one comment, I won’t. The simple fact is boycotts have an uncertain track record at best. Their impact is difficult to measure – how do you record money that doesn’t come in? How do you prove it was because of the boycott? Maybe it was merely bad weather. How can you tell the difference? Boycotts also require an inordinate amount of time to take effect and are dependent on people maintaining their enthusiasm over an extended period of weeks or months. Money lost because of damaged property is much more immediate and attention grabbing. Let’s avoid the failed efforts of the past and instead focus on what actually works.

Second: launch a drive to approve a Constitutional Amendment outlawing homosexuality. The wording might be something along the lines of; ‘The United States of America is a Christian nation with Judeo-Christian ethics, principles and values, therefore the practice of homosexuality in the United States of America and all it’s States, Counties and Cities shall be a felony punishable by lengthy prison sentence at hard labor.’ We can quibble over the exact wording but a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to keep activist judges, bureaucrats and other Enemies of God from subverting our intent to outlaw homosexuality. And even then we’ll probably have to keep an eagle eye on them, just in case.

In pressing the case for our Amendment we should use Kirk and Madsen’s book against them. Very few people outside the media or the homosexual movement are aware of their book or the strategy laid out therein. I remember the first time I heard about it; I was outraged at the sheer nerve of them using Madison Avenue propaganda techniques to change my mind and attitudes without me even knowing about it. It felt sneaky and underhanded – which it is – and I was furious at being manipulated. The reaction of the general public will be the same, people don’t like being manipulated. Their resulting anger will help propel our Amendment to ratification. We need to hammer the propaganda angle at every possible opportunity, drive home just how devious and dishonest the homosexual movement really is.

Third: between now and the ratification of the Amendment, in all court cases between homosexuals and those they are attempting to force into some objectionable action (baking a cake for a homosexual ‘wedding’, taking photographs or providing floral arrangements for same, etc.) we should use a ‘freedom of association’ argument, which freedom the Supreme Court has ruled is implicit in the First Amendment. The two main cases to quote as precedent are National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958) and Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984). Roberts in particular noted that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” Notice the Supreme Court included economic ends in the list. This would include running a business according to your beliefs about who you will and will not associate with, who you will and will not do business with. Since Supreme Court precedent carries considerable weight with lower courts I’ve never understood why these two cases aren’t used more often by Christians to defend themselves from unscrupulous homosexuals engaging in ‘law-fare’ against them.

At this point someone with an eye for hypocrisy might object saying, “Hey! You’re advocating breaking the law on the one hand by using sledgehammers against homosexual bars and businesses, then you turn around and try to use the law to protect yourself on the other hand. You hypocrite!”

It sounds good and on the surface it’s valid argument. But dig a little deeper and it crumbles like a stale cookie. Anyone who is part of the wrecking crew, against abortion or against homosexuals, has to be a volunteer willing to face the risk of arrest and prison. I already made that clear in the chapter on abortion. Also, we’re a religious movement, specifically a Christian movement. As such we are upholding God’s overarching laws which man’s laws are violating. Our rights are called ‘God-given rights’ for a reason; they come from God, not from man or even the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t create our rights, it merely lists some of the pre-existing rights God has given us and requires government to protect and defend those rights. Homosexuals abuse the law to force us to condone their sinful behavior. It is perfectly legitimate for us to correctly use the law in self-defense.

Fourth: implement the PIN Strategy of hand-written letters, emails and phone calls to your Senators, Representatives, State and local officials, media, etc. Bury them. Hit them with an avalanche until it becomes crystal clear to them that Christians are the majority in this country. Remind them in no uncertain terms Christians have more votes than the homosexuals and Christians pay more taxes than the homosexuals. You must be unyielding about it. After all, why should Christians yield to anyone when we’re on God’s side?

Normally I’d be resigned to the idea this is a multi-year project. But on deeper reflection I’m not so sure. The dramatic, emotional impact of physical damage from sledgehammers and a bold willingness to stand – like the Apostle Paul – no matter the personal cost could literally re-instill the fear of God in people in a matter of days, or hours. Osama bin Laden was right about one thing; people prefer the strong horse. If Christians boldly follow the strategy I’ve outlined, the wimpy, push-over image we currently have will be shattered like glass, replaced by the image C.S. Lewis wrote about in his book, The Screwtape Letters; “the Church, spread out through all time and space, rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners.

Now that’s a Church people will fear, admire and respect!

comments powered by Disqus