A new poll from Arizona Christian University has some shocking findings regarding the indoctrination of America’s youth. For decades the percent of those who identify with the homosexual lifestyle has consistently been less than 3 percent of the population. However, the LGBT agenda has now thoroughly saturated our nation’s schools, pop culture, media, politics, and society.

According to this new survey, 39 percent of young adults ages 18-24 self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning. This result, if anywhere close to accurate, blows holes in the claim that people are born homosexual, (something science has never confirmed.) Clearly, young people are choosing this lifestyle due to cultural conditions and moral anarchy.

One caveat to this poll is that this is a self-identification poll. The researchers note that 33 percent of those who identified as LGBT are actually in opposite-sex relationships. In other words, identifying as LGBT is so culturally supported that many are claiming this label while living in a heterosexual relationship. It is possible that bisexuality has seen a dramatic rise as only 3.7 percent in the poll are exclusively homosexual. If nothing else, sexual confusion is widespread according to these results.   (A recent Gallup poll placed the LGBTQ number at only 5.6 percent.)

No matter the actual numbers, young people following this agenda place themselves at significantly elevated mental health, medical health, and spiritual health risks.  (More than 7 in 10 in the Harvard survey admitted to searching for purpose in their life.  Anxiety and depression levels were also very high, appearing in 40-70 percent of those surveyed.)

Not long ago, I wrote a fact sheet touching on just the tip of the iceberg of the personal dangers of the LGBT lifestyle.  You can read that fact sheet here: “The Dangers of Pride.”

Another fact sheet we have is titled, “Born That Way?” which looks at the science or lack thereof to the claim that homosexuality is inborn.

This poll also found that depending upon the demographic 48-63 percent of these individuals consider themselves spiritual or religious. What does the Bible say about this behavior? Some say it’s OK, others disagree. You can read more on that in our fact sheet HERE.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

If you have logged on to Netflix, Amazon, and other places recently, you have probably seen some of corporate America’s virtue signaling via banners in support of Black Lives Matter. By itself, it is a powerful slogan which no one can disagree with, even if you’d prefer to say all lives matter. However, there’s more to this than just a slogan.

The organization Black Lives Matter has some very specific goals and views that many casual observers may not know: it was founded to dramatically change America, and its leaders have not been shy about where they stand. Here are just a few of their policy positions with a couple of my comments in parentheses.

• Black Lives Matter supports abortion. It states: “We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported, safe, and able to thrive.” (Aborted babies don’t thrive nor are they safe. Black babies are disproportionately terminated by the abortion industry which has racist roots stemming from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.)

• Black Lives Matter supports the radical LGBT agenda. It states: “We foster a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.” (Two of the three founders of BLM describe themselves as “queer,” a rather radical term for a homosexual activist.)

• Black Lives Matter opposes the traditional nuclear family which is a vital sociological part of overcoming crime and poverty. It states: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” (Villages without fathers are poor [literally] substitutes for communities with intact families.)

• Black Lives Matter supports reparations. It states: “Reparations for full and free access for all Black people (including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people) to lifetime education…retroactive forgiveness of student loans, and support for lifetime learning programs.”

• Black Lives Matter supports the abolishment of police. It states: “We believe that prisons, police and all other institutions that inflict violence on Black people must be abolished…”

• Black Lives Matter claims to oppose racism, but it is an organization with anti-Semitic leanings. In 2016 BLM adopted derogatory policy statements about Israel. It described the nation of Israel as an “apartheid state” committing “genocide” and supports the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel. BLM opposes any support of Israel by the United States government.

• Black Lives Matter’s activism is helping the presidential campaign of Joe Biden. If one goes to the BLM website and chooses to donate, he is redirected to a site hosted by ActBlue and prompted with the message: “We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.” Joe Biden is the top beneficiary of ActBlue’s fundraising efforts.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Why Christians must engage the culture on sexual ethics or be responsible for our civilization’s demise

As a Christian pastor, I am seeing a dangerous trend among American Christians: There seems to be a philosophical and theological framework developing in reaction to a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile to a Christian worldview. In many cultural spaces, the Christian worldview is considered laughable and openly despised. The response of a large segment of evangelicals is to privatize faith and talk publicly only about issues that don’t ruffle cultural feathers.

This is most profoundly seen in the cultural conversations on sexuality. Every evangelical is ready to talk about clean water in Africa, but you will find very few who want to talk about the necessity of Christian sexual ethics as a cultural standard. The reason is crystal clear. Christian sexual ethics are despised in secular society. They are viewed as hateful and repressive. Younger evangelicals see the writing on the wall and want nothing to do with this—as they view it—embarrassing part of their faith. They might very well be traditional in their sexual ethics, but they have talked themselves into believing that no one else needs to know these biblical truths. Sadly, they couldn’t say why Christian sexual ethics are good for the culture anyway.

A new trend among evangelicals is a posture of apology: “we are so sorry that the Bible says this is not a good idea.” Then, they have “listening conversations,” in which they listen to how damaging these cultural ethics have been. Then, they apologize again. Through silence or apology, a large segment of Christians have removed themselves from the public square on the conversations of sex, desire and gender. They want to be relevant. Staying quiet on sex and gender seems to keep us acceptable to the powerful cancel culture.

What happens when the Christian worldview on sexuality loses its defenders in the public square? What happens when a society removes its long-held prohibitions on sexual activity outside of the traditional marital covenant—one man, one woman for life? What happens when marginal sexual impulses of a society aren’t just tolerated but celebrated as a societal good? What happens when morality itself shifts so that gay marriage, gender fluidity and surgical “gender” interventions are held as high examples of society’s wisdom? What happens when what has been considered wrong in Western culture for millennia are now examples of a person’s ultimate expressions of courage and “authenticity”?

This is the world in which we find ourselves. The legal right to marry someone of the same sex is now viewed as a constitutional right. The era of “gender fluidity” is here. Children can now get medicine and surgery to repress and conceal their embodied sexual development and become what their fallen hearts desire, whatever that might be.

Catastrophically, this is not all that this new sexual freedom wants. The goal of the new sexual-freedom culture is not just freedom to do what an individual desires but also to force everyone to celebrate every sexual expression. With fascist-like devotion, they are taking aim at our children.

In Illinois, a new law has been passed that requires the inclusion of LGBT “contributions” to United States history. But this is not about historical contributions; it is about ideological indoctrination. In Joy Pullman’s Federalist article on the new law, Brian Johnson, an LGBTQ advocate, reveals that they are using this law to teach our children to accept the lifestyles of the LGBTQ community as a positive good:

“Imagine a generation of Illinois students having learned the positive contributions of LGBTQ people to U.S., Illinois, world history. … I think it’s only going to have a positive effect on our society’s view of LGBTQ people.”

The angels weep as we sacrifice our children through silence to the new god of tolerance.

Christian silence brings a great human cost. By remaining silent, we are handing our culture a death sentence. This sounds alarmist but if what follows is true, then the alarm must be rung.

Harvard sociologist J.D. Unwin’s seminal work Sex and Culture makes the danger to our country and culture clear. Unwin, a secularist, performed a sociological survey of 80 societies, looking at their sexual ethics and the state of the culture. His work shows a direct link to the flourishing of a society and the sexual ethics they embrace.

There are four stages of civilization that have repeated themselves throughout human history. The first stage is “zoistic.” Zoistic societies “have no … political organization; usually their ‘chiefs’ are social elders or magicians,” and they are “sexually free.” These are primitive societies that cannot provide care to their inhabitants.

The second stage is “manistic.” Manistic cultures embrace “ancestral worship.” The dead are worshipped, placated or served. Manistic societies “compelled an irregular or occasional [sexual abstinence].” Such societies do little to harness this power for the good of its members.

The third society is termed “deistic.” Deistic societies erect temples to respond to the powers of the universe. Successful deistic cultures are “energetic.” Unwin shows how sexual restraint and this social energy are tied together, writing that “members of all the deistic societies demanded the tokens of virginity as proof that a girl was virgo intacta when she was married.” Such a society prescribed “pre-nuptial chastity” to restrain sexual energy. To the degree that the sexual energies were restrained, the society was proportionally energetic:

[T]he accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce.” Sexual restraint, chastity, and marriage cause a society to flourish.

The fourth stage is termed “rationalistic.” Rationalistic cultures develop the arts and sciences and have intellectual advancements, and are also best positioned to care for all segments of society. In short, a rationalistic society is the kind of society where humans can truly flourish.

Western society is at the rationalistic stage, the apex of societal development. Yet according to Unwin, we are in a precarious place. Unwin’s demonstrates that when sexuality is properly constrained, the energies of that restrained sexuality is [sic] used for the good of society. But when a culture begins to expand “sexual freedom. … the society will begin to display less energy” and display “human entropy.” Such entropy is a decline into disorder. If left unchecked, the society will decline and be overtaken by others.

Surely, we have much to defend and protect. Arguably, Western civilization is the greatest society that has existed in human history. Built upon the foundation of the Hebrew tradition and the teachings of Jesus, the great fruit of Western civilization is representative democracy. No other modern government has done more good for human flourishing than the one we are a part of today. It is built upon the blood, sweat and tears of nameless citizens, saints and soldiers through the ages. The common good of our fellow humans around the world is dependent upon its survival and its ideas taking hold.

But it is time to sound the alarm. We are in danger of an extinction-level event, societally speaking. The house is on fire. We have expanded our sexual freedoms. We are losing all sexual restraint and the future is clear: a declining society that very well might be swallowed up by powers that can no longer be held at bay. If your neighbor’s house is on fire and they are asleep, you do not stop yelling to wake them up even if it annoys the whole block. Better to be annoyingly loud than watch your neighbors burn.

How might we be annoyingly loud on sexual ethics in a culture that is on fire? First, we need to remember what it means to be human. In Genesis 1:26-28, we see important ideas about humans that have been foundational to modern Western society. The first important idea that the Bible has given Western society is that every man and woman bears the image of God. Notice that biological sex is foundational to image-bearing and not an expression of personal choice. Our sex is what we are, not what we choose or how we feel. We can’t allow this pillar of civilization to be thrown out because a few post-modern intellectuals have decided biological sex doesn’t matter. It matters. and we must say so. Society’s future is at stake.

Second, the Genesis text teaches that each person is of immeasurable value. This value should be tended to, defended and cultivated. In Western culture, this means constraining sex to marriage because it is in a committed relationship that one man and one woman can honor and serve the image of God in one another. From this, the sexual ethics of Judaism and Christianity find their foundation. Sexual boundaries protect the beauty of God’s image in humanity. According to Unwin, this boundary enables society to flourish. Without it, there will be hell to pay.

The third biblical idea is this: “be fruitful and multiply.” In Christian theology, this is referred to as the creation mandate. If the image of God in humanity is where each person finds his or her identity and worth, then the creation mandate gives the purpose of human sexuality. In Western society, the family is the foundation. The human family is to be a womb of love, creation and protection. In the love of a father and a mother, a child matures in the stability of a life-long commitment. This purpose gives an aim for sex. Pleasure alone provides no restraint. Procreation and restrained pleasure in marriage enables society to flourish.

It is these ideas that have formed the basis of human advancement and human flourishing since the age of the enlightenment in Western society. It is the highest level of hubris to think we are above this pattern of sexual restraint and social energy. We ignore Unwin at our peril.

It is the task of those who believe this is true and care about the future of human good to articulate and speak out for the good of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. It’s time to be annoyingly loud. In every area of life—with family, friends, colleagues, church, and in the public square and politics—we must be apologists for the common good. Make no mistake: those who believe in the new sexual ethic and destructive “gender” theories are not going to stay quiet. They are loud. If left unchallenged, a Christian worldview will be relegated to the trash dump of history. And if Unwin is right—and the research is sadly compelling—this new age of sexual freedom will propel our culture into destruction.

I have heard so many Christians speak ill of Western civilization or claim it doesn’t matter that Christians defend it. This demonstrates that they have no idea what comes next if we remain silent. According to Unwin, a culture that moves into our stage of sexual permissiveness has one generation to restore essential sexual restraints before the culture begins to diminish.

There is still time, but Christians cannot stay quiet. We know what is good and right. The house is on fire, and the occupants are sound asleep. If we love our neighbors, then we must engage. Gentleness and meekness have their place, but this moment demands something more. It demands courage to be annoyingly loud. It demands that we not be silenced by the crowds. It demands a willingness to be persecuted. We should do this because human flourishing is at stake. So, wake up, dear Christians. There is a fire to extinguish.

IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.

With the kids home for Thanksgiving we were watching a movie and during one of the commercial breaks, a cosmetic company promoted its products with a slick, high-gloss advertisement. Inserted with the burst of dramatic head shots showing beautiful young women wearing lipstick, rouge and eyeliner was a quick shot of a man doing the same.

Because it passed so quickly, it took a second to register and I asked, “Was that a guy?” My daughter responded with, “Yeah. I don’t know why you have to make such a big deal about it.”

That moment was instructive for a couple of reasons. First, when I asked my daughter if she was okay with a man wearing make-up, she said that that’s just the way the world is, and wonders why I’m surprised.

She has a point. We’ve been force-fed the LGBTQ+ agenda for years, and it’s seeped into every conceivable corner of life. The rapid collapse of historical sexual norms since Obergefell has felt like a dam giving way under the weight of the floodwaters behind it, unleashing a swollen cascade that submerges everything in its path.

Transsexuals now grace the covers of lifestyle magazines that cater to women. They displace women and girls in competitive sports. Drag queens read to children at libraries across the country. Starting in kindergarten, the next generations of children are being taught that what was once considered perverted and shameful is to be affirmed and celebrated.

Businesses adopt policies and practices that provide benefits to same-sex couples. They aspire to achieve a “100” rating from the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, billed as “the national benchmarking tool on corporate policies and practices pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer employees.”

Why should I be surprised that this is the world we live in now?

But I am surprised and that leads me to the second reason it was an instructive moment. The fact that my daughter didn’t react with aversion tells me that men wearing make-up has become normalized at a much faster rate than I expected.

Do we really need to be reminded that biological males cannot be female? Men in make-up are play-acting—they’re pretending to be women (and mostly ugly women, at that).

No matter how much lipstick, rouge, or eyeliner they wear; no matter how much they mutilate their bodies or how much estrogen they consume; no matter how much they sashay, flounce or pose in satin dresses—they remain biologically male.

It’s the science, stupid. Transsexuals either know they’re lying about their biology, in which case they need to be called out for the frauds they are; or they don’t know they’re lying about their biology, in which case they have a serious mental condition and need to be institutionalized. But in either case, why should the larger society accommodate them, much less on their terms?

I won’t. I won’t, first and foremost, because it denies God’s created order. He “created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27) I realize that most, perhaps even all, transsexuals don’t believe that. But I do and so does God and I won’t compromise my convictions.

I also won’t do it because it is irrational and I won’t betray logic or common sense to accommodate their absurdities. It makes me an accessory to their delusions and makes them codependents in a dysfunctional relationship. I’m not playing that game.

And I won’t do it because I was born at the end of the baby boom after World War II. I am part of a passing generation that held to traditional cultural norms, rational beliefs and American patriotism. It may be that my generation is one of the last to escape the full indoctrination of the decades-long “march through the institutions” of Western—specifically, American—civilization developed by Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci more than 80 years ago. I won’t be party to the overthrow of that civilization.

Unfortunately the church has not escaped the boots of cultural Marxism marching through its sanctuaries, either. As Jude told his original readers, “certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” (verse 4)

Instead of holding firm to scriptural teaching, some church leaders have sought to accommodate the alphabet mob in the cause of “winning the lost.” Just love everyone always, they say. They’ve lost their nerve to stand against the popular demands of the world and have compromised their faith. In their compassion they have forgotten that even Jesus declared that he did not come to bring peace on earth, but division. (Luke 12:51)

The church needs to regain its courage, stand for righteousness, and let God sort out the winners and losers. Parents need to take charge of their children and pull them out of public schools. Business owners need to take hits to their bottom line. Employees need to risk getting fired for refusing to toe the line on the Human Rights Campaign’s index.

When a man shows up in a cosmetics commercial peddling the latest beauty products, I express surprise, yes, but also revulsion and dismay over what our society has become. It’s getting late and we are likely past the point of no return. But we don’t need to succumb without resistance to the end.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

American political conservatives continue to offer the American public a vision for how we should govern ourselves. While it is outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (as well as state constitutions), a more specific approach is delineated in the Republican Party’s National Platform. The Illinois GOP Platform is also a conservative document.

Here are just a few specifics in a nutshell:

• Limited government and lower taxes — conservatives don’t see government as the source of solutions for all of society’s or our economy’s ills.
• Parental control over education via school choice.
• Lower cost energy through tapping our nation’s abundant energy supplies.
• A foreign policy that can be summed up as “peace through strength.”
• A health care system that is consumer-centered because greater competition can lead to lower costs and better quality.

The list goes on and on.

Leftists, or as they like to call themselves, “progressives,” would prefer that we go backwards and combine statism, in relationship to the size of government, and paganism, in the context of culture.

Statism is a path towards greater government control and less freedom for American citizens. Leftists are increasingly coming out of the closet and pushing policy steps that would put us on a road to socialism in some form or another.

Paganism has been pushed by Leftists for decades as a way to undermine the family and increase the need for ever-bigger government. One only need study Cultural Marxism to understand why anyone would want to follow that trail.

It is not always easy to convince a free people to embrace the loss of freedom, so many actions are needed to divide and conquer. One action that we’ve been chronicling in this series, identity politics, is the aggressive push to inspire tribalism as way to move Americans away from the basic principles that continue to unite us as a people.

While identity politics may have crested as a useful tactic for Leftists, it is still a clear and present danger to the country. The good news is that conservative commentators continue to shine light upon this insidious phenomenon. Here are just three examples where a bright light is illuminating the dangers of identity politics, especially as manifested through the LGBTQIA(etc.) agenda.

In an article titled “Go ahead: Establish a government-wide initiative to respect religious freedom,” Doug Mainwaring writes:

More and more, our government seeks to undermine faith and family – the only real barriers between individuals and unbridled, tyrannical government control of our lives.

. . .

Upholding constitutional rights and the human dignity of those who are same sex-attracted is one thing — a matter of the common good and basic human decency. Few, if any, would dispute that. Same-sex marriage is something completely different. These are unrelated issues, mischievously, masterfully, diabolically conflated — to the point that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples can neither be questioned nor resisted in the public square without calling down a hailstorm of accusations of bigotry and hatred.

. . .

Is America a more rich, diverse, and varied culture if the wisdom of every religious tradition and culture from around the world that has come together in this great melting pot is swept away? Are genderless marriage and genderlessness meant to supplant the rich tapestry of America? — or to unravel it and reweave it into a monochrome fabric?

. . .

America will grow and prosper if burdensome regulations are removed from the books. Likewise, our culture will prosper if religion and faith are neither suppressed nor oppressed. Let’s keep this the land of the free.

Bethany Mandel’s bio says she is “a stay-at-home mother of three children under four and a writer on politics and culture” and “a columnist for the Jewish Daily Forward,” among other things. In an article titled “How The Transgender Crusade Made Me Rethink My Support For Gay Marriage,” she writes:

The Left has shown the totalitarian manner in which it exacts support, or at least silence, from everyday Americans. We’ve seen how lives were destroyed in the wake of the gay marriage debate, how many individuals were shouted down into submission by the side that proclaims itself to be “open-minded” and employed the slogans “No H8” and “Love Wins.” For many conservatives, including myself, the lesson has been learned.

With every tweet aimed at publicizing and shaming my position on transgenderism, the progressive Left is solidifying my decision to call Bruce Jenner by his given name instead of the name he has chosen because of a condition that mental health professionals once took seriously. Playing along with delusions isn’t a kindness to those suffering from other psychological conditions, and it isn’t a kindness for those with gender dysphoria either.

Finally, just a link to a very interesting article by John Skalko over at Public Discourse. His article was titled and subtitled as follows:

Why There Are Only Two Sexes
Men are men, and women are women. There is no third option.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

Here was the headline: “Only 33 Percent of Students Proficient in English, Math.”

Last month, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote: “Devilish Details in School Sexuality-Indoctrination Bill.” And in a recent IFA Spotlight podcast, Higgins discussed the Illinois state senate’s approval of the bill mandating the teaching of “Leftist assumptions about deviant sexuality” in government-run schools. It also requires that eighth grade children will have to be tested on them “in order to move on to high school.”

Let us back up for a minute — here is Higgins explaining the legislation that recently passed the state senate:

Exploiting taxpayer funds and captive audiences of children constitutes the most egregious form of propaganda imaginable. This outrageous effort to use children and public monies to advance a Leftist ideology must be opposed with the kind of fervor and tenacity usually demonstrated only by Leftists.

. . .

If passed, the ideologically-driven school sexuality-indoctrination bill—also known deceptively as the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill (SB 3249)—would require not only that k-12 teachers teach about the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and those who reject their biological sex but also to tell students about the sexual predilections of those contributors. In other words, when teachers teach about the accomplishments of Sally Ride or the plays of Oscar Wilde, they would have to discuss their disordered sexual feelings and life choices as well. I wonder if Leftists will require that students be taught that Wilde’s first homosexual encounter was with a 17-year-old when Wilde was 32.

Such propagandizing is “decidedly not the role of public schools,” Higgins explained.

SB 3249 has already passed in the senate and now awaits House approval.

Okay, let us fast-forward now to the new report from the U.S. Department of Education’s NationsReportCard.gov:

About two thirds of eighth graders in American government schools do not even rank as “proficient” in reading or math, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress. In some districts, less than eight out of 100 students were proficient in either subject.

The results were hardly surprising to anyone who monitors the dismal state of what the government euphemistically refers to as “public education.” Indeed, the fact that even a third of American victims of government “schools” can be considered “proficient” in reading or math is more of a surprise. But even that minority may be attributable to the dumbed-down metrics used.

You can peruse the lousy Illinois test scores in that report as well.

Based on what you’ve just read, who could possibly think that the state of Illinois should mandate more LGBTQIA(etc.) propaganda rather than focusing on reading, math and science? Of course not! But to progressive lawmakers, there’s little that’s more important than the radical Leftist social agenda. Certainly not proficiency in the areas of study the schools are in existence to create.

This is also from the article linked at the opening of this post:

“The atrocious NAEP performance is only a fraction of the bad news,” explained George Mason University Professor Walter Williams, a longtime critic of the abysmal failure of public “education” in America. “Nationally, our high school graduation rate is over 80 percent. That means high school diplomas, which attest that these students can read and compute at a 12th-grade level, are conferred when 63 percent are not proficient in reading and 75 percent are not proficient in math.”

Incredible!

If parents don’t get involved quickly, there will be a day when student proficiency is higher in the history of the contributions of those identifying as part of the ever-growing LGBTQIA(etc.) cabal. Forget about proficiency in math when Oscar Wilde liked boys and wrote fiction! That day may already be here.

Of course, it’s not just this legislation that causes government schools to go astray from what used be their priority:

As The Newman Report and FreedomProject Media have documented extensively, the victims of government schools will be highly proficient in believing in global-warming alarmism, gender ideology, LGBT propaganda, globalism, humanism, socialism, and more. But as the latest NAEP results show, the schools are utterly failing to teach even the basics — reading, writing, and math — that would allow students to educate themselves.

“Parents,” the article concludes, “you have been warned.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to urge him/her to reject SB 3249, the effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased and unproven beliefs about sexuality to young children in government schools. Contact them repeatedly!

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

“It’s who they are,” we’re told. “It’s about love,” we’re told. To disagree is bigotry, we’re told.

The problem is, the “LGBT” agenda is being sold deceptively. What Leftists don’t want to admit is that as the letters are added, things get even weirder. A man cannot become a woman — it’s middle school biology. So even as those pushing for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual normalization are already bumping up against science when they’re only at the fourth letter, “T,” which stands for Transgender.

One of the basic points of this series is to hammer home the fact that there is natural design, and then there is everything else. There is teleology (see the definition of teleology here), and then there are, shall we say, variations on a theme.

Close upon that fact is the inconvenient truth that there is no way to not include all those variations from what the LGBT movement is. Leftists and cultural Marxists have started to demand acceptance for those first four letters. However, even as they struggle with the “T,” they have already begun to fight for acceptance of some of the many letters to follow. (A few ongoing attempts to list them are here, here and here.)

Let’s take the next four paraphilias starting with the letter ‘A’: remember, don’t be a bigot. It’s who they are. It’s about love. (You can see the definition of “paraphilia” here.) From Wikipedia:

Abasiophilia is a psychosexual attraction to people with impaired mobility, especially those who use orthopaedic appliances such as leg braces, orthopedic casts, or wheelchairs. The term abasiophilia was first used by John Money of the Johns Hopkins University in a paper on paraphilias in 1990.

Agalmatophilia (from the Greek agalma ‘statue’, and -philia φιλία = love) is a paraphilia involving sexual attraction to a statue, doll, mannequin or other similar figurative object. The attraction may include a desire for actual sexual contact with the object, a fantasy of having sexual (or non-sexual) encounters with an animate or inanimate instance of the preferred object, the act of watching encounters between such objects, or sexual pleasure gained from thoughts of being transformed or transforming another into the preferred object. Agalmatophilia may also encompass Pygmalionism (from the myth of Pygmalion), which denotes love for an object of one’s own creation.

Algolagnia (/ælɡəˈlæɡniə/; from Greek: ἄλγος, álgos, “pain”, and Greek: λαγνεία, lagneía, “lust”) is a sexual tendency which is defined by deriving sexual pleasure and stimulation from physical pain,^[1] often involving an erogenous zone. Studies conducted indicate differences in how the brains of those with algolagnia interpret nerve input.

Andromimetophilia — Romantic or sexual attraction to transgender people can be toward trans men, trans women, non-binary people, or a combination of these. This attraction can be a person’s occasional, or exclusive interest. Like transgender people, individuals attracted to transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, or with none of these categories; they may identify as transgender or cisgender.

To be continued…the road ahead is a long one!

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

The topic of identity politics and the widening opportunity it presents to conservatives continues to be a hot topic. Here are just three examples from recent op eds.

First up is Glenn Stanton writing at Public Discourse:

Is America Running Out of Patience with LGBT Activism?

From surprisingly fast and unexpected victory can come great hubris and the desire to utterly crush one’s opponents.

GLAAD, a leading gay advocacy outfit, released a new report showing that positive attitudes toward homosexuality and people who identify as LGBT have decreased a bit over the last few years. They sum up their findings rather starkly: “This year’s survey reflects a decline with people’s comfort year-over-year in every LGBTQ situation…”

The organization shows great concern over what they describe as the “significant decline in overall comfort and acceptance of LGBTQ people… This year the acceptance pendulum abruptly stopped and swung in the opposite direction.”

Why? Glenn Stanton answers by asking, “Could it be the LGBT community’s post-Obergefell actions and attitudes have not rested well with mainstream America?” Obergefell was the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage decision.

This is not an outlandish hypothesis. Even some major leaders in the LGBT community have suggested it. Andrew Sullivan, writing about the GLAAD report in New York magazine, warns that no one “seems to notice the profound shift in the tone and substance of advocacy for gay equality in recent years, and the radicalization of the movement’s ideology and rhetoric.” This aggressive radicalization “is surely having an impact,” he holds. How could it not, Sullivan asks, when his movement’s public rhetoric shifted from “live and let live” to the thunderously demonizing “agree with us in every regard or be a bigot”?

In typical fashion, unfortunately, too few social conservatives in political office or on the campaign trail seem to have the intellectual or moral wherewithal to take advantage of this development.

Stanton concludes his article with this:

Perhaps GLAAD and its allies should learn to practice what they preach: tolerance of other people’s beliefs and practices, even if they don’t fully understand them.

Writing at The Federalist, Chad Felix Greene wrote about the same GLAAD report:

Why Americans’ ‘Comfort Levels’ With LGBT People Dropped Last Year

LGBT organizations’ efforts to coerce, impose, and enforce their ideas appear to be resulting in the exact opposite of what they wish to achieve.

Greene writes that the context of the shift in opinion coincides with the LGBT focus on transgender advocacy, and that it “may have an impact on how average Americans view LGBT as a whole.”

The left has a strange sense of entitlement to not only acceptance from the larger society, but also a universal embrace of their ideology. It is not enough to hold legal and civil equality — society must celebrate them as well. As a result, their rhetoric and activism become ever more petty and vindictive and naturally, the majority they accuse becomes more resentful.

. . .

The LGBT movement is deeply reliant on social acceptance and approval and wishes to micromanage how we perceive them. But their efforts to coerce, impose and enforce radical policy and ideas onto the culture appear to be resulting in the exact opposite of what they wish to achieve.

Evidently it extends beyond American sentiment and the GLAAD report — here is Stefano Gennarini also writing at The Federalist:

How Their Refusal To Tolerate Dissent Is Creating A Global Backlash Against LGBT People

Promoting LGBT preferences abroad is more likely to cause backlash against the very people it is intended to help, besides harming our standing in the world, as recent events show.

Last December, Politico published a leaked memo by State Department senior aide Brian Hook, on the importance of realism in U.S. foreign policy… Hook argues that instead of seeking to impose human rights, democracy, and liberal values, the United States should lead by example and incentivize good behavior.

This return to pragmatism breaks with the Obama years’ rigid ideological dogmatism about human rights and clearly rattled the bureaucrats who leaked the memo. But his arguments cannot be easily shoved aside. Promoting a rigid leftist agenda internationally is a form of social engineering.

“Nowhere is the obtuseness of this idealistic approach more evident,” Greene writes, “than in U.S. promotion of LGBT policies abroad.”

Without applying any moral calculus, a realist approach to foreign affairs requires accepting that LGBT rights likely will never be accepted by all the people of the world, no matter how many millions of dollars we pour into foreign LGBT organizations.

“Sadly, extreme LGBT ideologues do not accept reality,” Greene writes, citing the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case. Their goal, he writes, “domestically and globally, is to impose social acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism even on those unwilling to celebrate it.”

Greene notes that United Nations Delegates “routinely complained about the relentless LGBT pressure from the Obama administration,” and concludes:

The State Department should not be peddling LGBT fantasies as legitimate foreign policy. It should severely dial back the LGBT pressure and reset on more attainable and less controversial goals. All-out LGBT diplomacy was always a losing proposition. It should have never happened. Cleaning up this mess will require significant changes.

The moment we are in presents a great chance to win back some cultural ground. Will more social conservative elected officials and candidates find the courage to speak more boldly in defense of common sense and in opposition to the radical left-wing LGBT(etc.) agenda? The Leftist agenda could be imploding — now is the time for our leaders to lead on all the issues — including the social issues.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

RESCHEDULED: IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Some readers might be tempted to consider these articles examining paraphilias as less-than-serious. In case this is your view, the medical and psychological communities cover the topic regularly in their scholarly journals. (Google it if you don’t believe me.)

The letters LGBTQIA were only the beginning. Whether falling under the category of “genders” or “paraphilias” (or both), various efforts are underway by Leftist organizations to keep up with the letters being added to LGBTQIA, and their definitions. (A few ongoing attempts are here, here and here.)

The list of “genders” continues to grow. Don’t laugh. People who believe that there more than two genders are not kidding. For them, their “identity” is whatever they want it to be today (and they retain the right to change it tomorrow). This escape from reality is accepted as gospel by a sizable percentage of the population, and is garnering coverage in the press as if it was all based in fact.

Similarly, the list of paraphilias is extensive (see lists here, here and here) but they receive a lot less attention than they should.

The LGBT agenda can only be fully understood if the definitions of the growing list of letters following that ‘T’ are understood. A big part of the Illinois Family Institute’s mission is helping to educate citizens so they can be equipped to influence this society where everything is being politicized.

Law and public policy are continuing to be impacted, and even the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation has issued a report on how we got here.

Readers might be tempted to chuckle at the notion of today’s paraphilias. In truth, they are no more humorous than thinking that a boy can become a girl, or a girl a boy.

As usual, we look to Wikipedia for the definitions:

Autovampirism/Vampirism refers to drinking one’s own blood. Most practitioners of autovampirism also engage in self-harm. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

If you happen to know more about Autovampirism/Vampirism, let me encourage you to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor and add content to that page. While you’re editing, note that our next paraphilia doesn’t even have its own Wikipedia page (it’s defined here):

Auto-haemofetishism Bleeding oneself (does not involve ingestion of blood).

I’ll close this by citing an important point made by IFI’s Laurie Higgins which applies perfectly to the subject of paraphilias:

If cultural disapproval of a condition constituted by volitional sexual acts were inherently and always wrong (and akin to racism), then cultural disapproval of polyamory, zoophilia, and scores of other paraphilias is wrong and akin to racism. That, my friends, makes for an argument with a very buttery slope.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Over the years there have been many articles outlining the “insanity” of transgenderism. No one should forget that the “LGB…T” movement willingly locked arms with those troubled souls. The more we learn about the “lifestyle” that is reflected by all of those letters — LGBTQIA(etc.) — the more people will understand that it is quite appropriate that all of the odd and unnatural paraphilias should be lopped together.

As has been noted previously, there is one man/one woman sex according to its natural design, and then there is everything else.

Wikipedia tells us that one researcher, Anil Aggrawal, compiled a list of over 540 terms “describing paraphilic sexual interests.” Today, in what is clearly a prime example of mass deception, the political left has convinced a lot of people that one group of paraphiliac interests should be elevated to the level of race. Through their unrelenting propaganda they would have us believe that the fight for paraphilia rights is akin to the fight for civil rights for racial minorities.

In other words, there are men, women, and then a growing list of other “identities” based upon an individual’s subjective feelings (which are, by the way, subject to change). Just as there are whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc., there are men, women, lesbians, gays, etc.

This is pure silliness. A few years ago, IFI’s Laurie Higgins addressed this faulty thinking in her article “The Left’s Problem With Logic“:

The Left’s troubling relationship with analogical thinking is also demonstrated in their absurd comparison of homosexuality per se to race per se, a comparison for which they provide no evidence. But no evidence is no problem for those who live and move and have their being in a non-rational world where everyone is expected to worship at the altar of the subjective feelings of the exalted autonomous self.

The purpose of this series is to keep the focus on the reality of what it is we’re talking about when it comes to the issue of LGBT (etc.) so-called “rights.” We will never effectively protect our God-given right of religious liberty, let alone common sense, unless more Americans wake up to reality and escape the pop culture and left-wing media-driven delusion regarding the nature of homosexuality and all of its compatriot paraphilias.

To our paraphilia of the day:

Gerontophilia is the sexual preference for the elderly. The word gerontophilia derives from Greek: geron, meaning “old man or woman” and philie, meaning “love.” A person who has a sexual preference for the elderly is a gerontophile. Specialised terms are alphamegamia for the attraction to an older man and anililagnia for the attraction to an older woman.

We encourage you to follow all of the links to learn more about what, no doubt, is a persecuted sexual minority.

Please join us next when we’ll take a look at another paraphilia. If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sex-centric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

It is time to return to our Identity Politics and Paraphilias series, and events surrounding Charlottesville serve as the path back.

This focus on identity politics is important because while it’s being written about a lot, in my view it’s still not receiving the serious level of discussion that it deserves.

Leftists want to fundamentally transform the United States. Unfortunately, they do not nearly have the level of support they need to accomplish it. What they would sell—socialism which leads to Venezuela-type poverty and tyranny—they can’t, so they seek to distract and destroy with divisive identity politics.

They need countless aggrieved sects fighting each other. This has always been a big part of the strategy of the cultural Marxists.

The purpose of the other part of this series — our highlighting of paraphilias — is to outline more fully the dangerous agenda of the identity politics champions. Many of these champions ride under the banner of LGBTQIA. What they don’t want you to know is that those letters represent only the beginning of the show.

The country has now been introduced to a growing number of genders — who knew that there could be so many? Silly common sense used to hold that there were only two. Here is one list that runs 13 pages.

The number of paraphilias is far greater than both the number of letters currently listed following LGBT and the count of gender varieties.

Thus, paraphilias deserve attention. According to Leftists, if America is to be truly free, all sexcentric-identified individuals should be treated equally under the law. Therefore, there is no logical answer from them as to why discrimination should be allowed for any other perversions.

So — identity politics and paraphilias fit nicely together. The Leftists know that we can’t remain a county whose motto is “out of many, one.” They want the opposite, “out of one, many.” Did I mention that not all the identities involve sex and gender? There are also “oppressed” minority groups. And a lot of them!

And now Charlottesville has brought into the spotlight a few more labels — such as crazies and anarchists: Neo-Nazis, KKK members, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter.

Commentator Tammy Bruce penned an article with this title and lead:

The deadly impact of identity politics
By conflating white supremacists and Trump supporters, the ‘Resistance’ pours hate on hate

Americans know full well the environment of hate and violence that identity politics has served us.

The concerted effort by the so-called “Resistance” to further divide this nation is disgusting and dangerous. By singularly focusing on such a craven goal of race hatred and suspicion, and conflating white supremacists with all Trump voters, they not only ignore the real issue of the danger of identity politics, they contribute to it.

In the wake of Charlottesville, commentator Michael Brown wrote:

Identity politics can be just as dangerous as outright racism. Both are divisive, both demean the value of others, and both make judgments based on skin color or ethnicity.

Writing at Mercatornet, Jarrett Stepman notes:

In a country of 320 million people of stunningly diverse ethnic backgrounds and philosophies, this is a fire bell in the night for complete cultural disintegration. The end result will be uglier than the already sickening events that took place this past weekend.

Bruce Thornton, one of my favorite writers, notes in an article at Front Page Mag:

Identity politics based on grievance and victimization requires that there always be grievances and victims. Progress cannot be admitted, no more than any of us can be born free from Original Sin. The permanence of racial sin, and the need for whites to act in ways that advantage the “victims,” forbid such reconciliation.

It used to be called the “culture war.” The phase we are moving into will make that war look like the good old days. Now it’s bigger, and on purpose. Fueled by Leftists on a mission, violent radical groups are, in the words of Jarrett Stepman, stepping up “their efforts to plunge the nation into constant social unrest and civil war.”

Up next: Paraphilias of the Day: Pedophilia, Hebephilia, Ephebophilia, and Pederasty

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  

It does make a difference.

It is worth restating my premise for these articles: The letters “LGBT” don’t really end with the letter “T,” and all the letters that follow deserve an equal footing with the first four. Thus, expect increasing irrationality and craziness from the radical political leftists in the months and years ahead.

Many fiscal conservatives consider themselves “enlightened” and thus look down on anyone concerned about those pesky and backward “social issues.” They can consider this another wake up call. The breakdown of the family and an increasingly divided society resulting from identity politics means your efforts to restore limited government (even a little bit) are doomed to fail.

You can’t tear up the social fabric and expect a lean government. You can’t have one kind of society and another kind of government. Here’s more bad news: you cannot separate the economic issues from the social issues.

Last November Daniel Payne posted a piece at The Federalist titled, “Why Liberals’ Coming Fight Over Identity Politics Will Be Ugly.” Here was the introductory sentence: “The more practical wing of the Democratic Party and the more manic, single-minded constituency largely comprised of young liberals are in for a giant fight.”

Payne writes:

The tried-and-true formula of liberal success served reasonably well throughout the young twenty-first century and quite well throughout much of the second half of the twentieth. Yet this boiling stew of identity politics centering on race, sex, and sexual orientation failed the Democrats at precisely the moment it should have been their Excalibur.

“There is good reason for the Left to consider an alternative way to do politics,” Payne writes, and suggests that the Leftists discard “identity politics for something better.”

And what might that be? A package of policy proposals guaranteed to work? Like $20 trillion in federal debt? A war on poverty that hasn’t worked? Obamacare and other entitlement programs that are not structured properly? A K-12 and higher education system that is both inefficient and ineffective?

Payne defines identity politics just as I do in this series:

This will be a problem for Democrats looking to soften the party’s approach to identity issues. On questions of “identity,” or what is often broadly termed “social issues,” younger voters are far more liberal than their older counterparts.

Payne continues:

Consider, for instance, the millennial position on LGBT rights. Data suggest that overwhelming majorities of young voters favor “LGBT nondiscrimination protections,” while nearly three-quarters of Millennials favor re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples. Half of the same demographic believes “gender isn’t limited to male and female.”

Yep. The same kids that think Bernie Sanders was onto something are also confused about biology. That’s fixable. It calls for conservatives of all stripes to start fighting and winning the information war. Learning is a lifetime activity and the Millennial generation will require more continuing education than most.

You can read the rest of Daniel Payne’s article here. He touches on other areas of Leftist and Millennial generation ignorance.

Now to our paraphilia of the day: Bestiality/Zoophilia. Sorry, but it is a paraphilia. Are the Millennials ready to embrace this or are they backward bigots? Here’s Wikipedia‘s opening note:

For other uses, see Zoophilia (disambiguation).

“Bestiality” redirects here. For other uses, see Bestiality (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Zoophily.

Certainly none of us want to confuse it with Zoophily.

Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human animals. Bestiality is cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human animals. The terms are often used interchangeably, but some researchers make a distinction between the attraction (zoophilia) and the act (bestiality).

Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, in most countries, bestiality is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.

One reader brought a 2012 article to my attention written by Antonio M. Haynes, a Cornell University law student: “’Dog on Man’: Are Bestiality Laws Justifiable?” Just to be clear, I only read the first four pages so I have no idea what his argument is. It wasn’t easy getting that far — call it intolerance on my part if you’d like.

The following passage is from the book, Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality by Bill Muehlenberg:

The Gay Report, a book much praised in homosexual communities, contains testimonials without adverse comment of homosexual encounters with Labrador retrievers, cows and horses. The 1992 report mentioned above found that 15 per cent of male homosexuals and 19 per cent of male bisexuals had sex with animals, compared with three per cent of male heterosexuals. As lesbian activist Sara Cohen puts it: “What’s wrong with a little bestiality?”

Enough said.

To our basic and important question of the day: Should a person who is morally opposed to Bestiality/Zoophilia behavior be allowed to have a show on HGTV?

Up next: Normalizing Deviance & Sadomasochism.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!

Last time we covered two recent articles from Public Discourse — here are brief excerpts from three more.

The first is from Ryan T. Anderson — note the important introduction following the title:

How to Think About Discrimination: Race, Sex, and SOGI
Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) antidiscrimination laws are unjustified, but if other policies are adopted to address the mistreatment of people who identify as LGBT, they must leave people free to engage in legitimate actions based on the conviction that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.

Here is Anderson’s first paragraph:

In a new report for the Heritage Foundation, “How to Think About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Policies and Religious Freedom,” I argue that current proposals to create new LGBT protections with varying types of religious exemptions will not result in what advocates claim is “Fairness for All.” Instead, they will penalize many Americans who believe that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other—convictions that the Supreme Court of the United States, in Obergefell v. Hodges, recognized are held “in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.”

Mr. Anderson is a talent and conservatives benefit greatly from his work. However, like Victor Davis Hanson yesterday, I’m not sure he grasps how far “identity politics” goes. This series shows that it extends far beyond the relatively narrow “LGBT.” In fact, there is almost no end to the number of letters that can follow the “T.”

Here is the next article from Public Discourse — this one is by Scott Beauchamp. For the sake of space I’ll only list the title and its introductory sentence which says a lot:

The Kids Aren’t All Right: What the Gender-Identity Revolution Has in Common with 1960s’ Drug Culture
The LSD consciousness-expansion movement of the late sixties and today’s gender-identity fixation are both counterfeit revolutions. The two might initially appear very different, but they share similar intellectual assumptions and make analogous mistakes.

And lastly, from Emily Zinos:

Biology Isn’t Bigotry: Christians, Lesbians, and Radical Feminists Unite to Fight Gender Ideology
Public schools have a duty to serve all children, but a school cannot serve children and a totalitarian ideology all at once. For the sake of children’s well-being, Christian mothers are uniting with their radical feminist and lesbian sisters to reject the idea of “gender identity.”

Just three sentences from the article:

The belief that one’s internal sense of self determines maleness or femaleness and that subjective feelings take precedence over an objective physical reality constitutes a severing of mind from body. Our sex is who we are: it can’t be amputated from our body like a limb. But the true believers in gender ideology are hard at work, pulling in converts to this gnostic worldview that shuns the material that we humans are made of: the body.

I realize many readers are terribly anxious to learn about today’s paraphilia so let’s get to it. (Oh, and I’m sorry, TheOnion.com, you can’t have this one since it’s real and not satire.)

Once again we’re going to rely on trusty Wikipedia. As an aside, just so you know, I am fully aware of the problems with Wikipedia. If you’re not sure what I’m referring to, check out here how they duplicate the Oprah Winfrey “pregnant man” lunacy (spoiler alert: “Thomas,” formerly Tracey, was born a girl).(Would it be disrespectful at this point to include the letters ‘LOL’?)

So…here’s Wikipedia:

Autassassinophilia is a paraphilia in which a person is sexually aroused by the risk of being killed. The fetish may overlap with some other fetishes that risk one’s life, such as those involving drowning or choking. This does not necessarily mean the person must actually be in a life-threatening situation, for many are aroused from dreams and fantasies of such.

Be sure to click on this link to learn more — because you need to be ready when Nintendo bows to pressure and creates a video game which includes autassassinophilias. Your kids might need it explained — that is, if they haven’t gotten to that chapter in the diversity textbook at school.

Up next we’ll take a look at another example of the ways people experience “intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals.” If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

One of the email newsletters I receive is from the Witherspoon Institute’s “Public Discourse,” and often link to and/or excerpt articles posted at their website. Recently there has been a number of articles touching on “identity politics.” In this post and in the next I will link to and excerpt from a few of the the articles.

First up is from Professor Anthony Esolen.

Pronouns, Ordinary People, and the War over Reality
Do not dismiss the pronominal wars as nonsense or assume that its warriors are merely daft.

It cannot possibly be to any living thing’s advantage to be confused about male and female. As it is, sex is far more strongly marked upon the human body than it is upon the bodies of dogs or cats or horses or many of the species of birds. A man’s face is not like a woman’s face. … A man’s shoulders do not look like a woman’s shoulders, and a woman’s hips do not look like a man’s hips. Men and women differ down to their very hair, as anyone can perceive who looks at a woman’s smooth chin or a man’s bald pate.

Ordinary and healthy people love that it is so,” Esolen writes. And:

The sexual revolution always has been a war waged against the ordinary family, against the ordinary ways of men and women and children. The moral law as regards sex is meant to protect that family from threats without and within: from the pseudo-marriage that is fornication, from the betrayal of marriage that is adultery, from the rickets and scurvy of impure habits, and from the mockery of the marital act that is sodomy.

And yes, Professor Esolen doesn’t pull his punches.

Our next article is by R.J. Snell — note the subtitle!

Swastikas and Safety Pins: The Grim Heritage of Identity Politics
A war of every group against every other is the sine qua non of identity politics. The peacefulness of classical liberalism is rejected root and branch, for war is the goal.

In it, Snell links to several articles, one of which includes a word I’ve never seen before: “identitarian.”

There is only space here to highlight a couple of things. Note this paragraph:

Without the discipline of party politics, social movements devolve into mere feeling, especially in our age of expressive individualism. People march and feel good and think they have accomplished something. They have a social experience with a lot of people and fool themselves into thinking they are members of a coherent and demanding community. Such movements descend to the language of mass therapy.

And this:

The definition of America is up for grabs. Our fundamental institutions have been exposed as shockingly hollow. But the marches couldn’t escape the language and tropes of identity politics.

I always recommend reading the entire articles I excerpt.

Now to our paraphilia — the poor little mostly-ignored “B” from the identity politics pioneers at “LGBT”:

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward both males and females. The term is mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward both men and women. It may also be defined as encompassing romantic or sexual attraction to people of all gender identities or to a person irrespective of that person’s biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality.

Got it? Are you sure? Want to read that again just to make sure? Are you ready to be quizzed, for example, on the “all gender identities” part?

If you’ve really got it, then let’s get to our closing question: How will society respond to a future well-funded marriage “equality” effort for those in bi-sexual relationships?

Up next: More from Public Discourse.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Readers may have noticed that each of these posts has begun with a citation from one or more articles on the topic of identity politics and then closes by highlighting a paraphilia. This time we will only excerpt two of my favorite writers – the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins and Pastor Scott Lively.

These were first posted back in 2014, I began the article with this introduction:

The term “sexual orientation” is a fictitious socio-political construct invented by the left to promulgate the non-scientific idea that homosexual proclivities and temptations are somehow neutral, immutable characteristics that define a same-sex attracted person’s identity. Two well-respected cultural analysts shared their thoughts on the subject.

Laurie Higgins:

The term “sexual orientation” is a biased, political term created to equate heterosexuality and homosexuality. While homosexual activists and their ideological allies believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are flip sides of the sexuality coin, others believe–rightly–that homosexuality is a disordering of the sexual impulse.

“Sexual orientation” also connotes the idea that homosexuality is biological determined, immutable in all cases, and inherently moral, all of which are controversial assumptions.

Whereas homosexuality is constituted merely by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts that many consider immoral, heterosexuality is constituted by subjective desire, volitional acts that no one considers inherently immoral, and by biology and anatomy. And in terms of biology and anatomy, everyone is heterosexual.

Homosexuality is not merely one of several healthy and moral manifestations of sexuality. Rather, it is a disordering or perversion of the sexual impulse.

Our side needs to understand this and stop using the term “sexual orientation.”

Scott Lively:

Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. So-called ‘sexual orientation’ is just a theory that lets people pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind and not an objective truth based on our self-evident physiological reality.

Sexual orientation” is a fictional socio-politcal construct invented by homosexual activists, and is their religious doctrine.

Another purpose of “sexual orientation” theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status.

The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to pro-“gay” arguments. For one thing, it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality. For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease and dysfunction.

When reminded of this, “gay” sympathizers say, “heterosexuals do the same things.” This isn’t a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don’t make a right, but even so, the medical data shows that heterosexual behavior, even when promiscuous, really doesn’t result in nearly as many negative health consequences. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality, if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

A second reason for espousing the demise of equivalency is that equivalency allows “gay” activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines, which otherwise would not apply.” Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally.

An anti-discrimination policy based upon “sexual orientation” is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization, because it locks in pro-“gay” assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by these (false) premises. The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and easily recognized.

In summary, “sexual orientation” is a term that is used by homosexual activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexual behavior. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting pro-“gay” presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals’ political goals.

Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become “law” in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to the rest of the homosexual agenda becomes much, much more difficult.

The only effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of the fictitious “sexual orientation” socio-political theory, and re-frame the issues on a truthful foundation. “Sexual orientation” must be exposed for what it is: a nonsensical theory about sexuality invented by “gay” political strategists to serve their own selfish interests at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole.

Up next: Man’s Search for Meaning.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT is Not a Color