Saturday, November 23, 2019

Charlie Kirk Fail (Again): Calls Christian Truth "Anti-Gay Extremism"

Charlie Kirk may have backed off on handing out green cards to foreign nationals who graduate from American Universities.

But he has not backed away from defending homosexuality as acceptable.

Charlie Kirk with openly gay "conservative" Rob Smith
at The Ohio State University Culture War Town Hall

He keeps pushing this idea that "gay" is some kind of identity, when it's a set of behaviors which should not be normalized. There are many ex-gays. There is no such thing as an "ex-black" or an "ex-male".

Consider this exchange that Charlie Kirk had with another college student at another "Culture War" event:

At the outset, Kirk shames the questioner with "Wow, that's the slippery slope fallacy!"

But it's not a fallacy. The slippery slope is real. Brian Camenker, the President of MassResistance, warned the public about the dangers, short and long-term, posed by normalizing homosexuality, false marriage, and the rest.

Once again, as in other posts and statements, Charlie Kirk goes along with this false premise: "gay people."

It's not an identity. It's a behavior, and it's a mental disorder which should not be promoted or celebrated. Any set of behaviors which diminishes an individual's life-span is neither wise nor good. Why would anyone consider this wise or appropriate?

On another note: loving all people does not mean endorsing their behaviors. It does not mean promoting lifestyles that are destructive and wrong.

In fact, God's Word is pretty clear-cut when it comes to dealing with Christians who do not walk in concourse with the truth :

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

Conservatism should not be normalizing homosexuality, transgenderism, and other sexual paraphilias. It is essential to fight for the family, to fight for children to have a mom and a dad as much as is possible.

I also want to speak to the phrase "I believe marriage is one man and one woman."

It does not matter what I believe. Facts, truth, evidence are not based on what I believe, or what someone else surmises. They are true because they reflect reality. They are true because they are in concert with what is so.

Why Charlie Kirk insists on caving on this issue is just surprising to me.

His exchange with the young student in the video above was really bad form, as well.

When Kirk questioned whether the young man was a proud Trump supporter or not, he then denounced the student because Trump has allied with some openly gay individuals. Peter Thiel, for example, spoke at the RNC Convention. That really is a problem. Our culture is dying. Our culture is in trouble.

You can be a proud Trump supporter and still not agree with everything that he says or does. In fact, even Ed Koch, the liberal New Yorker who began supporting Republican candidates, often told prospective voters: "If you agree with me 70%, vote for me. If you agree with me 100%, see a psychiatrist!"

Then Kirk wanted to deflect the core issue--which is the conflict between calling yourself a Christian and promoting homosexuals who share other conservatives.

He wanted to put the speaker on the spot and make him look bad in front of others. Charlie then went off on how the Bible is the greatest book ever written. OK, great, that is true. But why then does he support promoting lifestyles that are destructive and unbiblical? If the Bible is the greatest book, and he believes in championing Judeo-Christian values, why does he then make exceptions for promoting and accommodating homosexuals?

Then Kirk fired back with this final question: "Why does what people do in the privacy of their own homes matter to you?"

First of all, this whole LGBT agenda, movement, etc. is no longer---and never has been--about safeguarding individuals to engage in sexual perversions in private.

Second of all, sexual perversion has public consequences. The declining human capital, the monetary costs, the mental illness, the venereal diseases which have become so widespread because of these beahavior make it all clear that private behavior has public consequences.

The government has every right to criminalize prostitution, incest, terrorist plots, lying on one's tax forms, etc. These behaviors often occur in private, but they have public consequences.

For moral good to have any guidance, it must be consistent and referenced as unchanging. The principles have to apply in public and in private. Simple as that. This argument of "live and let live" no longer lives up to its standards, simply because the homoseuxal lobby has never been interested in "Live and Let Live".

For decades, the general public heard from homosexual activists that they did not want to disrupt other people's lives. They merely wanted to "live and let live." Yet the truth has always been from LGBT activists: "We live, and you have to live with it", or as one homosexual activist had told me "You have to accept me. I will not accept tolerance." Yet the essence of tolerance is that we do not have to celebrate, like, enjoy, treasure, or prize ideas that we disagree with. Tolerance requires an adherence to clear-cut moral principles, or then a society, a culture turns into a miasma of tyranny,

This libertarian temptation which Charlie Kirk betrays is all too strong with some of these college-level Conservative Inc. types. It needs to be resisted, not accommodated.

Check out this powerful statement that best sums up the need to defend moral virtue:
There is no liberty without morality. There is no peace and prosperity without the rule of law.  There is no social order to allow freedom if there is no fixed moral framework.

It's time for these so-called groypers to get their facts together and strenghten their arguments when dealing with homosexuality, transgenderism, and the influence of other sexual paraphilias into the conservative moment.

It's not "anti-gay extremism" to stand up for natural marriage. The extremism came out of Charlie Kirk, when he went to great lengths to shame the person asking the questions calling out the conflict between Christian revelation and homosexual accommodation which Mr. Kirk has been engaging in for the last three years.

This has been going on much longer than most people realize. Check out what Mark Dice discovered:
No, homosexuals should not be adopting children. Children by many metrics need a mother and father, not two moms or two dads. Where did anyone get this foolish idea that we should begin compromising and appeasing homosexual activists? Why is this going on?

Because for too long, conservatives have continued to cave in the fight for what matters. They allowed the left to one battle after another without fighting back, and the consequences have become catastrophic.

1 comment:

  1. Hey! I could have sworn I've been to this site before but after checking through some
    of the post I realized it's new to me. Nonetheless, I'm definitely delighted I found it and
    I'll be book-marking and checking back often!