Friday, July 24, 2009

Gay rights are not civil rights



Blacks did have a very hard row to hoe, but to discount the row assigned the glbti as an easy, and one without discrimination, is a fabrication of the bigoted mind. - says Rev J D Spears Says: July 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am

By the way, I had to look up what "glbti" means, the "i" part is new to me.
GLBTI
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex.

Here is the problem, sexual desires are not civil rights. It amazes me that this actually needs to be explained to folks. If sexual desires are a civil right, then those who are sexually "oriented" towards children or their own siblings are being discriminated against. Why do the "glbti" folks hate them so much?

One word you will not hear out of pro-gay "Reverends" mouths is - Holiness. To proclaim anything Holy one must concede to the existence of absolute moral Truths. God is holy and His word is holy; separating and redefining the two is the first thing "pro-gay" Reverends must accomplish. Changing God's definition of Marriage will be one of their first major victories.

Anybody see what's happening here? If not, allow me to break it down:

Sodomy is not wrong, there is no such thing as a sexual desire that is "wrong." All sexual desires spring forth out of god's love.

A mother and a father are optional when raising children.

Personal preference is god, all people have personal preferences thus all people are gods.

Conclusion - The sooner one's skin color and sexual desires are considered the same thing, the sooner nobody will know the difference between the Truth and a Lie. Now I wonder, just who would benefit from a world filled with such undiscerning minded people?

Hat Tip to Pastor DL Foster "Smalltown Texas pastor takes big stand against homosexuality"

Monday, July 13, 2009

Homosexual man was allowed to adopt two children, allegedly for the purpose of molesting them.

Deafening silence from black leaders

...you have a white homosexual male who admitted online that he was "into incest" and had adopted two black children (males) because they were easier to get than their white counterparts. This man was arrested for repeatedly abusing these children, he posted the attacks online because he's sick, and his alleged victims happened to be black -- but the crickets are chirping.

Mainstream media will not even report that the man is a homosexual or, in some instances, even that the children are black. They won't report that Frank Lombard had a live-in partner in a community that includes other homosexual couples with black adopted children.

Black Americans, do you wonder why our "leaders" aren't getting involved? The answer is: they can't. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton especially have aligned themselves in cause with the homosexual movement. When homosexuals began demanding civil rights and comparing their plight to that of black Americans, Sharpton agreed. (Now while it pains me to do so, I must commend Jackson for condemning this comparison.)

Sharpton and Jackson are well-known for playing the "race card" -- but in this case, which undeniably involves racism, they fold.

At its core, the horrific occurrence in North Carolina is not a black/white issue. I would be equally outraged if the adopted children were white and the details, as disgusting as they are, were brought out. But one cannot overlook the fact that a homosexual man was allowed to adopt two children, allegedly for the purpose of molesting them. The fact that the children are black made them easier to adopt, thereby leading to their victimization.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Obama's moral clarity deficit

by Matt Barber
excerpt...
Indeed our debonair young Commander-in-Chief sees the world through the murkiest of gray-colored glasses. Though evidence of this abounds, I can think of no starker example than his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is "born alive" – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease and steps must be taken to save her life.

In 2002, Born Alive passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support. Yet Obama, while serving in the Illinois Senate, vehemently opposed its Illinois twin. He complained that "adding an additional doctor" (read: an actual doctor) to save the child's life is "really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."

Did you get that? To require that a doctor save the child survivor of a botched abortion would "burden the original decision" of the mother to kill her. The not-so-subtle implication, of course, is that they should, instead, put her aside until she dies. Or Рas I attempt to hone that moral clarity, pass̩ though it may be Рdeliberately kill her through wanton neglect.

This is infanticide by any objective measure; but not to the moral relativist, and not to Barack Obama. There is no such thing as an "objective measure," you see, only a subjective "choice."

So here it is in black and white -- Black: It's always wrong to kill babies. White: Doctors should make every effort to save the life of babies born alive. Gray: To require such would "burden the original decision" of a mother to kill her baby.

Black: It's always wrong to kill peaceful protesters. White: The U.S. demands the killing stop or we will stop it. Gray: We're monitoring the situation to see how it plays out.

Then again, I ask: Why should we expect moral clarity from this president? How can we expect him to value the lives of innocent Iranians halfway around the world when he doesn't even value the lives of the most innocent of his fellow citizens?

We can't.

But we can hold him accountable for it.