A few weeks ago, retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu stated that he could not worship a homophobic God. That is strange because the God that the Archbishop has worshiped for most of his life is the same God that destroyed the Sodomites for disobeying God’s laws by engaging in homosexual sex. What is the archbishop trying to say? Is he saying that God was wrong? Is he saying that God committed mass murder when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because God is a vengeful homophobic God.
Recently, the Pope stated “who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord. What does this mean? Is the Pope washing his hands of this issue? Is The Pope leaving it to God to judge; if so will such judgment be here on Earth or in Heaven following death? In the meantime do homosexuals continue with their sinful ways in the knowledge that they will be forgiven if they confess their sins on their death-bed?
The Pope also stated that if a priest has sinned and confessed, the priest must be forgiven. Again, is this forgiveness here on Earth or is it in Heaven following death? Does this forgiveness also include homosexual pedophile priests?
It would appear that now the homosexual propaganda machine has beaten our politically correct politicians at their own game, they have now turned their virulent attention to the Christian Churches.
Look at the position the politically correct British Parliament has placed the Queen of England. As Head of State, the Queen is duty bound to sign off on all legislation that has been passed by the British Parliament no matter what The Queen’s personal opinion may be, so homosexual marriage legislation was recently passed into British Law. Because The Queen is also the Head of the Church of England, British homosexuals are using The Queen’s position as Head of the Church as leverage to demand to be married by a priest, in a church and in the presence of God.
Where is this lunacy going to end. When drafting this post, I was reminded of something Mahatma Gandhi said and I quote ” I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.” This is what the homosexual propaganda machine is doing, walking through our minds with their dirty feet. My fervent hope is while doing so, they will also be sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
Amen to that.
You know, the first time you used the word “propaganda”, I asked you to come up with even a single fact that would support the use of this pejorative.
You failed to do so.
I am going to ask you again, just to get the point across once more, that you still haven’t managed to rise above increasingly angry and vulgar insults.
Did I read that right ? “My fervent hope is while doing so, they will also be sowing the seeds of their own destruction” ???
So let’s get this straight : You are expressing your desire for the “destruction” of about 10% of the human population ?? All these innocent men, women and children need to be “destroyed”, according to you ?
If your statement that only 10% of the world’s population are homosexual, then the homosexual population in the west will be about 1%. So, what we have here is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. In other words, 1% of the population are dictating to the other 99% what marriage laws should be. This could hardly be deemed to be ‘the democratic process’ in action. In fact, I know of no jurisdiction in the west that has put the issue of homosexual marriages to the popular vote. Back door politics is what it is.
When this social experiment fails, at is surely will, western society will descend into sexual decadence, moral decay and near anarchy and then the silent majority (the 99%) will become disenchanted with political correctness and carte blanche policies. Also, when thing go wrong in society, a scapegoat is always identified to take the blame. In other words, the dog will turn around and bite off its festering tail. Who, I wonder, will the scapegoat be? Will history repeat itself? This is what I mean by homosexuals sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
I don’t even know where to begin…
You know of no jurisdiction ?? How about all of them ? Politicians who’ve taken a stance on the issue and made promises to implement certain laws have gotten elected. How exactly is that “hardly the democratic process” ??
And as has been explained many, many times before, this is not a “social experiment”, and even if it was, then it has already succeeded. These laws have been in place for decades in some countries, and they’re doing better than just fine.
And why do you say “who will the scapegoat be ?” when you’ve already picked yours ? How does that even make sense ??
Fact remains, that you are hoping for the destruction of a group of people who have done you no harm whatsoever.
As far as I am aware, no jurisdiction has called for a referendum or plebiscite on this issue to enable all voters to express their view with a yes or no vote. Allowing individual politicians rather than the party they represent, and taking this issue to court as a discrimination issue has, in my opinion, circumvented the democratic process. Also, there is a direct conflict of interest involved in the method used by homosexual lobby groups because, I have no doubt, that some members of the judiciary and some elected politicians are homosexual which means that a result in favor my well be tainted. I agree, in some European Countries, homosexual marriages have been tolerated for quite some time but this does not mean that all western countries should follow suit without a national democratic vote being called to clearly determine if homosexual lobby groups claims, that most people are in favor of homosexual marriages, are actually true.
As for scapegoats, there are always people like Hitler and Stalin waiting in the wings for the opportunity to seize power by blaming certain sections of society for social ills and turning the people against those people so targeted.
Thank you for this article. That’s all I can say. You most definitely have made this blog into something special. You clearly know what you are doing, you’ve covered so many bases.Thanks!
I’d have to agree there, if for other reasons. I strongly believe that opinions such as his need to be out in the open, so they can be discussed.