A poem by Rev. Maltbie Davenport Babcock (1858-1901), best known as the author of the hymn “This is My Father’s World,” expresses how I believe Christians must approach the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage.

The words of his poem “Be Strong” are ones that ought to be on every believer’s heart and mind today and in the days to come.

“Be Strong”

Be Strong!
We are not here to play, to dream, to drift;
We have hard work to do, and loads to lift;
Shun not the struggle – face it; ‘tis God’s gift. 

Be Strong!
Say not, “The days are evil. Who’s to blame?”
And fold the hands and acquiesce – oh shame!
Stand up, speak out, and bravely, in God’s name. 

Be Strong!
It matters not how deep entrenched the wrong,
How hard the battle goes, the day how long,
Faint not – fight on! To-morrow comes the song.

Now is the time to be strong! While it is understandable to be discouraged by the justices’ decision to create a new civil “right” for same-sex “marriage,” we ought not be surprised. Over the past six years, we have witnessed an unprecedented acceleration and acceptance of this radical cultural revolution in our country. Media, pop culture, academia, the church, and even the military have succumbed to the lies of the “LGBTQ” agenda. As a result, some conservative political pundits and some conservative candidates are waving the white flag of surrender, suggesting that we concede the issue of marriage redefinition and “LGBTQ rights.”

But neither surrender nor a weakening of resolve is an option for professing Christians. We believe in truth, and our faith demands that we not only buy the truth and refuse to sell it (Proverbs 23:23) but also testify to the truth as the Lord Jesus did (John 18:37).

It is imperative that we all understand that we have NOT been providentially placed in our schools, jobs, and communities in order to safeguard our own comfort, reputation, or legacy. Most assuredly, IFI is not in the public square to garner political power or legislative victories (although, that would be nice). We do not seek financial gain and certainly not worldly praise. Our sole purpose is to advance the Gospel truth, all for the glory of the Lord!

In the wake of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, many voices loudly proclaimed victory, and other voices – conservative voices – suggested that we just go with the flow. But faithful Christians could not remain silent or acquiesce. Patiently and steadfastly, pro-lifers worked to advance the truth. Today, public opinion has shifted dramatically, despite the feckless U.S. Supreme Court decision, as more and more people acknowledge abortion as a selfish and murderous act.

We must adopt the pro-life model of patient and persistent proclamation of the truth as we stand against this latest judicial travesty.

As Christians, we need to remember that the world is mired in a spiritual battle with demonic forces that seek to oppose God’s purposes and distort truth. These forces are determined to bring evil and destruction to every human being created in the image of God. With stakes this high, we simply cannot afford to remain silent concerning the moral and ethical issues we face as a society and a nation. We must speak out against abortion. We must take a strong and vocal stand for God’s design for marriage and sexuality. We must act in defense of religious liberty.

When we choose to remove ourselves, our biblical world view, and Christian influence, from the political process, we allow godless ideologies and philosophies to further deceive and capture the culture. The Lord has graciously planted us in a place where the responsibility of governing rests with “the people.” Who are we to refuse or squander His blessing?

We have been empowered to espouse truth in the public square because we know the author of truth. If we intentionally sit back and allow humanists and atheists to implement wicked policies that will disparage, damage, and destroy lives, relationships, families, and communities, we deny the principle of authority that He has given to us.

While the court’s decision is monumentally disastrous for our culture, religious liberty, and biblical morality, we cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. As Christ- followers, we serve the King of all creation. Sadly, the majority of our culture, as well as the five SCOTUS justices, have embraced the popular lie of marriage “equality” and have accepted the notion that homoeroticism is normal, and, in so doing, have rejected God’s design for both. These developments don’t surprise God. In fact, the rejection of God’s standards is nothing new (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Scripture is replete with examples of God dealing with similarly rebellious people – issuing warnings and rebukes for sexual sin in various cultures – going all the way back to Noah (Genesis 5-10).

Therefore, if God, the sovereign ruler of the universe, is not panicked by the court’s decision, then we should not panic either. What we need to do is accept the fact that living an overtly Christian life in our rapidly changing culture will grow increasingly more difficult. But remember, this short life, which Scripture calls a whisper (Psalm 39:5), is not about our own agendas, comforts, and amusements. Rather, it is entirely about the LORD and his Kingdom!

This foundational truth has been resonating in my heart and mind for many months now. It is not about us! If Christians would understand and apply this truth consistently – put it into practice – our predominately godless culture would be dramatically affected by our example and convicted of God’s work in our lives. The people of God are called to be salt and light, and this culture is in desperate need of seasoning and light!

So, in spite of this tragedy, let’s not be fatalistic! All is not lost – in fact we have faith that all is guaranteed (Matt. 16:17-19).

Moreover, the opportunity and necessity to advance Gospel truth in a spiritually dark culture grows even greater. As the darkness of sin and depravity deepens, the “light of the world” will stand out more prominently as we joyfully display our love, perseverance, faithfulness, patience, and concern for each other, children, marriage, decency, justice, truth, and, above all,  for the glory of God.

Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works
and glorify your Father in heaven.
~Matthew 5:16

Through their foolishness, selfishness, and arrogance, “progressives” are responsible for the harm being done to children, teens, the family, the church, the First Amendment, and what’s left of American culture.

Through our ignorance, selfishness, cowardice, and passivity (if not apathy), we Christians are complicit in this harm.

Tragic teen victim of perverse Leftist ideology

The tragic story of a teenage boy—a senior in high school—who just two months ago underwent a grotesque amputation of his genitalia, illustrates the egregious and obscene nature of the evil that too many Christians have facilitated.

Caden Boone, who has changed his name to “Katherine,” underwent what the New York Times stupidly calls an “operation that had changed her, in the most intimate part of her body, from a biological male into a female.”

Any scientist with the courage to speak truth in a public square dominated by anti-science ideologues would explain that no human can change from a biological male into a female.

It’s excruciating to say this, but charlatan doctors are changing teenage boys, not into girls, but into de facto eunuchs.

According to the Times, Caden Boone never demonstrated the usual childhood signs of gender dysphoria:

Kat Boone did not fit the stereotype of a girl trapped in a boy’s body.

As a child, she dressed in jeans and shirts, like all the other boys, and her best friend was a boy. She liked to play with cars and slash bad guys in the Legend of Zelda video games. She still shuns dresses, preferring skinny jeans and band T-shirts.

But as a freshman in high school in Cazenovia, N.Y., she became depressed and withdrawn. “I knew that the changes going on with puberty were not me,” Kat said. “I started to really hate my life, myself. I was uncomfortable with my body, my voice, and I just felt like I was really a girl.”

When she discovered the transgender world on the Internet, she had a flash of recognition. “I was reading through some symptoms, not really symptoms, but some of the attributes of it did click,”

Boone, whose father moved out when he was in fifth grade and who had never demonstrated discomfort with his sex, became depressed during his freshman year in high school and had his penis amputated before he graduated three years later.

The Times reporter acknowledges that “there are no proven biological markers for what is known as gender dysphoria.”

Tangled Leftist web

The Left is really getting tied up in intellectual knots as their doctrinaire assumptions about race, homosexuality, biological sex, “gender,” and “identity” come home to roost. In their lowered consciousness, “progressives” are doing what roosting chickens do: excrete excrement. Unfortunately, they’re also tracking their doo-doo all over the lives of young people.

We’ve been told for decades that race is an immutable biological reality, but now we’re told race is a social construct. We’ve also been told ad nauseum told that homosexuality is analogous to race, but if race is a social construct, then what about homosexuality?

We’ve been told that the binary categories of male and female are arbitrary and socially constructed, shaped by societal conventions and expectations. But then why do so many “transwomen” insist that their desire to dress like caricatures of 1950’s pin-up girls is evidence of their “female brains”?

And if there exist no substantive and real differences between men and women, why do homosexuals claim they’re attracted only to those of their same sex?

Who’s being compelled to lie?

Syndicated columnist Clarence Page, who both is and “identifies” as black, compares Bruce Jenner’s gynophilia to the “negrophilia” of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who identifies as black:

Dolezal…says she wants to look the way she feels inside. That’s her right, as long as she’s honest about it. Jenner made news by “living his truth,” as many in the transgender community say. Dolezal lived a lie.

What about less famous “transpeople” who are hormone-doping, lopping off body parts, stitching on other body parts, changing birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and falsely claiming to be the opposite sex? Do they have an obligation to tell everyone what Jenner because of his fame will never have to tell (i.e., that he is in reality a man)? Does the obligation not to tell a Dolezal-like whopper require all “transpeople” to fess up to their real sex? Are men who are passing as women living a lie? “LGBT activists claim that “transpeople” are not living a lie, because they are living the truth of their “gender identity.” But there’s also the pesky phenomenon of biological sex. Many believe that subjective desire is subordinate in importance to objective reality.

And what about the freedom of others–you know, “cisgenders” who remain anchored to reality–who want to live the way they feel and believe?  What about people who believe and feel strongly that objective biological sex is real and meaningful and should be affirmed? What about people who believe and feel strongly that pretending that a gender dysphoric boy is a girl harms him deeply and possibly irreparably?

And what about teachers who believe and feel strongly that lying is wrong and yet are being required by the government to lie by being required to refer to gender dysphoric boys as “she” and “her”? What about teachers whose identity includes a commitment to truth-telling?

Connection between love and truth

“Progressives” talk endlessly about “identity,” squishing their definition into whatever shape suits their libidinous appetite for morally untethered sexuality. My generation (referred to by a waggish millennial pastor friend of mine as the “worst generation”) advocated free love. We’ve all been duped. The costs are incalculable, and in order to know which acts (including speech “acts”) are loving requires first a knowledge of truth.

So, for example, if homoeroticism is neither ontologically nor morally equivalent to heterosexual activity, then affirming it as such is not loving.

If homoerotic desire and activity are not ontologically equivalent to race, then affirming them as equivalent is either foolish ignorance or evil.

If homoerotic activity is, in reality, immoral, it is feckless and unloving to assert that it is moral.

If our biochemistry can contribute to powerful desires to engage in activities that are immoral, then telling children that because biochemistry may contribute to homoerotic attraction, homoerotic activity is inherently moral is a foolish and dangerous statement.

If biological sex (i.e., being male or female) is an immutable, profoundly meaningful, and objectively good ontological reality, proclaiming it mutable or subordinate to disordered desire is at best ignorant, at worst evil.

If love sometimes requires that humans tell their friends or family members that they ought not act on a powerful, persistent desire, then it is deeply dishonest to assert that society must affirm homoerotic activity and relationships simply because homoerotic desire is powerful and persistent.

Identity according to “progressives”

The Left created and exploits a deformed conceptualization of identity because it serves their lust for sexual autonomy.

Identity may signify the aggregate of all personal phenomena. These phenomena can be roughly and simplistically divided into categories:

1.  Morally neutral, unchosen phenomena (e.g., nation of origin; skin, eye, and hair color; height; I.Q.; number of siblings; food tastes)
2. Unchosen feelings, some of which impel us toward wrong behavior and some of which impel us toward right behavior (e.g., anger, covetousness, compassion, polyamory/”consensual non-monogamy,” gender dysphoria; heterosexual attraction; homoerotic attraction; “genetic sexual attraction,” “minor attraction”)
3. Unchosen experiences (e.g., music or sports that our parents required, sickness, accidents, childhood molestation)
4. Freely chosen phenomena (e.g., values, beliefs, actions).

Alternatively, identity can refer to aggregate of unchosen feelings and freely chosen values and beliefs that individuals affirm as good and upon which they think it’s morally legitimate to act.

“Progressives” seek to confuse people by demanding that society treat all categories as ontologically identical, which in turn serves their social and political ends. In their twisted world, if it’s wicked to judge a particular eye color as wrong or inferior, then it’s wicked to judge someone’s freely chosen actions (well, primarily actions related to sexuality) as wrong.

Conversely, in this topsy-pervy world, if one ought to treat eye color as morally neutral, then one has an obligation to treat homoerotic activity and cross-dressing as morally neutral.

Of course, “progressives” don’t apply that principle consistently. They don’t argue that if society has an obligation to treat eye or skin color as morally neutral, then society has an obligation to treat theologically orthodox Christian beliefs/identity as morally neutral.

Christian identity

Anyone who claims to find their identity in Christ has an obligation to expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness and to try to protect children. Most Christians—including our religious leaders—have failed and continue to fail.

We have failed because of our own selfish desire to live outside God’s stipulations for sexuality, marriage, and divorce.

We have failed because of our own intellectual, moral, and spiritual sloth.

We have failed because of our cowardly refusal to suffer for Christ and His Kingdom.

In the current cacophonous din borne in damning darkness, our children are hearing that turning Caden Boone into a eunuch is a sign of love.  And still we say nothing.

Please support IFI!

Written by Jonathan V.Last

Once more for the hard of hearing or weak of understanding: The athlete formerly known as Bruce is not now nor ever can be a woman. Further, it is the apex of cruelty and ignorance to pretend along with him that he is.

If the cultural dictators continue to demand that everyone in society participate in this delusional, dishonest, destructive fiction, then intellectual consistency requires that they demand everyone in society to treat Africana Studies professor and race activist Rachel Dolezal—who is in reality of Central and Eastern European descent—as if she is African American.

Dolezal has been reverse-“passing” for years, falsely claiming to be African American. She has modified her physical appearance to align with her self-conception. She is “trans-raced.”

In addition, society needs to revisit the treatment protocols available to those who experience Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), which causes sufferers to identify as amputees (Click here to read more on BIID). In order to alleviate the disturbing sense of discordance between their feelings and their bodies, they desire to have a limb amputated. Some even go so far as to mutilate themselves in order to force the medical community to amputate a limb. Society rightly views the disordered desire of the “trans-abled” to amputate healthy body parts as barbaric. Society largely believes, for now, that the compassionate, humane treatment protocol involves medication and counseling to encourage those who suffer from BIID to accept their bodies.

Then there are scores of Americans who identify as young’uns. Many are found in Hollywood. They reject their unchosen, unwanted age and seek to modify their appearance to align with their age-identity. The “trans-aged” should be permitted to attend high school and date those with whom they identify. They should be permitted to change their birth certificates to identify the year they wish they had been born as opposed to the year they were assigned at birth. And if the “trans-aged” identify as toddlers, they should be permitted to wear diapers to work where restrooms should be retrofitted with enormous changing tables.

And finally, let’s not forget the “trans-specied” who identify as sloths. Surely an evolving society must adapt by changing its work-productivity expectations. Sloths can’t possibly produce at the frenetic pace of alpha humans or even alpha wolves.

The Chicago Tribune once again revealed how foolish smart people can be. In yesterday’s editorial on Jenner, the Trib editorial board employed the imbecilic and insulting comparison of opposition to interracial or interfaith marriage to disagreement with the ontological and moral assumptions of Leftist sexuality dogma:

There was a time when intermarriage between faiths and races was taboo….Then the culture shifted and what seemed wrong or abnormal became accepted, and normal….Now we’re in a moment of cultural discovery about another frontier in sexual politics. This moment will pass and transgenderism will seem different, but not so strange.

The board conveniently omitted any discussion of whether or how faith or race per se correspond to gender dysphoria, cross-dressing, elective amputations of healthy body parts, and cross-sex hormone-doping. Such a discussion may have revealed the speciousness of such comparisons.

The board went on to state that “gender identity is a recognized concept,” without acknowledging that the assumptions that inhere a “progressive” conceptualization of “gender identity” are substantively different from those that inhere a conservative conceptualization of “gender identity.” The board suggested reductively that those who “are not comfortable” with the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages,” will also be “utterly bewildered by transgender politics.”

It isn’t discomfort or bewilderment that impels opposition to “transgender politics.” It is intellectual reasoning and science. In contrast, the uncritical embrace of all things sexually deviant demonstrated by the Left is impelled by feelings and doctrinaire ideology, largely divorced from philosophical reasoning, common sense, and science.

The Left has embraced the moral solipsism of the “LGBTQQAP” movement, which denies that anything outside the self exists that can serve as an arbiter of moral truth. That’s why the movement is rife with intellectual and existential inconsistencies and incoherence. Of course, they then judge moral disapproval of homoerotic activity and “transgender politics” as inherently immoral.

The issue of whether to call gender dysphorics by opposite sex names is a peripheral distraction. In some contexts, their original name may be unknown, so their adopted opposite-sex name is all people will know. What is not peripheral, however, is the issue of pronoun-use. Referring to a man as “she” or a woman as “he” constitutes a denial of reality, otherwise known as lying. Gender dysphorics cannot become the other sex. That is a matter of science. Neither “LGBTQQAP” activists, nor their ideological “allies,” nor arms of the government (e.g., public schools) have the ethical right to compel others to lie. And facilitating a destructive fiction is the antithesis of love and compassion.

Oh what a tangled web…

 Stand With Us

The Duggar controversy illuminates the truth that the cultural battle in which Christians are engaged is first and foremost a battle with principalities and powers:  “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

There is no other sensible explanation for the unseemly glee and unwarranted rage directed at this family by “progressives” who believe sodomy should be embraced as an identity. What, other than the influence of principalities and powers, can account for liberals taking aim at the Duggars—who  consistently demonstrate an otherworldly grace and gentleness—while rejoicing in Bruce Jenner’s tragic mental disorder and bodily mutilation and celebrating annual parades of perversion?

“Progressives” have provided the entire world with a graphic display (Warning: some obscene language) of ignorance and sickening schadenfreude.

Let’s take a little look-see at the mind-boggling claims that “progressives” make about the Duggars, claims which fuel their venomous assaults and expose their intellectual shallowness, moral vacuity, and unadulterated hypocrisy.

Claim 1. The Duggars are freaks because they reject the contraceptive culture that severs sex from marriage, sex from procreation, and procreation from marriage, and because they’re irresponsible, environmentally-unfriendly “breeders.”

Why is it weirder to oppose the contraceptive culture than it is to endorse intrinsically sterile erotic activity involving the excremental orifice?

Why is it weirder to deeply value the procreative function of sex—which is what accounts for the critical importance of marital permanence and exclusivity—than it is to value porn, erotic “literature,” sadomasochism, or homoerotic profligacy?

I understand why so many homosexuals enjoy the au courant sport of Duggar-hating. Homosexual activists have a vested personal interest in arguing that though the  biological implications of sexually complementary intercourse may be meaningful to individual couples, such implications have no inherent meaning or value relative to embodiment or human flourishing.

As to the environmental concerns of “progressives”—including Hollywood liberals, many of whom own huge swaths of property around the world and consume enormous amounts of natural resources to power their homes, planes, pools, and other accouterments of the lifestyles of the rich and famous: The world is not over-populated. There exists a problem with distribution of resources.

There is, however, a dearth of sexual sanity, grace, and wisdom, all of which the Duggars seem to amply possess. Who contributes more to a life-sustaining environment: The Jenner-Kardashian clan or the Duggars?

Claim 2. The Duggars are weird and cultish because they homeschool their kids, and the girls wear “prairie outfits.”

So, in our sordid carnival world, “prairie outfits” signify freakish repression, but a 65-year-old man in a lady’s satin corset represents female beauty and liberation? The Duggar girls in long skirts are weirder than Rihanna wearing completely—and I mean completely–transparent gowns to very public events?

If that’s the case, I’m all in for freakish prairie outfits. I would rather see my daughters in prairie outfits than have the whole world see them in the Empress’s new clothes. And I’d rather see my father lumber about in a suit of armor than sashay about in a chiffon peignoir. Yes, I’m just that transgressive—utterly liberated from the dictates of our socially disintegrated culture.

With regard to the homeschooling charge: it’s relevant to note that there are hundreds of liberal parents who homeschool their kids. The motivation for some is their view that public education fosters conformity over individualism. Some believe that public schools value uniformity over creativity. And some believe curricula are too test-driven. Those parents rarely if ever are criticized for weird cultishness.

No, it’s not the fact of homeschooling that generates all the foaming at the mouth we’ve seen in the past few weeks. It’s the Duggars’ reasons for homeschooling that drive homosexuals and their uber-cool allies to wax berserk and self-righteous.

The non-judgmental, tolerant disciples of diversity have judged that the desire to train up children to love God and theological orthodoxy is not merely counter-cultural and not merely weird, but twisted and evil.

Homosexual activists have all Christian institutions—including private schools, colleges, and universities—in their sights. And then they’ll come gunning for homeschools and airwaves. Before long, we will be Canada, or Germany where it is illegal to homeschool.

Deuteronomy 11:19 tells parents, “You shall teach [the words of the Lord] to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Increasing numbers of Christian parents believe they cannot fulfill this instruction if their children are in public schools that are often hostile to Christian beliefs  7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 186 days a year, for 13-22 formative years.

Interestingly, anti-Christian bigots and sexual pagans seek the same thing Christian parents like the Duggars seek. They seek to shape the minds and hearts of children. The difference is anti-Christian bigots and sexual pagans want to train up other people’s children in the way they believe they should go, which is why they are so desperate to mock, condemn, and ultimately eradicate the homeschool movement.

Claim 3. (This one is a real howler and reveals just how bereft of moral reasoning many “progressives” are.) The Duggars are hypocrites because they espouse family values while both experiencing sin in their own family and concealing a serious sin committed by a minor child from the prying eyes and vengeful, darkened, judgmental hearts of strangers.

Seriously, that’s what they say—well, I may have tinkered with that last part a bit.

Does the Left understand what hypocrisy means? Hypocrisy is “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; insincerity.”

Let’s look at some real life incidents to try to achieve some clarity on hypocrisy:

• When someone says to me, “Who are you to judge,” while hurling obscenities at me for saying that homoerotic activity is immoral, they may be hypocrites.
• When Leftist public “educators” claim to value diversity and oppose censorship while selecting multiple homosexuality-affirming resources to teach to students and then “not selecting” (otherwise known as censoring) dissenting resources,  they may be hypocrites.
• When Dan Savage condemns name-calling and then calls conservative high school students “pansies” and calls theologically orthodox Christians “b*tsh*t,” “a**h*le,” “d**cheb*gs,” he may be a hypocrite.

Of course, we don’t know if these individuals are hypocrites or if they simply failed to live up to their true beliefs.

The fact that a Duggar child, while a minor, committed a serious sexual sin and the Duggars express the belief that homoerotic activity is immoral does not even come close to hypocrisy.

The Left isn’t angry because the Duggars expressed a moral proposition that they—the Duggars—don’t truly believe. The Left is angry because the Duggars truly believe the moral proposition they expressed.

I wonder, does every homosexual whose minor child commits a moral offense or breaks the law lose the ethical right to express moral propositions? If a homosexual’s minor child steals something, is the homosexual parent engaging in hypocrisy if he expresses his sincerely-held belief that theft is immoral?

If the young teenage son of homosexuals were to view child pornography several times, are his parents forever precluded from publicly expressing their sincerely-held belief that “swinging” is wrong? Are his parents forever prohibited from condemning plural marriage and consensual adult incest?

Would these parents forever be prohibited from saying that disapproval of homosexuality is immoral, bigoted, and hateful, because those claims sound downright judgmental to me. And surely intellectual consistency would suggest that anyone who expresses those moral judgments must think themselves morally superior to others.

But the Duggars have never claimed the mantle of human behavioral perfection. It is homosexuals who claim that whenever theologically orthodox Christians express disapproval of homosexuality, said Christians are claiming to be morally superior.

Homosexuals also  ignorantly claim that any iteration of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and the afterlife constitutes a desire on the part of Christians that homosexuals go to hell. If Christians actually desired that homosexuals go to hell, they would say nothing about what the Bible teaches. Of course, if anyone who claims to be a Christian desired that homosexuals go to hell, they wouldn’t, in reality, be Christians.

Following her respectful and compelling interview with the Duggars, it was troubling to hear Megyn Kelly state that the Duggars “pass judgment” on others. Since when did the expression of moral beliefs become passing judgment on others? And if expressing moral beliefs does, indeed, constitute passing judgment on others, then every human is guilty of passing judgment.

Oddly, when homosexuals express their innumerable moral propositions, they seem unfazed by any fear that they are claiming moral superiority or passing judgment on others. Nor do they keep their traps shut about what constitutes right or wrong behavior when a child of theirs commits a sin—which I can only assume happens on occasion.

Perhaps in between catapulting boulders at the Duggars, self-righteous, judgmental “progressives” could share whether they are absolutely certain they would take a minor child of theirs to the authorities—like the Duggars did—if they learned their child had inappropriately touched siblings in a non-penetrative way that the victims hadn’t noticed.

The ultimate reason these incidents came to light was not that some insider or journalist exposed them. Rather, it was that by age 14, Josh Duggar’s conscience was sufficiently formed to recognize that the feelings he harbored while engaging in inappropriate touching of which even his victims were unaware were very wrong.

Homosexuals and their allies in the war to enhance the moral status of sodomy fancy themselves free thinkers, liberated from the tyranny of “social construction” and the oppression of “THE MAN.” They rarely seem troubled by the fact that they are “THE MAN,” shaped by culturally regnant sexuality dogma. They now wield their entrenched power like a cudgel to impose their assumptions with a fearsome dictatorial power that makes the 1950’s look like the revolutionary summer of love and would color former Alabama governor George Wallace an enviable shade of green.

To all those celebrating the transition of Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner, I have a word of warning: Be careful watch you wish for.

You see, if gender is whatever you perceive it to be, then there is no way to limit or control what is coming.

I’m not just talking about things like Facebook’s 50 ways to describe your gender, including 10 different ways simultaneously, which turned out not to be enough, leading to the “fill in the blank” gender option.

I’m not even talking about things like gender neutral bathrooms and locker rooms, as misguided and harmful as those would be.

I’m talking about people who consider themselves gender fluid, to the point of their gender changing by the hour (or by the event they’re attending). Why not?

I’m talking about people who say things like, “I’m a gender smoothie. Just take everything about gender, throw it in the blender, press the button, and that’s me.”

I’m talking about teens who want to push back against the dominant culture and refuse to identify as male or female, preferring to be called “Tractor” and the like. (Some researchers consider kids like this to be “cutting edge.”)

One online personality (and porn maker) describes herself as “just about your average multiracial, pansexual, transracially inseminated queerspawn, genderqueer, transdyke, colonized mestiza, pornographer, activist, writer.”

Is this the kind of brave new world you really want to embrace? Is it the kind of world you want your kids to grow up in? And are you sure this is really preferable to “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27)?

If perception is now reality, what do we say to those who are convinced they are part animal or part alien? (As incredible as all this seems, I document it carefully in my forthcoming book Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide.)

And what do we say to those with Body Identity Integrity Disorder, also known as being transabled? They too are asking to be recognized, as noted in a recent articleby Sarah Boesveld titled, “Becoming disabled by choice, not chance: ‘Transabled’ people feel like impostors in their fully working bodies.”

These are people who are tormented by their healthy bodies, with their brains telling them that they should be missing a limb or be blind or disabled in one way or another, and some of them have now found peace by mutilating their bodies.

I addressed the comparison between transgender and transabled people in 2011, and now, LGBT activist Dan Savage has weighed in on their behalf, saying, “Other people’s bodies—and other people’s body parts—are theirs, not yours. And if someone needs to change or even remove some part(s) of their body to be who they are and to be happy and to be healthy, they should have that right.”

At least he’s being consistent in his position, which would mean that doctors should be allowed to amputate the healthy limbs of transabled people if that will give them peace of mind, just as they’re already allowed to perform sex-change surgery.

Returning specifically to Bruce-Caitlyn Jenner, am I the only one who gets the feeling that I woke up in some crazy new world when I watch the latest news about Jenner, a world in which it seems that just about everyone, from President Obama to ESPN, just drank some kind of strangely-laced Kool-Aid?

According to everything we know, we’re not talking about someone with biological or chromosomal abnormalities. We’re talking about a physically robust male who fathered 6 children and whose ex-wife Kris recently asked, “Why would you want to be married and have kids if this is what you wanted since you were a little boy? Why would you not explain this all to me?”

If he is to be applauded for his courage, then we should also applaud people like “One Hand Jason,” who “cut off his right arm with a ‘very sharp power tool’ . . . .”

Before the successful self-amputation, “he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn’t bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher.”

Cutting off your own hand would take far more courage than submitting to all kinds of sex-change surgery, would it not?

I truly have sympathy for people who struggle with these disorders (or handicaps) and I don’t claim for a moment to be able to relate to their pain. That’s why, as a follower of Jesus: 1) I pray for a heart of an even deeper heart of compassion for them as people created in God’s image, yet fallen and flawed, like the rest of us; 2) I pray for breakthroughs that will help professionals uncover the spiritual, biological, genetic, psychological, or environmental causes of their suffering; 3) I will celebrate gender distinctions as God intended them.

There’s a reason the world has operated based on male-female boundaries and distinctions since the beginning of human history, and we invite societal chaos beyond description if we simply cast those boundaries and distinctions aside.

To quote G. K. Chesterton, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

To say it again: Be careful what you wish for.

This article was originally posted at the TownHall.com website.

Written by Joe Dallas

Should I go up one flight of stairs and then come back down, or should I go down one flight of stairs and then come back up? Same destination, same distance, same amount of work, but two different paths. ~Jarod Kintz

Thirty one years ago I chose a new path.

I’d been apprehended by God, who I now fondly call the Great Interrupter, and a clear reading of the scriptures told me I’d been wrong for years – wrong when I had lived as an openly gay man, wrong when I identified myself as a gay Christian, and wrong when I promoted the idea that homosexuality and Christianity were compatible.

And, like Jarod Kintz who’s quoted above, I was now deciding which path best suited me.

Same Goal, Different Paths
Reparative Therapy is one of many paths available to people in that situation. It’s a topic of interest to anyone interested in ministry approaches to homosexuality, and certainly to anyone who, like I did in 1984, reaches a point of crises over their own feelings.

It’s also under considerable fire these days, and has actually been banned as a treatment option for minors in some states. It’s become, as noted in earlier posts, a catchphrase for any form of help offered to someone who is in conflict over his or her homosexuality. The phrase itself – Reparative Therapy – (also at times called “Conversion Therapy”) has become a dirty term in some circles, where it’s viewed as a Medieval form of brainwashing practiced by quacks. Just three days ago, my wife Renee was hosting our ministry’s booth at our denomination’s district council when three teens approached her, skeptically eyed our materials, and said, “But you don’t do conversion therapy, do you?”

Clearly, people are talking about this stuff.

So in next week’s post we’ll discuss the controversies associated with this form of treatment, and offer a response to them. My goal is neither to endorse or condemn, but to assess whether or not RT is a valid option by asking ourselves whether it helps or hurts, whether it’s Biblical or not, and whether it’s the best way to deal with unwanted sexual desires, or the worst idea since shock treatment.

But today, let’s look at the approach reparative therapy offers, the outcomes it promises, and how both approach and outcome square with Scripture’s guidelines for growth and change.

As I’ve mentioned in prior postings, I consider Dr. Joseph Nicolosi  the primary spokesperson for RT, since he’s the Founder and Director of the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH) and the author of Reparative Therapy: A New Clinical Approach which is the definitive work explaining the RT’s theories and techniques. So we’ll let Dr. Nicolosi speak for himself when we ask how RT works, and what people who receive it can expect.

Something Offered, Nothing Forced
Reparative Therapy is not Biblically based, nor could it be called “religious” in nature. It’s psychoanalytical in theory, its premises drawn largely from Freudian and neo-Freudian writings. But because modern psychology views homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality, RT offers an alternative to Christians who want professional help from a license therapist, but who don’t want someone holding the dominant professional view.

It’s only for the person who’s motivated, and Nicolosi is clear about coercion, insisting that this is something that should never be forced on anyone. “The client has come to the therapist seeking assistance to reduce something distressing to him”, he writes, “and the RT psychotherapist agrees to share his professional experience and education to help the client meet his own goal.”

To do so, I see RT as a form of treatment which encourages looking at the past, while offering specific outcomes. And while a detailed examination of the subject is beyond the scope of a blog post , a few important points can be made here.

Looking at the Past
Since psychoanalytic theory, along with many other psychological approaches, sees the early years as formative and as holding past answers to many current problems, it’s no surprise RT spends time on the past. Clients are encouraged to look at their early relationships for clues as to what formed their homosexual desires, and what likewise formed the way they view themselves, others, and
the world.

Emphasis is placed on the client’s relationship with the parent of the same sex, since homosexuality is viewed by RT as representing a need for same sex bonding. So if the need for a father’s love was not met (or a mother’s love in the case of a lesbian) then that need for same-sex love has, according to theory, become a sexual desire. And even if the desire is not sexually fulfilled, it remains an emotional need, one which to this day cries out for fulfillment.

In fairness we should note, in light of the fact many people see homosexuality as something inborn rather than acquired, that RT does take inborn influences into consideration. The NARTH Institute states:

“We agree with the American Psychological Association that ‘biological, psychological and social factors’ shape sexual identity at an early age for most people, but the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences–and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.”

The value of this approach is two-fold. First, it helps answer the Why Me? question, and that alone can be a relief and an emotional empowerment. Second, it identifies an ongoing need which still calls for attention. RT encourages the client to build and strengthen healthy same-sex friendships, friendships which in turn can meet the unfulfilled desire which had become sexualized.

Personal Notes
On the one hand, I’ll vouch for this as an approach which worked well for me. I began therapy, not with someone who called himself a Reparative Therapist since the term didn’t even exist at the time, but with a licensed professional who did view both my relationship with my father and my early experiences with peers as being significant.

And darned if he wasn’t right. Not only did I come to see how my yearning for a father’s love had played into my sexual behavior, but I also saw how my lack of confidence, springing from those early years, inhibited my ability to form normal bonds, both in boyhood and adolescence. My therapist repeatedly said “That’s too bad” when discussing the past, and “It’s not too late!” when discussing the now. So at his insistence, I began building strong bonds with Christian friends who became literal healing agents in my life. For me, this approach worked, and it worked well.

On the other hand, I’d caution against presuming that one man’s story is every man’s story. Just because the RT model applied to me surely doesn’t mean we should assume all homosexual men had a poor relationship with their Dad, because clearly they did not. Many gay men report loving and strong fathers who they had a terrific relationship with, and many straight men report horrible experiences with their Dads. So the equation is never as simple as Good Dad equals Straight Son; Bad Dad equals Gay Son. The sin nature, which I’m convinced homosexuality springs from, is craftier than that, often defying analysis. So let’s never force one theory onto all cases, because it won’t work.

Likewise, caution should be taken against blaming parents. Sometimes looking into the past morphs into wallowing in the past, just as looking at Dad critically can morph into blaming Dad for all my wrong choices.

In short, good therapy won’t produce professional victims. From all I’ve read and heard from Nicolosi, he seems to agree, and his teaching does in fact stress personal responsibility versus self-pity. I only hope all who practice his theories are following his lead, because Biblically, we’re never given a pass on sin just because we’ve been sinned against.

My therapist, God bless him, encouraged me to grieve the wrongs done to me without ever excusing my own wrongs. Recognizing what wasn’t my fault reduced unhealthy shame; recognizing what was my fault helped me take responsibility. And that, I believe, is the proper balance any good counseling will offer.

Promised Results
Despite accusations that Reparative Therapy promises to convert gays into straights (a misnomer sometimes sarcastically phrased as “Pray the Gay Away”) the outcomes promised are more modest than that. The NARTH position on change is that it occurs, but to different degrees among different people, and in differing ways. In fact, NARTH plainly states that in some cases an individual seeking RT will experience no change in his sexual feelings, while others experience
specific change:

“ — some individuals who seek care for unwanted same-sex attractions do report categorical change of sexual orientation.  Moreover, others have reported no change.”

Likewise, their definition of change is not either/or. Rather, they describe it as occurring “on a continuum, with many being able to achieve sustained shifts in the direction and intensity of their sexual attractions, fantasy, and arousal that they consider to be satisfying and meaningful.”

Fair enough. While we’d prefer changes to be complete and permanent, in no area of life does that hold true. For example, if someone is treated for depression, he’s likely to experience improvement, but not immunity to future struggles. In fact, good treatment will equip him to deal with those struggles when they arise, rather than promise a “presto-chango” kind of result.

So it is with any counseling or ministry approach to homosexuality. Some people who undergo it will find the power or frequency of their homosexual desires will diminish, and if and when those desires re-emerge, they’ll be better equipped to recognize and resist them.  Others will find that they have potential for heterosexual responses; others will find that only their behavior changes, but their desires do not, and while that’s clearly not the ideal, it’s also clearly an improvement. Still others find this therapy enables them to relate in more healthy ways, and even if their sexual attractions don’t change, their self-view, intimacy abilities, and general well-being change significantly.

All of these outcomes are positive; all of them are similar to outcomes experienced by people who’ve had counseling or therapy of any sort – weight loss, addictions, depression, anger management. Change happens, but complete and permanent change, without any future temptations or struggles, is awfully rare, if
non-existent.

In my own work, I noted in an interview with the LA Times that “no one has ever left my office saying, ‘Wow, I have absolutely no homosexual thoughts or fantasies.’ ”  And in my own life I’ve noted this principle as well. Repenting of homosexual behavior was one thing; deciding to simply “stop feeling that way” was another. So when I asked my therapist if I would ever stop feeling temptations, he advised that it would be smarter to be prepared to handle them properly, rather than wait for them to vanish.

So to this today, while I feel no temptation at all to return to that behavior, and while I’ve enjoyed a pretty terrific 28 year marriage, I also know under what circumstances I might feel tempted. For obvious reasons, I avoid those circumstances. I wouldn’t do evangelism in gay bars, as some do. I likewise don’t think it would be smart for me to hand out Christian brochures at a gay pride parade, because for me, being in an environment where overt homosexuality is on display could reawaken old tendencies.

I’m not sure that would be the case; it might have no effect on me at all. But why on earth would I want to find out? I like my life as it is.

So do many others who’ve availed themselves of reparative therapy. (You can read some their own testimonials here ) It’s not the only path a person can take and, in fact, I found that my own therapy was only one of many elements that changed my life after I repented. Church fellowship, deep friendships, and sanctification were the main courses; therapy was a supplement.

That, in the long run, is how I think it should be viewed. Useful, but not essential; very helpful, but not the only form of help. And on that point, every reparative therapist I’ve known, Christian or not, would say Amen.

This article was originally posted at the JoeDallas.com blog.

In a stunning, counter-cultural op-ed appearing in the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of pediatrics and human genetics at UCLA and director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology, and J. Michael Bailey, psychology professor at Northwestern University, warn lawmakers against banning “conversion” therapy for minors who experience gender dysphoria. They argue that attempts by lawmakers to ban “all therapists from helping families trying to alleviate children’s gender dysphoria would be premature, a triumph of ideology over science.”

Further, they take particular aim at President Barack Obama’s public support for “conversion” therapy bans, urging him to “set a better example by pausing at the limits of our knowledge and encouraging scientists to collect the data we need.” They warned that until such knowledge is available, “let’s be careful about telling the well-meaning parents of gender-dysphoric children what to do.”

If Illinois lawmakers—never known for humility about their own knowledge—truly care about children, they will heed the words of these scientists. Illinois state senators should vote “no” on the “conversion” therapy ban (HB 217).

Here is an extended excerpt from Vilain and Bailey’s compelling op-ed (emphasis added):

Since the age of 2, he has been a very different kind of boy. He enjoys wearing his mother’s shoes and his sister’s dresses. He likes to play with girls and hates playing with boys, who are too rough.

Now 5, he has told you that he wants to be a girl. In fact, he insists that he is a girl. Your son isn’t just feminine; he is unhappy being a boy. He has gender dysphoria.

You love him and you want him to be happy. But you’re worried. Some older kids have started to tease him, and some parents have expressed disapproval.

It seems you have two choices. You could insist that he is a boy and try to put an end to behaviors such as cross-dressing and saying that he is a girl. The alternative is to let him be a girl: grow long hair, choose a new name, dress as he (or “she”) pleases, and when it is time, obtain the necessary hormones and surgeries for a female body.

As scientists who study gender and sexuality.…[w]e do know a lot about such boys. This includes some important facts rarely mentioned in the discussion about how they should be raised. We suspect this is because those facts are inconvenient to the narratives that have come to predominate.

Perhaps the most influential account is that gender dysphoric children have the minds and brains of the other sex, adult transgenderism is inevitable, and early transition to the other sex is the only humane option.

But this narrative is clearly wrong in one respect. Gender dysphoric children have not usually become transgender adults. For example, the large majority of gender dysphoric boys studied so far have become young men content to remain male. More than 80% adjusted by adolescence.

Granted, the available research was conducted at a time when parents almost always encouraged their gender dysphoric children to accept their birth sex…

The little data we have indicate that parental acquiescence leads to persistence.

As more and more parents let their gender dysphoric boys live as girls, the percentage of persisters may increase dramatically.

But, again, we don’t yet know whether it’s better to encourage adjustment or persistence.

(We have focused on gender dysphoric boys because their parents have contacted us much more often than parents of similar girls. Moreover, many fewer gender dysphoric girls have been studied scientifically. The same basic facts appear to be true for both sexes, however.)

Let’s take a look at the likely life trajectories of two imagined gender dysphoric boys: David, whose parents insist he stay David, and Max, whose parents allow him to become a girl, changing his name to Maxine.

In the short run, David will experience more psychological pain than Maxine. Adjustment to being a boy necessarily means accepting that he can’t be a girl, something he desperately wants. Still, most gender dysphoric boys have managed the mental transition.

In the long run, Maxine will need serious medical interventions. In late childhood she will need hormones to block puberty; she will then take estrogen for the rest of her life. Eventually, she may want genital surgery. Although this surgery is usually satisfactory, side effects requiring additional surgery are not uncommon.

Each way has obvious advantages and disadvantages. We would prefer to save David the greater pain he will endure during childhood. And we would prefer to save Maxine the serious medical interventions and possible side effects.

…Some professionals who do [conversion therapy to help pre-adolescent children overcome gender dysphoria] have no moral issue with transgenderism but are trying to help children avoid later medical stress. That is a reasonable goal….

The Illinois House of Representatives passed Illinois’ “conversion” therapy ban last week in a shameful display of arrogance and cowardice that epitomizes why Americans hold their elected representatives in disdain.

First, acting as speaker of the house, state representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie)—you know, the 27-year veteran lawmaker whose pockets are lined with filthy lucre from the gaming and marijuana industries—abruptly closed floor debate and called HB 217 for a vote just seconds after the bill’s sponsor, lesbian Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), offered her appeal for the bill’s passage.

Second, the only Republican who even attempted to make a comment was Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) who was arrogantly ignored by Lou Lang despite several appeals.

Do Illinois “progressives” not feel even a twinge in their shrinking vestigial consciences that this dubious bill was passed in the House through such ethically icky tactics?

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator. Urge him/her to vote against HB 217.  (If you have already sent an email to your state representative, please now send an email to your state senator.)

HB 217 was heard in the Senate Executive Committee last night.  As expected, the bill passed by a vote of  11-4, with Senator Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago) voting present.  Senators Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) and Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of this terrible bill.  It now moves to the Senate floor where a vote may come as early as Friday.  Please speak out TODAY!

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

As the calendar slips toward the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer, there’s a storm cloud hanging over America that will release its thunder in late June.

That’s when the U.S. Supreme Court is widely expected to declare a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”

We are at a moral precipice. America’s Founders could scarcely have imagined a handful of people in black robes becoming so powerful and arrogant that they could defy natural law with the stroke of a pen. The question is: Will they do it?

The drive to radically redefine marriage didn’t happen overnight. It’s the rotten fruit of the sexual revolution’s march through the institutions, along with 50 years of court rulings that pushed atomistic individualism at the expense of the family.

In his monograph The Supreme Court of the United States versus the American Family, the late Michael Schwartz noted: “While our legal system was maintaining the fiction that individuals were the only reality, we were living the truth that individuals are all members of families and that families are the real components of society.”

With the culture cut loose since the 1960s from its Christian underpinnings, Schwartz wrote, “the radical individualism that had been latent within our official legal structure is no longer held in check, no longer meets with the healthy resistance that had moderated and humanized it, and it is operating today in a fashion that is radically opposed to family solidarity.”

Mr. Schwartz penned this in 1983. But much happened before that. It took 178 years from America’s founding until the U.S. Supreme Court found a “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution.Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) involved a challenge to Connecticut’s law prohibiting the sale or distribution of contraceptives even to married couples. With William O. Douglas writing the decision, the court discovered a “right to privacy” in the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights, largely based on the sanctity of marriage.

In 1972, contraception advocate Bill Baird challenged a Massachusetts law barring the sale of contraceptives to unmarried people. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court advanced the “right of privacy” beyond the marital relationship. Justice William Brennan cited Griswold for moral weight, and then abandoned the premise on which it rested —- the sanctity of marriage. The “right of privacy” shifted entirely to the individual.

It wasn’t much of a leap the next year when the court overturned all state abortion laws in Roe v. Wade, with Justice Harry Blackmun citing the penumbra-found right to privacy established inGriswold. This time, the court rested it primarily on the Constitution’s due process clause.

In 1976, the court handed down what Schwartz called “the most outrageously anti-family decision ever” in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth. The ruling cut fathers out of the picture, with the court striking down Missouri laws requiring spousal consent before an abortion and parental consent before a minor’s abortion. The court thus made marriage irrelevant on the most momentous decision —- the taking or preserving of a human life that would be a member of the family.

In 1977, in Carey v. Population Services International, the court vacated a New York law that barred the sale of contraceptives to 15-year-olds and younger. Parents no longer had the right to know if their teens were equipping themselves for premarital sex.

The courts continued to pound away. In 1979, in Bellotti v. Baird, the Supreme Court established the “mature minor” standard, striking down a Massachusetts law requiring parental consent for a minor’s abortion.

Having driven wedges between husbands and wives and parents and their children, the courts turned to marriage itself. In 1993, Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s marriage law violated the state constitution’s equal protection provision regarding “sexual orientation.”

This triggered a massive effort to protect man-woman marriage in the law through the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996) and dozens of state constitutional amendments or statutes. Meanwhile, Justice Anthony Kennedy authored rulings vacating Colorado’s voter-approved Amendment 2, limiting civil rights protections to categories other than “sexual orientation,” and in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas) striking down anti-sodomy laws.

A decade later, in Windsor v. United States (2013) the court struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, triggering an avalanche of rulings that legalized same-sex “marriage” in all but a handful of states. Several legislatures followed suit, but only in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington did voters change the definition.

So now we find ourselves at the end of a long legal jihad against marriage and family, wondering whether the Supremes will declare a new “right” out of whole cloth —- or pull back from that legal cliff.

A lot of loud voices are urging them to jump. But there is another voice, and it speaks in an entirely different language, directly to the human soul. Perhaps they will hear that one and honor His design for marriage.

This article was originally by The Washington Times.

I said it was coming. Many of us did. Two years ago this week the Boy Scouts of America voted to welcome into its ranks “open and avowed” homosexuality (boy-on-boy sexual attraction and behavior), thereby disavowing the “morally straight” Scout Oath its members are sworn to uphold.

Shortly thereafter I warned, “In so doing, the [Boy Scouts of America (BSA)] effectively waived the only legal defense it once had to preclude openly homosexual Scout leaders and gender-confused girls from its ranks: religious and moral conviction. It’s only a matter of time until the BSA is forced to capitulate to sexual extremists’ political demands and allow homosexual adults – men who define their identity based upon carnal appetites for other males – to take your boys on overnight camping trips.”

It’s happened. On Thursday BSA President Robert Gates announced that the organization’s unconditional surrender to the homofascist left is forthcoming and that the BSA will soon invite men who have sex with males (MSM) to become troop leaders. “The status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained,” Gates disingenuously claimed, indicating that to maintain the BSA’s century-old proscription on “out” homosexual men would spell “the end of us as a national movement.”

This, of course, is hyperbolic nonsense and simply reflects a continuation of Gates’ long-standing pro-homosexual activism. While serving as secretary of defense he both advocated for and oversaw the implementation of the full repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. This has effectively homosexualized the U.S. military, resulting in rampant anti-Christian discrimination and an explosion (a 33 percent spike) in male-on-male homosexual assaults. Does any honest, sane, thinking person imagine that a comparable increase in homosexual assault will not befall the Boy Scouts?

Michael Brown, Ph.D., is an expert on both homosexual activism and the disordered behaviors that define the homosexual lifestyle. He is author of such books as, “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” and the upcoming “Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide.”

In an interview with WND, Dr. Brown said that he “believes if the Boy Scouts accept openly homosexual leaders, they will cease to be a positive moral force in the lives of American boys.”

Stated Brown: “This opens the door for sexual predators, a real danger, and it opens the door for gay boys to be flirting with straight boys under the auspices of the Boy Scouts.”

The BSA has already been plagued by a long history of man-on-boy homosexual assaults perpetrated by closeted Scout leaders. The shocking extent of the abuse has only recently been exposed as the BSA has worked hard to cover up the scandal.

Parents, the BSA is about to place political correctness above your child’s safety to a level unprecedented in the once-honorable organization’s long and storied history. This is not an opinion. It’s an empirical, quantifiable certainty.

Consider, for instance, a study published in the left-leaning Archives of Sexual Behavior, of over 200 convicted pedophiles. It found that “86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” This demonstrates, as observes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council: “Since almost 30 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by homosexual or bisexual men (one-third male-on-male abuse times 86 percent identifying as homosexual or bisexual), but less than 3 percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, we can infer that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.”

This makes perfect sense when coupled with another 2001 study in the same peer-reviewed publication. It found that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men who participated in research were molested by a homosexual pedophile as boys: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

(View this shocking hidden-camera footage of “gay” men admitting that they weren’t “born that way,” but that they were “made that way” through childhood sexual assault.)

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable. Although clearly not all “gay”-identified men and women abuse children, or were abused as children, the verifiable reality is that an alarmingly high percentage of them do and were. As with most forms of abuse, the cycle is both circular and vicious. “Born that way?” Not so much. “Made that way?” Sadly, it appears so.

Yet the BSA will not let facts get in the way of its extremist sexual agenda. “We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be,” Gates said on Thursday.

Absolute garbage. This is not the world as it is. This is a world of the secular left’s making. I will again predict here that the BSA will soon open its ranks to sexually confused girls. Earlier this month the Girl Scouts of America similarly announced that it will allow boys pretending to be girls to join its ranks.

Parents, you’ve been warned. If you leave your children in the Boy or Girls Scouts of America, anything that might happen is on your head.

Dr. Brown agrees: “Given the new direction of the Boy Scouts, Brown urges parents to seek out an alternative,” reports WND.

Urged Brown: “Now would be a great time to find out more about the Christian boy scouts alternative, Trail Life USA.”

Indeed, Trail Life’s Membership Standards state, without equivocation, “The basis for the program’s ethical and moral standards are found in the Bible. In terms of sexual identification and behavior, we affirm that any sexual activity outside the context of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful before God and therefore inconsistent with the values and principles of the program.

“Within these limits, we grant membership to adults and youth who do not engage in or promote sexual immorality of any kind, or engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the program.”

Trail Life’s chairman, John Stemberger, says his organization is “saddened” by Gates’ announcement.

“It is tragic that the BSA is willing to risk the safety and security of its boys because of peer pressure from activists groups,” he said. “Trail Life USA remains committed to timeless Christian values.”

And the BSA remains committed to child-endangerment and extremist sexual activism.

Columbia University Political Science Professor Donald P. Green decided to retract the study published in the December 2014 issue of the journal Science after discovering his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, used fake data to support his claim.

In the published study titled, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality,” LaCour created a media stir, with numerous reports using his “findings” to proclaim that all it takes is one 20-minute conversation with a “gay” person to convince a same-sex marriage opponent to change his or her mind on the topic.

Unfolding the lie

But after word circulated about the “findings,” a couple grad students found glaring inconsistencies with what was reported in the study, as stated by Green.

“Last weekend, two UC Berkeley graduate students (David Broockman, and Josh Kalla) who had been working on a research project patterned after the studies reported in our article brought to my attention a series of irregularities that called into question the integrity of the data we present,” Green told Retraction Watch in its entry titled “Author retracts study of changing minds on same-sex marriage after colleague admits data were faked.” “They crafted a technical report with the assistance of Yale professor, Peter Aronow, and presented it to me last weekend.”

According to academic paper, the irregularities “jointly suggest the dataset (LaCour 2014) was not collected as described,” and Green says this spurred him to try to get to the bottom of this matter.

“I brought their report to the attention of Lynn Vavreck, Professor of Political Science at UCLA and Michael LaCour’s graduate advisor, who confronted him with these allegations on Monday morning, whereupon it was discovered that he on-line survey data that Michael LaCour purported to collect could not be traced to any originating Qualtrics source files,” Green continued. “He claimed that he deleted the source file accidentally, but a Qualtrics service representative who examined the account and spoke with UCLA Political Science Department Chair Jeffrey Lewis reported to him that she found no evidence of such a deletion. On Tuesday, Professor Vavreck and Michael LaCour for the contact information of survey respondents so that their participation in the survey could be verified, but he declined to furnish this information.”

Green then confirmed that LaCour’s study was riddled with falsified information and unsubstantiated claims.

After learning about the falsified accounts, Green, the co-author of the study, appeared mortified.

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers and readers of Science,” Green expressed.

Research that demands more research

Initially impressed by the study, Broockman and Kalla described their reaction to the findings.

“As we examined the study’s data in planning our own studies, two features surprised us: voters’ survey responses exhibit much higher test-retest reliabilities than we have observed in any other panel survey data, and the response and re-interview rates of the panel survey were significantly higher than we expected,” the two noted in a post. “We set aside our doubts about the study and awaited the launch of our pilot extension to see if we could manage the same parameters. LaCour and Green were both responsive to requests for advice about design details when queried.”

But after beginning a pilot of their extension earlier this month, Broockman and Kalla found that the response rate of the pilot was considerably lower than LaCour and Green disclosed, and they proceeded to contact the firm they believed performed the original study published in Science.

“The survey firm claimed they had no familiarity with the project and that they had never had an employee with the name of the staffer we were asking for,” Retraction Watch reports. “The firm also denied having the capabilities to perform many aspects of the recruitment procedures described in LaCour and Green (2014).”

The findings just didn’t stack up and Green was contacted.

“After finding several other irregularities, the pair contacted Green, who was concerned, and they also asked Yale political science professor Peter Aronow to join their work,” Retraction Watch stated in its account. “By May 16, the team had found other irregularities, and sent them to Green, who reviewed them and on May 17 agreed that a retraction is in order unless LaCour provides countervailing evidence.”

Confrontation, confession and conclusion

Green quickly confronted LaCour, who confessed that he had falsely described some of the data collection’s details.

In his retraction letter to Science, Green described the numerous inconsistencies with LaCour’s claims and declared his study a fraud.

“Michael LaCour’s failure to produce the raw data coupled with the other concerns noted above undermines the credibility of the findings,” Green wrote in his letter’s conclusion.

Green explained his connection to the study.

“Michael LaCour attended my summer workshop on experimental design in 2012 and proposed at that time a project that involved both canvassing and internet surveys,” Green informed Reaction Watch. “It sounded to me too ambitious to be realistic for a graduate student but in principle worthwhile … Looking back, the failure to verify the original Qualtrics data was a serious mistake.”

Broockman was pleased with the accountability process — however belated — indicating that LaCour was more interested in forwarding his cause to promote the same-sex marriage than producing legitimate research.

“[T]he study’s findings had huge implications for people who were trying to advance the cause of equality and have changed how advocates do their work,” Broockman told Retraction Watch. “Every minute we knew the truth and did not disclose it really was a lie by omission to the advocates out there.”

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality is drawing the attention of neighbors to “The Leather Archives & Museum” – described by the business itself as “a library, museum, and archives pertaining to Leather, fetishism, sadomasochism, and alternative sexual practices.”

“There are three schools within the radius of this sadomasochistic so-called museum – and it’s not really a museum, it’s a perversion center,” LaBarbera states. “A center that’s glorifying homosexual perversion of the most awful kind should not be anywhere near children or anywhere near schools.”

LA&M – which the pro-family activist says was started by homosexual sadomasochists – claims to have in its collection “original erotic art and artifacts from alternative sex organizations and individuals.”

Churches also are located in the Rogers Park area – churches that LaBarbera believes would likely frown on what the center stands for.

“It glorifies the most heinous perversions, including pedophilia and incest,” he remarks. “And nobody knows what’s going on in there except the homosexual movement – and they try to keep it hidden.”

Volunteers with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality are handing out leaflets in the entire neighborhood, alerting residents to the operation and urging them to contact their aldermen to protest.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

The political editor of a nominally conservative website, Townhall.com, revealed this week that he is a practicing homosexual. Guy Benson will write in a book coming out soon that he is gay and a supporter of marriage based on the “infamous crime against nature.”

In fact, he admits that “from time to time” he may well become an occasional activist on behalf of the homosexual agenda. He also believes that the Republican Party’s embrace of natural marriage, the institution God designed and defined at the dawn of time, is a “barrier to entry to the party,” a barrier which he believes must come down. He seems dedicated to do his part to demolish this barrier and turn the GOP into a sodomy-promoting political machine.

Benson is young, smart, and articulate and often appears on Fox News as a pundit on all manner of political issues. This makes him a particular risk to the conservative cause of defending natural marriage.

Now I don’t know Mr. Benson, and he certainly seems like a particularly nice and friendly individual. But this is not about his personality. It’s about his politics.

Townhall, by the way, is owned by Salem Media Group, which describes its mission as “targeting audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values.” To my knowledge, Salem has yet to explain how paying an openly homosexual activist to be the political editor of its main public policy publication is consistent with this mission.

If Salem leadership is to be at all true to its own mission statement, Benson must be replaced. His values on homosexuality are not Christian, family-themed, or conservative.

In truth, the term “gay conservative” is an oxymoron, along the lines of “honest thief.” The first term is flatly and inescapably contradictory to the second.

There is nothing “conservative” about homosexuality or the homosexual agenda. To be a conservative under any understanding of the term means to conserve, protect and defend the values on which America was built. To put it bluntly, those values do not include celebrating, endorsing and promoting unnatural sexual expression.

If the term “conservative” is to have any meaning at all, it must include certain ideals and exclude others. No one can legitimately call himself a conservative if he does not vigorously and robustly defend the institution of natural marriage as the sole relationship in which sexual expression may legitimately be enjoyed and as the optimal nurturing environment for children.

Natural marriage is the first institution God created, before he created the institution of the state or the church. It is the sole foundation on which any healthy, stable, and prosperous society can be built. Every civilization which has abandoned natural marriage and thestandard of monogamy within it has wound up on the ash heap of history. No man can call himself a conservative who does not labor to protect this most precious institution.

Now homosexuals who call themselves conservatives may well believe in smaller government and a strong military, two of the three pillars on which modern conservatism is built. That makes them two-thirds conservative and one-third libertarian.

One website which claims to triangulate on this issue calls itself the “Gay Patriot” and dedicates itself to “freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.” What such folks are blinded to is that they have become willing accomplices in supporting an agenda which will in the end refuse to allow any of these values to be honored in American culture. Just ask the Christian bakers in Oregon who are now facing $135,000 in fines for not bowing the knee to the god of gayness.

So a new term must be invented to describe those who share Mr. Benson’s predilection for smaller government and non-normative sexual expression.

Some such individuals call themselves “homocons.” Perhaps “gayservatives” or “gaytarians” or some other such concoction will suffice. Just don’t call them “conservatives,” for that most certainly is not what they are.

This article was originally posted at the AFA website.

Two men, two women, or three men, cannot create a baby without an opposite gender.  So, at first glance, the idea of a link between same-sex marriage and higher abortion rates seems unlikely.  Yet, as over 100 marriage scholars and researches are pointing out, the unraveling of natural marriage has a direct link to abortion.

Even in the short time that same-sex marriage has been officially recognized in some states at home and abroad, man-woman marriage rates have declined—even as marriage rates in other jurisdictions have remained relatively stable.

As marriage loses its meaning and significance, fewer choose to marry. In the Netherlands, for example, after redefining marriage to allow for homosexual unions, among young women, and after controlling for other factors, there was a net 5 percent reduction nationwide in opposite-sex marriage rate, and a 31.8 percent plunge in urban, less religious areas. Similarly, in just a few years after it redefined marriage, Spain saw man-woman marriage rates plummet by 36 percent.

Researchers note that even a small decline in marriage rates can have a significant impact upon abortion numbers as married women rarely choose abortion.  You can read more about this, click HERE.