This may be
older news but…
A Reuters report by Patrick Worsnip (18 December) caught my eye for its reference to “gay rights”. Knowing the idea of gay rights to be those of special rights afforded people who choose immoral lifestyles over the natural and normal sexual lifestyle ordained by and spoken of by Jesus, I was curious as to why the United Nations (not a particularly faith supporting organization) would fail to support something decidedly anti-God.
Anyway, here’s the first paragraph: “The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.”
We know homosexuality has made wide inroads into European society and the report tells us that 66 nations signed on to this “decriminalization” effort. This is probably to their civil credit even though damning to their spiritual standing. Still it is another attempt by men to justify their personal lusts against God’s expressed wisdom and it is the Nations of Islam largely standing in the way of the full acceptance of sexual decadence.
Sixty nations signed on to the counter-statement and neither statement generated a resolution or a vote. The issue is not dead. The report tells us that each statement is still open for members to sign. It was also noted that the Unites States signed neither statement citing conflicts with several laws on American books. This was the argument of the Arab nations as well. They prefer not to let Europeans determine what is acceptable and not acceptable sexually in their separate nations.
From the article: “The European Union-backed document…urged states "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.”
The article noted that 77 nations declare homosexuality “illegal” and that seven of those nations have a death penalty attached to homosexual discovery. Admittedly a death penalty may be a bit extreme but that penalty was ordained by God a long time beforethe world’s redemption by Jesus the Messiah. Although most Western Nations are now more tolerant of sexual deviancy do these Western Nations have any right to force any other nation into judicial codes believed to be amoral?
I believe all those diplomats should be given a photocopy or a slide presentation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter One for a little perspective from God’s point of view.
Now, here’s another queer thing from today’s news.
I saw a quick blurb on MSN that Barack Obama is considering a gay man for Secretary of the Navy. I tried to “Google” that but my computer wouldn’t open any of the articles. I next checked the December 19th edition of the “Stars and Stripes” and sure enough, there was a seven paragraph article: “Report: Gay man backed for Navy secretary post”.
The most interesting sentence included this “…a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.” Well, when talking of sexuality I suppose someone must always be “at the top”.
The article pointed out that: “Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White…” for the position and I’m sure Mr. White is probably qualified, being recommended by “Former chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff general Hugh Shelton among others.
Mr. White will face Senate confirmation and I am wondering just how the Senate questioning will be conducted? Will he be asked for instance about soda cans and pubic hair? Will he be asked if he has a romantic proclivity toward Barney Frank? Probably not, but any Conservative should be concerned about Mr. White’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and should be just as tough with that type of questioning as any liberal asking a Bush nominee about Roe vs. Wade!
This seems to be Obama’s first step into creating the special rights demanded by gay activism. Mr. White’s position will be a civilian position not in conflict with current military policy, but the implication of confirming a homosexual to the rank of Navy Secretary will be that the door is now open to permit gay activists wholesale changes to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
I won’t put that cart before the horse though. The whole idea could be a tease. Should Mr. White not move beyond mere consideration, I’m sure the liberals would find a way of blaming that on conservative homophobia or bias. They certainly would not ascribe it to the immoral sexual proclivities inherent to homosexuality.
If I were on the Senate confirmation panel I believe I would cast my questions to Mr. White from Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
A Reuters report by Patrick Worsnip (18 December) caught my eye for its reference to “gay rights”. Knowing the idea of gay rights to be those of special rights afforded people who choose immoral lifestyles over the natural and normal sexual lifestyle ordained by and spoken of by Jesus, I was curious as to why the United Nations (not a particularly faith supporting organization) would fail to support something decidedly anti-God.
Anyway, here’s the first paragraph: “The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.”
We know homosexuality has made wide inroads into European society and the report tells us that 66 nations signed on to this “decriminalization” effort. This is probably to their civil credit even though damning to their spiritual standing. Still it is another attempt by men to justify their personal lusts against God’s expressed wisdom and it is the Nations of Islam largely standing in the way of the full acceptance of sexual decadence.
Sixty nations signed on to the counter-statement and neither statement generated a resolution or a vote. The issue is not dead. The report tells us that each statement is still open for members to sign. It was also noted that the Unites States signed neither statement citing conflicts with several laws on American books. This was the argument of the Arab nations as well. They prefer not to let Europeans determine what is acceptable and not acceptable sexually in their separate nations.
From the article: “The European Union-backed document…urged states "to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.”
The article noted that 77 nations declare homosexuality “illegal” and that seven of those nations have a death penalty attached to homosexual discovery. Admittedly a death penalty may be a bit extreme but that penalty was ordained by God a long time beforethe world’s redemption by Jesus the Messiah. Although most Western Nations are now more tolerant of sexual deviancy do these Western Nations have any right to force any other nation into judicial codes believed to be amoral?
I believe all those diplomats should be given a photocopy or a slide presentation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter One for a little perspective from God’s point of view.
Now, here’s another queer thing from today’s news.
I saw a quick blurb on MSN that Barack Obama is considering a gay man for Secretary of the Navy. I tried to “Google” that but my computer wouldn’t open any of the articles. I next checked the December 19th edition of the “Stars and Stripes” and sure enough, there was a seven paragraph article: “Report: Gay man backed for Navy secretary post”.
The most interesting sentence included this “…a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.” Well, when talking of sexuality I suppose someone must always be “at the top”.
The article pointed out that: “Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White…” for the position and I’m sure Mr. White is probably qualified, being recommended by “Former chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff general Hugh Shelton among others.
Mr. White will face Senate confirmation and I am wondering just how the Senate questioning will be conducted? Will he be asked for instance about soda cans and pubic hair? Will he be asked if he has a romantic proclivity toward Barney Frank? Probably not, but any Conservative should be concerned about Mr. White’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and should be just as tough with that type of questioning as any liberal asking a Bush nominee about Roe vs. Wade!
This seems to be Obama’s first step into creating the special rights demanded by gay activism. Mr. White’s position will be a civilian position not in conflict with current military policy, but the implication of confirming a homosexual to the rank of Navy Secretary will be that the door is now open to permit gay activists wholesale changes to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
I won’t put that cart before the horse though. The whole idea could be a tease. Should Mr. White not move beyond mere consideration, I’m sure the liberals would find a way of blaming that on conservative homophobia or bias. They certainly would not ascribe it to the immoral sexual proclivities inherent to homosexuality.
If I were on the Senate confirmation panel I believe I would cast my questions to Mr. White from Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
Author's
Note: Originally published in www.useless-knowledge.com
February, 2009. We can see by what has happened since, our
illustrious elected usurper-in-chief has managed to spread the
influence of homosexuality throughout the United States Military and
managed the repeal; of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (Which was the law
of the land.)
Apparently,
no one is reading Paul's Letter to the Romans (whose empire fell
quite hard after its wholesale acceptance of immoral lifestyle
arrangements.)
No comments:
Post a Comment