Archive for the homosexuality Category

Picture This: My Rights Over Yours

Posted in christians, homosexuality, liberty, marriage, same sex marraige, toleration on June 10, 2012 by The Temptress


Mmmmmmm…. I absolutely adore pictures, my dear ones.

Well, most of them.

So many of my friends and servants to my Master are seduced by single photographs, even addicted to them, to the point where some of them act out in our favor in real life… just because of a picture or two.  It’s so easy!

I have the pleasure of using many photographers for my work.  I want to let you in on some of my personal favorites as far as photos go:  anorexic models (aka clothes hangers) to convince young girls that they need to starve themselves to be beautiful, Hollywood stars with fake everything to convince women that they need to have certain perfect measurements to measure up, and child porn, hetero porn, gay porn… I love porn!  (Can you tell?)  Just with the click of a button, so many can experience pleasure…

But there is one photographer I am not happy with today.

In a story found here, this photographer refused to provide her services to a lesbian couple, and is now, thankfully, being sued.  I quote: “According to the court’s verdict, the trouble began for Elane Photography when the company was contacted by lesbian Vanessa Willock asking if they could photograph a ‘commitment ceremony’ for a Willock and her ‘partner.’ The company, owned by Christian couple Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, responded stating that they only shoot traditional weddings, and do not do ‘same-sex weddings,’ but thanked Willock for her interest.”

Excuse me… where does this Christian (bleeecccchhhh!) get off trying to exert her First Amendment rights to photograph whom SHE wants to?

I completely support the lesbian couple for their lawsuit to take away the rights of Christians and their businesses to do business according to their beliefs.  I like the fact that they are bullying the Christians.  Good for them!  In fact, I think they should bully other religious persuasions as well.  You go, girls!

I hate the stupid First Amendment.  After all, what matters is that whoever has the loudest mouth, the biggest guns, the most power, and the most money, is the one who gets to rule.

That way, I and my Master get to rule, too.

Hm hm hm hm hm…. 😉

Always yours,



Obama supports gay marriage? Surprise?

Posted in homosexuality, liberals, marriage, Obama, political correctness, same sex marraige with tags , on May 13, 2012 by devilbloggger


I was amused this week, my friends, at all the feigned surprise when my beelzebud Obama actually came out of his CINO (Christian in name only) closet to support gay marriage.  REALLY?  Really?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

It’s news that Obama supports gay marriage?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, I love the world I’ve created where one’s actions are ignored and their words, as empty or lying as they may be, are taken at two-face value.  In this case, the fact that people actually “wondered” what Obama’s views on same-sex marriage might be proves my great power on earth.

Let me impart some wisdom to you, my readers.  This will come as no surprise to long-time readers of this blog.  (You can search on “Obama” to see all my brilliant analysis of this, my favorite US citizen).  But I’ll tell you a sure-fire (so to speak) way to know everything Obama would do for any given topic.


Here it is: for any given topic, subject, decision, statement, etc., simply ask yourself what would Satan do (WWSD)?

Alternatively, you could ask WWJD, and then do the opposite.  In every case, however, you will find that WWOD is exactly the same as WWSD.

In this case, for example, between Jesus and I (moi) which one supports same-sex marriage?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And Obama?

See how easy it is?

Obama, my CINO-in-chief, thrills me with his consistent faithfulness in carrying out my will on earth as it is in Hell.

In fact, I challenge you, my servants, to come up with one decision, policy, action, or other verifiable display of belief that could not easily be inserted as an answer to the question, “WWSD?”

Try it.

It’s like a game.

A game that illustrates an important game that I’m winning.

Because I’m Liberal One.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Your Glee is My (unstoppable) Glee

Posted in Ethics, homosexuality, Morality, political correctness, progressives, same sex marraige, Sex, Sexual revolution with tags , , on November 13, 2011 by devilbloggger


I knew it would come to this, my servants.  After all, what (or who) could stop it?  Yes, my friends, I’m bragging about the glorious boyboysex delivered into millions of households this week on Fox’s popular teen-targeted comedy “Glee”.


Maybe for you, but for me?  It’s pure glee!

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Boyboysex on prime time television.  According to Fox News’ article entitled “Straight, Gay Couples Lose Virginity on ‘Glee’ Episode, Spark Controversy,” my will on earth is hurtling along almost totally unimpeded.

Who can stop it?

According to the Fox News article, both a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple will lose their respective virginities on this prime time fare.

And do you know what I like best?  It’s that the uproar is virtually solely over the boyboysex.  The world apparently yawns at two children of opposite sex “losing it” on television.  That is so yesterday.

But boyboysex?

Well, soon that, too, will be so yesterday.

You see, my servants, how far we have come. Today’s shock is tomorrow’s yawn.

And the beat goes on.

My Glee glee is particularly gleefulicious because it comes during the same week that the world is shocked at the allegations of boyboysex between a grown man and a 10-year old boy in the locker rooms of Penn State’s Happy Valley.

I love the hand-wringing over the fate of that poor little 10-year old (who was merely unlucky in time; within the next 50 years such behavior will be accepted as normal).  The popular press screams in high moral outrage about a grown man enjoying boyboysex with a 10-year old pinned to a shower wall.

You are all my 10-year olds, my friends.

While the world frets about that 10-year old on the receiving end of boyboysex in the locker room, do you know how many 10-year olds (or younger) watched boyboysex on Glee?

I’ll tell you.  I was gleefully counting: 2,744,992.

And do you know what else?  About 31% of those 10-year olds were watching with their parents in the room.

I’m not sure what I’m more proud of — the kids watching with their mind-numbed parents, or the kids watching without.  Both are huge victories for my kingdom.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Now, of course, there are those against my kingdom who try to sound the warning bell.    Melissa Henson, the director of communications and public education for the Parents Television Council, a nonpartisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment, was quick to weigh in by refuting the standard Hollywood line:

Hollywood loves to defend teen sex story lines by insisting, “Kids are having sex! We’re reflecting the real world!” But the truth is much more sobering and

Yes, of course it is.  Because as Henson states:

Teens are also aware that television influences their behavior. According to one survey, a third of youths age 12 and older say the media encourages them to have sex by making it seem like “everybody does it.” And why shouldn’t they get that impression?

You see, my friends.  I use television to continually push back the lines of morally acceptable behaviour for language, sexuality, and culture in general.  But my greatest achievements come among the little chillen’s of the world.

And I’m proud not only because of what I’ve accomplished, but also at how easy it is.

A few minutes of prime time comedy will prove to anyone how effective my strategy has been.  The airwaves shining into the minds of chillens the world over are full of vulgarity, sexual innuendo, sexual exuendo, glamorized casual sex, shameless gratuitous sex, and, of course sex-laced laugh lines to make you laugh your way to moral rot and decay.

You see, my friends, I have almost the whole world grinning with glee as they face the shower wall.

And, again, who can stop me?

Apparently no one.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

(PS: Don’t tell anyone, but television would hardly be my playground of evil if only Christians and those who call themselves Christians stopped watching.  Shhhhh!)

Satan Answers Mr. Keller’s Tough Questions.

Posted in atheism, atheists, Bible, Darwin, Darwinism, evangelisim, evolution, False religion, God, heresy, homosexuality, liberals, political correctness, prayer, public schools, secular humanism, secularism, separation of church and state, Truth, worldview with tags , , , on August 25, 2011 by devilbloggger

Oh yeah.

My my my.  Sometimes one of mine outdoes himself in his blind hatred of all things God (true God, that is).  Sometimes this servant of mine has a loud voice that gets heard by many, convinces a few, and pleases one. My my my.

When I saw Bill Keller’s article  in today’s New York Times entitled, “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith,” I must admit I was worried.  I thought it might be an exposé focusing on the atheistic faith of some politicians, the anti-Christian faith of others, or the general degradation of all things moral and upright by almost every politician.

But I suppose I should have known better.  After all, this showed up in my paper of record.  And it didn’t disappoint.

Yes, Mr. Keller dumped not on “faith” in general, a necessary element of anyone’s political worldview, but only on sincere God faith of the type expressed by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

I’m with Mr. Keller on this one, my friends.  There is nothing worse for my kingdom than a politician who has a sincere belief in God, and nothing better for my kingdom than a politician who has a professed, but clearly non-existent faith in God.

You will notice Mr. Keller has no problem with Mr. Obama’s faith.

Neither do I.

But consider the faith of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, or horror of horrors Rick Perry, and Mr. Keller begins asking the baited question, “Does it matter?”


For what?  For an ordered society where people can live freely in relative peace like they used to do when God was not banished from public discourse?

Yes, I suppose it does matter.

And to press his point, Mr. Keller sent a questionairre to suspect candidates to find out where they stand on questions he believes important.  The entire questionnaire can be found on The 6th Floor blog.  Just for fun, I have given my answers to his questions below.


1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

My answer:  Yes, of course.  Everyone has faith in something or someone, and the public has a right to know what or who is the object of one’s ultimate faith.  Obviously, it is that “something” or “someone” which/who will ultimately drive a politician’s policy choices.  I just hope that atheists, and practical atheists like most Democrats in the US don’t get questioned on this point.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

My answer: Yes, it is fair.  But the emphasis should always remain on “pastors” and not “thinkers” like Karl Marx,  Bill Ayers and others who espouse destructive ideas that I’ve miraculously made standard thought among the political elite, as well as the faculty of most college campuses.

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in  practice?

My answer:  No. America used to be a Christian nation.  Of course it is not now.  In practice a Christian nation would not kill millions of babies for convenience, celebrate homosexuality as normal, or trash Biblical sexual morality (all three are intimately related).  A Christian nation would not ban Christmas displays, censor Christmas carols in public schools, fire teachers for reading Bibles at work, object to crosses in public places (whether inadvertent or purposeful), freak out over after-school bible studies, go spastic over graduation prayers, kow tow to imprisoned terrorists on religious grounds, sue every person for every Christian utterance made in public, or … well, you get the idea.

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

My answer: I encounter conflicts all the time.  The Constitution was written based on an implicit faith in the God of the Bible–an obvious conflict for my purposes.  Fortunately, I resolve it by convincing many people that the Constitution is “living” and subject to change based on prevailing morals by consensus.  Does it seem like the time is right to make abortion a Constitutional right?  Then, by God moi, I make sure someone finds that right buried in that dadgum thing somewhere. 

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

My answer: Moi?  Ha ha ha ha ha.  Of course not. 

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

My answer: No.  But Mormons can be just as damaging to my kingdom.  I hate Mormons almost as much as I hate Christians.

7. What do you think of  the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

My answer:  Frankly, that idea scares the . . . well, the . . . the heck out of me.  Fortunately, it will never happen, but I can use the notion to prey upon fears, just as I’ve done with Mr. Keller.  Question: Would Mr. Keller care if “Dominionism” was the idea that atheists, and only atheists, should hold dominion over “secular” institutions of the earth.  Why not?

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

My answer:  I LOVE the theory of evolution.  This theory has done more to advance my kingdom than any other in the history of the world.  Of course it should be taught in public schools, but not as Darwin presented it, a tentative scientific theory, but as dogmatic fact immune from criticism.  Darwin, a true scientist, included many reasonable scientific objections to his theory of descent with modification in his book Origin of Species.  I would not want students to know these objections, all of which continue as refutations to Darwin’s theory today.  One of my greatest lies on earth is that Darwinism is ironclad science and anyone who questions it is naïve at best, and evil at worst.  (Consider: Darwin’s own book, half of which contains scientific criticism of his theory, could not be taught in public schools today!  The criticisms are just as valid today, but they are not allowed to be taught. Darwin would likely abandon his theory based on them.)

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

My answer:  Are you serious?  Of course not.  Unless, of course, the prayers are to an ungodly toy deity.

There you have it, my servants. 

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller opposes?

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller endorses?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Polygamy: It’s very big o’ me.

Posted in homosexuality, marriage, polygamy with tags on July 25, 2011 by devilbloggger

UPDATE:  The first paragraph of this post has been updated from the original to correct a misleading idea.  Hey, almost no one’s perfect!!
Quote of the Day:  Like magic, my servants, I’m making another of God’s precious gifts to humanity disappear: marriage. — Marriage is for old people


Did you ever wonder, my servants, who made the rule that men can have only one wife and who wants to change that rule?  Here’s a hint to answer who wants it changed: the question rarely arises in the alternative — whether a woman can have more than one husband. 

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Hey, but seriously, if men and women are mere accidents of nature, who cares if one accident prefers to be married to two or more other accidents?  In other words, when it comes to whether polygamy is wrong, the real question is who sez?

Yeah, who sez??

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Every deviant and perverted societal ill begins with someone asking, who sez?

Here’s a kingdom truth, my friends: when morality is based on no recognized authority higher than man, you get man’s moral authority, which is to say morality for the moment mandated by man-decree. 

I sez, sez some strong man, and if the strong man who sez it is stronger than you, then your behavior is forced by his morality.  Which, happily, ultimately mirrors my morality.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Don’t believe me?  Look at how I got boyboysex and girlgirlsex accepted in the world, and especially in the United States. 

Is boyboysex wrong? 

Who sez?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And what about polygamy?  What is to stop polygamy from becoming legally protected the world over?

As one astute commenter to my earlier teaser post indicated, the question is largely relevant only to the West, and particularly to the United States.  Consider: according to, polygyny, which is virtually the only form of polygamy practiced in the world, is actually widely practiced.

Though reviled in the West, polygyny is actually quite common throughout the world. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, studying over a thousand societies from 1962-1980, there were over 1,000 polygamous societies, compared to just 186 monogamous ones.

Those are good numbers, no?  And the practice is even alive and well in the US.  According to a study quoted by

Polygamy is alive and well in parts of America. According to researchers at Brigham Young University, there are 30,000 to 50,000 people currently living a polygamist lifestyle in the United States, many of them in sects that splintered from the mainstream Mormon church when it renounced polygamy in 1890. A separate study reported on NPR estimates that 50,000 to 100,000 Muslims in America may be quietly living polygamist lives.

My friends, let me be clear: I love polygamy.  You may find that belittling to your righteous notions of marriage, but I find it big o’ me.  (Ha ha ha ha ha, I wish I made that up, but I didn’t).

So you can imagine my amusement, my friends, when someone brought me an article from today’s Daily Caller,  entitled, ” Why the polygamist rights movement will never succeed.”

What?  A mere mortal question my ability to force my will on earth as it is in Hell?

Yes, and this mortal, a chap named Peter Tucci, beautifully illustrates exactly how I achieve my will on earth: by underestimating the power of  a small group of persistent sinners to eventually impose their sin on all of society.

Mr. Tucci first correctly salutes my great success in forcing legal boyboysex and girlgirlsex on a gagging society, by noting that:

It’s hard to say that gay marriage should be legal but polygamy shouldn’t. After all, if the government has no business telling people who they can or cannot marry, why can it tell people how many people they can marry?

Yes, what role does government play in stopping the foistmentation of legalized sin on a hapless society?
Mr. Tucci further notes:
On Wednesday, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley made a civil libertarian case for legalizing the practice in a New York Times op-ed. And Canada, which legalized gay marriage in 2005, may be on the verge of becoming the first Western country to legalize polygamy.

In other words, when it comes to polygamy in the West, I have almost achieved my will on a part of earth as it is in Hell.  My goal, of course, is to achieve the festering sore of sexual deviancy on all of earth, especially in the United States.

Which is why I just loved Mr. Tucci’s soothing salve:

But social conservatives shouldn’t fret, because polygamy won’t be legal in America anytime soon.

Why not fret? you ask. 

I’m glad you asked, because it allows me to illustrate the kind of thinking that greases the intellectual skids for sliding my lovely will into society.

Here is Mr. Tucci’s first slippery reason:

One problem for polygamy supporters is the fact that there are only, at most, a few hundred thousand polygamists in the United States. The small size of the polygamist population means that polygamists can’t sway elections by themselves — they lack the money and votes.

It need not be about elections, Mr. Tucci.  In the United States, all selfish old men need do is convince five Supreme Court justices that they have a constitutional right to multiple subjugants.

And if the Court is in the mood, make no mistake about it, the Court will do the same thing it did with abortion and gay marriage: discover the brilliance of the Founding Fathers’ ability to enshrine a multitude of human sins as human “rights” in secret code language only they (the Court) can rightly discern. 

Second, Mr. Tucci applies some grease to my sin-skids by showing he’s never heard of the boiling frog trick:

To succeed, the polygamist rights movement would have to rely on the sympathy of non-polygamists. But that sympathy doesn’t exist. According to a May 2011 Gallup poll, just 11% of Americans consider polygamy to be morally acceptable.

Sympathy?  What sympathy was there for legally protected boyboysex 20 years ago, Mr. Tucci?  Or 10 years ago?  Or 5 years ago? 

Hey, the frog is still smiling!

And here’s Mr. Tucci’s last oily reason for keeping the frog smilingly swimming in its own soup:

Another major barrier to a polygamist rights movement is the lack of a natural constituency for it. Conservatives oppose polygamy for traditional reasons. Liberals oppose polygamy because they think that polygamist relationships subjugate women.

Really, Mr. Tucci?  You think liberals care about subjugating women? 


Ha ha ha ha ha.

Remember, my friends, I am Liberal One.  Trust me on this one.

Here’s my little secret: liberals like to think they are against subjugating anyone, when in fact the very policies liberals support lead to subjugation of every class for which they deem themselves protectors.

The poor?  Liberals subjugate the poor to the oppression of dependency-induced freeloading.

Minorities?  Liberals subjugate minorities to the shame of affirmative racism and sexism, depriving individuals of the satisfaction of earned success.

And, of course, women?  Liberals subjugate women by supporting abortion rights which ultimately serve merely to render sex consequence-free for lusting men.

So, my friends, you see how I impose my will on earth as it is in Hell.

Very soon the monogamy frog will be happily dead.

And then little screwed-up Johnny will have two legally protected ways to have two mommies!

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Christian gay therapy? Shhhh, there is a better way

Posted in homosexuality, progressives, same sex marraige, secularism, Sin, toleration, Truth with tags , , , on July 20, 2011 by devilbloggger


Have you heard, my friends, about the firestorm created by recent reports that the therapy clinic co-owned by US Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann offers “ex-gay” therapy?  What a delicious controversy!

I have worked for years to make homosexuality natural, just one of many alternative sexual lifestyles a person may experience. 

Homo or hetero?  It depends on one’s natural or chosen “orientation” and many claim it’s no more a choice than is one’s sex in the first place.  Right?


At least that’s the way I’ve raised a generation of academics and other Important People.  And Important People often pal around with Smart People, and both groups define Sacred Ideas in the world today.

And it is good.

And one of my Sacred Ideas today is that one’s sexual orientation with respect to other humans (human/animal sexientation will take a little longer, but it will be naturalized soon) is natural. 

To oppose boyboysex or girlgirlsex today automatically renders one narrow-minded,  fearful and most importantly, full of hatification and bigotivity.

And best of all, such opposition renders one, in one of my most effective lingua-walls protecting a Sacred Idea, pathetically homophobic.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And do you want to know how I’ve done this, my servants? Do you want to know how I’ve silenced most opposition to my will on earth through the rampant and inaccurate use of the single term, homophobia?

I’ll tell you if you promise to not tell anyone else.


OK.  Listen.  This is important:  I’ve rendered impotent virtually all opposition to homosexuality by making everyone who accepts homosexuality as normal or healthy sinophobic


Yes, sinophobic.

Sinophobia: sin’-oh-pho’-bee-a, n. (1) the attitude of one who rejects “sin” as an accurate descriptor of behavior one finds fun or normal; (2) fear of or contempt for one who holds to a Biblical notion of sin; (3) behavior based on such a feeling; (4) the attitude of those who defend homosexuality as normal and healthy.

Do you see what I’ve done so magnificentically?  I’ve made the concept of sin passé, backward, prehistoric, and generally believed only by fun-hating, meddling, narrow-minded, and sometimes plain crazy religious people.

I’ve rendered entire populations sinophobic.

Who embraces the idea of sin anymore?

Well, some do, unfortunately.  Because sin is real, and some behaviors are sinful.  This is, unfortunately the truth of the human experience.

Which is why I hate this aspect of truth whenever it tries to squeeze out of the cracks of the Sacred Ideas of Important People and Smart People.

And I must warn you, my servants, that truth practically flowed out of the cracks in a recent article discussing the views of one of my most hated foes: Albert Mohler.  


Mr. Mohler is quoted in today’s article at the Christian Post entitled, “Evangelical Leader Touts Gospel, Not Therapy, as Way to ‘Reorient’ Gays.”  And what Mr. Mohler has to say, if widely read and understood, could effectively dismantle my years of mantling the Sacred Ideas.

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, rather than pussy-foot around about the nature of deviant sexual behavior, unapologetically uses the language of truth–the language of sin:

We will hold no hope for any sinner’s ability to change his or her own heart, and we will hold little hope for any secular therapy to offer more than marginal improvement in a sinner’s life,” he argued in his blog Tuesday.

Sin.  Heart.  Change. 

He’s directly challenging my legions of sinophobes!

As I read these words I thought to myself, well, at least he didn’t connect all these words with the gospel or Jesus Christ.

But my satisfactification was short-lived, as Mr. Mohler continued:

We hold full confidence in the power of the Gospel and of the reign of Christ within the life of the believer. We know that something as deeply entrenched as a pattern of sexual attraction is not easily changed, but we know that with Christ all things are possible.

Do you see what Mr. Mohler is saying, my servants?  His approach to the method of correcting sexual deviancy by attacking sinophobes front and center must be stopped.

Because he is right.  Sexual deviancy must be protected as normal and healthy.  To do so, we must characterize those who disagree as irrational, fundamentalist religionists who are hopelessly behind the times.

And we must shut down all talk of such deviancy being “sin;” we must keep sinophobia alive.

This is why I don’t oppose “secular” approaches to “curing” boyboys and girlgirls.  The Bachmann’s practice is easily dismissed as being the activity of some crackpots.  Let them live on the fringes.

But when someone starts using plain language of “sin” and “gospel” and such Dangerous Ideas as “with Christ all things are possible,” we must mobilize our forces and shut such talk down.

So I ask you, my servants, to do what you can to silence people like Mr. Mohler.  Call him names, discredit his motives, try to dig up some dirt on him.

We must, my servants, stop Dangerous Ideas before they smother and displace my Sacred Ideas.

It can be done. 

How do I know?  Because, remember, there was a time when God’s ideas were sacred, and mine were dangerous.

Let’s not let another reversal happen.



Destroying Society One (Gay) Marriage at a Time

Posted in Bible, christians, Government, homosexuality, perversion, political correctness, same sex marraige, Sexual revolution, theology, Truth with tags , , on July 12, 2011 by devilbloggger

Quote of the Day:  Just say the Bible is pro-homosexuality, throw out a few random verses, talk about the love of God, and sternly warn about judging others.  Do this with a sincere look on your face and you will convince a few, confuse many, and you can go home victorious. — We gays don’t need no stinkin’ Bible (do we?)


Ahhh . . . the sweet confirmation of my success is here.  And from the entirely reasonable and even-keeled keyboard of Rod Dreher over at Real Clear Religion.  Today’s article, entitled “My Second Thoughts About Gay Marriage,” lays out better than I could the current landscape of gay marriage acceptance in America. 

And the picture is beautiful from my point of view.

Mr. Dreher is reacting to my recent victory in New York, which recently became the sixth, and largest, state in the US to legalize same-sex marriage.  Mr. Dreher noticed with some alarm the same thing I noticed with some delight: the virtual absence of any effective defense of the marriage status quo. 

Mr. Dreher had written a previous column complaining,

. . . that no conservative religious leaders had managed to articulate a persuasive case against gay marriage — this, because so few have been able to mount an effective defense of Christian sexual teaching since the Sexual Revolution.

Ta da!

Dreher is right.  Like magic I’ve virtually silenced any intellectually coherent opposition to boyboysex and girlgirlsex, including state-sanctioned marriage of such sinfulness.

Oops!  Did I say sinfulness?  I’m getting ahead of myself.  Hang on, my servants, while I explain what is really going on here.

My servants, what I’m about to share is highly confidential.  If you are on a public computer, please take note of your surroundings.  If someone can see your screen, casually scroll up or switch to another window now.  Wait until you are alone before proceeding.



I recommend that you read Mr. Dreher’s article for yourself, as he adroitly lays out the situation facing those who oppose same-sex marriage in America.  He makes the following salient observations:

  • It is clear that aside from those who consider their moral judgments bound by Biblical religion … the point of privileging traditional marriage is increasingly lost on contemporary Americans.
  • It is true that the relatively swift popular acceptance of same-sex marriage is breathtakingly revolutionary, and it is a cultural revolution that has been driven by elites. But traditionalists cannot for much longer pretend that gay marriage lacks popular support.
  • [Same-sex marriage] is widely accepted by younger Americans, many of whom view the taboo against homosexuality as arbitrary and irrational.

And what does Dreher rightly conclude from these facts?  Just this:

The point is not that there are no morally serious arguments for same-sex marriage. Of course there are. The point, rather, is that the arguments against same-sex marriage are now so countercultural. Even more depressingly, it seems to me true that so few people want to entertain arguments at all.

Dreher then responds to the question: What should pastors and other social conservatives say now?

First, according to Dreher, such people should acknowledge the truth of the situation, and resign themselves to the fact that the redefinition of marriage, and indeed the family, is inevitable and unstoppable.  Americans are witnessing the inexorable ripening of the fruit of the sexual revolution, characterized by Dreher as “defeat that we are enduring.”

Second, Dreher correctly recognizes that,

For Christians, gay marriage is not the cause of our crisis. It is only a symptom, and a symbol of the new age.

And what is Dreher’s answer to the question above?  This:

I don’t know what, precisely, pastors and other church leaders should say about this issue going forward. But unless it’s based on an analysis that’s sober, deep, and unsparing, their words will continue to be unavailing.

Let me help out here.  There is an effective antidote to the cancer of the liberal-theology-fueled, secularized God-be-damned-politicoreligous-perverted road to legalizing my will on earth.  And it is this:

Convincing one heart at a time of sin and righteousness, and framing the question as “what pleases God?”

Did you get that?  I tell you this so you can deflect any such convincing as you see it.  Silence it.  Ridicule it.  Challenge it as backward, cruel, intolerant, and/or just plain irrelevant.  But stop it.

You see, there is no convincing the mind of a belligerent, convinced sinner of the moral nature of same-sex marriage.  The boyboys and girlgirls simply don’t care.  I ensure that by hardening their hearts and stopping their ears.

But the word of God is powerful, and the preaching of sin opens the mind to the convicting power of one greater than I, and once convicted of God’s righteousness, the question for the changed heart no longer becomes “can I rationalize this in my own mind as OK?” but “can I in my own heart know that this activity please God?”

You see, almost any chosen behavior can be mentally rationalized using and misusing the Bible for one’s own selfish purposes.  Thus when one understands that “there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people,” all one need to is convince his own mind that his particular chosen sin is not truly immoral, impure, or greedy.


But when one frames the challenge as “Live as children of the light and find out what pleases the Lord,” suddenly the mental challenge to justifying sin becomes greater; in fact it becomes insurmountable to the honest heart.

Does anyone really believe the Bible approves of same-sex marriage? 

Well, yes, in fact, many do.

Can anyone really make the case that same-sex marriage “pleases the Lord?”

Those who do can only do so by invoking the “God is a God of love, and a loving God loves all his chillens, including boyboys and girlgirls.”

And by this logic the “loving God” must love all manner of perversion among his chillens, and nothing could be deemed displeasing to him.  Any other outcome makes God arbitrarily intolerant, and, thus unloving.

Clearly the question of what pleases God forces the issue in a different light that even those committed to sin cannot stand against.

Preach sin.  Stress the personal responsibility of finding out what is pleasing to God.  Let God change hearts.

And changed hearts will change society.

It’s as simple at that.

Fortunately I have such a huge advantage in numbers of hearts possessed that it’s unlikely that modern Christians have the staying power to reverse the course of American society toward total state-sanctioned sexual perversion.

In fact, with men it is impossible.  Let’s hope, my servants, that the battle remains among men.

And the beat goes on.

%d bloggers like this: