Passing the Piers Morgan Test: How to Fight for Natural Marriage

Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation
failed the Piers Morgan test miserably

Pro-family forces have had a bad record when it comes to making their case for the pro-marriage cause.

The biggest example of this occured with Piers Morgan when he confronted one of the spokesmen for the Heritage Foundation.

He asked a very basic question: "Why does the marriage of these two women (or two men) affect you? Why is that a problem for you?"

Many pro-family groups have utterly failed on this point. They have not rightfully or rigorously thought through all the issues, the ups and downs when it comes to defending natural marriage. For too long, pro-family forces in particular and conservatives in general have fallen back on one of three talking points to defend their views on natural marriage:

1. I just believe that marriage is for one man and one woman.

2. It's tradition, and we should not trifle with tradition.

3. I oppose same-sex marriage because of my faith

All of these answers do not work. Most people who fight for false marriage do not care about God, religion, or tradition. Worse yet, many so-called churches and other religious institutions are caving on LGBT issues, celebrating false marriages and fake adoptions. It is disturbing how many mainline Christian denominations have caved on the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism.

No real answers have been offered to rebuff the nonsensical arguments pressing for the normalization of sexual perversion.

For the last year, I have been studying this issue extensively, working to set up proper research and understanding so that every pro-family activist can argue for natural marriage, natural parenting, and the proper rearing of children.

And that's the first point: it's about the children.

Children need their parents, but more specifically they need their biological mother and father. Sex is not a purely private matter, and neither is marriage. The whole institution of marriage in large part is about the kids! Too many pro-family activists, including the speakers who have debated this issue with Piers Morgan and other liberal propagandist pundits, have ignored or neglected the damage caused by depriving children of their natural parents.

So, next time a liberal loony presses you on false marriage, fire back with the following: "So, you want to deprive children of their parents. If marriage can be anything and anyone, then parents become optional. You want to deprive children of their mother and their father. That is wrong."

But then go one step further.

For too long, the pro-family movement has been to reticent, shy, even cowardly about pointing out some harsh truths about the origins of homosexual conduct. Yet the behaviors are inherently harmful, destructive, and degrading. Furthermore, pro-family activists by and large refuse to discuss the causes of these behaviors. Why do individuals start developing an attraction to the same sex?

In every instance, one will find one or more of the following causes:

1. Abuse

2. Neglect

3. Confusion

4. Molestation

The fact is that homosexuals and transgenders are victims. They have been terribly harmed, filled with lies and deceit from a world that virtue-signals off their plight.

It is essential to call out anyone who claims to be an LGBT ally that they are in fact pro-abuse, neglect, confusion, and molestation, too.

It's about more than religious sentiment. It's about the creation of families, and it's about mental health. Most importantly, it's essential that we point out the truth:

1. People are not born that way.

2. The behaviors are not normal or ideal.

3. Children do not learn at a young age that they are LGBT.

No SSA Christians, Just Children of God (Christ, and I Am Nothing)

I found this article discussing the issues that churches face when working with "SSA Christians".

I find this characterization of people in the Body of Christ all wrong. Just because someone struggles with a certain sin or temptatin, does not mean that we should identify them with that issue.

We are not to look at ourselves, but to look to our Savior, the Lord Jesus. We are in Christ, not in ourselves!

So, when I read this article, I felt compelled to comment on it:

Schaeffer: Excluding SSA Christians from Church Life is “Cruel and Wrong.”

In 1947, the great English poet W. H. Auden wrote a letter to his friend Ursula Niebuhr in which he confessed: “I don’t think I’m over-anxious about the future, though I do quail a bit before the possibility that it will be lonely. When I see you surrounded by family and its problems, I alternate between self-congratulation and bitter envy.”

The root of Auden’s fear of loneliness and his envy of the comforts of family is not hard to uncover: Auden was a homosexual Christian. And this dual identity created a tension for him: As a Christian of a relatively traditional sort, he believed homosexuality missed the mark of God’s good design for human flourishing. But as a homosexually oriented person, despite his Christian beliefs, he craved intimacy and companionship with other men. Caught on the horns of a dilemma like that, what was he to do with his loneliness? …

We must not accomodate this notion that Christians are defined by anything that they do, say, think, or otherwise. We are defined by everything that is Christ: who He is, what He has done, and how He loves. Whatever Auden's needs may have been, they could never be fulfilled in a gay relationship. The real need always goes back to getting a great revelation of the Father's love for us!

I am drawn to these haunting confessions of Auden’s because I, too, am a homosexual Christian. Since puberty, I’ve been conscious of an exclusive attraction to persons of my own sex. Though I have never been in a gay relationship as Auden was, I have also never experienced the “healing” or transformation of my sexual orientation that some formerly gay Christians profess to have received. But I remain a Christian, a follower of Jesus. And, like Auden, I accept the Christian teaching that homosexuality is a tragic sign that things are “not the way they’re supposed to be.” Reading New Testament texts like Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 through the lens of time-honored Christian reflection on the meaning and purpose of marriage between a man and a woman, I find myself—much as I might wish things to be otherwise—compelled to abstain from homosexual practice.

It's good to hear that the writer did not engage in any homosexual activity. Unfortuantely, he needs to reread 1 Corithians 6:9-11. He needs to understand that "such were some of you", but that is not who we ARE! We are not defined by sins, since all of that belongs to our old nature, our old selves, if you will. We are made a new creation in Christ, the righteousness of God in Him!

How cool is that?!

As a result, I feel, more often than not, desperately lonely.

Loneliness comes from the lie that we are alone and left to our own resources, our own devices. All of that is wrong, misplaced, incorrect. Because of Jesus, we can rest assured in a tried and true promise that our Daddy God will never leave us nor forsake us.

I thought of this piece by Dr Hill yesterday as two separate but related stories concerning evangelicals and LGBT individuals played out online.

First, the Baptist blog Pulpit and Pen launched a rather absurd attack on Liberty University professor Karen Swallow Prior in which writer JD Hall said some things about her that are either badly reasoned or simply not true.

Second, Julie Rodgers, a celibate same-sex attracted Christian wrote the following on her blog:

Though I’ve been slow to admit it to myself, I’ve quietly supported same-sex relationships for a while now. When friends have chosen to lay their lives down for their partners, I’ve celebrated their commitment to one another and supported them as they’ve lost so many Christian friends they loved. When young people have angsted at me about the gay debate, I’ve just told them to follow Jesus—to seek to honor Him with their sexuality and love others well. For some, I imagine they will feel led to commit to lifelong celibacy. For others, I think it will mean laying their lives down for spouses and staying true to that promise to the end. My main hope for all of them is that they would grow to love Jesus more and that it would overflow into a life spent on others.

This calling to "Follow Jesus" is all from the Old Covenant. We cannot follow someone with whom we have united. We are in Christ, now, and Christ is in us! He lives within us, and works within us. He is not some faraway example that we are trying to live up to. He is our Savior who grants us His life!

I submit that many Christians who struggle with same-sex temptations have simply not entered fully into the Rest of Jesus. They have not put aside their works, and accepted that Jesus completed the work for them.

They do not have a sex problem. They have a flesh problem!

(You should read the whole post to get the broader context for what Rodgers is saying.)

I want to suggest that evangelicals should learn something from the fact that these two things happened on the same day.

First, a prominent evangelical research fellow with the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission gets attacked in a public forum not for condoning same-sex acts, but for simply attempting to be careful in her handling of complex issues, for being friends with LGBT individuals, and trying to facilitate friendly conversation between orthodox Christians and LGBT individuals.

Second, an SSA Christian who has in the past taken the orthodox view on sex ethics seems to have pivoted toward the more progressive view on the morality of same-sex acts.

Returning to the first event, the striking thing about the exchange is that Dr Prior is being shouted down for simply following the lead of many other orthodox believers. She is attempting to maintain friendships with LGBT individuals and be a loving, generous Christian toward people in the church struggling with same-sex attraction while not compromising on classical Christian teachings regarding sexuality. To take only one example of a well-known Christian attempting a similar work, consider the great American evangelist Francis Schaeffer whose writing on homosexuality (available in his collected letters) anticipated many of today’s debates.

Schaeffer, writing in 1968 (!) made the now-common distinction between what he called “homophiles” and homosexuals, arguing that it is possible to be same-sex attracted without falling into sin and that it is the acting on that attraction which is sinful. (Again, he wrote this in 1968.)

In one of his letters he refers to “the mistake that the orthodox people have made” and defines that as saying that “homophile tendencies are sin in themselves, even if there is no homosexual practice. Therefore the homophile tends to be pushed out of human life (and especially orthodox church life) even if he does not practice homosexuality. This, I believe, is both cruel and wrong.”

The teachings of scripture on the morality of homosexual acts are not ambiguous and so we cannot compromise on what scripture clearly teaches. Yet we also must recognize that this is a hard teaching for people who struggle with same-sex attraction and that, if the church fails in its relationship to the person, ends up amounting to a sentence of life-long loneliness and isolation.

What the church needs to do is to reveal more of Jesus! What the church needs to do is to let all the Body of Christ now that they can Come Out of whatever struggles they are struggling with, and they can Come Home, without any sense of shame or condemnation.

The more that we start to reveal to the Body of Christ who we are, i.e. in Christ, the more that these issues will subside and go away. There is no need for Christians to feel guilty, to fall all over themselves with recrimination and self-deprecation

As Dr Hill has noted elsewhere, the choice given to gay people has seldom been “be involved in a robust Christian community with many faithful, committed friends” or “enter a same-sex relationship.” Rather, the choice they have been given (often by Christians) is “be ostracized from the church and live a life that is basically lonely” or “enter a same-sex relationship.”

We need to talk more about Jesus, and how He is the answer to every need. EVERY NEED! The Church has a head, and that head is Christ!

Particularly in an atomized, hyper-mobile, hyper-individualist culture like our own it is very difficult to find true, long-term friendships outside of a romantic, sexual relationship. And as I’ve noted before, evangelicals have played a major role in creating the systems that have annihilated home life and redefined marriage. If evangelicals are going to insist on orthodoxy with regards to sex ethics (and we must) then we must also insist on the practices of hospitality and friendship that have far too often been neglected in our churches. Those practices will inform more than just our relationships with celibate gay Christians in our churches, of course, but they will inform those relationships in a massive and noticeable way.

If I’m understanding Dr Hill rightly, the problem for LGBT individuals is not always what the demands of Scripture force them to give up (hard as those demands are), but rather what the failures of the church would force them to give up if they were to remain Christian. If the church is to maintain its commitment to orthodoxy then the church must also be willing to defy the cultural trends toward individualism, busyness, and mobility and be willing to slow down enough to offer the gifts of unhurried time, friendship, and hospitality to gay Christians in our community. We must be a place where the word celibacy is not a dressed up way of describing loneliness.

Can we please stop talking about LGBT individuals or SSA Christians? We need to stop turning feelings into identities. "Know ye not ...?"

Will the church be the church for SSA Christians? If we are regularly producing people like Schaeffer and Prior who can maintain a commitment to orthodoxy while also being warm, hospitable, and clear in their call to the church to be a home and refuge for gay Christians, then the answer is “yes.”

On the other hand, if a prominent evangelical is going to be publicly attacked for appearing at an event specifically meant to promote fruitful conversation between LGBT individuals and Christians then we can’t be surprised when people like Rodgers end up closer to Justin Lee or Rachel Held Evans. Of course that’s where they ended up. We sent them there.

Final Reflection

It's important for the Church to bring the focus back on One Person: JESUS!

He is the Savior who keeps on saving. He is the Provider who keeps on Providing.

And He is the Lover who keeps on Loving!

For those who struggle with sexual temptations of all kinds, the answer is not to reinforce an identity that is based on our old self, which was already crucified at the Cross with Christ. Let's spend more time teaching people to put their affections on things above, at the Father's right hand, where every Christian is seated! (Colossians 3:4; Ephesians 2:6)

Even A Globalist Elite Gets It: Singapore is Right to Keep 377a

Michael Petraeus, aka Critical Spectator, is a Polish expat who lives in Singapore.

He loves the country. He loves the balance of rule of law and liberty which enables everyone in the country to have ample enough space for themselves, but the liberty is curtailed in such a fashion that the rights of others are not trampled.

Moreover, the press for communitarian standards is prevalent in Singapore, as well. The Red Dot nestled at the very botton of the Malaysian peninsula doesn't promote individual liberty as the final goal of government. Free speech is strictly limited. Individuals can face fines and even jail time for writing incendiary comments about religion or race. Groups must seek permits to display points of view in public. Rallies can only take place in Hong Lim Park. No parades are permitted in the city state.

Recently, they passed a "Fake News" law which cracks down on news which the government deems to be false or misleading. Anyone from a much freer free speech culture (the United States) would blanch at such restrictions.

The penalties for drug use and drug dealing are quite high, as well. Individuals can be arrested or sorely fined for littering. One American commented that Singapore's political and legal culture is quite "paternalistic."

At any rate, the city state prizes community harmony, not just individual liberty, and endeavors to strike a balance which considers the well-being of the whole. There is plenty of good and bad which people can comment on regarding this legal culture.

At any rate, Petraeus has an elitist and a globalist streak, of course.

He thinks that Singapore should import more foreign workers to take local jobs. This policy pushes aside the natural born or naturalized citizens of the country. This is fundamentally unfair, and it undermines the civic order of a country. Why bring in foreigners to do the jobs which the locals can do themselves? A country is more than an economy.

He also believes that the United States' high violence/homicide rate is a direct result of the Second Amendment, aka the right to keep and bear arms. This elitist dismissal of a fundamental human right is quite troubling. Sure, in Singapore he feels safe and sound walking the streets at night because of the harsh laws which rightfully punish potential assailants and criminals. However, the Second Amendment was never enacted to protect Americans' desire to hunt or to protect their homes from burglars. The fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was to arm and equip the citizenry against the government should it grow expansive and then tyrannical. This calculation was essential to the passage of the United States Constitution since the American colonists had to take on and ultimately took down the greatest Empire in the World at the Time, the British Empire, and they were keen at the outset on taking away the colonists' firearms.

Singapore's origins are quite different. They were expelled from the Malaysian confederation. The United States was forged out of Thirteen Colonies which expected to be treated with the same dignity and accorded the same rights as other Englishmen throughout the British Empire--and the British Government refused to accommodate that basic expectation.

Furthermore, the gross gun violence which has become all too prevalent in the United States is not because of the large number of firearms. The breakdown in rule of law in liberal enclaves, coupled with the unfounded gun control policies which disarm law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop violent criminals and street gangs, have contributed to the disturbing rise of gun violence in my country. If one were to remove the gun deaths which take place in top ten largest urban areas in the country, one would find that the rates of gun violence are considerably lower than in other countries.

Perhaps even lower than in Singapore?

At any rate, I wanted to establish at the outset that Mr. Critical Spectator has a globalist and an elitist veneer about his writings and view of the world. In addition, Petraeus tends to side with the Singapore government as much as possible, and denounce citizen uprisings at the outset. His critique of the Hong Kong protests make sense from the perspective of "What is the End Game?" However, the desire for any people, for any region of the world to be free of Communist tyranny, those sentiments are commendable, not deplorable.

So, with all of this outlined about Mr. Petraeus' view of politics and governance, it was quite surprising and even refreshing to find that he agrees with the Singapore Government's decision to maintain Section 377a, the statute in Singapore's legal code which criminalizes homosexual acts between men.

He begins his comments on this very contentious matter as follows:

This may be my most controversial article yet (at least to some) – but precisely because it may be considered controversial is why I believe it is important to publish it. So, let’s begin with a both baffling and bold statement:

 LGBT supporters and their opponents are both right.

Impossible? Well, let me explain.

Well, actually no. The LGBT supporters are clearly wrong. They are wrong because the whole ideology is based on three fundamental lies:

1. People are born gay.

2. People cannot change their sexual orientation

3. There is nothing fundamentally wrong or discredited about homosexual conduct vs. heterosexual conduct.

Still, let's give Michael cretid for poiinting out that opponents of LGBT rights are correct.

He continues:

Little over 100 years ago, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his general theory of relativity, explaining gravity and, consequently, the behavior of large objects. About a decade later Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg gave the world their interpretation of quantum mechanics, which serves to describe the physical behavior of subatomic particles.

Unfortunately, while both are immensely valuable they lack a common link – in other words, what works for large objects doesn’t seem to work at a single subatomic particle level – and vice versa.

This paradox keeps springing to mind whenever I’m observing disputes that extend from the interests of an individual to the interests of the society – clashing with them violently – with people on both sides of the front exchanging arguments, completely missing the simple fact that they are speaking from entirely different perspectives.

And, interestingly, it may mean that much like the physical theories, they are both correct, while being in conflict with each other.

One such war is being fought over LGBT rights.

At one time, physics was considered natural law, in the same way that political scientists study ethics and moral law. The two subjects actually shared similar fields of inquiry in many universities until Immanuel Kant disrupted the comity of these subjects with his very bold assertion that "Things in themselves are unknowable" since man's perspectives so heavily immerse themselves into every aspect of man's interactions with the world.

But I digress.

What broader argument does Petraeus bring out from the conflict of two physical sphers in relation to two moral and culture spheres?

The differences in opinion boil down to a clash of an individualist against a communitarian view. The former – arguably more visible these days – suggests that individual freedom is of paramount importance and that people should have the liberty to do what they want even if it meets disapproval of the majority. Communitarianism preaches superiority of the common interest over individual rights.

This discussion does deserve more attention. Often, advocates of limited government and democratic values will say: "People should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm anybody." The framework which makes such a government possible, however, must abide by a number of cultural norms. Furthemore, a government which exists to ensure the protection of rights must ensure that those rights are not transgressed, whether in the short term or the long term. Regarding freedom of speech, for example, people cannot falsely shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, which would lead to stampedes, harm, and even death. Defamation carries long-standing consequences against those harms by deliberate falsehoods spoken or published, and those harms undermine the rights of those victims.

Rights cannot exist unless they are accorded to everyone, and rights must be recognized as innate and essential to each person.

Both of these views – much like the physical theories – can coexist but will clash if they stray outside of the area they make sense in. On an individual level there is nothing wrong with anybody choosing to live with and loving any other person regardless of their gender (and as long as the relationship is consensual). There is really no reason to deny two consenting adults the ability to live (and sleep) with each other.

Yes, and no. 

In a superficial sense, yes there is no direct harm which follows when two men insist on abusing their bodies and call it "sex." Then again, the decline in human capital, the health care costs, and the general moral decline which follows when such acts are permitted do cost all of us. The consequences which ensuse from a culture that permits such behaviors does harm all of us.

However, while that works for individuals it does not necessarily work for the society at large.

The value of a relationship to an individual is defined by the person’s subjective interests and feelings. The value of relationships to the society is defined by their functional roles.

Since gay marriage does not serve a reproductive purpose it is therefore not equal to a heterosexual relationship (for the society), even though on an individual level they are both the same – i.e. are expressions of mutual love between two people.

These are worthy points to consider. Homosexual conduct serves no purpose for the community as a whole, and in fact undermines the community considerably. Individual rights cannot lead to societal wrongs.

 Conversely, forcing the communitarian expectation of a heterosexual relationship on a homosexual person is pointless for the society and harmful for the individual. It is therefore preferable that individuals retain their liberty in choosing whom to spend their lives with.

Here, I disagree with Petraeus. There is no such thing as a "homosexual person," for in reality, no one is born gay. There is no gay gene, and there is no innate characteristic which causes a person to be attracted to the same sex at a young age. These unnatural affections are a result of abuse, neglect, trauma.

Some people may argue that homosexual couples can have children via surrogacy or adoption but that’s just trying to find a detour to reach a predetermined ideological goal, while ignoring broader implications, consequences of which we don’t know yet – and this uncertainty warrants prudent behavior.

Yes, indeed. The rearing of children is NOT a private matter, but has considerable public implications.

 Asia doesn’t have a habit of taking all Western ideas wholesale, evaluating each of them for its usefulness instead or observing how they play out elsewhere before making a decision.

The first issue is the true long term impact on the children – and not only by the parents but also the society, as social stigma can impede good upbringing, even if both parents are perfect in their roles. Prevailing social norms have to be accounted for when enacting laws that address issues of a small minority. And while there is little scientific evidence of directly adverse effects, the samples used in research supporting same-sex parenting are neither randomized nor big enough – and possibly impacted by ideological bias.

Petraeus is wrong again. There is a substantial body of research which confirms that children do indeed need a mother and a father.

Secondly, setting any legal precedents in one case often acts as a gateway for promotion of other ideological goals, which are even more questionable. One of them visible in the West today is an attempt at normalization of transsexualism and the queer theory, supporting the idea of gender fluidity.

The decriminalization of sodomy is the first step to a much more sinister political agenda. Dr. Thio Li-An warned her colleagues about this in 2007.

This has severely adverse effects in both formal and informal ways, with courts ruling that children as young as 3 or 4 years old can undergo gender transitioning, with parents finding it fashionable to have or raise a transgender child – including celebrities like Charlize Theron, who is transitioning her 7 year old son into a daughter. Or with informal initiatives which grow in popularity, like the “Drag Queen Story Hour“, featuring men dressed up as women reading stories to children in schools and libraries around America and in a few cities abroad already as well.

Here’s the summary from their website:

“Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.”

MassResistance has been sounding the alarm on this perversion agenda for many years, and in the last three years we took every effort to stop these perverse programs. We have had a growing measure of success, to be sure!

 In other words, we’re no longer talking about what two people do in their bedroom but what millions of children are being taught in schools at an especially important and fragile time in their approaching adolescence.

DUH! Sexual conduct never stays in the bedroom. It has consequences far outside of the privacy of two people.

I don’t think it falls under “love is love” slogans. Especially as at least two of the men have turned out to be past sex-offenders. This is tantamount to a bait and switch scheme, and certainly does not inspire trust about the entire community – nor about the consequences of supporting LGBTQ causes only to be duped into letting both terrible people and terrible ideas dictate the new standards.

MassResistance exposed those sex offenders in Houston, Texas.

Is this the promised progress? Color me skeptical.

I’ve often praised Singapore for its common sense and today is no different – even though it may sound counter-intuitive in this case. Section 377A, which (technically) criminalizes sexual relations between men is a remnant of colonial legislation, most of which was repealed in 2007. It is not applied in practice and the government has long declared it would not be enforced.

 On the face of it, it would appear it is common sense to just get rid of it. But sometimes the most reasonable thing is to defend the status quo.

First of all, Section 377A serves as a political tool, appealing to largely conservative sentiments of the Singaporean society. Secondly – and crucially – it focuses attention of the pro-LGBT activists, who cannot progress beyond this obstacle with any other ideas.

And at all costs we must ensure that their ideas never progress. Perhaps 377a should be enforced.

As long as it exists, all protests will be revolving around its repeal. If it falls, one day, then it is safe to assume that Pink Dot will not dissolve – much like it never happened with activism in the West – but, instead, is going to turn to promoting other ideas, opening Pandora’s box for the government.

Yes, indeed.

 Singaporean authorities face an unenviable task of balancing the interests of the country (both its society and well-being of its citizens, as well as its global brand as a modern, supremely developed city-state) with the need to retain support from individuals across various age groups and beliefs.

At the same time the dead law exposes hypocrisy of the advocates of its repeal, proving that the government’s reluctance to remove it is not unfounded.

Very good point! The LGBT activists prove that their agenda is not about "Love is Love," but rather about furthering their hegemony and ultimately their supremacy.

Activists don’t care about the real conditions in which gay couples live in Singapore today – free from any persecution and arguably being the safest and most prosperous in the entire region.

 These facts are irrelevant because political and ideological agendas are too valuable, leveraging this meaningless section as a symbol to rally support behind.

Ultimately, the whole 377A drama has little to do with love or ending discrimination – even if many people who join in may idealistically believe it does. It’s about exerting ideological influence on the country and political one on the government that leads it. But the authorities cannot yield, in no small part because the pressure on them would only intensify to give protesters even more later.

BINGO!

There’s always some cause in bad need of support, after all.

As a result, the best thing to do is not to enforce the law and yet leave it there to prevent more ambitious pursuits of even more dubious aims. All of that while waiting to see where these ideas lead in the Western countries, respecting the will of the majority while leaving the door open for a safe and comfortable life to the minorities.

And that’s easily the most balanced, considerate and tolerant approach you’ll witness anywhere in the world.

The United States needs Section 377a!

Texas MassResistance ‘Teens4Truth’ Conference Huge Success

Texas MassResistance ‘Teens4Truth’ Conference is a huge success! Equipping youth to counter the LGBT movement in schools.

A hard-hitting pro-family conference with powerful presentations

Attacked by national mainstream media; pro-LGBT protesters outside

VIDEOS of event coming!

December 10 2017

The presentations told the plain truth that most teens (and their parents) rarely if ever hear, and gave detailed, easily understood explanations.

The long anticipated “Teens4Truth” Conference, held Nov. 17-18 at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas and sponsored by our Texas MassResistance chapter, was an overwhelming success.

Attendees filled most of the main auditorium, and also the additional break-out session room.

The purpose was to give teenagers, parents, pastors, and teachers the knowledge and skills to help counter the LGBT agenda and propaganda in their schools -- and now seeping into their churches. To our knowledge, there has never been a major pro-family conference bold enough to do this -- particularly in such a direct and unwavering manner.

This has been a big problem across the country. Children and teenagers are heavily bombarded with LGBT propaganda and disinformation. Vulnerable kids are often encouraged to “come out” and identify as homosexual or transgender. Parents, youth, and others often feel helpless, and have long sought help to deal with and confront this onslaught.

Nearly two dozen speakers came from as far away as the UK to participate.Texas State Representative Ron Simmons welcomed the group via a special video. The range of topics (see below) was quite broad and full of critical information that the average person never sees. Several uncompromising organizations had booths with their materials.

A teenager reads through material at the Texas MassResistance booth.

Teens and parents at a booth with material exposing the propaganda being pushed at kids.

Teens gather at the booth promoting the children's book I Don't Have to Choose and other materials on the "gender" issue..

The event was widely publicized in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area through Christian radio and several churches. Nearly 100 teenagers and adults attended, and many more watched it live via Facebook. (There were several concurrent presentations that were not streamed, but will be posted.)

VIDEO: Promotional video for the counference. The sound track of this video was broadcast continuously on Christian radio prior to the event in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area..

In addition, during the conference Texas MassResistance leader Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez did several live video interviews (which we are also posting) of the speakers, youth attendees, and others, including a lot of fascinating background information, reactions, and online questions from the public. Dr. Lopez is also a professor at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez (right) interviews one of the conference speakers on Facebook live during the conference.

Attacked by the media and LGBT movement

Even before the conference started, the LGBT movement expressed their anger that it would be allowed to take place. Not surprisingly, they sent protesters outside the Seminary (whom we met and videoed). Interestingly, the protesters were from the pro-LGBT “seminary” at Texas Christian University (TCU), also in Ft. Worth, which often clashes with pro-family conservative values.

Two of the protesters from the pro-LGBT divinity school at TCU holding signs outside of the Teens4Truth conference. Note the sign on the left: "The Bible says nothing about trans." Very confused people, to say the least.

And almost immediately after the conference there was huge wave of vitriol from national mainstream media (including Newsweek) and numerous LGBT “news” sites. Like so much from that direction, it was pretty unhinged, over the top, and laced with lies.

Front page of Boston homosexual newspaper Bay Windows reacts to the event.

Obviously, we hit a nerve, and we’re considered to be too effective to be ignored!

All-star presentations, and more

Here are the presentations and other events which we will be posting over the next week. (Trust us: these are worth waiting for!)

Preliminary:

To the attendees: YOU are the heroic generation!
A video message from Texas State Representative Ron Simmons to the Teens4Truth conference attendees.

Introduction: Interpretive dance (and testimony)
A former cheerleader who runs an ex-gay ministry tells the world started off the conference with a 5-minute interpretive dance representing God’s love during difficult times. Strangely, the mainstream media and LGBT groups saw the video and labeled it a “gay” dance and went ballistic over it across the Internet!
Derek Paul, Identity Ministries, Gainesville, FL

Presentations:

What the Bible REALLY says about LGBT issues
Don’t listen to the activists twisting the truth about Scripture. There are no punches pulled in this presentation!
Pastor Stephen Broden, Fair Park Bible Fellowship Church, Dallas, TX

A teacher exposes the LGBT agenda coming into elementary schools.
This will shock you because most parents have no idea how bad it is. School officials are purposefully keeping parents in the dark. And even local churches are afraid to talk about it.
Caryl Ayala, former elementary school teacher

Skilled professional therapy: How healing and change from homosexuality and gender identity issues really works
This is a must-watch for everyone who’s heard the “born that way” myth. It’s what the LGBT movement doesn’t want you to know about – and the main reason they had protesters outside the conference.
David Pickup, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist

Riveting personal testimony from former homosexuals
Men and women who were active homosexuals and lesbians for years. Heartbreaking stories of abuse, addiction, and sexual brokenness. Then they found Christ and have become completely transformed.
Denise Shick moderating

What does “LGBT parenting” really do to kids? Adult children of gays tell you the truth.
Countering the big lies that we are all being constantly told by the LGBT movement.
Denise Shick moderating

The pervasive LGBT indoctrination in public schools: What parents need to know and what they can do
There is a flood of radical and destructive LGBT and sex-ed indoctrination in all grades. It is more radical than ever. Much of it is from well-funded national organizations has become overwhelming. This will help parents get educated about that and learn how take action.
Three mothers from Austin, TX (including two former teachers) have done amazing research.

Successfully fighting for your rights in the school boards, courts, and Legislature
Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, talks about how his organization does it – in the Courts, School Boards, and the Legislature – and how others can fight also!

The Transgender Movement: its origins, and how social theory is replacing medical science
A pediatrician outlines the history and destructive nature of transgenderism and “transgender medicine.” Hint: It’s even worse than you thought!
Quentin Van Meter, MD, PCP, American College of Pediatricians

Understanding Gender Ideology – the latest propaganda of the sexual revolution
How feminism, sexuality homosexuality, transgenderism, and more are being sold to (and forced on) the public.
Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, The Ruth Institute

Sex-proofing your kids: Preparing them for the minefields of today’s society
Probably the most frightening part of parenting is that they know so little about what’s being pushed at their children sexually – from all directions. Here’s how to deal with it.
Dr. Lisa Nolland, sexuality researcher from the UK

Protecting children from the radical transgender agenda in schools
The lies and radical ideologies that kids are being taught in schools about “gender,” and how parents can confront it with the truth.
Ellie Klipp, former elementary school teacher; author of children’s book, "I don’t have to choose."

The truth about love and sex that they DON’T tell teens
Human nature and biology counter most of what “sex ed” tells teenagers. This is information most people have never heard!
Brian McAuliffe, Certified instructor, Love and Human Relations

Also:

ON-SITE INTERVIEWS with speakers, youth attendees, and others
Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez, head of Texas MassResistance, is a great interviewer!

VIDEO: Confronting the pro-LGBT protesters outside
They are angry and, when pressed, basically clueless. They simply don’t want kids to get other information countering their view.

REPORT: Attacks on the conference in the national mainstream media and numerous LGBT “news” sites
We definitely upset them, particularly our message that their bizarre “gay dance” stereotypes can be re-directed to signify something positive. And like so much coming from them, their attacks were unhinged, over the top, and laced with lies.

Stay tuned!

David Pickup, a licenced marriage and family therapist, gave an outstandingt talk on reparative therapy for those with unwanted LGBT issues. He was also the MC of the conference.

_______________________

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Colorado MassResistance: LGBT Agenda Fights to Lower Age of Consent for Psychiatric Therapy---Without Parental Consent

LGBT movement’s other goal: Lower age of consent to 10 years old for psychiatric therapy – without parents’ knowledge or consent!

Outrageous bill passed House Committee in Colorado Legislature on Tuesday - despite strong testimony by Colorado MassResistance and others. But the fight is just beginning!

Similar laws already passed in states across America.

April 20, 2017

Bill's sponsor testifies at commmittee hearing as pro-LGBT "anti-suicide" activists behind her prepare to testify.[MassResistance photo.]

Fresh from the recent victory stopping the LGBT movement’s “anti-therapy” bill in the Colorado Legislature, pro-family people are up against an equally frightening bill that has been filed and just passed its first hurdle toward becoming law. It’s the latest among similar laws that are being quietly passed across the country.

The LGBT lobby is quietly but forcefully pushing for laws to allow children as young as 10 years old to “decide” they need psychiatric therapy – without their parents’ knowledge or consent. LGBT-allied “therapists” could push vulnerable children to affirm and accept homosexual and transgender “identity” and behaviors as “normal.”

This has terrifying implications for parents and families. Children are emotionally defenseless and can easily be persuaded by adults that they need this “help” from unknown, agenda-driven mental health professionals.

It’s not clear who pays for these services, but it’s assumed that the state funds them. It’s also not clear that parents would be allowed access to the resulting medical records.

To accommodate these laws, many school-based clinics now offer “behavioral health” services. The LGBT movement and Planned Parenthood have long been placing “youth clinics” inside schools to access children away from parental oversight. This past week, a Colorado MassResistance mother called one of the clinics and was told they can arrange a psychiatrist to meet with a child on site at the school.

This scheme dovetails with the other, more public LGBT campaign in state legislatures across America to ban counseling and therapy for children who have unwanted homosexual or transgender feelings – but would allow therapy to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism. Sadly, such a ban would be particularly devastating to children who have been sexually molested.

The scare tactic: “suicide prevention”

To persuade legislators that these laws are necessary, the proponents focus on  “suicide prevention.” They make emotional claims that many young children are suicidal, cannot talk to their parents about it, and unless professional intervention happens the children will kill or horribly injure themselves.

“Suicide prevention” has been a lobbying tactic used by the LGBT movement for decades to push for a wide range of programs and funding. This broad claim has little scientific basis and usually depends on blatantly unscientific school surveys such as the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey. But sadly, most legislators are not informed enough to see through that. So too often, it works.

(Of course, it is true that psychological problems are far more prevalent among “LGBT-identifying” children. That’s because these behaviors are usually a symptom of earlier trauma, molestation, or other issues. So while these children may need psychological counseling, it must be done with non-activist professionals and parental oversight.)

California led the way for the radicals

In 2010 California passed the Mental Health Services for At-Risk Youth Act (SB 543), signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, which lowered the age of consent to 12. The law was heavily lobbied by Equality California and other LGBT groups.

Since then, several states across the US have passed laws lowering the age of consent for outpatient (and inpatient) psychotherapy to various age levels, with various degrees of independence for children and notification of parents in these decisions.

The fight begins in Colorado

On April 5, 2017, Bill HB17-1320 was filed in the Colorado Legislature. It would lower the age of consent for outpatient psychotherapy to 10. (Read the text for the original bill here.) Soon after it was filed, the proponents got nervous and offered an amendment to change the age of consent to 12. But the bill is quite clear about its intent. It immediately went to the Democrat-controlled House Public Health Care & Human Services Committee.

A contentious public hearing

On April 18, the Committee held a public hearing for the bill, followed by a vote of the committee members. It was not an overwhelming turnout like other LGBT-related hearings. About 35 people showed up. All but 5 who testified were supporters of the bill.

Parents from Colorado MassResistance were there to testify.

Interestingly, the LGBT lobby seems to be hiding in the background on this. They sent in individual activists and allies to testify, but they did not give an LGBT affiliation. However, the LGBT movement’s fingerprints were there. It was almost all emotional, often tearful arguments about how they and/or their loved ones personally suffered and went through suicide issues as children because legislation did not exist to help them.

Most of the arguments were non-intellectual, irrational, and emotional. They did not focus on professional medical or legal issues. Much of their testimony was rambling, and didn’t even pertain to the bill. There were a lot of threats of children being suicidal, or at least cutting themselves badly, if they had to rely on their parents to decide for them. One of the sponsors of the bill even testified, and began crying when telling her story about her young son who she said wanted to commit suicide. But it had nothing to do with the intent of the bill. It seemed like they were simply throwing anything they could think of at the legislators to see what would stick.

The pro-family people included MassResistance Colorado and Colorado Family Action (CFA), including two attorneys that CFA brought. The MassResistance Colorado parents testified strongly, point by point against the bill, and how its true intent would horribly subvert parents and give an unknown therapist free latitude to diagnose and “treat” their children with whatever approach they chose, without knowing vital medical history or other information from parents.

The MassResistance Colorado parents also submitted a letter by Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, against Bill HB 17-1320. Dr. Cretella strongly advised the legislators that adolescents are not capable of making these kinds of judgments about their mental health and psychological therapy.

The CFA attorneys cited constitutional problems with subverting parental rights, and noted that the door would be opened for lawsuits based on past Supreme Court decisions. As Dr. Cretella also observed, young children, especially those in some emotional distress, have absolutely no competence to consent to psychological treatment.

But more importantly, the attorneys noted that statistically these laws have had virtually no positive effect. In California the child suicide rate has actually increased since their law was passed.

Somewhat shockingly, when one of the parents cited the ideological agenda and special interests behind this bill which clearly seem to override interests and needs of the parents and children, the Committee Chairman said that “impugning the motives” of people would not be allowed in testimony!

Committee barely passes it

When the testimony ended, the Committee passed a few minor amendments, including one that would change the age of consent from 10 to 12. The main sponsor explained that she had meet with “stakeholders” (i.e., activists supporting the bill) and apparently decided that 10 years old was too hard to sell right now. Then the Committee passed the bill 7-6, along party lines.

One of the Democrat committee members, Dan Pabon, didn’t even bother to be there for the testimony; he only came in for the vote, and voted “yes”.

Interestingly, one of the Republican committee members, Lois Landgraf, was a sponsor of the bill. But after hearing the testimony, she changed her mind and voted against it. She told legislators:

“If a suicidal child can’t go to parents, there has to be a solution, and I don’t know what it is, but this isn’t it. This bill was too intrusive into the parent-child relationship, so I removed my sponsorship.”

Another Republican committee member noted that it’s being promoted as a “suicide prevention” bill, but that it’s much far more expansive and broad than that. “It’s really a mental health bill that excludes parents,” he told his fellow legislators.

And the fight continues

The bill now goes to the full House, which could happen any day now.

We believe that this bill can be stopped in the Senate, if it gets there. The problem in other states, we believe, has been not enough, if any, pro-family firepower. But even in Colorado it will take some serious work. The CFA people are already scheduling meetings with Senators, and MassResistance Colorado is also prepared to help.

It’s terrifying that most citizens have no idea these laws are being passed in America to give vulnerable children into the hands of “mental health” activists, quacks, or worse.

Stand4Truth Conference: Day One (Daylight) with Dr. David Pickup

As I had written in a previous post, I landed in Houston at 2am on Friday, October 28th.

I had enough time to get some rest.

Thankfully, the conference did not start until the late afternoon.

Yes, we had police present at the conference.

A few radical LGBT groups were manifesting to protest.

At the hotel, though, there was little to no disturbance at all.

Sadly, the meeting was not the most well-attended.

According to one source, a mega church had offered resources, time and even confirmed a large turnout to attend. But the church backed out at the last minute.

Really sad.

In spite of the less than expected turnout, it was a really eye-opening conference.

Nationally renowned pastors and speakers arrived, declaring their staunch affirmation for God and Country.

The need for the Gospel to be preached in our schools and in our society could not be more emphatic.

Licensed professionals, like Dr. David Pickup, explained what true reparative therapy is all about.

It is NOT about trying gay men to give up their lifestyle.

Homosexual feelings are a manifestation of deeper pain, especially for men who do not want to feel that way.

Dr. David Pickup could not have made it clearer: his practice is all about restoring peace to his clients.

And the same-sex attractions fall away.

It;s about helping men who have endured unspeakable trauma as children, violent attacks to their identity. Many of his clients had no contact, felt no affection from their fathers. In many cases, they did not know their fathers at all!

Dr. David Pickup

For Dr. Pickup, this work is particularly personal, because he was molested as a kid, and struggled with his sexual identity as a result.

The wholeness he presented to the audience was particularly inspiring.

We need to fight against the LGBT agenda because in far too many cases, the reason why men and women struggle with same-sex attraction has nothing to do with sex.

It has everything to do with the three things that everyone needs:

1. Affirmation

2. Acceptance

3. Approval.

Indeed, many of us take these elements of our formative years ... for granted.

But with a world which has diminished fatherhood and shamed manhood, should we be surprised by the growing number of "gay men"?

He also identified why young people who grow up thinking that they are "born that way", because they lack the formative needs before they realize that they are not receiving them.

Quite a revelation.

Here are some of his comments at the Stand4Truth Conference:

Here he outlines clearly what reparative therapy is NOT!

It's not about making people feel ashamed of themselves.

It is not based on aversion techniques.

It's about truth. Knowing the truth about your innate value before God.

It's about scientific evidence.

It's about standing for what is right and standing up to the lies.

When he shared with the audience that he was a victim of abuse, it really shocked and wakened everyone up at the same time.