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.

The difference between same-sex "marriage" and interracial marriage.

Homofascists are constantly trying to steal the nobility of the civil rights movement of the African American community.  But African Americans weren't fighting to embrace sexual sin or to redefine God's definition of marriage.  And God's Word supports interracial marriage.

Simon LeVay denounces his discovery of the "gay gene."

Like my blog, this extensive video tears down a lot of the propaganda of the glbt community.

At 7:48, Simon LeVay denounces the "gay gene." 

At 14:51, Dean Hamer's work on the "gay gene," Xq28, has never been duplicated. 

At 16:18, Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer are both homosexuals. 

At 19:54, the APA denounces a biological case for homosexuality. 

At 21:12, the human genome shows no "gay gene."

At 23:55, the civil rights requirements are not met by the glbt community. 

At 25:15, "After The Ball" is exposed.

Then there's all of the information in between the abovementioned time points.  Wow.  I love this video.

Uplifting video.

He's not homosexual anymore, but (GASP!!) he's still black.  Can anyone tell me why this is?  Here's why.

Yes, gay behavior is a choice.

Because of an unusual day off, I found an interesting article today. This article was written by an ex-bisexual man and has some valuable information that seems to make the glbt community really angry. The truth almost always angers those that are living a lie.

… The basis on which to define people as “anti-gay” has, however, taken a turn to the absurd (and eerie).

… Crystal Dixon of the University of Toledo was fired for writing an editorial in a local newspaper.

… To fire Dixon, one must accept that gay men cannot stop themselves from having anal sex or engaging in fellatio.

… While I have tired of penning editorials about gay controversies, the situation is dire. I feel compelled to write a column once again emphasizing a basic reality: gay sex is a choice. Nobody lacks the power to refrain from having gay sex. Get. Over. It.

… Dixon said that gays had the choice to leave the lifestyle (in other words, stop engaging in anal sex and fellatio). According to her detractors, such was tantamount to being anti-gay. Her detractors are following the lead of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which lists “conversion therapy” as a hate crime.

… To which I say the following:
Does anybody who uses the term LGBT remember the “B” in that God-forsaken acronym? Hello? There are bisexuals. I am one of them. Why include us in these categories if you think we don’t exist?

… They take conscious choices — where do you hang out? What are you looking for? What type of partner shares your goals? Whether to hang out in gay clubs or straight clubs makes a huge difference; these are completely different cultures. We choose the life we want to live (or leave, for that matter).

… Even gay men still choose which sex acts they commit. I hate to admit this, but I worked as a housekeeper in a gay sex club in Manhattan in the early 1990s, when I was desperate for work. I witnessed, literally, thousands of men having sex in the open …

… Many men get involved in the gay scene for unexpected reasons. Many of them want fast and inexpensive sex, sometimes because they have trouble with women. They can go to a bathhouse or a cruising zone and pick up men without paying the fortune they’d have to spend on a prostitute.
Moreover, a lot of times I saw people who were addicted to drugs and addicted to anonymous sex; the two compulsions were linked somehow, and there was no way for such people to quit their addiction without quitting their homosexuality.

… Lastly, a lot of men came to the gay sex scene in order to engage in bondage and sadomasochism, because they were raped as boys. The aftereffects of sexual assault, as we know from studying female rape victims, are complicated and often lead people to repeat or recreate the assault scene. Many of these mentally scarred men did not even have sex in sex clubs, even though they sought male partners to enact their eroticized simulations.

… Lastly, I am left with my own life story. I can’t change it. I went from being in the gay lifestyle to marrying a woman, having a daughter, and living a happy heterosexual life.

Consider the difference that twenty years make. Twenty years ago, I had never been with a woman, but I had had relations with quite a few men. Virtually all of my friends were gays, lesbians, or women who enjoyed gay company. I found girls pretty, but I was scared of them. Most of them were not attracted to me because I was effeminate.

Now I am twelve years into a happy and faithful marriage to a woman. I sinned at different times, but talking things over with people helped me overcome my harmful behavior. I begged God for forgiveness. You couldn’t pay me to have sex with a man at this point in my life.

… Gay is not the new black. “Gay” is about sex and genitalia. People we call “gay” make choices about what they do with their genitals; blacks do not make choices about the color of their skin. Period.

… no penis is beyond the executive decisions of its owner,

… In short, it’s time for gay rights activists to get off their high horses and let other people live.

Full article here.

The showers in the Rams locker room are still safe.

Why is it okay for a woman to object to a man staring at her breasts or her behind and consider such staring to be sexual harassment, but it's "homophobic" for a heterosexual man to object to being ogled, while naked in the shower, by an openly gay man?  Would a Rams player be fined or suspended for refusing to tolerate homosexual harassment?  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he were in our increasingly homofascist culture.

Didn't Michael Sam announce to the world that he has sex with men?  That's all I would need to know to refuse to shower with him.  If I were to catch him staring at me, there would be words, and if he responded with any type of contempt or homofascist propaganda, there would be a fist fight. Then, I would be condemned by those who can't tell the difference between race and sexual behavior. 

The word "gay" reveals content of character, the word "black" does not.

Amazingly, there are still people that can't tell the difference between race and sexual behavior, and this article proves it.

More info here.

Martin Luther King Jr. vs homosexuality.

In the picture above, the man on the left, Mr. Bayard Rustin, wanted to portray homosexuality as a civil rights issue. Apparently, homosexuals have been trying to hijack the term “civil rights” from the early, Martin Luther King Jr. days, of the black civil rights movement. More and more people are starting to realize the difference between skin color and sexual misconduct.

“… As part of his faith and profound respect for strong families and the marital bond, Martin Luther King Jr. never wavered in his belief in biblical marriage, Alveda said.

She explained in her book, King “lost a high-ranking member of his organizational team, Bayard Rustin, because Rustin was openly gay. Rustin was convinced that the homosexual agenda should be included in the civil rights struggle for desegregation. But Uncle M.L. clung to the Scripture and refused to acknowledge homosexuality as an issue that needed to be addressed on the public platform where the battle for skin color equity was being engaged.”

Alveda continued, “He had strong reasons for this because he was a man of God, and the Bible is clear on this topic. … By the Bible’s definition, marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Other forms of human sexuality, including adultery, fornication, and homosexuality, don’t fit God’s design.”

And if a person claims to have been “born gay”?

“God has the same answer for any sin, including heterosexual lust,” she wrote. “Turn to Jesus.”

Alveda added, “The Bible has multiple accounts of people who were born with various conditions and in various states of existence, only to meet Jesus and be healed or delivered from whatever was their concern. Truly, there isn’t a human ever born into this life without having to contend with one issue or another along life’s journey.” …”

Original info here.

You stop boy!!

At 0:50, the white, male homosexual twists the, stop-trying-to-be-something-that-you-can-never-be point of the black woman into a, we're-fighting-against-hatred argument.  Despite the words of the homosexual, the point of the black woman stands; white homosexual men are wrong in their desire to be black women and they aren't fooling anybody, especially black women.

"Black" vs. "gay" (Yet again.)

One of the reasons that I love the Word of God so much is that it keeps me from being deceived by clever speech.  Clever speech keeps many people from being able to discern the differences between the words "black" and "gay." 

The word "black" says nothing about a person's character.  Can that be said about the word "gay"?

Cool pic.

 

When someone says "black people," they are talking about a racial minority.  When someone says "gay people," they are talking about a sexual minority.

A person's sexual behavior is an aspect of their character, whereas, a person's skin color says absolutely nothing about their character.  Many have been deceived by the inappropriate swapping of the words "black" and "gay."

Sane Love.

This video was a very pleasant surprise to me today.  People are waking up and fighting back at an amazing rate to homofascism.

Dr. Martin Luthur King Jr. on homosexuality.

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.