Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Liberals Look for Customers by Switching the Tracks

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are pushing hard for unrestricted access to abortion for any reason whatsoever, and for the total legitimization of homosexual behavior.

But while that makes radicals like them happy, apparently it doesn't do much for most Americans.

A new WorldNetDaily/Zogby poll of 1,099 likely voters found

58.3 percent would support "a ballot measure in your state" limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Another 36.2 percent would oppose the plan.

On the subject of abortion, the poll found that
59 percent believe human life begins at conception, 16.8 percent think it begins when the baby can survive outside the womb with medical assistance, and 17.2 said life begins at birth.

Obviously their support on these issues is deep in the hurt locker.

The only hope these radical Leftists have is their favorite technique: brazen deception on a massive scale.

When South Dakotans who value life tried to ban abortion in the state in 2006, the pro-abortionists deceived people into thinking the total ban was "too extreme" and "if it only had exceptions..."

Now that a measure is on the ballot that has exceptions, the deception switches to "government intrusion into families." What families? You mean the ones with the dead children? Government intrusion began in 1973 when a group of black-robed unelected oligarchs imposed abortion on demand on the nation and denied the executive and legislative branches the power to provide for what Thomas Jefferson said was the first and only object of good government: The care of human life and not its destruction.

On the marriage front, the Leftist social engineers try to deceive people into believing giving homosexuals the right to call their unions "marriage" is a matter of "civil rights" and evoke images of Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights marches. All the while ignoring that skin color is an innate physical characteristic that is morally neutral, while homosexual behavior is an act which can be chosen or denied, an act which the Bible clearly states in both Old and New Testaments is immoral, and which subjects the homosexual to much greater rates of AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence.

Obviously, according to these poll results, the American people aren't interested in the ride to immorality, killing and chaos that liberals are offering.

The question is whether liberals can fool them as to the destination of the train.


Anonymous said...

Predictably, you are confusing sexual orientation with sexual behavior. Yes, we all have choices to make in how we conduct ourselves, whether we are Gay or Straight. Just as Straight people can be monogamous or promiscuous or celibate, so Gay people can choose to be monogamous or promiscuous or celibate. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is innate. I'm sure your writer, Bob Ellis, didn't "choose" to be heterosexual ... assuming that's what he is.

ZachJonesishome said...

It seems that Senator Obama is described as having one of the most extreme positions that one can find when it comes to the issue of abortion….Normally, I can understand a lawyer’s dancing on the head of a pin for the sake of not wanting to undermine a future legal argument or position. However, regarding Senator Obama, some other details give me pause and raise questions about whether his stated motivation(s) can be trusted.
Obama Would Evidently Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater found at:

Bob Ellis said...

anziulewicz, I understand very well the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. I also understand the difference between a disposition toward things like alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling and the like...and actually doing them.

I was born heterosexual as all people are. I also encountered no environmental factors that made homosexual behavior, for whatever reason, a more attractive option. And even if I had, I would retain the free will to choose right or wrong. Just as homosexuals do.

Mexjewel said...

As Lord, Jesus bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love.
Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the “sinner”? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? (Jesus didn't.) These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God's grace and live by working the law.
Certainly if God didn't want men to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD (Leviticus 18:22, 21:13).
“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. ( The King James version is honest.) It premiered in a 1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.

Bob Ellis said...

Mexjewel, since God doesn't approve of homosexuality since it is a perversion of his design for the expression of human sexuality (Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:6-8, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), to participate with someone in something that is a sin, and thus putting that person in bad standing with God, engaging in homosexual behavior is NOT a loving act. If we love someone, we want the very best for them; getting them outside God's approval is not good for them, nor is it a loving act.

Note that in the New Testament (Mark 10:6-8, for one reference) God outlined how human beings are to express their sexuality: in marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus said it, so he condemned homosexuality--which does NOT fall within those parameters. Jesus, as a part of the Trinity, is also responsible for the entirety of God's word, meaning Jesus said homosexuality was wrong in both Old and New Testaments (see the multiple references above)

You are correct that the term "homosexual" is a recently coined term; it is the conjunction of the Greek "homos" meaning same, and of course we understand what "sexual" means). However, there are few words that we still use that were the same as their original form at the time the Bible was written. The ancient writers, however, knew full well what homosexual behavior was: two men or two women having sexual relations with one another. And it was resoundingly condemned in both Old and New Testaments.

Sorry, there is no exception in the Bible in any way, shape, form or fashion for "loving" homosexual behavior versus any other type of homosexual behavior.

There is simply nothing in the Bible which looks favorably on homosexual behavior, and a lot that overwhelmingly condemns it.

Clicky Web Analytics