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
RSS 2.0 Feed