Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘LGBT’ Category

California Republican legislators increasingly voting anti-family

Saturday, July 13, 2019, 10:27 am | Randy Thomasson
What do you get when you combine a Republican legislator with Democrat one?
A ‘Demorepub’ or a ‘Repubidem’?

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

If you’ve been tracking with SaveCalifornia.com for some time now, you already know you can “depend” on Democrat state legislators to loyally support the unnatural, unhealthy, unbiblical, tyrannical homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda that’s trampling your constitutional rights, including free speech, freedom of association, and religious freedom, and your God-given and pre-constitutional parental rights and property rights. But did you know some Republican legislators in Sacramento are voting for the same anti-family things?

From our SaveCalifornia.com Legislative Center:

AB 175: Forces foster parents to use girls’ names, ‘she,’ and ‘her’ for sexually-confused biological boys, and vice versa for sexually-confused biological girls
“REPUBLICANS” JOINING DEMOCRATS IN VOTING YES: Assemblymen Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo (district map), Tyler Diep of Westminster (district map)

AB 493: Sexually brainwashes government-school teachers to then further brainwash schoolchildren
“REPUBLICANS” JOINING DEMOCRATS IN VOTING YES: Assemblymen Phillip Chen of Diamond Bar (district map), Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo (district map), Tyler Diep of Westminster (district map), Tom Lackey of Palmdale (district map), Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley (district map); State Senator Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita (district map)

SB 741: Eliminates legal evidence in order to change ‘gender’ on state certificates
“REPUBLICANS” JOINING DEMOCRATS IN VOTING YES: State Senators Ling Ling Chang of Diamond Bar (district map) and Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita (district map)

SB 495: Eliminates evidence of any harmful activities or proclivities of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals in child custody cases
“REPUBLICANS” JOINING DEMOCRATS IN VOTING YES: State Senators Ling Ling Chang of Diamond Bar (district map) and Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita (district map)

AB 711: Forces schools to retroactively falsify a student’s ‘sex’ on former student records
“REPUBLICANS” JOINING DEMOCRATS IN VOTING YES: Assemblymen Phillip Chen of Diamond Bar (district map), Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo (district map), Tom Lackey of Palmdale (district map), Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley (district map), Jay Obernolte of Big Bear (district map)

ACR 99: Blames churches for homosexuals’ and transsexuals’ inner problems
“REPUBLICAN” JOINING DEMOCRATS IN VOTING YES: Assemblyman Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley (district map)

Are there differences between Democrats and Republicans? Yes, but liberal “Republican” elected officials are harming their brand and betraying pro-family voters. As you probably already know, pro-family, conservative Republicans are the only kind of Republicans truly distinct from pro-perversity “Republicans” who vote with all the “LGBTQIA+” Democrats.

The lunacy and harm of ‘LGBTIQ+ pride’

Monday, July 1, 2019, 9:10 am | Randy Thomasson

When you see national companies promoting “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” or “LGBTIQ” or “LGBTIQA+” “Pride” — and hijacking Creator God’s rainbow in the process — you should question it and put it to the test.

Because no one should be proud to trample what’s good, right, and true; or lead astray vulnerable children; or harm people’s health; or unfairly discriminate against your God-given rights. 

And it’s categorically unkind to do bad to others, by pushing what’s bad for a person, bad for children and families, and bad for our culture, nation, and world. To be kind is to give God’s goodness to others, with standards that emanate from the Bible. But pushing bad consequences upon people is always bad, no matter the deceptive or delusional smiles of the pushers.

Therefore, Starbucks, Target, and other national or local businesses pushing “LGBTQ Pride” are being unkind and spreading false information, which is neither something they should be proud of, nor should it motivate you to spend your dollars at their establishments.

Q: Are homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality true or false?
A: They are false.

Both science and the Word of God agree there’s no such thing as a “gay gene” — no biological basis to “LGBTIQ” whatsoever. It’s a delusional lie of the establishment to claim there’s any kind of sexual intercourse beyond man-woman sexual intercourse, or to claim there’s more than the two sexes of male and female. For they just don’t exist.

Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, on his search for the “gay gene”:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find … I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
Source: Interview with Simon LeVay, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover Magazine, March 1994

American Psychological Association backtracks on claim of “gay gene”:
A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”
Source: ‘Gay’ gene claim suddenly vanishes, WND.com, May 12, 2009

And transsexuality? This is even more of a delusion, because using medical instruments to cut off healthy body parts, which you can’t get back, is obviously not natural. See SaveCalifornia.com’s Science of the Sexes.

Conclusion: Homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality have no biological basis, so no one can legitimately claim they were “born that way” or “God made me this way” or they’re “being true” to themselves by engaging in these contrived identities and harmful behaviors. The vast bulk of evidence is that homosexuality, and transsexuality are caused by childhood traumas, which many homosexuals and transsexuals freely admit happened in their pasts. In addition, the continual adding of new behaviors is nonsensical.

Consider the latest acronym, “LGBTIQA+“, which is continually expanding into labeling more behaviors as “natural.” For if “love is love” (i.e. subjectively defined, meaning that anything one desires or wants sexually must be accepted), no one can any longer oppose “sex” with children, animals, and corpses. For if one claims one was “born” with these desires, and the public must accept these claims without a shred of evidence, opponents to these behaviors have to be labeled “prudish” or “____phobic.” Because all moral standards and scientific evidence have been discarded to society’s own peril. This is ludicrous and violates all objective standards of logic, evidence, and reason.

Q: Does homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual behavior threaten one’s health?
A: Yes


The prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV, Hepatitis A, B and C) are higher among homosexuals. And CDC’s own statistics show how HIV/AIDS is nearly exclusively a homosexual disease. 

At least 63% and as much as 91% of HIV/AIDS infections transmitted by “male-to-male sexual contact”
Approximately 1.1 million persons in the United States are living with HIV infection [1]. In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections was 47,500: of those, 63% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact, 25% to heterosexual contact, 8% to injection drug use, and 3% to male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use [2] [Note: According to this CDC report, “All the participants had at least 1 male sex partner,” including those males who “self-identified as heterosexual”]
CDC, HIV Surveillance Special Report: Men Who Have Sex with Men, 20 U.S. Cities, 2011

In addition, biological men who delusionally think they’re women (the establishment calls them “transgender women) have an HIV infection rate nearly 50 times higher than other adults. Is this behavior healthy and worth promoting, or unhealthy and worth discouraging?

Homosexuals also experience higher rates of cancer and lower overall health as a cancer survivors:

Link between sexual orientation and cancer
“Homosexual men were found to be 1.9 times more likely to self-report a cancer diagnosis than were heterosexual men … Although homosexual women did not have a higher incidence of cancer, these women did report lower overall health as cancer survivors compared to heterosexual women.”

Prostate cancer survival may be especially tough on gay men

Conclusion: From a straightforward health perspective, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality invite sexually transmitted diseases, as well as higher cancer rates. As a matter of public health, these sexual behaviors should be discouraged.

Q: Does the “LGBTIQ+” political agenda trample your constitutional rights?
A: Yes.

In the Constitution of the United States of America, the First Amendment guarantees you freedom of religion, freedom of speech (and freedom of association, which emanates from free speech).

And pre-Constitutional rights for your enjoyment include parental rights and property rights (ownership rights, contract rights, etc.).

Yet time and time again, laws have been made and rulings handed down, that permit the homosexual/transsexual agenda to trample property and business owners, parental rights, religious freedom, and even freedom of speech and association.

But homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality aren’t in the U.S. Constitution. And where the 5th and 14th Amendments mention the important individual rights of “life, liberty, or property,” the legislative and historical records clearly show that “liberty” means protection from being imprisoned or physically restrained (think a jail cell, or house arrest, or wooden stocks) without due process of law. Therefore, “liberty” did not and does not mean the power to redefine marriage or to trample other people’s constitutional rights or to do whatever you want.

Conclusion: A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution and its legislative and historical records shows us a list of guaranteed rights for individual citizens in the U.S. states. Nowhere in the Constitution are “coupleship” rights or the “rights” of homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality or other behaviors. “Gay rights” and “LGBT rights” are made up and used by unconstitutional politicians and judges to squash the constitutional rights of those who cannot support the “LGBT” agenda in good conscience. Furthermore, the only ways to amend the U.S. Constitution is by a two-thirds vote of Congress and three-fifths vote of the individual States, or by a Constitutional Convention.

Q: Does homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality qualify as a “civil right” or “protected class”?
A: No.


To be a “civil right,” the identifying physical characteristic of a “protected class” must be inborn (existing from birth) or an admitted handicap.

The U.S. government’s “protected class” definition is as follows:

“The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.”

It’s a fact that your inborn sex chromosomes (XX female or XY male), race, and age are physical characteristics that you cannot change. And physical or mental handicaps are declared impairments and weaknesses that are unchangeable unless there is healing and recovery.

Conclusion: Because homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality neither have a biological basis nor are unchangeable (people have changed in and out of, and left behind former practices identified with “LGBTIQ,” etc.), these sexual behaviors cannot qualify as a “civil right” or a “protected class” on the same level as race, ethnicity, national origin, even physical disability. If permitted, then any behavior can eventually achieve “civil rights” status, dominating and trampling any reasonable dissent, religious value, or ownership right. This would produce a decidedly uncivilized — and very unsafe — culture.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20



Why every female should oppose transsexuality

Thursday, February 28, 2019, 9:30 am | Randy Thomasson


“Transgender” athletes in school sports are making the news again. And it’s your opportunity to easily explain to people the harm of allowing boys to masquerade as girls.

In the above photograph of the runners, two biological boys (the two black boys on the left) won first and second place in the 55-meter dash earlier this month. These boys, who say they’re transgender and call themselves “girls,” beat all the girls running, turning the biological girls into losers.

It is so unfair to allow boys to compete in athletics against girls. Here’s why“Male athletes have a higher ratio of muscle mass to body weight, which allows for greater speed and acceleration. This explains why female speed records in running and swimming are consistently 10 percent slower than men’s, and why, on average, they have two thirds of the strength of men.”

The transgender lie is so obvious, that tennis star Martina Navratilova, a self-proclaimed “lesbian,” says permitting biological males (both adolescents and adults) to compete in women’s sports is “cheating” and “insane.

“To put the argument at its most basic,” she wrote this weekend in an op-ed for the Sunday Times of London, “a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organisation is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires.” Source

“It is surely unfair on women who have to compete against people who, biologically, are still men. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her.” Navratilova, who became a target for abuse after coming out as gay in 1981, said she deplored the “tyranny” of transgender activists who “denounce anyone who argues against them.” Source

For speaking this biological truth, Navratilova has been kicked off an advisory board for “LGBT” athletes.

Every woman and girl who supports equal opportunity for women or women’s sports should oppose the unnatural transsexual agenda. For when adolescent boys and men pretend to be women, the real women always lose.

Who voted to impose this unfair policy upon all California K-12 public schools?

Signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013 after passage by 46 Democrats in the State Assembly and 21 Democrats in the State Senate, AB 1266 requires all K-12 public schools to permit biological boys in girls’ restrooms, showers, clubs, and sports teams; and biological girls in boys’ restrooms, showers, clubs, and sports teams. The “right” to violate these sexual boundaries is solely a self declaration of a different “gender identity.”

Passed by the majority Democrats in the California Legislature, AB 1266 tramples parents’ rights and invades the personal comfort zones of millions of children for a handful of sexually confused children who need professional counseling. Not only is transsexuality unnatural and unhealthy, AB 1266 invites blatant fraud, since there are porn-influenced boys who will try to see girls partially or fully naked by declaring themselves “female” for the day.

AB 1266 mandates this agenda and permits this abuse, reading, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

“Typically females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y. Mothers always pass an X chromosome on to their children. Whether your father passes on his X chromosome (leading to a pair of X chromosomes) or his Y chromosome (making a mixed set) determines your sex.”
“The X and Y Chromosomes Determine Your Sex,” 23andMe
(California’s leading personal genomics and biotechnology company)
See more at SaveCalifornia.com’s “The Science of the Sexes”