The glbt community is not a race of people.

Glory and honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ, I finally have time to blog again!

Between work, the details of life, and the writing of my first novel, time to blog is sparse, but I will never stop fighting homofascism and transtyranny.

Among to shortcuts I create and collect for future use on my desktop, I have uncovered a jewel of picture and an article. A picture can be worth at least a thousand words, but the written word is more surgical than a picture.

 I love being born into the most complex, detailed and evolving language the World has ever seen.  And, if the pen is mightier that the sword, how much mightier is the keyboard than the pen?

Here are excerpts from the article that expose the extreme denial and the deception of the glbt community.


“…But halfway through this ad for the University of Phoenix, alumna Gail Marquis is shown marching hand-in-hand with LGBT activists and waving a rainbow flag. The implication is crystal clear: The fight of African-Americans for equal rights is the same one LGBT Americans are fighting today.

Unbelievably, this conflation between skin color and sexual orientation surfaced during the recent unrest in Charlotte, North Carolina.

… This kind of race-exploitation has infected even the highest levels of government. Back in May, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch filed a lawsuit against North Carolina to force accommodation on the transgender bathroom issue. “It was not so very long ago,” she then lectured the nation, “that states, including North Carolina, had other signs above restrooms, water fountains and public accommodations, keeping people out based on a distinction without a difference.”

…It’s a line that has won the LGBT movement virtually endless mileage. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of today’s equivalent of the Civil Rights struggle, or to be viewed like racists by future generations.

…But the fact remains, the two issues are just not the same. And black leaders—many of whom fought for the right to be treated as equal human beings decades ago—keep telling us this.

… “The language of ‘civil rights’ shouldn’t be hijacked to give privileges to the politically vocal while taking away freedoms” for everyone else, said Bishop Patrick Wooden at a gathering of black faith leaders in Raleigh. And Pastor Leon Threatt of Christian Faith Assembly in Charlotte, agreed: “Restrooms and showers separated by biological sex is common sense.”

…One of those folks is Walter Heyer. Writing at Public Discourse last Tuesday, Heyer insists based on his own experience that in contrast to race, “people are not born transgender. And those who “wholeheartedly believe that they need a sex change…often…change their mind and go back.” He adds that the emotional devastation of buying the transgender lie can take a lifetime to heal.

The Civil Rights comparison will continue to crop up, but we’ve got to vocally and repeatedly point out why it’s false. Sexual urges don’t determine who we are, and recognizing the fact that God created us male and female isn’t racism. It’s reality.

…"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."
-GEN (Ret) Colin Powell, Chairman of the JCS (1989-1993), Secretary of State (2001-2005)


The full, well-written article is here.

...things that matter.

Homofascism and the redefinition of marriage is already bringing about the persecution of those who serve the Lord Jesus Christ.  I will continue to speak out about the difference between skin color and sexual sin while I still can.

Jason Collins like Jackie Robinson !?!

I wasn't going to post on this sadness concerning Jason Collins' embracement of sexual perversion, but the story has become too big to ignore.  What's wrong here is that Mr. Collins is compared to Jackie Robinson at 0:58 in this video which is a deception since skin color does not compare to sexual misconduct.  This is the same thing as a married man proclaiming that he's proud of cheating on his wife.

This man is a seven foot tall professional basketball player and he can't find satisfaction amongst all of the sexy, attractive women that go crazy over basketball players?

Also, Mr Collins has inadvertently weakened the "born gay' argument since a internet post shows that his twin brother isn't gay.

Ironic HIP pic.

I covered the point made by this picture/illustration in my manifesto.

...When were homosexuals taken from their homeland, shipped across a sea, and sold into slavery? When were homosexuals forbidden to learn how to read or forbidden to vote? When were members of the GLBT community denied the right to own property or relegated to the back of the bus? When were gays systematically and legally denied service in hotels and restaurants. When where there water fountains with signs reading “Straight people only?” Isn’t equating race with behavior the epitome of racism?

Race vs. behavior.

The word "black" doesn't have the dual meaning that the word "gay" does.  The word "gay" not only denotes a social group, the word "gay" also reveals an aspect of a person's character.  The color of a person's skin is morally benign and says nothing about their character.  There is no scientific evidence for the "born gay" claim. 

"Black" vs "gay."

Skin color is morally innate; it is neither good nor bad.  Sexual behavior is sometimes a bad thing.  A man having sex outside of marriage, with another man's wife, with an adult family member, with a child, with an animal, or with another man... is a bad, sinful thing.

Gay is not the new black.

One of the things that inspired me to create the word “heteroseparatist,” was the absurd comparison of homosexuality to race and gender. Race and gender are morally benign; neither good or bad. But sexual behavior is never morally benign. Is a man in a sexual relationship with his consenting, adult sister on the same moral tier as a man who has never had sex with anyone but his wife? Is a woman who cheats on her husband on the same moral level as a woman who doesn't? Whatever happened to sexual common-sense?

“…while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

…the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."

…The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

…homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality.

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal.…

…men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed?

Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?...

The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.
It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.
Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

…the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right.

…following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

…then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

…we know that God has designed the family in a particular way.

…many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.

Original article here.

"Black" vs. "gay."

A person's skin color is morally benign; it is neither good or bad, moral or immoral. The man who speaks at 1:05 nails it, but the woman at 2:07 is wrong because she is a female and cannot be a pastor according to the Word of God. The glbt community has tried to hijack the nobility of the black, civil-rights movement, since the Word of God does not elevate one skin color over another, but God created "gender roles," and He has commandments concerning sexual behavior. The glbt community is fighting against the Word of God, not the prejudice of man, like black people did.

The difference between "black" and "gay."

Consider the words “Polish” and “polish.” The former defines a nationality, while the latter defines the action of shining shoes. Yet, the only difference in the two words is the capitalization of it's first letter. What a world of difference based upon whether or not the first letter is capitalized!

When I use the phrase “black people,” or “gay people,” the words “black” and “gay” are describing two different social groups. But when I say “black person,” or “gay person,” the word “gay” totally changes in its meaning and is now revealing an aspect of the person’s character, whereas the meaning of the word “black” does not change; the word "black" does not reveal an aspect of a person's character.

This subtle difference is always overlooked when the words “black” and “gay” are used a in debate concerning civil rights, yet this difference is well known to black people. It seems that many are ignorant of this subtle, yet significant, difference.

Story here.

Race vs. sexual behavior.

More and more people are starting to realize the difference between race and sexual behavior.