The Gay-ness Cult

Posted by Larry Miller on September 20, 2011 under How | Read the First Comment

For ages, students of human psychology have debated the relative impacts of nature and nurture in determining individual development. In other words, what characteristics are we born with, and which ones develop as a result of outside influences and life experiences. For decades, the American Psychological Association regarded homosexuality as an aberrant condition that could be treated and corrected.

It was long understood that boys growing up without a strong male presence, particularly those with a dominating female presence, would be more inclined toward homosexual behavior Much of the behavior was attributed to environmental factors, which led to the belief that it could be corrected.

Then came the politically correctness revolution. Springing to life in academia, this political correctness sought to minimize social and institutional offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts by declaring certain ideas, language, ideas and behavior to be inappropriate and off limits in the supposedly open and tolerant world then envisioned.

With the leftist, anti-Christian inclination – outright hostility even – of these self appointed opinion makers who considered followers of Christ to be the primary offenders and obstacles to their desired secular society, we see how they reflexively support most anything Bible believing citizens stand against. It can be the killing of innocent babies, the expectation that those who can, must work for what they get… or it can be the homosexuality.

It is in this context that so many supposedly free thinkers embrace the normalcy of behavior that the Creator calls an abomination. The King James Version of Leviticus 18:12 puts it this way, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The NIV uses these words, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” What better way to express one’s independence and rejection of the prevailing religious orthodoxy than to stand up and defend such behavior.

The sad thing is that the defenders of this perversion do so with much more enthusiasm and confidence than most followers of Christ display with the gospel itself. Most stand quietly by, afraid of making waves or being called intolerant. It’s as if most of have accepted the message of our time that tolerance is the primary virtue required to get along in this life. While being unnecessarily argumentative is no virtue either, permitting godlessness to go unchallenged is a far worse thing for those of us charged with representing the Creator on earth… and that is everyone who claims the name of Christ, not just the professional clergy.

So it is this decision to take the side of the secular society that has caused contemporary psychology to abandon the honest search for the relative impacts of nature and nurture in setting the course of the individual’s life. They had to come down on the side of nature, because, if the learned academic practitioners would have even considered the impact of family and environment, it would indicate that there was some sort choice or reactive behavior involved in the creation of a homosexual. This would never do as they attempted to desinify the behavior by calling it natural and the way people were created, if indeed there was a creator. Following their logic, if someone was created that way, and the creator is always right, so is the behavior.

To keep in step with the secular humanist elites, the APA had to change it’s long standing evaluation of this condition. If it was natural, it did not need to be cured, in fact it would be wrong to even attempt such a thing. Yet, even to the casual, but honest observer, it is obvious not all choices made in this area are rational and produce good results. At a recent anti-Semitic demonstration, a young woman was observed holding a sign that read, “Queers for Palestine”. Sure it was an attempted poke in the eye of our Judeo-Christian heritage, but more than that, it showed a complete lack of understanding of what the people she was supporting did to those of her persuasion. She apparently did not know why the Iranian president told the world that they do not have homosexuals in his country. It seems that throwing them off high buildings or lopping off their heads has the effect of diminishing their numbers – and here is the key – it discourages others from joining in the practice. Apparently some choice is involved, at least in the Muslim world.

We see then, that the broad support this very small minority of our population is enjoying is more than an admiration for the things two people of the same gender do to each other. It is, in reality, one more front in an attempt to purge the values that made our country great from the public consciousness.