But, once again, not all moral principles are examples of oppression. To the contrary, human life is only possible within the context of enduring moral laws and principles that liberate all human beings to their true humanity. This is where those who support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it face each other across a huge gulf of understanding. One side sees a moral mandate to liberate marriage from its heterosexual limitation. The other side sees natural marriage as a liberating, God-given institution for human flourishing. There is precious little shared ground in this debate.

–Albert Mohler, Blog Post

While I don’t know what he means by being “liberat[ed] to” our “true humanity,” I don’t have much to argue with in his description of the situation as two side staring at each other across a gulf where they both claim that their ground is the moral one. But, when you combine his analysis in this piece with his article from last week about Obama dropping his support of the Defense of Marriage Act you get the sense that the moral aspect of this marriage debate is all he sees:

Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress yesterday that President Obama had ordered the Department of Justice to cease all efforts to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts.

In the second place, this announcement means that President Obama and his advisers now believe that the full legalization of same-sex marriage is both inevitable and without major political risk to the President and his plans for re-election. That, in itself, represents a moral earthquake. The President clearly believes that a sufficient number of Americans will either support or accept same-sex marriage — and this comes just a few years after a majority of the states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and most by huge margins.

The President has made his decision. The Attorney General has now made his announcement. Mark your calendars for yesterday. That day now represents a tragic milestone in the betrayal of marriage.

–Albert Mohler, Blog Post

Moralism has completely blinded our church leaders to the fact that the enemy is not the immorality of homosexual marriage, but the State’s confiscation of the means of marriage. If the state had not appropriated to itself control over the institution of marriage, this whole debate would not exist. There would be no “moral earthquake.” There would not be two sides staring at each other across a chasm, because there would not be two sides. This whole moral swamp has been artificially manufactured by the simple fact that the State, through the steady passage of more marriage laws and marriage licenses, has constantly sought to make itself the decider of who can marry whom. And that fact alone has damaged the institution of marriage and allowed this debate to be born. It was inevitable.

Throughout American history, marriage licenses were used to arbitrarily restrict racial intermarriage. And while mixed race and same-sex marriage are two completely different things(one being morally inocuous and the other being morally engendered), the comparison is just too ripe not to be picked. Indeed the comparison between restricting interracial marriage and restricting same-sex marriage has “restriction” as it’s primary idea. And there’s only one institution that can grant itself the power to restrict a natural right. The State.

The percentage of the population that is homosexual and wants to be “married” is miniscule. In a free market of social interaction where nobody controls marriage from a central authority, society as a whole would just absorb this issue in the same way it handles something like alcoholism. Alcoholism is morally detrimental to the family structure. But we, as Christians, don’t see alcoholics as a moral enemy to be armed against. No, we try to reach them for Christ and convince them of their need of Him. But because the State claims control over the marriage process, society has been removed from this debate. Instead we’re left helplessly on the sidelines to watch with baited breath as the next supreme court ruling comes down. What nonsense.

So, what am I saying? Am I saying that homosexuality is moral? No. Am I saying that same-sex marriage is moral? No. I’m not saying anything about the morality of the issue at all. Instead I’m talking about the morality of the state stealing the right of society to decide for itself, without interference, what is and is not morally acceptable. I’m saying that if the State got out of the marriage business altogether, and put marital authority back into the hands of the social market where it belongs, these issues of morality could be properly addressed without resorting to the use of force. The issue would vanish.

The enemy is not same-sex marriage. The enemy is any earthly institution that tries to set itself up with monopoly power over marriage. Marriage belongs to society(for Christians, the Church. For non-christians, the family or community), not an all powerful State.

It’s really hard to understand what he’s saying here, so here’s the transcript:

First of all, we all know what’s really promoted in our schools: Heterosexuality is promoted in our schools. Every time kids read Romeo and Juliet or they’re encouraged to go to the prom or whatever is it is, kids are aggressively recruited to be heterosexual in this country.

And you know what? It doesn’t work. The reality is that if schools could affect your sexual orientation there would have been no gay people in the first place. But there [are] still people out there who believe that myth, because you know what? It’s easy to panic people if you make them think that they’re after you’re kids.

–Kevin Jennings, Iowa GLSEN Speech (2000)

It seems here that Jennings is taking the odd position that schools should take a completely neutral approach to an issue that is blatantly obvious to everyone on the planet: that people are created for heterosexuality. Mr. Jennings, look at yourself in the mirror. Tell me what those parts are for. Now tell me what the appropriate, common sense teaching should be on that. Jennings can be gay if he wants. I could care less. But, promoting an aberrant sexual lifestyle as if it’s on par with the natural order is ridiculous. Current stats show anywhere between 1.12 – 1.5% of the U.S. population as homosexual. That’s probably about the same percent that think we never landed on the moon, or that deny the holocaust. 1.5% of anything is “aberrant.”

But he doesn’t stop there. No, he’s also the guy that covered up the statutory rape of a male student by an older man when he was a teacher:

Jennings does not limit his promotion of homosexuality in schools only to high schools or middle schools. He wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education, which includes an essay declaring that “‘queerly raised’ children are agents” using “strategies of adaptation, negotiation, resistance, and subversion.”

Perhaps the most dramatic illustration, however, of Jennings’ unfitness for a “safe schools” post involves an incident when he taught at Concord Academy, a private boarding school in Massachusetts. In his book One Teacher in Ten (the title is based on the discredited myth, now abandoned even by “gay” activist groups, that ten percent of the population is homosexual), he tells about a young male sophomore, “Brewster,” who confessed to Jennings “his involvement with an older man he met in Boston.” But at a GLSEN rally in 2000, Jennings told a more explicit version of “Brewster’s” story. Jennings here quotes the boy and then comments: “‘I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people.”

Did Jennings report this high-risk behavior to the authorities? To the school? To the boy’s parents? No — he just told the boy, “I hope you knew to use a condom.” Sex between an adult and a young person below the “age of consent” (which varies from state to state) is a crime known as statutory rape, and some states mandate that people in certain professions report such abuse.
–Tony Perkins, Human Events

So, there my friends is your new Federal “safe schools” czar. The fact remains that the only true “safe schools” are when there are no public schools at all. I can do a much better job keeping my kids safe than some education apparatchik.

I made the point in the last post that decentralizing the church into small groups would have the beneficial effect of making it much harder for our opponents to target a single organization or group. A loosely organized collection of small groups that band together and pay a preacher to minister to them on a circuit basis is basically immune from this sort of legal harassment. There is no central group to target. The Alinsky rules don’t work very well when the group your agitating against is built the same way as the group doing the agitating. I’m not saying the church needs to go “underground” or anything like that, but if you don’t think that laws like this one are coming to the U.S. then wake up. Stop kidding yourself and let’s get ourselves prepared for the inevitable. Small group churches have always existed and thrived, even in the most extreme conditions like Communist China and Russia. Persecuation has a unique way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

I have two pieces of news for Mrs. Stewart and Mr. Kirwin. First, you can take your kids out of those classes any time you want to. It’s called homeschooling and their are two million kids doing it as recently as 2007. The numbers are most certainly higher now. Secondly, even if you somehow win this battle (which you won’t) and your kids are able to opt-out, what is the end result? Now your kids don’t have to go to a 45 minute LGBT training session, but they still have to spend 8 hours a day in a place with hundreds of other kids and teachers who have. Excuse me if I think that’s not much of a victory. Do you not think that a teacher that is willing to teach that stuff will restrain his/herself from including references to those concepts in their other lessons? That’s naive at best. Your kids are being indoctrinated for eight hours a day by an organization of people whom you do not know, with agendas that you’ll never find out about. Stuff like this is only the ever-so-slight tip of the iceberg that peeks out from time to time. The bulk of the agenda is always hidden.

But, these issues, overall, expose a lack of understanding on the part of parents as to just how political the education machine is. That’s why I quipped earlier that it’s a foregone conclusion that these parents will lose this battle. Showing up at a school board hearing is no different than showing up at a town-hall meeting for some senatorial candidate. The agenda is set in advance. What you say in that setting is meaningless. No minds are going to be changed because it’s not about the ideas. It’s about union money and political power. Case in point:

At least this guy named David is finally waking up to the real concern. Hopefully this will be a trend, but I’m going to maintain my cycnicism for now. When it comes to education it’s really hard to shake yourself out of the status quo. It’s too easy to just go to some school meetings and then be mad when nothing changes. The “I did all I could” mentality doesn’t help your children though. The fact is that it’s the same thing as going years in an abusive relationship or an abusive work environment and never working up the courage to shake your life up. Sometimes stability is over-rated. This is one of those times. It’s not worth maintaining the status quo and an easy, predictable daily routine if your kids are going to suffer for it.

So here’s my theory. We know that modern day liberalism and political correctness was born out of the rebelliousness of the sixties and seventies youth. To be a liberal continues to be closely tied to a sense of counterculture and rebellion against any type of orthodoxy or establishment. But there is a line that liberals will instinctively not cross when it comes to anarchial tendencies. They won’t, for instance, say that it’s alright to murder, rape, etc. But anything else they can find that is instinctively wrong or uncomfortable to the establishment, but doesn’t cross that line, they will embrace into their moral repertoire. In their eyes this gives them the politically correct moral highground. Homosexuality falls perfectly into this category.

So here is the argument:

In other words, homosexuality is one of those issues that challenges our moral sensibilities to the limit without actually breaking any of the “universals”. That makes it the perfect politically correct moral trump card. The problem, as is often the case in modern liberalism, is that it damages culture and society, even if it doesn’t hurt those directly involved. I’ll get into that another time though.

My first question is, why do they have to hide? The answer is because it’s highly unnatural, and things that are highly unnatural are usually disturbing to be around. And anyone who acts as if homosexuality isn’t disturbing is either gay or lying. But don’t take my word for it. Take Larry David’s. Everything involved with the gay agenda is directed toward one end: to force people to either accept it or shut up. That’s the only two options they will countenance. That’s their version of tolerance and diversity. I don’t know if you’ve ever carried on a conversation with a homosexual before, but they are across the board some of the most vicious people you will meet, when you tell them they are wrong. It goes beyond just normal disagreement. You can tell that they truly hate you. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of it then you know what I’m talking about. How they can lecture anybody on “diversity” and “tolerance” is beyond me.

But it’s not just that. They are crying about being bullied too:

Forgetting any accuracy checking for the moment, why is this so shocking? I felt unsafe at school for half the time I was there. I got picked on and verbally harrassed on an almost daily basis until I was in the 10th grade. There were lots of times that I would have loved to skip school, but that wasn’t in the cards. I don’t remember getting a day of silence for nerdy kids. I guarantee you that this statistic is no different than if you took a survey of nerdy or effiminate kids. That’s just how schools are. They can be brutal. Either accept it or take your kids out. You’ll have to pardon me if I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy here.

That brings up another point though. If your son is effiminate in the least, you would be well advised to get them out of public school and homeschool them as soon as possible. I remember one boy that I went to elementary school with that was very effiminate. He was picked on and called “fag” and “queer” all the time, even though it was pretty obvious that he was nothing of the sort. But it went on and on throughout our growing up. I actually saw him a few years back when I was at the mall. This time, he was gay. Very gay. And I can’t help feeling that he was pushed in that direction against his will until he just broke and accepted what the other kids told him he was. These are the real problems that kids face and these GLBT groups don’t help anything. They’re just in it for themselves.

So is your kid’s school one of them?

You’d better check, because the gay agenda loves to talk about tolerance, as long as you agree with them. That’s like saying, “I’ll eat anything, as long as it’s chicken.”

So General Pace believes that homosexual sex is immoral. Tell me where he is not entitled to that opinion. I’m struggling to figure out why it is so shocking that somebody actually believes that. Millions of people believe that. Why is it odd that one of them would be a US General? He can believe whatever he wants. I think what is happening here is that he came dangerously close to the truth. He stared the 300 pound gorilla in the room right in the eye. What matters to the homosexual agenda crowd is not that people think it’s immoral, it’s why people think it’s immoral that scares them so bad. Here is that reason:

And there you have it. That is the type of reasoning that scares the gay activists to death. The inclusion of homosexuality as just another form of sexually deviant behavior. The gay agenda is wholly based on seperating homosexuality out as a seperate and distinct act that is different from any other sexually wierd behavior. That would put it on par with natural heterosexual sex. Anybody on board with that? I’m not. Look at yourself in the mirror. It’s pretty obvious where things are supposed to go. It’s not rocket science here folks.

Gay advocates are loath to get into discussions of why homosexuality should be afforded it’s immunity status from other sexually abberant behaviors. When you compare it to incest, bestiality and such, about all you’ll get is a retort along the lines of “well, it’s different because it’s between two consenting adults and it’s not hurting anybody.” Those arguments are woefully inadequate for the task though. They end up proving too much. Let’s do a mental exercise for a moment to prove that point:

1. Adam and Steve are two adult men. Let’s say that they are both in their 40’s.
2. Adam and Steve are also gay and live together.
3. Anybody have a problem with this so far? Probably not. They can be gay if they choose to.
4. Now, would your opinion change if I told you that Adam and Steve were brothers? I thought so.

The point here is that all of the traditional defenses that gays give to justify homosexuality, just justified incest too. If it’s ok for Adam and Steve to be gay because they are both consenting adults and they aren’t hurting anybody, then it’s also ok for them to commit incest with one another as long as they both consent. They are men and so there is no possibility of having messed up children result from their actions, so they aren’t “hurting anybody”. Any justification that also justifies incest is no justification at all.

There is only one valid excuse for being homosexual: Because you want to. It’s as simple as that. If you want to be gay then you will be. But don’t try to act as if it’s totally normal and nobody should be freaked out by it. If you decide to be gay, you will have to deal with the consequences. Just like Adam and Steve will have to deal with the consequences of their incest if it were to be discovered. General Pace’s moral convictions are logical in this regard and I am extremely glad that he didn’t apologize for them.

Note to liberal media: An overwhelming majority of people, including liberals, find homosexuality deeply disturbing. Take this quote from Larry David(famous Seinfeld co-writer) when he wrote about Brokeback Mountain:

Now, if you know anything about Larry David, he is not what anyone would consider a stalwart of red-state conservativism. Yet, he, like so many in Hollywood, quietly skipped seeing that movie. Why? Because homosexuality is not just like any other human behavior, and almost everyone instinctively knows it. It’s not just some religious aversion. Even an atheist would have to admit that it’s highly unusual for a creature to engage in a behavior that is directly detrimental to it’s reproduction. Homosexuality doesn’t produce offspring. That violates the basic Darwinian ethic. It’s not a matter of being tolerant. It’s a matter of being honest.