Churches in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts have grave concerns about a new anti-discrimination law that could force congregations to accommodate the transgender community – under the threat of fines and jail time.
The law, which goes into effect in October, does not specifically mention churches or other houses of worship. However, the attorney general, along with the government commission assigned to enforce the law, have a different point of view.
“Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public,” the document states. “All persons, regardless of gender identity, shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”
Author’s Note: The following is my planned class introduction for all three of my courses this fall semester at The University of North Carolina – Wilmington. My first-day-of-class remarks are reproduced here for your reading pleasure. It is not a word for word reproduction. But it’s pretty close. So enjoy!
Welcome back to another semester at UNCW! I am excited to have each and every one of you in my class. However, some of you may not be excited to have me as a professor. Each semester, I get at least one bad teaching evaluation from a student who never heard of me before enrolling in the class. Usually the student is a “progressive” who later finds out who I am and then wants to drop the class because he/she/undecided lacks the requisite tolerance to be in the presence of someone who holds different ideas. Since this discovery is often made after the drop date has passed, the student cannot get out of the class. Being stuck with a single non-leftist professor is just too much for them to handle both emotionally and intellectually.
Although I will not be discussing my political views in class, I thought I would just give you all a basic run-down of all things these thin-skinned leftists support that I don’t believe in – just in case you are one of them and simply cannot bear the thought of having even a single conservative professor in college. If your view of tolerance causes you to be intolerant of any of the views I express then feel free to go pick up a drop slip. I would not want to force you to stay in my class any more than I would try to force you to bake a cake for my wedding.
Same sex “marriage.” Speaking of weddings I think the whole idea of same-sex marriage is garbage. When people ask why I don’t believe in same-sex marriage, my response is to simply note that it doesn’t exist. Marriage requires a man and a woman. So asking me if I believe in same-sex marriage makes about as much sense as asking whether I believe in four-sided triangles. Just as adding a fourth side to a triangle disqualifies it from being a triangle, adding a second man or second woman to a marriage disqualifies it from being a marriage. It isn’t complicated.
Abortion. I understand that this is the holy sacrament of the religion of feminism. But I think it is murder. You may disagree with me but science is not on your side. I just wish feminists would stop embracing anti-science fundamentalism and admit that the unborn child is a distinct, living, and whole human being from the point of conception. Generally speaking, we need to keep religions like secular feminism from controlling public policy.
Safe spaces. If you ever find yourself in need of a safe space then you’re probably going to have to stop calling yourself a social justice warrior. You cannot be a warrior and a pansy at the same time. Just for the record, I think we should abolish all of these safe spaces. Instead, I would propose that all the progressive safe space seekers just wear bubble suits to protect them from potentially offensive ideas. Bubble suits are so much more personal. Plus, they also double as diapers for those having trouble locating the bathroom that corresponds to the sex that was assigned to them at birth by their Creator.
Trigger Warnings. The only kind of trigger warning I support is on the front door of my house. It says “If you come in here without knocking I am going to pull the trigger.” I am sorry if anyone was triggered by that little revelation.
Black Lives Matter. These guys are just a bunch of racists. They are also communists. If you don’t believe me then just go to their website to see their latest list of demands. Every time these idiots launch another riot I buy another handgun. As if I needed an excuse.
Politically Correct Segregation. I think all of these university African American Centers and Hispanic Centers are uniformly pathetic. The NAACP won the war against segregation. Then the diversity movement started to re-segregate – all the while asking the taxpayers to support it in the name of “tolerance.” The next thing you know the diversity crowd will be demanding separate “colored” and “white” restrooms.
Gun Control. The only kind of gun control I support is shooting with two hands. Feminists should be with me on this issue since measures like concealed weapons permits have reduced predatory crimes like rape. Sadly, your feminist professors conceal the research because they would rather that women be raped than that they be proven wrong. They are actually that petty and emotionally insecure. But what do you expect from a movement that centers itself on the murder of innocent children? Certainly you could not expect a rational appraisal of scientific evidence. It’s the anti-science fundamentalism that created the whole abortion mess in the first place.
Well, there you have it. Those are my politics in a nutshell. If anyone was offended have no fear. I actually teach the subject matter in my classes rather than trying to make political converts. My politics won’t be the focus of this class. But if you are too emotionally damaged to continue I have provided a fresh stack of drop slips in the back of the class. Registration is still open and there are plenty of seats available in the Women’s Studies Department. In fact, you can even go on and get your degree in Women’s Studies. That way, you will be able to exercise your constitutional right to be unoffended for four consecutive years. A promising career working at Starbucks will be awaiting you upon graduation.
Now please open your textbook and turn to page one of chapter one. It’s time to get down to the business of learning free from political indoctrination.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
Dating website ChristianMingle has settled a lawsuit and now will accept same-sex searches. Previously, the site only allowed women to search for men and men to search for women.
Two gay men filed class-actions claims against Spark Networks Inc. in California courts in 2013 alleging that ChristianMingle.com and several other sites in the company’s portfolio of niche dating services excluded users looking to meet singles of the same sex.
ChristianMingle, billed as the largest online community for Christian singles, required new users to specify whether they’re a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. The lead plaintiffs, two gay men who tried using it, claimed that the limited options violated California’s anti-discrimination law.
Known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the state law requires “business establishments” to offer “full and equal accommodations” to people regardless of their sexual orientation.
Under the agreement, the gateway homepages now ask just whether a user is a “man” or a “woman.” Spark Networks agreed that within two years, it would adjust other searching and profile features to give gay and lesbian singles a more tailored experience.
Personally, I think this is all a bit insane. ChristianMingle does not have a monopoly on the dating website market. There's no shortage of dating sites and apps that people can use to find same-sex partners, and there's even a good number of sites for Christian gays to find a partner. (Given the pool, one would think a person would probably have better luck finding someone on one of those sites than ChristianMingle, but I digress.) ChristianMingle is based on Christian beliefs, and a good number of denominations consider homosexual acts to be sinful. It seems rather petty to force a company to change their beliefs rather than simply find (or, heck, start) an alternative dating site.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
The Pentagon has ended its longtime ban on transgender persons serving in the military. Now, people who identify as something other than the gender they were "assigned" at birth are eligible to serve in the military.
In 2011, the U.S. Military lifted its "don't ask, don't tell" policy and permitted homosexual troops to serve openly.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced last year that the Pentagon would study the possibility of ending the transgender ban. As a result of this study, the ban will be ended and troops will no longer be discharged after disclosing their gender identity.
Carter explained that while the ban will be officially lifted as of today, there will be coming changes throughout the year to seamlessly accommodate transgender troops. Within 90 days, there will be guidebooks for leaders of trans troops as well as medical protocols concerning the treatment of transgender troops. The U.S. Military, according to Carter, would not be paying for any medical treatment that is not deemed "medically necessary" by a transgender troop's physician.
Within a year, the military will begin accepting transgender recruits, as long as they have transitioned and been stable in their gender for 18 months. If a serviceman comes out as transgender while serving, they will receive "medically necessary" care as determined by a doctor, which may or may not include surgery.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
Last month the Obama administrationissued a letter to every public school district in the nation informing them that they should be allowing transgender students to use whichever bathroom they feel corresponds to their gender identity. The letter also went on to warn those school districts that failing to do so could bring about a loss of federal aid or lawsuits.
Now President Obama has opened up about what influenced his administration’s decision on the bathroom issue: Scripture.
Responding to a question at a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, about why he decided to make it such an issue, Obama said the issue came to him and when it did, he let his religious faith guide his response.
“I have profound respect for everybody’s religious beliefs on this. But they’re in public school. The question is, how do we just make sure that children are treated with kindness? That’s all,” he said.
“My reading of scripture tells me that that golden rule is pretty high up there in terms of my Christian belief,” he continued. “That doesn’t mean somebody else has to interpret it the same way. It does mean as president of the United States, those are the values that I think are important."
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
Five Morons Maroon 5 has canceled their upcoming shows in Charlotte and Raleigh in response to North Carolina's "bathroom bill." In a statement released to their website, the band explained that they feel as though canceling the shows is the "morally right" thing to do.
We have announced that we will be canceling our upcoming shows in Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina because of the recent passage of the HB2 legislation. This was a difficult decision for us to make as a band. We don’t want to penalize our fans in North Carolina by not performing for them, but in the end it comes down to what we feel is morally right.
Which is curious, because prior to their American tour, Maroon 5 will be playing in several European countries--Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Poland, and Romania, among others--that have very questionable records on LGBT rights. According to ILGA-Europe, Russia is the second-worst country in Europe for gay rights, and Turkey isn't far behind. The majority of the shows on their European tour are in countries in the bottom half of IGLA-Europe's rankings.
If a band were serious about gay rights and equality, it doesn't make sense that they would play in countries where homosexuals are persecuted and jailed. Even with the "bathroom bill," LGBT persons living in North Carolina have far more rights than they do in Turkey or Russia. Maroon 5 jumping on the boycott bandwagon may be good PR for the group, but it's meaningless if they continue to perform in countries where LGBT rights are severely restricted.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
I’m old enough to remember a time when civil rights struggles focused on noble causes such as removing the barriers that kept black people from voting. Previous generations of civil rights activists fought so blacks and whites could use the same voting booth. This generation of activists fights so men and women can use the same bathroom stall. One could say that liberal activism has really gone down the toilet.
If you can wade through all of the activist hysteria, it is worth taking a look at the substance of the claims of supporters of the Charlotte, North Carolina transgendered bathroom ordinance. It is disturbing that such an ordinance ever passed through any city government and had to be stopped by the state legislature. Perhaps even more disturbing than the substance of their claims is the set of tactics used by LGBT activists to enforce the views of a small minority against the strong opposition of the majority. There are many, but here is an overview of some of the guilty parties:
An LGBT Activist City Council and Mayor. It is readily apparent that few supporters of the Charlotte bathroom ordinance actually took the time to read it. It did not merely apply to public restrooms. It also applied to so-called public accommodations. This means the city council was trying to control the bathrooms of privately owned restaurants and retailers, not just public buildings. Therefore, if you owned a restaurant/bar and saw a man following a drunken woman into the single-occupancy ladies restroom you could not have the final say on stopping him. He could simply manufacture a claim to identify as a woman and trump your right to control your own business.
By allowing perception rather than objective reality to control legal outcomes we invite fraud. In the process, we also water down the moral authority of the law. An informed public would never support this kind of legal nonsense. But the Charlotte City Council and the Charlotte Mayor do. And that’s all that really matters. So the law was passed.
The NBA. After the fascistic ordinance passed and was struck down by the state legislature the NBA had to weigh in by reconsidering its decision to host the 2017 NBA All-Star game in Charlotte. They claimed that North Carolina had become anti-gay. Why? Because Charlotte government got reeled in and once again had to let business owners rely on biological distinctions rather than “perceptions” when it comes to regulating access to bathrooms. My rebuttal to the NBA takes the form of four simple words: Women’s National Basketball Association.
How could the NBA start an entire league called the WNBA, membership in which is based on biological sex distinctions rather than perceptions, and later wage a war on biological sex distinctions? It’s pretty simple, actually. The LGBT movement tells the NBA to jump and they simply ask “how high?”
Governor Cuomo of New York. Andrew Cuomo scares me so badly I think I’m beginning to suffer from Cuomo-phobia. This man actually had the audacity to visit communist Cuba, which is ruled by the Castro regime. He did this while completely ignoring the fact that Castro had previously authorized internment in concentration camps for people who were merely suspected of being homosexual. But now Cuomo has banned government workers from traveling to North Carolina because of HB2, which overturned the Charlotte bathroom ordinance. What makes things even more peculiar is that his own state of New York does not offer the same so-called anti-discrimination protections he is demanding legislators allow to stand in North Carolina.
In sum, I hope Andrew Cuomo doesn’t decide to boycott his own state. I want him to stay up there in New York. I don’t really care if this makes me sound like a raging Cuomo-phobe.
The Charlotte Observer. The leader of the effort to pass the Charlotte bathroom ordinance is a registered sex offender. Chad Sevearance, now-former president of the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce, worked as a youth minister in the late 1990s. He was later accused of luring young men to his apartment for stay-overs, showing them pornography, and trying to talk them into sex. As a result of one boy testifying that he woke up to find Sevearance “fondling him,” the LGBT uncivil rights leader was convicted for sexual molestation of a minor.
The Charlotte Observer initially ignored his conviction and status as a registered sex offender. Later, conservative opponents of the ordinance pressured them into doing their jobs and revealing the truth. There is simply no credible journalistic explanation for ignoring such highly relevant evidence on a matter of public concern.
Taking a broader view, the Charlotte bathroom controversy has all of the elements of modern day McCarthyism. We have committees of elected officials who refuse to obey the rule of law. We have people engaged in blacklisting because they unflinchingly accept the authority of the accusers. We have politicians joining the persecution for the purpose of political advancement. We have a press complicit in keeping the people uninformed about the true motives and character of the accusers.
Of course, there is one crucial difference. History has shown that Senator Joe McCarthy was battling an enemy that actually existed. In other words, McCarthyism as we have come to understand it never really happened in the 1950s.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
I am signing HB 1523 into law to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government or its political subdivisions, which would include counties, cities and institutions of higher learning. This bill merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to the exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This bill does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizen of this state under federal or state laws. It does not attempt to challenge federal laws, even those which are in conflict with the Mississippi Constitution, as the Legislature recognizes the prominence of federal law in such limited circumstances.
The legislation is designed in the most targeted manner possible to prevent government interference in the lives of the people from which all power to the state is derived.
The ACLU of Mississippi was not happy with with Bryant's decision and posted several heated statements on Twitter.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
North Carolina’s law that prevents local governments from passing their own anti-discrimination measures has elicited backlash from all angles. Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomobanned all nonessential travel to the state over the so-called bathroom bill, corporations have denounced the law, the NBA has said it could impact the state’s ability to host the 2017 All-Star game, and now, even the Obama administration is weighing in.
The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.
Cutting off funding, or simply just the threat of doing so, could force the state to repeal the law. But experts say taking such drastic measures is unlikely. Still, a number of federal agencies are currently reviewing the law.
Anthony Foxx, the secretary of transportation, first raised the prospect of a review of federal funding in public remarks on Tuesday in North Carolina. The Department of Transportation provides roughly $1 billion a year to North Carolina. The New York Times then asked other federal agencies whether they were conducting similar reviews.
A Department of Education spokeswoman, Dorie Nolt, said on Friday that her agency was also reviewing the North Carolina law “to determine any potential impact on the state’s federal education funding.” She added, “We will not hesitate to act if students’ civil rights are being violated.” […]
The Department of Housing and Urban Development said it was doing a similar evaluation. “We’re reviewing the effects of the law on HUD funding allocated for North Carolina,” said Cameron French, a department spokesman.
“It would be a long process of negotiation,” Jane R. Wettach, an education law specialist at the Duke University School of Law told the Times. “I think the federal government would be loath to do it and would give North Carolina every possibility, every chance to change their position, to change the law, to negotiate, to make some exceptions. I think they’d go back and forth for a while and try to come to a negotiated settlement.”
Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest said the state complied with federal laws and the Constitution in writing the law. Thus, he was not convinced federal aid would be pulled.
“It would be wrong — even illegal — to single out North Carolina for unfavorable treatment,” Forest told the Times. “I’m confident that we will continue to receive this federal money despite the threats from a few in Washington, D.C.”
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, who’s had enough when it comes to the widespread criticism the law has received, addressed critics in a video message last week.
“Some have called our state an embarrassment,” McCrory said. “The real embarrassment is politicians not publicly respecting each others’ position on complex issues. Unfortunately, that has occurred when legislation was passed recently to protect men, women, and children when they use a public restroom, shower, or locker room. That is an expectation of privacy that must be honored and respected. Instead, North Carolina has been the target of a vicious nationwide smear campaign.”
He continued: “Disregarding the facts, other politicians — from the White House to mayors to state capitals and City Council members and even our attorney general — have initiated and promoted conflict to advance their political agenda and tear down our state, even if it means defying the Constitution and their oath of office.”
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
"But I will tell you what: the first man that walks in my daughter’s bathroom, he ain’t going to have to worry about surgery.” -- Lt. Gen. (ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin
I’m sure there are a great many people who are probably shocked to see that quote from William Boykin, but why should they be? Men have had that sort of protective attitude toward their daughters for as long as anyone can remember. That hasn’t changed, but what has recently changed is the profoundly unhealthy attitude many people in our society have taken towards transsexualism.
Determining what percentage of the population is actually transgender is very difficult. For example, would Bruce Jenner have counted before he started dressing in women’s clothes or not? But, the best estimate puts transgenders at about .3% of the population. However, if you’re talking about people who’ve had hormones and surgery and also dress in the opposite gender’s clothes as opposed to simply “feeling like a woman,” it’s most certainly lower. On the other hand, roughly 50.4% of Americans really are women. That means there are 168 women for every transgender person in America. Even if we accept that a transgender man dressed like a woman would be embarrassed to go into a men’s bathroom, doesn’t it make more sense for him to be uncomfortable than all those women? Why do his rights supersede the rights of so many women who just want to use the bathroom in peace without prying male eyes watching them?
Even with the limited experience we have as a society with this ridiculous idea, there have already been some incidents that should prompt the concern of lawmakers who are interested in protecting women in their state.
* "A Palmdale, California man wearing women’s clothing was arrested in a Lancaster Macy’s store after he was seen in a women’s bathroom. The man was allegedly videotaping women in the bathroom."
* “Seattle Parks and Recreation is facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules. A man undressed in a women’s locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity. It was a busy time at Evans Pool....The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”
How would you feel if you watched your 8-year-old daughter walk into a locker room and that man in Seattle walked in right after her? For that matter, what would you think about your college-aged daughter having to get dressed next to Bruce Jenner, who still has his male genitalia and is attracted to women? In a society where you can’t go five minutes without hearing someone scream “rape culture” or “it’s a war on women,” how is it that a threat to the safety, comfort and privacy of women in the bathroom is being treated like it is irrelevant?
It stems from the uniquely unhealthy way we treat this mental disorder and, yes, if you feel like you are the wrong gender, you have a mental disorder. The good news, especially if you’re young, is that it’s probably not a permanent condition. As the former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital Dr. Paul McHugh has said, “80% of those kids will” grow out of it as they get older.
So, what about the other 20% who will feel like they have the “wrong” gender long-term? Mental illness doesn’t make you a bad or broken person any more than a broken leg does, but like a broken leg, your disorder needs to be treated. Some people get over a broken leg in a few months. Others may have to deal with the consequences of that misfortune for the rest of their lives. So it is with mental illness. If you have a mental illness, it is possible that you may have to struggle with it for your entire life. That’s a sad reality that millions of decent people have to deal with every day.
Unfortunately, when it comes to transsexuals we make two huge mistakes.
First, we encourage them to embrace their mental illness. We don’t do this with depression, schizophrenia, paranoia, multiple personality disorder or almost anything else because it’s a terrible idea. It’s like telling someone who’s depressed that he’s worthless and everyone else would be better off without him. We would be appalled if anyone did that; yet encouraging someone to mutilate himself in a futile attempt to change genders is an even more horrible thing to do to another human being.
Our second mistake is that instead of having sympathy for people in that position, wishing them well and hoping for their recovery, we insist that everyone else cater to their mental disorder. There’s no law that says you have to stop cutting your hedges because your paranoid neighbor is suspicious of it. There’s no law that says you have to ask a person with multiple personality disorder whom he’s speaking to so you don’t shock him if you call him the wrong name. So, why are we willing to violate the privacy of half the population at one of their most vulnerable points during the day in order to cater to a mental disorder that afflicts a fraction of a percent of Americans?
This is insanity and until this mental health issue is no longer falsely treated like a civil rights issue, legislatures should do their duty and protect their female citizens by passing bathroom bills.
Editor's Comment: When will society finally validate my feelings and allow me the safe place of a non-homosexual locker room?
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
The man is the father and the woman is the mother.
Well it’s not so simple anymore.
Today, you have to figure out if the man who is marrying the woman is actually a man and if the woman who is marrying the man is actually a woman.
Then you have to figure out if the man is the father or the mother and if the woman is the mother or the father.
Is this starting to make your head spin?
If so, this headline will not help. It reads: “Male partner pregnant with baby of transgender couple in Ecuador.”
What? A man is pregnant? And he’s part of a transgender couple? How does this work?
According to the story published by Fox Latino News, “A couple in Ecuador is making history with a unique pregnancy. The father-to-be is carrying the baby of his transgender partner.”
The couple in question goes by the names Fernando Machado and Diane Rodríguez, but Fernando was born María while Diane was born Luis.
This means that the pregnant “male” is a biological female who is now the man of the house (albeit a pregnant man) while his female partner is a biological male who is now the lady of the house.
Although they take hormones to change their bodies to conform to their gender perceptions, they have not had sex-change surgery, otherwise, they would not have been able produce a baby together.
That means that Diane, who has male private parts, impregnated Fernando, who has female private parts.
That also means that even though Diane fathered the baby and Fernando will carry the baby in his womb (are you getting all this?), Diane, the biological male who supplied the sperm, will be the mother and Fernando, who provided the egg, will be the father.
As Rodríguez, who is a leading LGBT activist in Ecuador, told the Associated Press, “We're trying to break the myths about transsexuality.”
It looks to me like they’re creating a whole new set of myths.
Rodríguez also said that, “The [Catholic] church is always criticizing gays and homosexuals for adopting children, so it would be a contradiction to criticize us for giving birth naturally.”
Naturally?
I would say that is putting a whole new spin on the meaning of the word.
What is “natural” is for a man to father a baby and for a woman to conceive, carry, and deliver that baby, just as happens around the world every hour of the day, and just as has happened billions of times before.
Sadly, this is not the first such case of a unique transgender pregnancy.
Some months ago, I saw a TV show that told a similar story of an American couple (they were convinced that their child would have no problem understanding one day that the mother was really the father and the father was really the mother).
And we all heard about the “pregnant man” a few years back. (Note to earth: There is no such thing as a pregnant man.)
More than a decade ago, I read about a couple where both the husband and the wife decided they were actually transgender, with the husband becoming the wife and the wife becoming the husband.
Apparently all this is “natural” too.
To be sure, it is tragic to read of the many murders of trans-identified individuals in Latin America (the article about “Fernando” and “Diane” closes with those very stats), and as I always state when writing about these issues, I can’t imagine what kinds of emotional and social trauma these individuals have endured.
It’s also possible that this couple claims to be happy and well-adjusted, and they might be very committed to the child they are bringing into the world.
But none of this minimizes the madness of the situation nor does it contradict what I have repeated over and over again: This cannot possibly be the best case scenario for these individuals, and this “unique” pregnancy only highlights the need to get to the root causes of transgender confusion so that we can help them find true wholeness.
As for the child of this couple in Ecuador, can anyone say to me with a straight face that having your mother be your father and your father be your mother is in the best interest of the child? That there will no confusion or emotional scars for this child as he or she grows up and understands biological and social realities? Does anyone really believe that this is some kind of social “advance” and that we should be celebrating it rather than mourning it?
May God help this couple find their real identity, and may it happen speedily for the good of their offspring.
Otherwise, we’ll have to start carrying a scorecard to sort out the members of a family.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
One of the strongest arguments against consensual adult incest is that incestuous unions could result in children with genetic defects, but since that concern wouldn’t apply to same-sex couples, an Irish political leader has argued that gay cousins should be allowed to “marry.” And that only begs the next obvious question: Why not gay brothers or gay sisters?
As reported in the Irish Times, Independent Senator David Norris, himself gay, “has said that gay cousins should be allowed to marry each other following the same-sex marriage referendum.”
“It would not take a feather out of me if two cousins married each other,’’ Mr. Norris said. “What is the problem with that?’’
So, no sooner does the Irish Legislature officially announce the legalizing of same-sex “marriage” than an Irish Senator calls for gay cousins to be allowed to marry.
Yes, “Mr. Norris said the regulations covering cousins marrying were introduced to protect the genetic pool, but that this would remain relatively untroubled by same-sex marriage.”
Then wouldn’t the same line of reasoning apply to gay brothers or sisters who wanted to “marry?”
And if the taboos against homosexual “marriage” are now considered outdated and intolerant, why can’t the same thing be said about the taboos against adult incest?
And from a “progressive” Christian perspective, if Leviticus 18 does not apply to believers today (including, of course, the prohibition against homosexual practice in Leviticus 18:22), then why should the prohibitions against incest in that same chapter (found in verses 6-17) still apply? After all, Jesus didn’t say anything about incest, so it couldn’t be that important, right?
Haven’t we heard all these arguments before when it comes to homosexual unions?
For several years, I have been charting the growing call to normalize consensual adult incest, most recently documented in Outlasting the Gay Revolution, where I include a list of TV shows and Hollywood movies in which such relationships are embraced or even celebrated.
Yet when I dared raise the subject on the Piers Morgan show in December 2013, his only response was that I was being “ridiculous” and “silly” to speak of such things, despite the fact that there have been court cases advocating for consensual adult incest and that some European countries already lifted legal sanctions against incestuous relationships.
And let’s not forget that in July 2014, in Australia, “Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and ‘unnatural’ but is now widely accepted.
“He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.”
The article reporting this was titled, “Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo,” and based on his logic, there should be no objection to gay incestuous “marriages” since gay couples can’t produce children of their own.
Note also that in September 2014, “A government-backed committee in Germany has recommended that the government abolish laws criminalizing incest between siblings, arguing that such bans impinge upon citizens’ rights to sexual self-determination. According to findings from the German Ethics Council [made up of scientists, doctors, and lawyers], that right is a ‘fundamental’ one, and carries more weight than society’s ‘abstract protection of the family.’” (Yes, this was from a panel of so-called ethicists.)
One month later, on October 9, 2014, the Huffington Post ran an article titled, “Should Incest Between Consenting AdultSiblings Be Legalized? Experts Sound Off,” and the article was posted in the Huffpost Gay Voices section, with some opening calling for the removal of taboos against adult incest.
That’s why I wasn’t in the least bit surprised when, in December 2014, I was the only one of five debaters on the DebateOut.com website (which is now defunct) who argued that consensual adult incest should remain prohibited by law.
So, go ahead and mock me and tell me there’s no slippery slope.
As I’ve said before, you can mock my words today but you’ll mark them tomorrow.
This is the inevitable downward slide that results when you separate marriage from procreation and from joining children to their mother and father. You end up with positions like that of Sen. Norris.
The good news is that history is still being written and, just as we are the generation that opened wide the floodgates of radical, negative, change, we are the generation that can put the brakes on this social madness and return to higher ground.
Thanks for visiting. Come back soon! Yours in Christ, John
Chaplain David Wells was told he could either sign a state-mandated document promising to never tell inmates that homosexuality is “sinful” or else the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice would revoke his credentials.
“We could not sign that paper,” Chaplain Wells told me in a telephone call from his home in Kentucky. “It broke my heart.”
The Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice revoked his volunteer credentials as an ordained minister – ending 13 years of ministry to underage inmates at the Warren County Regional Juvenile Detention Center.
“We sincerely appreciate your years of service and dedication to the youth served by this facility,” wrote Superintendent Gene Wade in a letter to Wells. “However, due to your decision, based on your religious convictions, that you cannot comply with the requirements outlined in DJJ Policy 912, Section IV, Paragraph H, regarding the treatment of LGBTQI youth, I must terminate your involvement as a religious volunteer.”
