I never heard of this guy Matt Barber who says: We’re either with God on sexual morality, or against Him. We just can’t have it both ways. Here his article on Moral Physics?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Homosexuality and the Laws of Moral Physics
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
By J. Matt Barber


It makes front page news when conservative elected officials are accused of selling-out to monolithic corporate lobbies like “Big Oil” or “Big Tobacco.” Yet the media rarely take notice when liberal politicians toe the line for extreme ideological special interests.

Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House web site updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., “Big Homo”). By announcing to the world his pro-“gay” agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy.

But amid the heated national debate over both religious liberty versus newfangled “gay rights” and the sanctity of natural marriage versus so-called “same-sex marriage,” something occurred to me. Either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality – period.

I know – pretty black and white, right? Evangelical Christians are habitually accused by the left of being too “black or white” on most of the highly polarizing moral issues which affect public policy and shape our larger culture.

And so, in an effort to marginalize the so-called “religious right” and diminish its influence in society, evangelicals are pejoratively stamped “fundamentalist” by those who fancy themselves among the enlightened and view the world, instead, through delightfully murky and accountability-free shades of gray.

But despite the best efforts of “gay” activists, secular humanists, and religious leftists to muddy the moral waters, absolute truth – like a nautical buoy pulled below with rotting rope – has a way of heaving to the surface with a profound splash once the tenuous line snaps. It’s a matter of moral physics.

Of course, “fundamental” simply means “basic” or “important.” Hardly negative features from where I stand. In fact, it really is fundamental, isn’t it? I mean, either the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, as maintained throughout both the Old and New Testaments, or it’s just a nifty old text full of creative tales and loose philosophies no more relevant to our daily lives than a Tony Robbins self-help book.

If it’s the latter, then today’s liberal elites have it right. The Bible should be taken with a grain of salt, enjoyed simply for its literary and historical value, or ignored altogether.

However, if it’s the former – if the Bible really is the inerrant, inspired word of God as it purports to be – then wouldn’t it be in the best interest of every man, woman and child to pay close attention to what it has to say? Shouldn’t we make every effort to live life according to its express principles for our own sake and for the sake of others?

So, what does the Bible have to say about human sexuality? Specifically, what does Scripture say about homosexuality?

Again, it’s fundamental. Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality is, under no uncertain terms, classified as sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. The historical and biblical records are unequivocal.

In order to reach a contrary conclusion, people like President Obama, who rationalize that the Bible somehow affirms homosexual behavior – or at least remains neutral on the subject – are forced to cast aside any pretense of intellectual honesty and engage in gold medal mental gymnastics.

So, for the sake of national unity, let’s clear up any confusion about marriage and sexual immorality once and for all, shall we? And afterward, I expect all you leftists who’ve been badmouthing us “fundamentalists” to apologize, ‘kay?

First of all it was God, not Jerry Falwell, who both created and defined the institution of marriage. Conversely, pro-homosexual extremists are the ones who wish to radically redefine it.

In fact, Christ, in His own words, reaffirmed the true definition of marriage, saying, “Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6 NIV).

Evidently, Christ failed to clear His marriage definition with Barack Obama and Big Homo. Notice that – rather conspicuously – He did not say: “At the beginning the Creator made them gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT). For this reason a male, female or shemale will leave his, her or whatchahoozie’s father and mother, father and father or mother and mother and be united to his or her wife – and/or husband – and the two or more will become one flesh. Not that there's anything wrong with that.”

Despite fairly successful attempts by self-described “gay” activists to equate behaviorally driven “gayness” to immutable and neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being “gay” has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is, and has everything to do with what someone does.

It’s all about feelings and behaviors. Behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology have universally rejected as both immoral and destructive.

Just a few examples: Leviticus 18:22 commands us, rather unambiguously, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Romans 1:26-27 warns, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Christ’s Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Fortunately, as untold thousands of ex-“gays” can attest, God’s word also offers hope and freedom from the homosexual lifestyle. 1 Corinthians 6:11, says, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

To the delight of truth seekers – and to the consternation of “gay” activists everywhere – the mere existence of ex-“gays” brings the biologically incongruous and politically motivated “born that way” house of cards crashing down.

It further undermines Big Homo’s already frail justification for demanding special rights based on aberrant sexual behaviors. That’s why ex-“gays” are so hated by the left and so viciously maligned by homosexual activists.

So, again, President Obama, as a self-professed Christian, needs to be reminded that either homosexual behavior is sexual immorality or there is simply no such thing as sexual immorality.

If the homosexual lifestyle is just another “sexual orientation,” then what possible justification can there be for opposing other biblically condemned “sexual orientations” like fornication, adultery, polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality? If one is moral, all are moral. Then again, if one is immoral, all are immoral.

This means that “gay affirming” churches, which engage in what I call “a la carte Christianity” (take what you like, leave what you don’t) are really just “sin affirming” churches. And “gay friendly” politicians, like Barack Obama, who push an anti-Christian homosexual agenda, are really just “immorality friendly” politicians.

It really is that black and white – that fundamental. We’re either with God on sexual morality, or against Him. We just can’t have it both ways.

Obama and Big Homo.

Sort of interesting stuff not at all sure why it's in this thread.

Isn't this topic tricky enough without introducing unrelated drivel?

Hmm...that doesn't sound right, does it?

Ya well not sure where that comes from but I have to say that if he gets hate mail it's less about the bible and more about how he speaks about gays in the first place. Notice he has to emphasis homosexual.

He must have enough self-loathing ex-gays to fill his talk videos, I listened to one tonight, he introduced the caller as gay but the caller corrected him and said he was an ex-gay and was on his side, and was frustrated as he is by the radical leftie homosexuals who call him a fundementalist.. Umm, but wait, he is, isn't he? Didn't he just say that? I am so confused...

Unrelated drivel? Ok hmmm, this is the same guy that wrote the article in the original post, so I though maybe we might want to explore the person writing the article. I could be wrong but it would seem to say something about the way he worded the orignial article in this thread. That he seems to have a major issue with gays to begin with, so... never mind..

Ok I see your point on that. I think most people figured out his bias already but I suppose there are a few deluding themselves into thinking this was an unbiased report.

Still drivel, just related drivel

altho it is not really relevant to the topic it was a reply to a particular post (why should any kind of rape be treated less harsh than another is the only point i was attempting to make)

sorry here is the u s federal site

http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/FEDRAPE.PDF

well you would be acting out with hate

be careful you may be convicted of a hate crime under those circumstances (you better hope they are the same, race, sexual orientation, national heritage, and religion as you are)

just something to think about b4 supporting such a bill

I am not sure what you think is drivel...

I didn't know who this guy was before tonight, so I needed some information on who this guy is and where he is coming from before I could even relate to the OP.

Thanks. Of course as you probably know it doesn't support the statements you made concerning our laws and applications of penalties.

I can understand that. As for them being drivel... Both the articles in question are so full of errors that IMO it negates the very few valid points they make. For me that makes them drivel.

Oh I am and once again I'll reiterate that this bill in no way changes any of this, these laws are already in existence. That said, hating someone because they killed your wife/lover whatever does not constitute a hate crime. But you'd have to have read those laws to understand that. If you wish to know more about that go have a look at the existing laws about hate crimes.

Here's why those that support hate crimes laws should support this bill. The simple fact is it's comparatively easy to convict someone of a violent crime but it is generally extremely difficult to prove why. For this reason people are often not prosecuted to the "fullest extent of the law". It's simply too costly to prove WHY someone acted violently against another. If your having trouble understanding why I say this let's take an extreme case. You witness a murder. It'd be hard to for a defense lawyer to say you didn't see what you were standing right there and witnessing, but even standing right there it's unlikely you're going to have even a clue as to why the murder was committed.

i understand """That said, hating someone because they killed your wife/lover whatever does not constitute a hate crime."""

but if they are of a different orintation than you the argument could be made that if they were not purple (for example) you would not have acted as harshly against them.

thus it becomes a hate crime

----------

"""" but even standing right there it's unlikely you're going to have even a clue as to why the murder was committed.""""

so is this an argument disputing the need for the bill as no one even if they are standing there and sees what happens can truly know why the crime was committed

like i said just use the laws we have and enforce them no need for special funding for crimes you yourself had just said no one can know for sure if that is why it was committed

adj...there has to be a prejudice (not coincidance)

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/

I understand the logic you're using but again it simply isn't how the law works. If you wish to understand please go read the law.



Not at all. I said it was difficult to prove in many instances but not necessarily impossible. To convict on a hate crime one pretty much has to first rule out other motives and then show a history of some biased hatred, like constantly speaking out abusively against gays, blacks, or Christians or whatever the group of people is. That takes money and that is pretty much what the bill is about.



Didn't say that, said in that circumstance "You" being the person who witnessed the crime it's unlikely you would know. That could change if you knew the defendant. That of course doesn't mean someone else doesn't have evidence as to why the murder was committed. Again it's more difficult to prove not impossible.

It's important to note that the hate crimes are really defined by individual states in most cases. (here's an example as posted by rose (thanks rose) http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/) So this federal law is really defining under which circumstances the feds will help prosecutors, and additionally limits how often/easy it is for the feds will take jurisdiction over a case, which should offset some of the costs of the bill.

so if the victims husband was seen or heardr at anti-purple people meetings

then would it count

again why should it deserve special funding

be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control

--------------------------------
example

remember when they passed the mandatory seat belt wearing law

they said they would not give tickets for only not wearing seat belts

but what is the saying now

CLICK IT OR TICKET

---------------------------------

be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control

just like now...if they attended the purple people eaters haters meetings...then that could go toward a motive for a hate crime. that is done now as it is. the bill doesn't change that from what i understand

it's up to a jury to decide

then why is it needed