Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Sexuality; A Moral Issue. Not An Issue Of Equality Pt. 2

As we stated in Pt. 1 of this examination of the confusion and resultant fallout over the President's decision to  pay gay advocacy, by openly standing in favor of homosexual marriage, there is much confusion over what the church should do and how the church should best respond. Ministers are allover the board on the issue (as planned) with many bailing out on biblical morality more quickly than the first titanic sank. 

Already some are simply calling for Presidential reelection at all costs minimizing the moral and social issues involved, claiming that the community is better off when moral values are lowered to facilitate and endorse homosexual marriage, while obfuscating and infusing the issue with emotives such as "love" and "acceptance"  all of which have nothing to do with the extension of homosexual marriage as a civil right. However, what NONE of the advocates say, whether in the pulpit or on congressional or state house floors, is exactly what happens to everything else when marriage is allowed to move from it's traditional root into the homosexual based root of marital acceptance. For example, do we hear any of the advocates discussing these things:
  • (California)....Foster Parents must take a "Reeducation Class" embracing the gay agenda, to be allowed to house foster kids.
  • (California) - Public Schools have a mandated pro-homosexual policy that sends objecting students to "appropriate counseling" without notifying their parents.
  • (California) - A business was put out of business (with a $150,000 fine) for firing a male employee who wore a dress to work.
  • (Colorado )- A dad was told by a judge that he can't teach his daughter anything "homophobic" [who defines what that is?]
  • As stated in a teacher's lesson aid, published by the Gay & Lesbian Educators (GALE)..... "We must dishonour the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation, even though that would mean dishonouring the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc" 
  • (Massachusetts) As reported on The Dunamis Word, in 2004, Dr. David Parker would receive jail time for taking the school and school board to task over the book delivered to his kindergartner,  "Who's In A Family" by Robert Skutch. The book introduced the concept that two fathers and two mothers were acceptable family arrangements, regardless of the child's rearing or family moral values.  When Dr. Parker sought to opt his child out of the segment he was told that was not an option. When he further questioned and protested the issue not only was he placed in jail and fined, he was told by the courts that the school had more authority to educate his child in the law (homosexual acceptance) than he had as a parent to instill moral values regarding marriage and gender relationships. 
Dr. David Parker & Spouse
Now is anyone pointing out those things as the real issue when it comes to homosexual marriage, marital acceptance and normalization? This has nothing to do with the quality of life for those who are homosexuals. However it has everything to do with the moral values of those of us who are not homosexual. We boldly and vehemently stand against homosexual rights being a tool to re-engineer family and moral values and uprooting closely held beliefs? Traditional values would mean nothing in face of the law 

under schemes of homosexual marital acceptance. Why is this NOT an issue that you are hearing or reading about? Why aren't the pastors, who are head over heels in love with voting for a Black President to the exclusion of all and everything else, talking about these ATROCITIES of social and family re-engineering? Why hasn't the paradigm shift in values in education not been something that is being talked about by these leaders? You send your child to school with one set of values and they come home with another at the direction of the teacher and administration of the school system.   

The problem is that the psychologists, through weak, inept and poor church leadership, playing them as a Wurlitzer Baby Grand concert piano, have vexed the heart of the believer causing them to face shame and remorse for their position in favor of the word and against what appears to be innocuous immorality. Some of them have misplaced the issue claiming civil rights instead of morality, however, we've began to uncover the mummy of misinformation to equip the Saint in how to deal with this new, politically and ambitiously inspired lie and deceit. This is difficult because most believers don't want to be known by what they are "against". They want to be known by what they are "for". Most believer's don't want to DENY anyone anything, especially when they are excited to EXTEND salvation, joy and the love of Christ to the world.

Enter gay advocacy and psychology...being told that one is against "equality" is quite condemning, especially when one espouses scriptures that have been responsible for the worlds efforts in favor of the liberation, equality and justice for all men and against all forms of inequality. The institution of the church, not secular ideals, have been responsible for medical care, equality, and justice at all levels. But in this the church becomes a pawn in a game of social re-engineering directed and inspired by the god of this world who has blinded the eyes of those who simply will not believe, even while they are in the pulpit supposedly fighting for the gospel.

We Need A Lesson On Morality

In response to all of this, I believe that the church can best serve itself by examining the circumstances under and by which morality is developed. If morality is a human construct as it is being applied both by President Obama and the weak-backed leaders that follow him, then all things are permissible if not encouraged. We can simply say, whatever floats your boat is good enough, and fight for everyone's right to do as they please and see fit. However, if morality is given by a moral law giver (ie: God) then we are constrained to define morality in the terms in which he has communicated it to us.

Where is The Standard?

Morality cannot be confined to the church. If it was, that would conclude the argument. However, we live in the world and must interact in it. It is a ridiculous proposition to say that what we believe should not affect society and the secular world. I often wonder what bible are people reading when they suggest that all we can do is deal with the church and let the world be the world. That is an asinine statement and an unbiblical sentiment. the word affects the whole world and everything in it.

With that let’s examine a few propositions for morality:

If The Mind Of Man Is The Standard: 
Then morality is only opinion and as such diverse opinion carries no more weight or authority than anyone else’s opinion UNLESS “might makes right” and those with contrary opinions can be put down. Therefore, morality where the "mind of man' is the standard is only relative to man’s opinion.  

If Government Or The Community Is The Standard: 
Then morality must be temporal and leads to the same problem as specified above. “Might makes right”. In addition, the standard is subject to change as government and community changes. It is relative to the authority in power and ultimately to man’s opinion.  

If Behavior Is The Standard: 
Then morality is only relative to the existing moral of the day. This is called moral relativism.

Question: Isn't All Morality Relative To Culture?
We must note that behavior changes from time to time and age to age and culture to culture. However objective truth and morals are constant in any age and in any culture. Can you name a culture in which the virtues of love and commitment are not held in esteem and valued? The application of those values may vary based on cultural belief, but that does not change the fact that in every culture there is virtually a uniform set of positive values and negative values.

The study of changing behavior is called sociology. Sociology is not to be confused with morality. Sentiments or actions toward a certain behavior (sociology) does not make behavior or sentiments morally acceptable. Many times, those who don't believe in absolute values or absolute biblical values see sociology as the indicator of moral values. This is a false application of facts.  

Example: Within the black community  in the 1960’s less than 25% of all Black children were born out of wedlock or into single parent families. That was an alarming statistic in the 60's for the Black community. Today, however, almost 62% of Black children are born out of wedlock or into single parent families. Though yet alarming, to see this is more in line with what has come to be "normal" so far as what is seen socially. The state makes provisions for it through various programs food, housing and monetary assistance. The schools make provisions for it with no cost daycare.

Should birth out of wedlock now be considered morally acceptable because it is more prevalent in today’s society and sentiments toward unwed pregnancy are more socially accepted? Everyone knows that bearing and rearing children out of wedlock is not the morally desirable or equivalent path no matter how many do it.

How about violent crime, rape, murder and almost every other social ill imaginable? Are we to consider that because these things are more prevalent and visible as behaviors in modern society that any of them are moral standards or standards whereby laws should be adjusted to accommodate them?

Could you imagine laws outlining that rape under certain circumstances was permissible? Or that murder was a civil right under certain circumstances? Could you imagine that the thwarting of violent crime would also be a civil rights issue?

How about the criminal that asserts that his incarceration due to the crime that he committed was a violation of the US Constitution because his right to pursue. Life, liberty and happiness has been interrupted by the legal authorities and court system?

These ideas are absurd and it doesn’t take much to realize that “might” doesn’t “make right”, morality isn’t defined by majorities, and that just because something exists within society that what is observed is moral because it can be seen.

A Better Foundation
As we noted in “The Spiritual Seduction. Subdued By Gay Rights” The founders of our country said this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ The US Declaration Of Independence 7/4/1776
In the establishment of American independence and freedom, the appeal for the establishment of rights and personal freedoms was to GOD and not secularism nor was it to the secular state. Religion and religious belief IS the foundation of American human rights and values. The founders held that rights and values conferred to men came by the will of God not merely by the will of the state.

If it is that God has conferred these nonnegotiable (unalienable) rights, and we believe what our founders stated, then there is no other choice, but to appeal to the one who delivered the rights to begin with. Guess who that is? GOD!

Question: Is This Theocratic Governance? 
NO. No more than our founders invoked theocratic insight applying biblical values to government to begin a country. This is an appeal to the very set of values upon which modern morality and social justice has stemmed. Certainly, this is not a perfect country, but it is the greatest on earth currently!

Moral Boundaries 

God has delivered the rite of marriage and has set it in place as ONE man and ONE woman. That union provides the RIGHT to marriage. God DID NOT confer the ability nor the opportunity of marriage upon two men or two women. That arrangement is thoroughly condemned within scripture and this is the homosexual advocates cry against the bible.

“Should” Homosexuals Have The Right To Marry In a Secular Society?

President Obama said that homosexual “should” have the right to marry. In a secular society where morals and values aren’t important,  anyone, including homosexuals should have a right to marry.  However, to exclusively vie for their right to do so to the exclusion of other sexual arrangements is discriminatory. What keeps the polygamist from instantly invoking their "right" based on the same theories and interpretation? What about the pedophile who claims "love' for the children they which to have relationship with? What about the rapist that "claims' "love" for their victims?  I mean we could go on and on, but what compelling moral reason would there be to exclude marriage from them or why would the homosexual advocate discriminate against them? 

Human Rights Don't Come From Government

The government was established to SECURE the rights of the people, not establish the peoples rights. IF we, however, affirm that our rights, do not come from the state and that the principles upon which our moral code is built are rooted in a code of moral law given by our creator as the founders of our free society envisioned, then homosexual marriage should never be granted as it is not equivalent to a “right” ordained and instituted of God.  

The confusion is yet an emotional one. No one wants to deny freedom of the homosexual. To say that denial of freedom is a Christian value and effort against homosexual marriage is a lie and an obfuscation of truth. The fact is that homosexuals are free to live their life as they wish. However, the rite and right of marriage is an institution to be preserved in the best interest of society and all people. This preservation is not exclusively based on spiritual ideals, values and principles. It is based on principles of freedom, societal values and the boundaries in which our personal freedoms are expressed.


For sure, I don't do this blog for popularity, in that I desire people to speak well of me. It would be much more easy if I did and I could be like many of the charlatans that I point out on this site and some of the others that you know in your community. It would be simple to just conform to the trends of society and the modern "progressive" church. However, that's not my call, nor is it how God made me.

We could see this confusion coming a long time ago. I have said all I can say, and will continue to say it when I am asked. I will sit back and look as many of those pastors, leaders and others who place their foot in their mouth denying the very word that they have preached and held to be true for so long, all to embrace politics and the culture in which they now find themselves living.

One thing is for sure, the TRUE church will rise and our light will shine like never before in this obscurity!



  1. Pastor, to add to your examples, I just read this.
    "Elaine Huguenin, a gifted photographer who is much in demand in the Albuquerque, New Mexico area for her imaginative photos, especially of weddings, received an e-mail from a woman wanting to hire her to photograph her same-sex ceremony. Elaine considered the opportunity, but soon determined that, as a conscientious Christian, she couldn’t lend her talents to those proceedings without implicitly showing support for same-sex “marriage.” She gracefully declined the offer.

    A few months later, Elaine and her husband, Jon, were notified by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission that a complaint had been filed against Elaine charging her with violating state anti-discrimination laws. (This, despite the fact that the state of New Mexico doesn’t legally recognize same-sex unions.) Elaine, the Commission determined, had engaged in “sexual orientation discrimination.” She was fined nearly $7,000.

    Excellent stuff. People have become so confused over this but do you see how slick the devil is? if you hear something long enough it starts to make sense to you. Homosexuality is a civil right and now, even those in the Church are swayed by that.

    So sexual acts and desires mean that civil rights are required to act out those behaviors as they then must be accepted as a norm? This will have no end, people will soon start wanting rights to marry dogs and are likely to get it, if homosexual marriage is even fully accepted and legal.

    This Moss guy, who is he?

    So he is advocating that the black church should vote for obama just because he is black and we have not had a black president before regardless of his positions? No matter how disrespects the word of God, even though black people are worse off under this presidency.

    How can a man of God trivialise the country due to color and since when has color been the deciding factor for a believer? How can the country move above racism if the Church is advocating it? He is immature and simply annoying with his fancy "rhetoric".

    He also minimizes what homosexual marriage would do to marriage because of other issues, rubbish. The last thing you need to do is add trouble if you already have it.

    That guy is a coward!

  2. I read this in this article. For those who seem to the think the constitutions some how favours even homosexuality, much less homosexuals getting married.

    "I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; 'peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum' (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: 'ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei' (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments)."

    George Washington, America's Father and first President (as well as President of the Constitution Convention), forbad and punished homosexual acts in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of America's revolutionary forces. See his general orders for March 14, 1778:

    "At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose."

    No wonder the Founders never dreamed a definition of marriage needed to be included in the Constitution!

  3. cont:

    Jefferson and the other Founders distinguished between liberty and license and surely did not conceive of the pursuit of happiness as an authorization for "gay marriage."

    Look at Jefferson's writings on sodomy.

    Such as Jefferson's letter to Edmund Pendleton, written on August 26, 1776.

    "The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes...was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies, etc., a certain time proportioned to the offence... Laws thus proportionate and mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge or of the executive power will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man." — Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton, 1776. Papers 1:505 (Emphasis added.)

    Three years later, Jefferson drafted a bill concerning Virginia's criminal law providing that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

    The bill read: "Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least." (Virginia Bill number 64; authored by Jefferson; 18 June 1779)(Emphasis added.)

    When the Constitution was ratified, a majority of the states (New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey) provided the death penalty for those who committed sodomy. All states prohibited it.

  4. Look, there was "no law" but yet she engaged in "sexual orientation discrimination"???

    Absolutely, this goes into fantasy at every level.

    Now, I was thinking of this...if teh argument is accepted that gay rights are a matter of civil rights, then what prohibits any other sexual proclivity from being a civil right as well? I mean you can;t simply stop at MUST include polygamy and APOLOGIZE TO WARREN fact free him if you believe this, Mr. NAACP

    Ben Jealous should be the FIRST one calling for his freedom.

    Then how about pedophiles that have been locked up especially when their young victims like them too...Free them all and let them do what they do...they all have feelings of love and if that's all it takes to create a civil right, what makes homosexual "love" better than anyone else's?

    They are opening a can of worms that they will never be able to close. A total MESS in the name of inclusion. SAD!

  5. Agreed Pastor, why not open the door to other sexual perversions as civil rights.

    I cannot see any reason that a government that for homosexuality would be against Polygomy. They must be against polygomy because there is a standard for marriage, no?
    If there is no standard for marriage and it is all about choices of who you want to love then there should be nothing to stop a man from loving 10 wives and them voluntarily wanting to marry and love him. Is it not all about the rite to "love" who you want to.

    One more thing, where did the understanding of marriage come from? why is that officiating minister, from day one, has quoted Mark 10:9 "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate".
    That alone is signifying that marriage is in fact an institution of God and not man. Atheist may not want to say it, but it does not change that what we know of marriage is from God and from a biblical standpoint.

    So to go outside of God to define marriage is ridiculous but it opens the door or "should" (if they want to be "fair" i granting all their "civil rights") open the door to other preferences; In a sick world that is.


I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.