Pervasive and Pernicious Homophobia

Signs such as this one illustrate boldly the effects and affects of homophobia upon society.  The original of this photo is at D'Avid RC's Photos.

This photo shows the extreme cleverness and deceptive power of the methods used in this society changing agenda.  The fact that this is a very deliberately orchestrated agenda is so in-your-face that most people do not even recognize it as an agenda.  Rather, most people have come already to accept it as the norm rather than an overthrow of the norm.

The very term of homophobia has been presented in a deceptive manner.  A term describing a natural and normal reaction to a dangerous and destructive behavioral pattern and choice has been repeatedly and endlessly presented as something to be abhorred and avoided.  The natural reaction that people have to something that they instinctively perceive as dangerous and aberrant from the natural order of life has been presented as an irrational and unhealthy reaction.

Yet the facts of life remain unchanged.  The facts of nature stand against all of the attempts to deny them.

The fact is that humanity has a natural awareness of the dangers of the totally unnatural perversions of the natural order.  Choosing to act in opposition to the natural order does present both obvious and subtle dangers.  And to have a phobia or fear of things that cause danger is not only normal and natural, but also healthy and proper.

Imagine the reaction that would be observed from people if a father were known to teach his children that they need not to be afraid of sticking their hands under a running lawn mower.  Imagine the public outcry that would result if a kindergarten teacher were known to teach the children that they should not be wary of the advancement of strangers.  Yet these same teachers are now required to use curricula that teach the children to accept diversity and not to fear aberrant lifestyle choices, choices that do have undeniable dangers associated with them.

It has and continues to be frequently presented that the homosexual agenda merely seeks the safety of homosexuals to enact their life choices privately without fear of consequences from so-called homophobes.  But this is a blatant lie.  While some homosexuals merely desire not to be judged and not to be attacked and simply desire to be left alone, this is not the agenda presented publicly.  The homosexual agenda is to force the rest of society to change so as to accept this aberration as normal and to allow it to be promoted as an alternative to the natural order of life.  This agenda has as its objective the use of legislation to force people to accept the sexual deviations as normal and to allow these deviations to be presented to children as alternatives to what both nature and their parents teach them.

Within this agenda is included the doctrine that homosexuality is not a choice but how those with these unnatural urges are born.  Some actually go as far as to call it a genetically inherited trait.  And while there are some children who are born with both forms of genitalia, it is absurd to claim that this is normal or even inherited.  This is a genetic aberration.

It also is true that some children are born with personalities that demonstrate more or less femininity or masculinity.  This is indeed normal, but not truly genetic.  It may be inherited, but at a level far more powerful than the genes.  Regardless, this is not the same as being born a homosexual.  Rather, this is simply the diverse range of emotional composition of people’s personalities.

There is no doubt that females are born with emotions and patterns of thinking that are more feminine and males with more masculine.  But within both sexes there is a naturally occurring wide range of expression of these traits.  Again, this does not make a person more or less of a homosexual.

However, people do become confused regarding their own understanding of their own emotions.  Most especially people can become confused regarding the difference between philos and eros, that is, the difference between affection and sexual attraction.  At the emotional level these are very closely related, so closely that they are often thought to be the same.  But they are different.  Actually, they are very different, yet also similar.

Most people, without being taught the difference, think that peanuts are nuts.  But peanuts are legumes, which have many similarities with nuts, but also are truly very different.

Philos and eros both are emotions, and very powerful emotions.  Both include a powerful sense of being attracted to another person.  But the two are very different, even though they are often confused as being the same.  For example, it is perfectly natural for two men to experience philos for one another.  This is not a sexual attraction, even though this philos may move them to embrace one another intimately, even with a kiss.  This is not sexual.  However, it can easily be mistaken as a sexual emotion.  Likewise, it is perfectly natural for a man and a woman to experience eros for one another, being attracted to one another sexually.  This leads to reproduction of the human race.  Philos and eros do naturally occur together in such a relationship.  They are naturally paired in the sexual relationship of husband and wife.  These two emotions lead to the union of husband and wife and the formation of a stable family.  This is the natural order.  This is called marriage.

Such a union or marriage cannot occur between two people of the same sex.  Yet the homosexual agenda is to force the rest of society to deny this fact.  The homosexual agenda seeks to use the law to force the rest of society to accept what is clearly unnatural and even impossible.

The human anatomy and physiology teach the facts of life.  Marriage of two human beings of the same sex is simply impossible.  It cannot occur.  It is unnatural to try to make it so.  No matter how many times two women pretend to have sexual relations with one another, or two men with each other, this is not true sexual union.  Living together in this pretense does not constitute marriage.  It is like the old saying of trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.  The two can be forced together, but not in a true fit according their actual design.  Forcing such a union does severe injury to both and changes both into something other than what they truly are.

Yet the homosexual agenda is to force this activity upon the rest of society.  The homosexual agenda demands that the rest of society accept this unnatural and brutal change of sexuality and of society itself.

This agenda also seeks to mute the truth regarding the dangers of this aberrant sexual activity.  This agenda seeks to force society to ignore the truth of the dangers created by this   But the dangers are real.  Ignoring them does not make them less dangerous, but more dangerous.

It is difficult if not impossible to list all of the dangers, let alone to prioritize them according to levels of danger.  However, in this discussion, health dangers will be mentioned first.

The most obvious of the health dangers are the STDs or the Sexually Transmitted Diseases.  These are not the only health dangers, but certainly seem to be the most obvious.  The dangers of STDs accompany any sexual promiscuity, but are especially identified with same sex sexual activity.  For this reason both the United Blood Services and the American Red Cross list criteria for eligibility to donate blood.  As is listed especially on the American Red Cross web site, the policy for rejecting donations from homosexuals is an FDA policy.  Here is a snapshot of that information:

As is mentioned, the homosexual agenda pursues the elimination of such safeguards and there are people who speak out as if this were in some way unfair.  Yet it seems unlikely that these same people when undergoing surgery or other cause for blood transfusion would demand of their doctor that blood from a homosexual be administered.  It is always easy to speak of these things in the abstract, but when the danger hits home, the person’s perspective often returns to the norm.

There are other health and physical dangers connected with homosexual activity, but for now, the one of the dangers to society will be presented.  Healthy societies have always had a clear definition for family.  This is both natural and necessary for a society to function with good order and minimal obstructions.  While polygamy has been practiced throughout history, one man and one woman nevertheless has prevailed.  The difficulties of multiple spouses in a family have always instructed people that one man and one woman is both the most practical and functional.  From the maternal side of this, children always gravitate to acknowledge only one mother.  Where more than one mother is the practice, rivalry always develops both between the wives as well as between the various children.

But homosexuality never produces family.  Never.  In order for homosexuals to obtain children, they must obtain them from a breakdown in the societal norm of healthy man/woman-husband/wife family structure.  Either through the breakdown by adultry/fornication, or by divorce, or by death of parents, or by abandonment by parents, the normal societal family and reproduction functions must be broken in order for homosexuals to obtain children.  This is not normal.  This is not healthy.

Moreover, children cannot learn from two of the same sex the normal and natural order of familial structure and interaction.  They cannot learn the proper distinction of philos and eros from such an arrangement.  Therefore they are cheated of this normal childhood development.  Society is damaged as these children grow and struggle to know their proper place in society.  Ultimately the society breaks down from this unnatural ignorance of the natural order.

Much more can be said in these matters, but now the hypocrisy displayed in the so-called church sign seems to be appropriate.  Here again is the photo:

First of all, notice the hypocrisy of this church judging others for what they themselves have and do promote, that is, the acceptance of divorce and remarriage.  This church has long been known to undermine the concept of the sanctity of marriage, not only regarding the homosexual issue, but regarding promiscuity and divorce as well.  So for this church to point fingers at those they have excused for marrying, divorcing, and remarrying in an endless cycle is the highest hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy amongst those professing to be godly certainly is not a new occurrence.  It can be traced to the very first couple.  It manifested itself horrifically in the life of their first son.  It was manifested amongst the people of Israel.  Jesus denounced it during His ministry amongst the Jews.  His apostles denounced it in their ministries.  The only man never to demonstrate hypocrisy is Jesus.  All the rest of us must confess our own hypocrisy and seek to hear God’s absolution.  Only with this honest self-evaluation can we move forward with godly and healthy lives.  Only abiding in the grace of the Lord can we judge ourselves rightly and then interact in holy, godly, and healthy ways with our fellow man.

It is not the Christian’s place to make oneself judge over others.  It is, however, the Christian’s place to speak the truth in love.  This does include speaking the judgement that has already been declared by the Judge of all, speaking this judgment with the holy desire that honest confession of people’s sinfulness and need of God’s forgiveness and restoration result.  Ignoring the truth about people’s sinfulness is not love.  It is not even kind.  Moreover, such ignorance is in itself judgment of the worst kind.  For this deliberate ignorance of the needs of others is a judgment by which people are judged to be unworthy of such caring and love and effort.

Sadly, most Christians falsely imagine that they have been called by God to legislate morality and godliness.  But the way to which the Lord calls His saints is the way of Agape.  It is the way of His love in action.  His way is the way of speaking the truth in love so that people hear the truth and are confronted with it for their well-being.  His way is to call people to acknowledge His holiness and to be moved to desire for Him to work this in them through the means of grace that He has already ordained to be administered in His Church on earth.

The sanctity of marriage cannot be enacted by law.  Certain protections for family and marriage can be enacted by law, so as to protect married couples and their families from certain intrusions and abuses by both government and society, but the sanctity of marriage cannot be established nor enforced by law.

On this point, the hypocritical statement in the photo of the church sign does make a true inference.  For it is true that one hypocrite cannot enforce the sanctity of anything upon another hypocrite.  Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, who works through the means of grace to convert hypocrites into true believers, who thereby follow His urging to live in accord with the will of God that has been taught to them in their regenerated hearts and souls and minds.

Thus, while the statement in the sign has the appearance of hypocritical motivation, it does nevertheless point to the truth that each person should be first concerned with one’s own sanctification.  If such a person gives the due attention to this concern, very little time or energy will remain for pretending to be God and judging others.  Rather, such people will embrace one another within the Holy Communion ordained by the Lord, calling to one another saying, “Let us return again to the Lord to partake of His grace through His ordained means that we may indeed enjoy His mercy, love, and holiness together.”

+ + +