Against Religious Propaganda: A Rebuttal to MissionAmerica.com and Linda Harvey

Against Religious Propaganda: A Rebuttal to MissionAmerica.com
By Lord Kristoffer J. Martin
Introduction
Part 1) Religion, Christianity, the Bible; these are not Authoritative Sources.
Part 2) The So Called Gay Agenda; why are Christians afraid of the LGBTQ community?
Part 3) Hate Crimes, Bullying, and Free Speech; what you need to know.
Part 4) Cultural Health, Marriage, Law and Homosexuality.
Part 5) Homosexuality and the Christian Religious; Why the US doesn't allow laws to be based on religion.
Part 6) Secularism, Paganism, and opposition to Christianity.
Part 7) Questions about Homosexuality a general FAQ.
Conclusion

Introduction:
I struggle to start this introduction mainly because of the anger I feel towards the people who are perpetuating the lies, avarice, angst, homosexualitymisia (homophobia), discrimination, prejudice, and hate of people who are no different than anyone else other than their sexual orientation. I'm disgusted by their use of religion, faith, and philosophical ideology to teach these social ills. If you've been reading my blog you'd know I'm gay. I am sexually attracted to the same sex (men). I've explained that my personal experience reflects many of the same prejudice and hatred that other homosexuals have experienced. From that experience I've learned a good deal of tolerance and actively sought an explanation for the existence of avarice towards gays that does exist.

So when I heard that a [so called] Christian Pastor by the name of Linda Harvey discusses on her radio show aired on AM 880 WRFD Life Changing Radio why homosexuality is wrong, I had to listen. What I discovered is a message that is contrary to her faith, to the teachings of Christ as found in the Bible, and a person who is infatuated with the righteousness of her faith and the demonic nature of the gay community.

So here I plan to debunk and rebut her website's message in a seven part post. I will examine each section and argument made discuss any merits they may hold and also discuss what is wrong with the resources she provides.

Part 1) Religion, Christianity, the Bible; these are not Authoritative Sources.
In her first set of articles, available on the left side of her page she presents As Christians, we are to be warriors....for the truth of God. which she wrote her self. The first issue I take with this article is that no sources beside the bible are referenced. No other person's ministry or interpretation of the bible and the teachings of Christ are presented to support her claims. This sets the tone for all of the other articles she writes and for the lens I will view her webpage.

The article's text can be found here (http://www.missionamerica.com/articletext.php?artnum=304)

Linda's essential argument is

"As Christians, we, like those who serve on the front lines, are also called to be warriors at times. Our approach is not to be warlike, since we are told to put on the shoes of the gospel of peace as part of the "full armor of God" described in the Ephesians 6.

But why "armor" in the first place? Why the analogy of a helmet of salvation, a breastplate of righteousness, a shield of faith, a sword of the Spirit and a belt of truth? It says, "Take up the whole armor of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Apparently, being willing to take a stand against temptation, against spiritual and material enemies, is something believers must be ready for....The church is the body of all believers, not just buildings or congregations, so if you are a believer, you are a member of the church, the body of Christ, and so am I. As we look around at America, it's pretty obvious that the church has mostly dropped the ball and that believers frequently avoid anything that resembles "contending for the faith."

One of the biggest challenges of our age is self-indulgence, the sins of the flesh. How can we be warriors about this? Of course, living in a personally responsible way is the best place to start. But we also must be ready to explain our faith and the reason for the hope we have, as Peter says in 1 Peter 3:15.

In today's world, that means knowing Scripture well enough and being willing to share the truth about sexual immorality, about why homosexuality is a sin, about Christ-ordained man/woman marriage, and about many other things, even about financial gluttony, because these may all be related.

Friends, let's pledge to be warriors every day for our Lord and Savior."

If we break this down a bit, the essential thesis to her site, the reason she believes she is arguing what she is arguing, is that she is fighting a battle against a perceived evil, the so called "sins of the flesh" which she directly associated with homosexuality. To her sexuality is a choice and anything that is different than her subscribed to normalcy is immoral. To her marriage is an ordained pact with god through Christ and must be between a man and a woman. She then asserts that many other sins exist including "financial gluttony" because in her mind sexuality is some how connected to other sins that must also be choices.

She argues that we must be armored against the sinful world, argue and rebuke churches that do not prostrate and convert people. That it is the Christian's godly duty to teach the gospel, pray for people, and bare the "sword of [the] spirit".

This tells me that she has chosen to cherry pick a very specific passage from the bible, taken it out of context, and then also ignored the other teachings of Christ. She asks a very good question though, how can christians be warriors when it comes to combating sin? I ask this question here again as a rhetorical remark, mainly because the very act of proselytizing and judging others, what she is doing here, is a sin.

This beginning article articulates an already existing bias towards cherry picking scripture rather than upholding context. An existing avarice towards anything that is in her view abnormal, and a willingness to tell her audience to fight for their beliefs through the condemnation of others.

Her next article entitled  Bible Passages about Homosexuality and Gender Confusion is attributed to "staff" with no defined author. This in and unto itself calls any credibility into question. None the less let us examine what this article states. The full article can be found here: (http://www.missionamerica.com/articletext.php?artnum=262)

The opening to the article states:
"Passages in both the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexual behavior and gender confusion, and affirm marriage as being one man and one woman."
This should really cause you pause and alarm. Few passages in the new testament seem to be relevant to homosexuality and most old testament passages used as the basis for homosexualitymisia (homophobia) have been discredited by many church officials and biblical scholars.

The first passage she cites is probably the most famous of all supposedly anti-gay biblical quotes. That of Genesis 19:1-21 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Genesis 19: 4- 13 -- 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."

9 And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city-take them out of this place! 13 For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

 Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks of Buenos Aires in 2011 debunked the myth that this biblical passage actually pertains to homosexuality in his paper  40 Myths in the Seven “Clobber” Texts Unmasked with Exegetical Studies (doc download: http://tinyurl.com/kk7ph29).

He states: "Myth #1“The story of Sodom’s destruction in Genesis 19:1-29 demonstrates that homosexuality is a grave sin that God condemns.”  Virtually all biblicists now recognize that the story in Genesis 19 does not condemn “homosexuality” (which refers to a sexual orientation of certain persons and includes lesbians) but rather describes the intent by Sodom’s males to rape the two visiting angels, instead of offering them hospitality as Abraham had done in Genesis 18, in accordance with fundamental ancient norms.i  Thus even Richard Hays, who seeks to establish a biblical basis for condemning homosexuality, admits: “The notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah – often cited in connection with homosexuality – is actually irrelevant to the topic.”ii  As in the case of  Romans, where interpreters traditionally have ignored the fact that the context concludes with a rhetorical trap in 2:1-16, in the case of Sodom, traditionally we begin with Genesis 19 and ignore the previous context that recounts Abraham’s hospitality (thus Genesis 18 + 19 constitutes a diptych like two twin paintings).  Thus, we misinterpret Gen. 19:1-29 as a condemnation of “homosexuality” when actually it describes a refusal to offer hospitality and an attempt to rape the visitors."

In many respects the interpretation that the men called out to lot to give up the two "men" is also in question. Translation contradictions exist between original texts and their modern English translations. Throughout the bible angels are depicted as androgynous, having no definitive gender, and often with astounding beauty and an effeminate facade. Because angels were not originally even physical beings, but spiritual, the light of god in interpretation from the earliest books and only took on more physical form later on in the Old Testament, the interpretation of what they looked like and gender is suspect. In the original versions of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah they're simply referred to as Elohim (’ĕlōhîm) or The messengers of God. It isn't until much later that names are given to the Elohim in the same span of time that they are demoted from their status as the beloved children of god to the angels we know of today.

None the less many anti-gay arguers use this passage out of context and some even argue that the interpretations that Genesis 19:1-21 has  nothing to do with homosexuality is wrong. (See this well thought out discussion http://www.choosinghats.com/2010/04/is-homosexuality-condemned-in-genesis-19/ by C.L. Bolt vaguely titled Is Homosexuality Condemned In Genesis 19?)

The problem with these interpretations, including Bolt's interpretation, as spelled out Rev. Dr. Hanks, is that it still takes the passage out of context. And as I've explained there is a problem with language translation. Helminiak is quoted by Bolt in a very decisive statement "The point of the story is not sexual ethics. The story of Sodom is no more about sex than it is about pounding on someone’s front door. The point of the story is abuse and assault, in whatever form they take. To use this text to condemn homosexuality is to misuse this text"(Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says, page 39).

Much like Genesis 19:1-21, Linda Harvey's site cites several other passages out of context.

Leviticus 18:22 -- You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23: 17-18 -- 17 "There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. 18 You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the LORD your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

1 Kings 15:9-13 - 9 In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa became king over Judah. 10 And he reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem. His grandmother's name was Maachah the granddaughter of Abishalom. 11 Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did his father David. 12 And he banished the perverted persons from the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13 Also he removed Maachah his grandmother from being queen mother, because she had made an obscene image of Asherah. And Asa cut down her obscene image and burned it by the Brook Kidron.

Matthew 19:4-6 -- 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Romans 1:24-27 -- 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 -- 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 -- 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.


2 Peter 2:6-10 -- 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority.

And each of these is also addressed by Rev. Doc. Tom Hanks:

 Myth #2  “In addition to Genesis 19, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, the law condemning sodomites, makes clear that sodomy is a sin.”  However, older versions had mistranslated qadesh as “sodomite” (Deut. 23:17-18, KJV):

17There shall be no whore (qedeshah) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (qadesh) of the sons of Israel.  18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore (zonah), or the price of a dog (keleb), into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

This same translation error of qadesh as “sodomite” was repeated in 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7 and Job 36:14 (cf. the feminine qadeshah in Hosea 4:14).  Thus, for centuries, persons who read the older translations concluded that the Hebrew Scriptures contain six condemnations of “sodomites”, which were used to bolster their misinterpretation of Genesis 19. However, the Hebrew word qadesh/ah literally means “holy, consecrated, set aside for God”:

17None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute (qedeshah); none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute (qadesh).  18You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a male prostitute (keleb, literally “dog”) into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God (Deut. 23:17-18, NRSV; similarly NIV, ESV and NLT).

The NJB in its note “f” on Deut. 23:18 [19 in the NJB] explains: “’Dog’ is an opprobatious term for male prostitute” – without importing the modern concept of sexual orientation (cf. “homosexual men” in NLT note 23:18).  The Hebrew Scriptures often warn Israelite males to abstain from sexual relations with female prostitutes ( Proverbs).  However, no one is so perverse as to interpret such texts as a condemnation of “heterosexuality” – although this is precisely the error of those who seek to condemn “homosexuality” on the basis of the six texts that refer to (cultic?) prostitutes (mistranslated as “sodomites”).  We can be grateful to God that virtually all modern translations correct this grave error and make clear that the texts speak specifically of prostitutes – not of “sodomites,” “homosexuals,” or “heterosexuals” (“temple prostitute,” NRSV, NIV, NLT; “cult prostitute,” ESV; “sacred prostitute,” NJB).  Modern studies do frequently question whether the prostitution referred to was cultic or rather seculari (Joshua, Rahab).

Deuteronomy 22:5 is taken out of context as well, and more importantly is operating on a non-sequitur argument. It is presumed by Linda that a man wearing women's clothing and vice versa asserts homosexuality. In reality this shouldn't be applied to the argument either. Few gay men wear women's clothes and few lesbians wear men's clothes. Moreover in our current culture the concept of unisex design and clothing design as art clouds the precepts of what exactly constitutes women's and men's clothes anyways. While yes there is such a thing as DRAB Kings and DRAG Queens this is no more an affront to our society now than eating hotdogs.

In fact every single one of the biblical passages quoted above have been debunked by reverends, pastors, and other biblical scholars as a biblical basis for condemning homosexuality. If you'd like to read more on the debunking of these quotes above, please read the whole of Rev. Dr. Tom Hank's essay which I linked to above via a tiny url.

As to keep this section short I'll summarize and react to the remainder of her initial articles.
The next section she discusses politics and if christians should be involved, she says "And my answer is always the same: the fight against homosexuality is not "politics" It may have a political manifestation here and there, but it's far greater. We are talking about people's lives, the well-being of children, and frankly, the very future of civilization. If we can't apply God's Word and our faith to that, where do we apply it?"

In the article after that she asserts the creation affirms her belief that god doesn't like homosexuality and it's wrong, because god created Adam and Eve. The next article after that she argues that homosexuals are changing the church to create an exception to the rules of god and that their influence is bad. But the next article is most interesting. In the article If you support "Gay Marriage", you also support..." she asserts several ideas without citation or evidence that the claims are true.

The aggressive promotion of homosexuality and gender change as good and worthy to our children, and any opposing views in schools, community groups, and children's media falsely portrayed as evil and eventually banned by law. 

The continued rise in the numbers of people living with HIV as 25,000 or more people are infected each year (the current trend) through male/male homosexual sex, with a particular spike among younger males, because our politically-correct public health system won't take aggressive action to discourage it, since it will be part of "dating." 

An immediate increase in incidents where Christians or conservatives are threatened or sued for expressing any disagreement with homosexuality or "gay marriage" in the workplace, in schools, in the press, or eventually, in churches. 

Younger and greater numbers of youth claiming a "gay" identity, and then acting on that identity. 

Churches silencing themselves on the sin of homosexuality, then the opposite: being encouraged to sell their congregations, including youth, on the idea. 

Resisters who continue to speak out will eventually be prosecuted, perhaps serve jail terms. 

Let's examine these for a moment: She asserts that if you support gay marriage, that is the marriage between two consenting adults that are of the same gender you also support gender change and the banning of any opposed viewpoints on this matter of gender change.

What isn't clear is what does she mean by gender change? Is she talking about gender role changes, is she talking about transgenderism? Consequentially her message is from the beginning muddled here, but more importantly there is an inherent problem if either intended connotation is what she is expressing. If she is expressing that gender roles are changing and that is a bad thing (likened to gay marriage in her opinion) she is ignoring that gender roles have already changed and were changing long before she was born. If it is the later, transgenderism, unfortunately transgenderism is an psychologically accepted mental state support by scientific study. People who are transgendered have brain chemistry and brain density that is different from other people of their biological gender. Biological shifts happen all the time and in a modern secular society we need to learn to accept those shifts.

She argues then that if you're in favor of a monogamous marriage between two consenting adults you're also in favor of the spread of HIV. Ignoring the fact that monogamy reduces STI transmission (that is all STIs) drastically. By denying gay marriage you are actually only reinforcing the lifestyle that allows for the transmission of HIV. Let us also not forget that in the previous objectionable claim of support she clearly is making a case that homosexuality shouldn't be taught to kids along with gender role shifts or transgenderism (which ever she actually intended I don't know). The number one cause of the spread of HIV and other STIs (that's sexually transmitted infections) is unsafe sex and poor or no education on safe sex.

HIV affects both gay and straight couples. AS do ALL STIs.

The third one is interesting, she says that if you support gay marriage you support the increase likelihood of christians and conservatives being sued or threatened for the expression of their opinions in regards to homosexuality. This is a big statement with a great deal of things attached to it and I'll have to come back to in a later part. But to summarize my rebuttal; the issue here is the fact that the opinions of the conservatives and so called christians are in fact disingenuous and discriminatory. It is no different than the statements made about African Americans a hundred years ago, sixty years ago, forty years ago, and even as of this year that are made by hard right conservative christians that are still racist. Hate speech is not protected speech.

The forth one is also interesting but has a simple rebuttal. The claim is that by support gay marriage and by extension homosexuality as a lifestyle (rather than a non-choice that is biologically determined based on several uncontrollable factors~which FYI that is what it is) you'll have more kids at an earlier age becoming gay. In reality most kids who are gay know they're gay and come out now, but in the past under the thumb of christian propriety such a thing was frowned upon. Attempts at correcting kids often created any number of psychological problems and it's clear that throughout history in the US and Europe there was a thriving underground of homosexuality ignored by or condemned by the greater christian community. Gay kids would be married off as dictated by social standards, all the while harboring their homosexuality and seeking sexual congress with like minded people behind closed doors and away from prying eyes. There is a reason why the euphemism "The love that dare not speak it's name" was used for nearly three hundred years.

Further still, historically speak homosexuality was quite vibrant and accepted any many cultures around the world. Native American tribes saw homosexuality and transgenderism as a third sexuality and in some cases a third gender. They accepted the natural state of the sexual orientation. In Greece it was common for warriors to have what was essentially a squire or servant that would also be a sexual partner. In Japan and China and many parts of Asia homosexuality was very common. Most prostitutes and the early Japanese Geisha were in fact men and boys. Even today homosexuality and heterosexuality isn't even a concept in some rural tribes. In one instance an African tribe, carrying a several thousand year old tradition, have the older men and boys have sex with young boys both anal and oral as to pass on the masculinity carried in their seed. Once a young boy is full of the seed and balanced again with the femininity gained from the mother's womb they then can have a female partner.

Churches having to "silence themselves" on the matter of homosexuality, hardly. Freedom of speech is not abridged just because we as a culture are evolving past the limitations of christianity and other religions. You're free to speak what you want to speak, but also remember hate speech isn't protected speech. It is one thing to claim homosexuality is a sin, it is another to judge people because you believe them to be sinners.

Again, hate speech and discrimination are illegal. You may "resist" the cultural change of accepting homosexuality all you want, but if you do so by trying to cause harm to others, by way of: slander, misinformation, hate speech, discrimination and denial of service based on sexual orientation, denial of employment because of sexual orientation, you do so with the understanding that your religion and your beliefs are protected as much as the person you're discriminating against.

But this is the kicker "Is this what you want? Most people can see how harmful and unjust all these outcomes would be if they happened. Yet these trends are already starting. So isn't it time to start trusting God and believing His word, that homosexual behavior is never beneficial but always a sin?"

Most of these outcomes are incongruous with reality, they're also loaded statements that ignore facts and disregard both the teachings of Christ and the changes in the church since the writing of the bible.

In the next article I'll discuss here, Harvey discusses The FIB of Homosexuality. To summarize she first assumes once again that homosexuality is a choice that one makes, ignoring all current research that shows a causal effect between a predisposition of genetic traits and hormonal levels in the womb that most biologists studying homosexuality believe to be the cause of the sexual orientation. She argues that the realization of same sex attraction come vary in intensity and can be confusing without the guidance of scripture in a secular world filled with sexual idolatry. While interesting, it is false. One's sexuality is conclusively related to genetics and is neither a taught trait nor is it a choice.

Sexuality in general may suffer from an instant gratification issue caused by over sexualization in our culture, but that is neither relative to the discussion of homosexuality and it's origins, or whether or not it is sin.
Further still, she asserts that "we are told that refraining from one's urges is 'denying who you are'". I'd argue that this position is very true. If you deny the animal side of your being you are denying who you are. Sex and sexuality are fundamental parts of one's psyche and if denied can cause many problems throughout life. She argues then that it's important that kids be taught that god never intended for them to pursue these feelings and sexual desires, ignoring a basic premise of christianity that god created everyone in his image and that includes homosexuality. She then claims further that if they don't push back or withstand the temptation they'll move towards the next step of realizing one's gayness and that is the acceptance of the "gay lifestyle". She asserts a bit of stereotypical BS ignoring that most gay people life the same essential lifestyle as everyone else. And then lastly she delves into the actual sex part. The whole anal sex seems to gross her out, the claim that somehow ALL gays have HIV and having sex even once is so dangerous that it's the most serious part of the homosexual transition and that it all should be condemned.

Frankly the so called FIB is the whole license she takes when telling people about the gay lifestyle, when she herself hasn't lived in said lifestyle and doesn't know anything about it. She cites no sources or people she's interviewed who are gay to gain the information she presents, to me she is worse than the African preacher who was talking about gays eating poo-poo...at least he "researched" the act of tossing a person's salad. Though exactly what site he was on I'm not sure...

 

So after reading all of this, my rebuttal, my points, my complaints over her initial representation of gays on her page (excluding some extraneous pages that try to assert things that just aren't true about paganism and the like) I'd like to at least give you a better conclusion to part one of this series of posts.

Conclusion to Part 1

Religion is baseless, it has no foundation in reality. To assert the bible condemns X or Y it requires a good deal of interpretation and cherry picking. Most of her so called "basics" on the discussion have no supporting evidence, she has no citations to studies that support her claims. She relies solely on the bible and as I've demonstrated other reverends and pastors have debunked the usage of the passages she uses. She uses her indignation and hatred for homosexuality to make extremist claims, most of which are straw man and non-sequitur arguments not even supported by the bible she claims to know and understand.

Because of the intrinsic nature of religion, which is blind faith in a thing thought to exist and to hold divinity, and a blind faith in a book, in the case of Christianity, that was formed into a unified version 1800 years ago from old stories handed down word of mouth for centuries prior still, we now have to listen to a person drone on about how homosexuality is bad. In fact we have to listen to a host of people who hate gays and hate cultural changes and shifts away from their very religious views drone on about how the secular world, secular laws, and secular governments are discriminating against them.

In my next post I'll discuss part two of this seven part discussion and debunk more of the insanity that is Linda Harvey and her webpage.

Until next time, Sincerely and with all hopes of enlightenment 

Lord Kristoffer Jay Martin

PS: And remember the great thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it to be true or not.