Posted in: America. Tagged: Bible, Biology, Christianity, Faith, Female, Heaven, Heaven/Hell, Homosexuals, Life, Male, Male/Female, Man/Woman, News, Political, religion, Romans 10:9, SBC, Science, Sex, Sexism, Sexual, Sexual abuse, Sexual Identity, Sexual sins, sexually transmitted diseases, Southern Baptist Convention, Trans, Transexuals, Transgender, Transgenders, truth. Leave a comment
‘Harvard Medical School students can learn about how to provide healthcare to “infants” who are LGBTQIA+, according to a course catalog description.
“Caring for Patients with Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Sex Development,” a regularly available med school course, promises to give students a chance to work with “patients [who] identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or asexual.”
“Clinical exposure and education will focus on serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults,” according to the course description.’https://www.thecollegefix.com/harvard-med-class-focuses-on-lgbtqia-infants-and-older/
‘Since June is Pride Month for the LGBT etc. crowd, I expanded and rewrote a 2019 column that produced late-night phone calls, death threats, and scores of hate-filled emails from the “peace-loving,” “all opinions have equal worth,” “fair-minded,” and always “compassionate” homosexuals.
No doubt, many homosexuals—maybe most of them—agree with the thesis of my article while disagreeing with my criticism of homosexuality which is still legal in America. Both homosexuality and my right to disagree with it are legally protected—for now. But the Homosexual Lobby will not permit any honest disagreement with their positions.
You know, like the knee-jerk response of some homosexuals to the Tampa Bay football players who refused to give credibility to perversion by wearing a rainbow version of the team logo on the team’s “Pride Night,” because of their religious beliefs. It seems everyone has a right to make up his own mind as long as you don’t imply that homosexuality is wrong.
The journalists at Newsweek had every right to accuse me, attack me, and even assassinate me (symbolically) but not use illegitimate and spurious and twisted information to do their job.
I’m not whining about Newsweek, just wanting to hold their feet to the fire. After all, they did spell my name correctly and pulled a good photo from one of my lectures at the University of North Dakota.
The Newsweek piece, about my article published on numerous conservative websites, was filled with errors. Even the first word of the headline was wrong! It yelled, REPUBLICAN PREACHER RUNS SHOCKING BLOG POST ABOUT PETE BUTTIGIEG, CLAIMS GAY PEOPLE DIE YOUNGER THAN ‘NORMAL PEOPLE.’ I have not been a Republican for decades, although I admit to voting Republican most of the time, I’m politically independent as a hog on ice.
Journalists, including news magazines like Newsweek, should try that sometime.
A quick phone call or email from the author would have kept him from adding to the escalating charges of fake news. All journalists are taught to verify the facts; maybe he was sleeping during that class.
The author called my article “Pete Since You Brought it Up, How ‘Gay’ Are You?” offensive, and of course, it was. It is impossible to deal with perversion (and politics) without being offensive; however, if we deal with the details, it would be disgusting.
The author suggests I was offensive because I mentioned that homosexuals don’t live as long as normal people. Well, that may be offensive, but it is also a fact according to Columbia University. Of course, they suggested homosexuals died early because of an anti-homosexual environment rather than their perverted practices.
Another widely cited study from Vancouver revealed, “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.” This was supported by a study done by Paul Cameron, Ph.D. It revealed the latest CDC report “tends to strengthen the overall finding based upon obituaries: that the lifespan of MSM [males who have sex with other men] is shortened two to three decades by AIDS and, possibly, other causes.”
However, the last study was done by a Christian psychologist who is viciously hated by the LGBT crowd. Cameron is allegedly biased by his biblical worldview, but somehow, homosexuals are not biased, blinded, and bigoted by their twisted lifestyle which they cannot defend. The Homosexual Lobby doesn’t understand that facts don’t lie, but that can’t be said about the radical left.
Most mainstream journalists like the ones in Newsweek deal in fantasy, falsehood, and fiction—not facts. They have an agenda that must be disseminated without regard for reality.
Homosexuals die about 20 years earlier than normal people because their lifestyle is really a deathstyle. The human body was not made to endure violent attacks—their use of illegal drugs; their autoerotic playtime; their bondage and sadomasochism; their fisting; ad nauseam—all shorten lives. After all, if eating fried foods will shorten your life, living the dangerous, diseased, and depraved life many homosexuals live will be more deadly than eating fried chicken.
The hit piece charged, “The former lawmaker [this writer] said it was his right as a voter to ask ‘how gay Pete is’ and if his medical records would be made public. Boys, asserting that ‘homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous,’ made a series of baseless claims and suggested Buttigieg should address them.”
It is interesting but common that Newsweek did not list any baseless claims, and they rejected my well-documented charges knowing few readers would discover their deception. And, yes, a politician must answer questions (most Democrats are sorry they did not ask about Biden’s health) but then maybe Pete has been given a No Obligation to Answer Card. That isn’t surprising since homosexuals have demanded and received numerous special rights from cowardly judges, legislators, college presidents, media personalities, and Hollywood.
And everyone, even some Conservative and even Christian websites are careful not to offend them by suggesting that perversion, like fornication, is always wrong, even wicked. The safe pitch is that each person can make his own decision about such issues and then we will all “live and let live.”
The almost universal message is to be very careful what you say about homosexuality. However, an American does not have to worry what he declares as long as it is truthful. Moreover, no one, especially a Christian, should be malicious, hateful, or even unkind.
Newsweek’s use of claims suggests that my assertion about homosexual promiscuity is not true when everyone with an I.Q. equivalent to his ring size knows it is true. It’s like saying some people claim the earth is round.
The hit piece suggested that homosexual promiscuity is dubious, so let me be clear: no honest, informed, and sane person disagrees, debates, or even sees a need to discuss the issue—homosexuals change partners as often as they change socks—almost.
A 2006 study of 2,294 homosexuals in the homosexual magazine The Advocate reported that 248 men admitted to having more than 300 sexual partners with fewer partners for the others.
The classic Bell and Weinberg study, produced with the help of the American National Institute of Mental Health, consisted of about 1100 men. That pre-AIDS report revealed that 83% of the homosexual men in their survey said it was likely they had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, while 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners. But it gets worse because 28% had sex with 1,000 or more partners!
Even if they are “married,” male homosexuals set aside a “night with the boys.” Of course, there are exceptions, but let’s say it all together now, “Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous.”
The claim that homosexuality is not influenced by family or trauma was shot down by Neil E. Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality: “It is simply a myth that there are no sociological data showing inﬂuence on adult sexual orientation.”
Newsweek reproduced significant points of my column, which added some much-needed juice to their article: “Purporting to cite ‘the largest study ever conducted,’ he said 23 percent of homosexuals ‘participate in golden showers.’” The writer was careless in his use of purporting. He used the wrong word because I did not purport—or claim or assert or allege to cite “the largest study ever conducted” that revealed that 23% of homosexuals “participate in golden showers.” I cited the report and received no rebuttal.
He was trying to denigrate the study without dealing with it, which is common among desperate people. The Gay Report was done by Karla Jay and Allen Young and involved 4,400 respondents. In that study, homosexuals admitted to their usual vile practices, and homosexual leaders criticized it from its publication. Critics never have revealed that the authors were “gay!”
It is much worse today. In a 2006 study of a group of “male S&M practitioners,” 47.3% admitted participation in “watersports” according to The Health Hazards of Homosexually.
Since Pete said: “I’m gay as a… I don’t know, think of something really gay, that’s how gay I am.” I want to know what he meant. No doubt some homosexuals are fairly strait-laced compared to others but just how “gay” is Pete? No one expects him to go into details, but on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most degraded, diseased, and dangerous, where is Pete?
Most people expect a national magazine to produce quality work but not this time. Newsweek’s source, the Friendly Atheist, is such an embarrassment it would make any honest reader run for a barf bag.
My article appeared on May 15, and was picked up by Joe.My.God. on the 17th, the Friendly Atheist on May 18, and was critiqued by Newsweek on May 21. Newsweek did not do any original reporting, just some ramblings from the Friendly Atheist and some of my brilliant comments. So, it was not a total loss.
The Friendly Atheist piece supports the would-be censors out there who want to eliminate bad writing. The blogger is Hemant Mehta, whose claim to fame is “selling his soul on eBay.” He titled his blog “Christian Bigot: Pete Buttigieg Can’t Be President Because Gay People Die Young.” Hemant is right in calling me a Christian but completely wrong using the B-word. Evidently, he is infected with the virus that makes leftists lash out rather than support their position. Accusations are much easier to make than answers and argumentation. Hemant probably doesn’t even know he is infected. Tragic.
Far leftists don’t seem to understand that an American can disagree with their agenda and not be a hater. Disagreement is healthy. It is good to challenge people to analyze an issue and produce their reasons for believing it. Facts are not emotional. Unstable, dishonest people often are.
He then accuses me of declaring that Pete would not be a good president, but I never suggested that. Far leftists have a difficult time reading or comprehending or telling the truth.
In response to my demand that Pete release his medical records, Hemant seems to run off the rails. He charged, “His bigotry [mine] isn’t worthy of a response, but it should be noted that Donald Trump never released his proper medical records.” However, the president is examined annually, and his medical reports are released.
Voters have an obligation to make decisions about a candidate’s total life: his family, education, associations, criminal record, politics, etc., when deciding whether to vote for him.
After many embarrassing gaffes, Hemant dug a deeper hole by writing, “The rest of the article is no better, with Boys arguing that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life.” I did not write that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life. As a voter, I want to know if his “gay” lifestyle will affect his effectiveness as president.
Buttigieg is in Biden’s cabinet, and will no doubt be a national candidate again so I still want to know if his lifestyle might affect his ability to serve Americans.
Hemant continued with his convoluted tirade by charging, “Boys doesn’t bring up how Donald Trump had an affair with a porn star (without protection).” Hemant failed (again) to research the facts. Had he not been so lazy or incompetent, he would have discovered many of my critical articles about Trump. I voted for him because the alternative was Horrific Hillary. Trump’s affairs were despicable, deplorable, dumb, and double dumb without protection— just as homosexual perversions are dumb and disgusting.
Finally, Hemant runs out of steam, takes a deep breath, wipes the foam from his quivering lips, and writes, “This is conservative Christian ‘logic’ for you. A gay guy in a monogamous marriage is somehow a threat to family values, but President P****grabber is somehow a man of virtue.” I wrote nothing about Pete’s “monogamous marriage,” and neither Hemant nor I know if Pete’s “marriage” is monogamous or not, although many studies do not reflect faithful monogamous homosexual “marriages.”
The national homosexual magazine, The Advocate reported in 2006 that less than half of homosexual “couples” were monogamous, a fact supported by the Male Couples Study and others.
It is a fact that homosexual “marriages” or live-in arrangements last two to three years, according to Male and Female Homosexuality, by Saghir and Robins and other studies.
Moreover, I did not refer to family values nor refer to Trump as “a man of virtue.” I doubt if Trump can spell virtue, but he at least did what he promised, something few presidents have done in a hundred years.
Is Pete traveling in the homosexual fast lane that always comes to a dead-end?
Voters have a right to know just how “gay” Pete is.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/newsweek-hit-piece-attacks-and-slanders-me-because-of-my-question-to-pete-buttigieg-2
‘The U.S. Embassy in the Vatican has come under fire on Wednesday after it chose to fly the pride flag in honor of Pride Month.
After the embassy’s social media account posted a picture of the Pride flag flying in front of its office in the Holy See, it quickly garnered a negative response from well over 1,000 people, including Christians of various denominations who remarked upon the impropriety of such a display. ‘https://www.rebelnews.com/u_s_embassy_in_vatican_in_hot_water_over_pride_flag?
Now, what in the world does being a queer have to do with your groceries? Well, here in Australia the grocery chain ‘Coles sacked the last of its unvaccinated staff at the beginning of this year, long after state mandates fell and other industries began allowing the so-called mavericks of the workforce back into the office. The move, along with other supermarket giants, saw thousands of Australians unceremoniously dumped, many of them single mothers or from struggling households.
‘Shop safe at Coles’ is something that looks good printed in big letters across double-page ads to those still suffering from anxiety hangovers. Just don’t ask too many questions about the health logic, given unvaccinated people can shop in the store, but not stand behind the counter.
Speaking of corporate virtue signalling.
The same company turned around this week and announced it would be offering its trans and gender-diverse employees ten extra days of paid leave for the purpose of ‘gender affirmation’. ‘Affirmation’ is a hazy term that Coles describes as ‘any process’ that relates to the act of gender affirmation including surgical, social, legal, or medical action. Leave could be granted for anything from an appointment with a lawyer through to full surgery.
Gender Affirmation Leave was timed to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersexism, and Transphobia – one of the dozens of days and months dedicated to a sexual preference or pronouns.
Coles Chief Legal and Safety Officer, David Brewster, (who also serves as the Chair of the Pride Steering Committee), released a statement.
‘We know that we have at least 900 team members who identify as transgender or gender diverse. We need to have proper policy and education in this area so there is clear guidance around taking leave for this important transition in their life.’
Coles attached a long and bizarre ‘gender affirming’ statement that seems a little over the top for employment that largely involves stacking shelves and pushing trolleys. Its headings include ‘encouraging you to be your authentic self’ and ‘developing our Pride Team member network’ – which doesn’t sound like something employers should concern themselves with.’https://spectator.com.au/2022/05/coles-sacks-unvaccinated-staff-creates-paid-gender-affirmation-leave/
Romans 1:22,24-27 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I forgot that Tuesday was “Vile Affections” Day! Yes, ‘31 years ago – on May 17, 1990 – the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from the Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.
International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia & Transphobia (IDAHOBIT) celebrates LGBTQIA+ people globally, and raises awareness for the work still needed to combat discrimination.’https://www.idahobit.org.au/index.php/get-active/the-stats
Money down the toilet and the Government just shovels more into it! ‘Don’t expect Australia’s peak science body to come up with a vaccine against ‘wokeness’. They are, themselves, riddled with it.
Last week, the CSIRO announced it was abandoning science to chase the pot of gender confusion at the end of the LGBTQ+ rainbow – a case of spending taxpayer gold in pursuit of the fools’ kind.
In an announcement timed to coincide with the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, our Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation said it would be offering staff extra leave for ‘gender reassignment’ surgery.
Our premier science organisation no longer regards gender as a fixed biological reality. Instead, gender is something assigned at birth – often incorrectly, as it so happens – but that can be ‘reassigned’ with a surgeon’s knife and the state-approved adjustment to birth certificates.
While telling the public to ‘follow the science’, our scientific community has decided to follow Caitlyn Jenner.
So-called ‘experts’ tell us that ‘the science is settled’ on climate change, but are happy to do a bit of casual re-writing on the basics of biology.
I’m sure the irony isn’t lost on people demonised for questioning ‘climate science’.
In particular, the CSIRO’s Gender Affirmation policy entitles staff to take time off for medical appointments before and after surgery, and to organise new birth certificates. This is probably annoying for staff who would like extra time off for non-woke activities.
All staff are to be given ‘diversity training’ to make the CSIRO more welcoming for non-binary, trans, and gender-diverse team members.
Finally, CSIRO computer software will be updated to allow researchers to display their preferred pronouns.
It’s all very sciencey.
CSIRO spokesman Chris Gerbing boasted that the Australian government agency responsible for scientific research had given staff permission to ‘be themselves at work’. The public, who are bankrolling the CSIRO, would probably rather its scientists knuckle down and get some work done.
Imagine what a ghastly work environment the CSIRO used to be before the Gender Affirmation Policy came into effect… All those un-affirmed genders out there, forced to walk the corridors and do research without ‘being themselves’. After all, an employer’s chief role is to continuously affirm the gender and sexual preferences of their staff, is it not? Or was it to not ask personal questions?
The Pride@CSIRO Network Leadership, which among other things exists to identify LGBTQI+ staff and their allies, claimed ‘diversity of thought is crucial to doing impactful science’.
Such a pity that diversity of thought at the CSIRO is positively mandated when it comes to gender, yet actively discouraged when it comes to climate, or to vaccine efficacy, or to mask mandates, or to the usefulness of taboo Ivermectin, or to the merits of lockdowns or to any number of real issues that actually matter to Australians the CSIRO are paid to serve.’https://spectator.com.au/2022/03/csiro-lgbtqqiaap/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UNFI%20%2020220309%20%20GK&utm_content=UNFI%20%2020220309%20%20GK+CID_dc30f55a028888e2d683656b8c3cde5c&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=It%20costs%20the%20Australian%20public%20over%20100%20million%20every%20year%20to%20keep%20the%20CSIRO%20afloat
‘Christian parents Nigel and Sally Rowe have been fighting their case since 2017. Now, finally, a High Court judge has ruled that they can take their case to a judicial review of transgender affirming policies in English primary schools. The evidence of harm that these policies do in schools is overwhelming. Nigel and Sally spoke to LBC Radio about how the 500+ pages of expert evidence is being ignored by the government. Sally explained: “We can see the evidence in front of us now, up and down the country in schools where these policies have been embedded into primary schools; where there has been an actual promotion of this ideology, there has also been a massive escalate of child referrals to the gender clinic – 3000% in a decade.” Nigel explained further: “The problem is that the evidence isn’t really being looked at – firstly by the government, but also most parents and staff are actually ignorant of the evidence, too … they’re just told this is the ideology, we must embrace it.” One such expert, Mr Rogers, a consultant psychologist with 30 years experience in the field of psychology, warned in his report that the Cornwall Guidelines “showed little or no appreciation for the safety and welfare of children.” In his 140-page report, Mr Rogers also made the crucial point that 88% who experience gender dysphoria as children will no longer suffer from gender dysphoria by their mid-30s.’
‘A “canard” is an unfounded story or accusation, often repeated enough that it is preceded by the adjective “old canard,” meaning that it has been fully debunked by all those but people with an impenetrable disinterest in making better arguments.
I was approached by a young person from my congregation who wanted to know how to best handle being called “homophobic” by certain of his peers. I did my best from my phone to explain the apologetic approach to debunk this canard and counter it with science, religion, and reason. But from the moment he asked, I felt compelled to put my arguments in writing to best convey them for the reader because (A) he is surely not the only person who is bullied with the canard and (B) therefore, others might benefit from it.
As a polemicist-pastor, I’m not averse to argumentation nor opposed to it. We are instructed, after all, to give a defense for our beliefs when asked (1 Peter 3:15). This is the part of “disputation” that St. Paul engaged in time after time in the New Testament, and is simply a part of living in world of unfathomably dumb people when our minds have been renewed by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5).
Bigot. Homophobe. Transphobe. Misogynist. Sexist. Fundamentalist.
The first thing a Christian must do when called such terms is to realize that these are insults, designed into bullying one to silence. An insult is meant to shame; it is meant to embarrass, to silence. There are certain cases that name-calling is not insulting, but only when used as a descriptor. For example, if I call the director of the Montana Public Employees Union a communist I’m not insulting her. I’m describing her (she’s an actual Wobbly). If I call a schismatic man a heretic (αἵρεσις), I’m not insulting him – I’m describing him. If I describe a man who just robbed a convenience store as black, it is not an insult; it is a description.
The words, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, misogynist, sexist, etc., are not descriptors the vast majority of the time. They are insults. And, APOLOGETIC 1, insults are not arguments.
For example, if protestors call Ben Shapiro a “fascist” at a university speaking event – shouting down his words so he cannot speak – they are not describing him. They’re insulting him. He’s using his First Amendment rights on public property and politely takes opposing views from the microphone. Those stopping his speech are by definition the actual fascists. Antifa is a group of fascists because they fit the definition of “forcibly silencing the opposition.”
Let’s look at the word “homophobia” for a moment. The suffix of the word, phobia, is Latin, and originates in the Greek, φόβος. While it’s quite possible that online dictionaries may change the definition of this word before I’m done writing the article, the suffix means fear.
I do not fear homosexuals. Online dictionaries have already changed the definition from “fear” or “terror” to “aversion,” but I am using the 1954 Webster’s Dictionary sitting on my desk.* But even that looser definition does not fit. I do not have an aversion to homosexuals. I’ve never changed my seat on a bus, for example, because a homosexual sat next to me.
I do have aversions, however. Even phobias. I am afraid of snakes. I would not sit next to one on the bus. I am ophiophobic. Yet I am not, in any way, homophobic. That is unless one is bleeding, considering their exponentially higher rates of being disease-ridden. But that’s called hemophobia, not homophobia.
The notion of individuals name-calling and insulting others is bigoted in and of itself. I am guilty of this. I am bigoted against men in skinny jeans, men with man-buns, people who rely on public transportation, and unkind people. I recently called a woman, “the rhinoceros lesbian” because, thrice my girth, she got into my face and told me to go to hell. I’m human, with feet of clay. I told her, “You are ugly, and your behavior is making yourself uglier.”
My insult was not an argument and fell short of making a salient point. Living on gas station food and a sedentary lifestyle had nothing to do with her spittle sprinkling across my brow, nor did it refute any points she felt that she was making with her screaming insults.
The truth is that many lesbians are ugly women. Knowing they cannot compete aesthetically – and being of shallow character – they refuse to invest in qualifies like work ethic, parenting, cooking, or a sense of humor (things appealing to a man) and instead settle for being rhinoceros lesbians. Yet I’ll be the first to admit my insult made no point.
Those who use the term “homophobia” need to understand the insult, that it doesn’t apply, and that even if it did it would fail to make a salient point. It makes no more a point than the term “rhinoceros lesbian.” The Christian should explain that they fear God, and do not fear people different from them.
*The term phobia comes from Latin in the 1800s, originated in Greek nearly three thousand years ago, and will probably be changed by digital dictionaries to mean, “dislike.” Ignore fake dictionaries. Use ones printed on paper. Words are representations of immutable things or ideas – they don’t change.
WHAT’S YOUR POINT?
This is where the argument gets fun if your opponent stops screaming. It goes like this:
Worldling: “You’re a homophobe.”
Christian: “What’s your point?”
It usually results either in silence, astonishment that you admitted to being a homophobe (notice, you did not), or celebration that you admitted to being a homophobe (again, you did not).
Once their shock or celebration is over, explain that you did not admit to anything but simply asked, “What is your point?” hoping they had a point other than an insult. The point of the exercise is to make them think (and that’s no easy task) what is wrong with being a homophobe, exactly?
In order to admit something is wrong, they must subscribe to a set of moral values or ethics determined by someone (themselves or someone else). After all, the concepts of “right and wrong” are not derived from a naturalistic worldview. They are fundamentally metaphysical, religious ideas.
“Why is it wrong to be a homophobe?” will invoke ponderance (that’s what we’re after). Ultimately, the only answer is that it’s wrong to tell people how to live their lives. This answer is Satanic, but Satan is the basis of their morality (or lack thereof).
The Christian then asks, “Why is it wrong to tell people how to live their lives?“ or “Why is it wrong to judge?” Again, from the worldling will come more ponderance (or screaming, it depends).
The Christian follows with, “Is it wrong to live my life as a homophobe?”
The answer will be immediate, guffawing “YES! Of course!”
The Christian should then ask them for a few moments – a breather – to consider their words and think it through to see if they are right. The worldling will be perplexed and perhaps enthused, possibly thinking they won a convert.
When the time is right, respond, “Here’s the thing. You just told me how to live my life and you judged me.” Follow this up with this phrase, “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Your argument, logically, seems to fail.“
At this point, the worldling will either completely disengage (knowing they’ve been bested by a better mind), or they will argue against their original point…it’s wrong to judge homosexuality as wrong, but it’s not wrong to judge your judging as wrong. This is usually followed by a string of invectives. Hang in there.
This is the lesson. They judge just as much as you do, but they judge homosexuality as moral and you judge homosexuality as immoral. Congratulations, you both judge. Now, ask them (since they quoted the Bible) if they would be interested in hearing the Bible. They will say no. Ignore them.
As you prepare to cite your standard for judgment, you must ask them what their standard of judgment is. You might run across someone particularly stupid enough (that’s a description) to cite a partial Bible verse, “thou shalt not judge” (Matthew 7:1) and you must ask them – since they quoted the Bible (for fun, ask them what verse that is) – if they would be interested in hearing the Bible. They will say no. Again – ignore them.
Bombard them with Matthew 7:1-5, John 7:24, Romans 16:17-18, and 1 Corinthians 6:5. Point out that Jesus is the ultimate judge (2 Timothy 4:1) and has condemned homosexuality already. You, therefore, are not judging. You are merely repeating God’s judgment.
Should the conversation continue, you must now ask them for empathy. Place them in your shoes. Surely hating me for my religious convictions is religion-phobia (theophobia), and makes them a bigot. If their argument is that it’s okay to have a belief but not share it; this makes them a fascist. Ask them to consider for a moment that (A) hell is real (2) homosexuality is a sign one is headed there. Would it not be – at least hypothetically – loving to persuade them away from it? Ask them, “What if I am wrong? Does it make me any less loving? Don’t my intentions matter?”
If you have come thus far without progress, the Holy Spirit is likely not at work. So get blunt. Homosexuality is a disease-ridden, child-molesting, scat-smothering, disgusting and gross habit. You, as a human being have a right to preferences. You can choose Coke over Pepsi, Chevy over Ford, and the correct orifice over the wrong one. Only a bigot would say otherwise. You believe gayness is grossness. Do you have a right to that opinion? Absolutely.