Category Archives: Blog


Gay Activist Disappointed by the Truth

The above photo is a billboard on display in Richmond, Virginia in December 2014. Here is one reaction from a local gay activist:

“I am shocked and really disappointed that at the end of 2014, we have a billboard in the middle of our city that says that kind of hate.” ~ Beth Panilaitis, executive director of Rosmy in Richmond, VA.

So it’s hateful to express the belief that homosexuality is not completely biologically determined? The word ‘completely’ is important. The reason for the billboard is to counter the gay argument that homosexuality is inborn like race. Now consider the following:

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. ~ Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, directly quoting the American Psychiatric Association

Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. ~ American Psychiatric Association

How hateful!

Also consider:

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. ~ American Psychological Association  

So sexual orientation cannot be determined like biological sex because it “is defined in terms of relationships with others.” One can be black or white without interacting with others after birth but sexual orientation requires relationships with others for the attractions to be determined. Most mental-health professionals believe there is some biological component to sexual orientation. But in the full sense of the definition of sexual orientation, nobody’s sexuality can be determined at birth.

“We do not know why people are heterosexual. Maybe when we figure that out, we can determine why some people are not.” ~ Richmond Gay Community Foundation executive director Bill Harrison

What Mr. Harrison probably means, like the mental-health associations, is we do not know exactly why people are heterosexual or not. The above quotes show we do have some idea. Bravo to Mr. Harrison for acknowledging this truth. For this, are gay activist like Mr. Harrison to be charged with hating gay people?


Stop Shoving Your Religion!

You can have your religious views, but don’t legislate them. You should not expect others who do not hold your religious views to live by them.

The above mantra is anti-democratic, anti-American, and anti-Christian.

First, why can’t a person legislate their religious views? The answer is typicaly “separate of church and state.” Now let’s put aside the disagreement of this Supreme Court ruling for it has little bearing on whether religious people can legislate their views. In fact, in most cases, the freedom of religion could be taken away and religious people could still legislate their views. Why? Because most often they are not legislating their religion but their values.

For example, image the following scenario. A Christian, whose religion states that salvation is receive through God’s Son – Jesus Christ, walks into a voting booth and votes for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Then a Muslim, whose religion states that damnation is certain for those who say God has a Son and salvation is dependent on Jesus Christ, also votes for the same amendment. Then an Atheist votes for the amendment. How can people with contradictory religious and no religion vote the same way? Because they are not voting a religion, they are voting their values. Values are informed by family, culture, education, belief in God or not, and more. There is nothing any more in violation of church-and-state for a religious person to vote their values than for an Atheist to do so. This is why in part simply being religious does not warrant getting ones voting privileges revoked.

Second, the purpose of a democracy is for all people, even the religious, to have their say in the laws and policies of their governments. It is anti-democratic and anti-American to claim they are doing something wrong when they participate in their civic duty. If people who make this claim don’t like the idea of their fellow citizens having a say in government, they are free to move to a country with a dictatorship. Then they won’t have to worry about religious people having a voice or vote because no one will.

Third, it’s cherry picking. Back to the same-sex marriage example. If it is wrong for one to vote their religious values, what about people whose religion informs them to vote for same-sex marriage? Are these people shoving their religion? No, not as long as a persons religion informs them to vote liberal positions.

Fourth, it’s self-serving. The real thrust of the statement is not for religious people to do the right thing, but to do someone else’s right thing – for religious people to vote against their view and for someone else’s.

Fifth, legislating views and living by them are two different things. Some non-religious people may feel that it is bad for society to legalize illicit drugs. They are not dictating to others how to live. If some people want to talk the risks in using illicit drugs they can. But just because people want something legal doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree and make it legal. In many cases, to do so would be profoundly immoral (rape, incest, infanticide, etc.).

Sixth, it is anti-Christian. People who’s Lord said the greatest commandment is love have an obligation to uphold what is right according to their faith and oppose what is wrong. To approve of what the Christian faith calls sin is unloving to God and others as well.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ~ 1 Corinthians 13:6

Seventh, if one believes others show vote against their values, then they should show the way and do it themselves. But they won’t. This is hypocrisy.

If one has confidence in their view then argue for it with legitimate arguments, not fallacious ones like “don’t vote your religion.”


Stop Shoving Your Views!

To those who only support straight marriage, “You’re shoving your views down other people’s throats!”

To those who support same-sex marriage, “You’re shoving your views down other people’s throats!”

The claim ‘shoving‘ is implying something wrong is being done. Something is wrong and the ‘shoving‘ is it.

Let’s use America as an example. America has a system of government and the way it works is the position with the most power wins. This power might be money, votes, lobbyist, arguments, etc..

When those for straight marriage play by the rules of the system and win, they are accused of doing something wrong (shoving). When those for same-sex marriage (SSM) play by the rules of the system and win, they are accused of doing something wrong (shoving). So both are playing by the rules, celebrating when winning and complaining when losing. The problem is not ‘shoving‘ but being a good sport when losing.

But you say, “My side past a constitutional amendment by the will of the people. Their side won by one activist judge.” Did they cheat? That may be your opinion but legally they did not – it is the American system of government. In America, there are three branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive. SSM advocates are playing by the rules when, after losing at the legislative level (constitutional amendment), they appeal to another branch of government to advance their position.

Now some might say, “OK then – I don’t like the system.” Fine, then try and change it for the better. But until you achieve that (and I wish you luck), people have to work within the system we do have, not a future system they don’t.