Read the rest of this entry »

Lloyd Marcus is another black man who refuses to drink the Kool-Aid. Let us pray that others will have ears to hear and eyes to see before it is too late! Please see previous post, IT HAS COME TO THIS.

To My Black Family Regarding Obama

by Lloyd Marcus

Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama is not so much a president seeking the best interests of America as he is the leader of a movement.

Whether you black folks in my family are ready to deal with it or not, the truth is, Obama is always on the opposite side of what I know y’all believe. Though claiming to be a Christian, Obama is always opposing Christianity.

Our family heritage is full of ministers, deeply rooted in Christianity. No one in our family supports homosexual marriage. And yet, y’all support Obama, who not only supports this sin, but is leading a movement hell-bent on forcing us to accept it as “normal.” Obama vowed to be not just a friend to the gay, lesbian, and transgender communities, but an advocate.

Now, someone please explain to me: how does this square up with the Bible you preached to me all of my life? It does not. Obama is black. You have chosen to side with him even over your commitment to Christ.

I realize that my statement may make you angry. The truth has a way of doing that.

Americans abort 4,000 babies a day. A disproportionate high number of those babies are black. ObamaCare forces Christians to fund abortions against their faith. But once again, you guys do not care. Obama is black. So whatever he wants to do is OK with you. You even accuse me of being disloyal to my race, while Obama is the guy supporting the slaughter of black babies.

Since Obama won the White House, you guys refuse to honestly critique any issue. At $1.84 when Obama took office, suddenly you are fine with gas averaging four bucks a gallon. Black unemployment is higher today than it was when Obama took office.

Apparently, that is OK as well.

Despite Obama running the country for four years, y’all say he bears no responsibility for anything, including the horrible economy. Obama is the biggest government spender in world history.

The federal government spends $405 million per hour that we do not have. So can one of my relatives explain to me how this is Bush’s fault?

Y’all say, “If only those evil racist white Republicans would get out of Obama’s way, he could fix everything!” I refuse to believe that folks in my family are that stupid. Thus, I can only conclude that y’all are willfully making excuses for your black idol.

I am elated that a few (two) in our family have seen the light, but the vast majority have not. What I find extremely disappointing is that no amount of facts/truth appears to cause you to at least question your Obama zombie-ism. Your racism is so all-consuming, you’re like the walking brain-dead, with Obama’s black skin trumping everything.

Ironically, expecting me to join your worship of Obama goes against how I was raised. I was raised to stand up for what is right — always striving to do things God’s way. But when America elected a black president, our family’s morality and objectivity were thrown out the window in matters relating to this bizarre, despicably conniving man. His race and skin color are all that matters. Who Obama is and what he stands for are irrelevant.

While I will always love my family, my respect for who we have presented ourselves to be from as far back as I can remember has been injured.

Despite your little digs inferring that I am the weird guy in the family, I will not join your worship of the false idols/gods of race and skin color. Y’all raised me better!

This is such a cogent presentation of why the Boys Scouts should not change their policy of forbidding known homosexuals to be troop leaders that I could not resist copying it. Written by Greg Quinlan of PFOX.

As a former homosexual who was sexually molested as a child, I urge the Boy Scouts of America to reinforce their policy prohibiting homosexuals as Scout leaders entrusted with the care of impressionable young boys and teens.

Boy Scouts leaders are exactly that — leaders. Boys watch them very closely. Boys also look up to older Boy Scout members and want to imitate them and follow their examples. Boys at that stage of maturity emulate male role models. A homosexual who gently eases boys and young men into exposure of homosexuality by his own personal example promotes homosexual behavior as normal, natural and healthy. This paves the way for youth to question their own sexuality and be affirmed into homosexuality. Promoting homosexuality to youth is also a political ploy to further homosexual approval.

Like the Catholic Church hierarchy, the Boy Scouts have a history of hushing up and settling sexual molestation cases brought by boys under their care. The book, Scout’s Honor by investigative reporter Patrick Boyle, revealed 1,800 cases in which Scout leaders had been dismissed for abusing boys. And two years ago, a jury

awarded $18.5 million

to a man abused by a Scoutmaster.

My own sexual molestation as a youth was a contributing factor to my homosexual behavior as I got older. I left homosexuality only when I saw over 100 of my friends die of AIDS. I regret all those years of living homosexually — time wasted when I could have been dating and experiencing a relationship with a woman, gotten married, and raised children together. But sexual molestation and homosexuality raped me of those precious years, which should have been the best years of my life.

Today, I should be able to look at my children’s faces and see reflections of my wife. Instead, I am fighting heterophobic legislation initiated by the gay lobby, which would prevent children molested by homosexuals from seeking heterosexual counseling. Gay activists like the Human Rights Campaign and the Southern Poverty Law Center demand equality while denying equality to the ex-gay community, but denying children access to full mental health care is outrageous and perverted.

To insist that homosexuals be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts while demanding that heterosexual counseling for

molested children

be outlawed is a gross miscarriage of justice. What do the Boy Scouts have to say about this injustice?

No matter what precautions the Boy Scouts put in place so that open homosexuals can participate, such safeguards will never be enough. It’s like installing smoke alarms, fire ladders, and extinguishers in your home. Yes, if there’s a fire, a family may survive and get out of a burning house. But the best thing would be to not light the match in the first place.

As an ex-gay man, my personal message to the board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America is this:

Dear Messrs. Randall L. Stephenson, James S. Turley, Nathan S. Rosenberg, Wayne Perry, Wayne Brock, Alf Tuggle, Gary P. Butler, Tico Perez, and

others

,

It seems that one or more of your major corporate donors is pressuring you, and others are bullying you, to change the Boy Scout policy to admit homosexuals. This corporate donor is concerned about “discrimination” and knows many nice gays who he is certain would never look at a child sexually.

I, too, was one of those nice gays. But I was also one of those nice children who was molested. Please do without some corporate funding if you must, cut your budget and protect the children in your care. One case of child sexual molestation is one case too many.

Money with dangerous conditions attached is not a donation — it’s a bribe.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) provides outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community.

Dan Savage has quite a presence on the internet as a defender of gay sex and an advocate for gay marriage.  To anyone who watches any of these three videos, which are presented as a kind of overview, I would beg them not to miss my commentary at the end of the post.  In the third video, a debate between Dan Savage and the head of the National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, I think something important is missing which I will add at the end.

Dan Savage and his “spouse,” Terry, talk about their family:

Dan Savage discusses bullshit in the Bible about homosexuality at High School Journalism Convention

Dan Savage and Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage debate gay “marriage” over the dinner table (mediator: Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times)

Towards the end of this dinner table debate the moderator asks Brian if he could imagine some evidence that could be brought forth that would make him change his opinion about gay marriage. Brian talks about the beautiful complementarity of male and female and says something to the effect that he could no sooner accept gay marriage than he could call a circle a square. I wish he could have made much more clear the fact that man and woman were made – designed – for each other. They fit together like a key in a lock.  Their togetherness is appropriate, functional, and normal.  It is in the very nature of a male to have sex with a female, of a man to have sex with a woman.

What is unnatural is usually also harmful.  The anus is an exit, not an entrance. Anal sex is not only disordered, it is unhealthy. Ask any proctologist. AIDS was originally called the gay disease because the HIV virus is much more easily spread homosexually than heterosexually. See this  Lancet article of July 20, 2012,  titled HIV in Men Who Have Sex With Men.

When certain persons were first referred to as “queer” it was because they were instinctively recognized as abnormal, or disordered, or dysfunctional. To recognize something as abnormal does not mean one hates it.   The abnormality is simply a matter of fact and stating a fact is a truthful rather than a hateful thing.   We are all peculiar in our own  way and bullying anyone because they are somehow different is not acceptable.

Two men or two women can love each other.  In fact, we are called to love each other as ourselves.  Expressions of affection between two humans who love are normal and natural.  But however much they love, TWO MEMBERS OF THE SAME SEX  CANNOT MATE!   And marriage has always been about an agreement to mate.  Whatever else they may do in search of an orgasm, it is not mating.

Sarah Rowe stands for marriage in Anti-Marriage Defamation League.  And she pays for it.

Bristol Palin has a blog which is called, of all things, Bristol’s Blog.

Matthew 5:11 reads: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Bristol Palin first became acquained with the cost of holding Christian values when her mother, Sarah Palin, burst upon the political scene as vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 election. I had it on good report that a group of evangelists who were watching Sarah’s  maiden speech spontaneously stood and gave her a standing ovation in front of the television they were watching. My own response (as a new blogger) was to head for my computer and start expressing my pleasure in all capital letters for the first time ever. Among many viewers there was an immediate recognition of Sarah’s obvious goodness and a welcome to Sarah’s candidacy.

On the other hand, Sarah was immediately and viciously attacked by the left to such an extent that Bill O’Reilly would repeatedly ask, “Why do they hate Sarah?” and I, too,  blogged my wonderment. She was a good woman with impressive record as governor of Alaska,  with a strong family background, “fresh from the boonies,” who could dress a moose and shoot a bear if need be. What was not to like? But she was trashed relentlessly.

So it is not really surprising to Bristol Palin that she is now receiving the same treatment that her mother received, since she seems to publicly  espouse similar views.  For such a youngster (she’s only 22), Bristol has already had more life experience than most young women and seems reasonably reasonable.  She embarrassed her mother by getting pregnant during the campaign, kept her baby, ditched the baby-daddy, reached the finals on Dancing with the Stars, bought a house, and has a boyfriend but has decided not to sleep with him – yet.   She earns money advocating abstinence before marriage and also wrote a book, Not Afraid of Life:  My Journey so Far.

She had to know, when she decided to blog, that the hatred for her mother would follow her — especially since the wanted to share her thinking with the world.  Being Sarah’s daughter was bad enough, being pro-life was  not popular, preaching abstinence to single folks was passé, but then she really touched the third rail when she stated she was in favor of traditional marriage!   These days there is nothing – NOTHING – that will bring a rain of hate mail down on a person faster than standing for old-fashioned marriage.

I know.  I’ve been there.  Letters to the Editor used to be my thing – usually pro-life or contraceptive stuff.   But the real hot button to get radical creeps really crawling out of the woodwork is homosexuality.   Read the responses to a letter I wrote to a small local newspaper on Gay Activism!  Well over 250 people wrote to call me names, consign me to hell, even publish my name and address.  Poor Bristol Palin is quoted on a national scale, on TV and social media.  I can only imagine what it must be like to be a Palin and hated worldwide day in and day out.

Look what happened to Chick-fil-A when the owner professed to stand for marriage between two sexes.  It used to be normal, expected, honored, celebrated.  Our parents did it.  Marriage was a time-honored institution.  Now, all of a sudden, the thought police come after you and forbid your restaurant to open in your city, not because you won’t hire gays, not because you won’t serve gays, but just because of what you think  — that gay marriage is stupid and physically impossible because gays can’t mate — and that’s what marriage is about.

Let’s pray for the Palins, especially Bristol, that they can weather the storm and keep their eyes on the prize.

Check out this article for another view on the subject.

Never before in history has the issue of homosexuality been so front and center in a presidential election.

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on Meet the Press answer questions about their stance on gay rights. Santorum tells what he would say to his son if he announced he was gay.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin speaks for 850 rabbis.

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney point out the media bias and bigotry with regard to marriage issues works both ways!

When the PEOPLE are allowed to vote on same sex marriage they are clearly against it.   In all 31 states where referenda have been held, traditional marriage has been upheld and same sex marriage rejected.  They understand that marriage must be between a man and a woman. They know intuitively that man and woman go  together, like a key in a lock. “Marriage” between two keys or two locks is an exercise in futility.

~~~

The left, which thought it had buried Santorum years ago, is going after him with a hatred unmatched. They hate him with that special ire reserved for a man’s virtues, not his vices. — Maggie Gallagher

One part of America believes we are headed for a wonderful new age.  The silent majority thinks the country has lost its mind. — Pat Buchanan, in  Suicide of a Superpower

I’d call this hard-hitting. It speaks for itself. Michael Voris is not one to mince words!

Letter from Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York to President Obama written “with a growing sense of urgency.”

It has come to this.  I’m in church, waiting for mass to begin.   I’m 88.  And what am I thinking of?   Sex!!

This might seem less odd if you consider how distressed I am that my very own state, Connecticut, has recently passed a law making same-sex “marriage” legal.   I can’t write “marriage” without quotation marks because I can’t comprehend how anyone can think gays can marry when they can’t even mate.  From the beginning of humanity, marriage has meant the commitment of a man and a woman to each other with the intent of having sexual intercourse and caring for offspring that might result from that union.   Even heterosexual marriage was not valid unless it was consummated.   That meant mating.  And gays can’t mate.  Or have offspring.

For several years I have been watching a couple at mass who sit a few pews in front of me.  I would guess they are about fifty-ish.  I suspect they may have grown children but, of course, I don’t know.  I don’t even know their names.  They sit close enough to each other to touch.  They kiss at the sign of peace. They wear wedding rings.  They have a nice rapport.

Then, right there in church, I imagine them in the marital embrace.  The first word I think of is “comfortable.”  Then “enjoyable.”  Two-in-one-flesh comes to mind.  There is a rightness to it.  Like a key in a lock.  A coming together of things designed for each other.

Long ago there was a line in my missal that read: “It is meet and fitting and availing unto salvation…”  I remember this line because even back then “meet” and “fitting” were seldom used  that way in ordinary conversation.    To me there is a “meetness” and a “fittingness” about this couple coming together sexually.

Try as I may, I cannot visualize two men or two women having “meet and fitting” sex.  It is good for men to love each other, and women to love each other.  Indeed, they are commanded to love one another.  But whatever they might do sexually, it is not mating.  It is not the way sex was designed to work.  It might better be considered some variant of  mutual masturbation.  Or that old-fashioned word,  sodomy.

If I may be permitted a bit of anthromorphism, you have to feel for the poor sperm that had hopes of meeting up with an egg and finds that it is not even in the right ball park and doesn’t have a fighting chance.  Also, there are bioactive chemicals in the seminal fluid (“there’s good in that goo”) (see seminal thoughts) that are going to waste.  What a perversion of purpose!

Did you know that humans are the only animals that mate face to face?  Could it be that human sex is supposed to be a person-to-person encounter and not just a instinctive animal activity?  Human sex can be – and should be –  a holy thing.

~~~

Definition of sodomy:  Anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex.  Also copulation with an animal.   — Merriam-Webster

For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;  Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:  That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.  For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.  — 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8

Gay Pride Parade in New York City.   Exactly what is it about this that makes gays proud?

Long, long ago, way back before I was born, way back in the olden days, there was a thing called marriage. From the beginning it was apparent that men and women were attracted to each other and they had discovered a thing called sex. They had also figured out that the thing called sex caused babies. They believed there was a Person called God who was in charge of the world, who had told them how they were to live.

Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. – Matt. 19:4-6.

In the olden days, marriage was a holy convenant, a promise before God and man, “for better, for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death shall us part.”   Such a thing was not to be taken lightly; it was no casual hook-up. The promises were the glue, society would watch over the union, and God would provide the grace to make it work. Rings were exchanged which were a sign to others that they were in a convenant relationship. No wonder people cried at weddings! A marriage was a beautiful, awesome, holy thing. A vow was made before God.   Friends  were asked to be witnesses. Two young people with stars in their eyes and love in their hearts were serious about making this union work! And they were committed to caring for any offspring that might result.

Ronald Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action, writes:

The core idea of marriage–as a relationship between a man and a woman that obligates them to work together to nurture their biological children–has been important to every known civilization. Why? Because it corresponds with three fundamental realities of human existence: It takes both a man and a woman to make a child; any society that wants to survive must have children; children deserve both their mother and father.

In the old days when marriage came before sex and the baby carriage, society was more stable.  Vows were taken seriously.  Even if the actuality of living out the marriage left something to be desired (which is usually the case!) there was more belief that with God’s help they could make it work.  The world was not full of single moms desperately trying to feed their kids, and single men out on the prowl. The men had a woman to go home to and the woman had a man to provide home and food while she cared for the babies. Babies had a present and available mother. It was a plan. One might even say it was God’s plan.  It provided parents for the kids. The kids knew who made them and knew who would care for them as long as necessary.

From Janet Smith

Think of the difference between these two phrases: “I want to have sex with you.” and “I want to have a baby with you.” It’s awesome – the difference. Our society says, “I want to have lunch with you, I want to go to movies with you, I want to play tennis with you, and I want to have sex with you.” No big deal. But if someone comes up to you and says, “I want to have a baby with you,” you should be knocked off your feet. Because, if they have any idea what they’re saying, they’re saying: “I want to be with you from now till forever. First of all, we’d be bringing forth a new immortal soul and we have an immortal link through this immortal soul that wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t engaged in this act. It also means, I like you eyes and your smile and the way you walk and I want to bring another one of you into this world. And I like the way you think and I want my children to think like you. And I’m willing to be there for midnight feedings and breakfast and PTA’s and weddings and the long haul. I want to have a baby with you.” That’s an incredible thing to say to someone. “I want to have sex with you.” We say that with the greatest of casualness. “I want to have babies with you.” If you know what you’re saying, it’s an incredible statement. You are expressing the desire for an incredible bond with a person when all of your acts of sexual intercourse leave open the ordination to procreation. Whether it’s literal or symbolic, at least it’s there and preserved in some sense.

Janet Smith obviously takes the fertility as a gift and I cannot recommend highly enough the article from which this quote was taken.

Steven  Greydanus, in his article Redefining Marriage, writes:

And yet whatever cultural vagaries or ambiguities have existed, whatever wiggle room has been permitted, tolerated or carved out, there remains a clearly recognizable institution, found everywhere that human beings are found, in which a man and a woman are socially recognized to have formed an enduring union, a union that is the socially sanctioned context for sexual relations between a man and a woman, from which it is generally expected that children may arise.

Activists have labored mightily to avoid this conclusion. Historical and anthropological records have been scoured with vigilance for any possible departure from the pattern. Numerous proposed precedents for same-sex have been compiled: accounts of this or that Roman emperor “marrying” a male slave; reports of curious customs in this or that African culture. Nearly all these supposed precedents collapse on second glance, and none of them provide a true precedent for gender-blind marriage, or pose a serious challenge to the universality of marriage as the enduring union of a man and a woman.

Catholics believe that Christ changed marriage, that for baptized Christians marriage is a sacrament, the sacrament of matrimony. Marriage itself, however, is a natural institution that still exists for all men of any religion or of none.

A thoughtful essay on sterile marriages

Is real marriage “just one of a range of legally-recognised options” as one writer put it?  Well, yes, because it is one of  many things people do.  But, no, it is not on a par with other sexual hook-ups.  It is not only God’s plan but demonstrably a better plan for society and for children.   Time will tell, won’t it?