In Defense of Homosexuality on the Jim Rome Show

Homosexuality is fast becoming (at least in America, Europe is far “ahead” of us in this) one of the most well-protected blights on humanity. One cannot say anything even remotely critical of this vice without facing criticism and the shrill cries of “intolerance”.

Speak out against other evils (child abuse, exploitation, racism and sex trafficking) and a rousing “Amen” will be heard from almost every direction.

However, show any concern for the widespread normalization (acceptance) of homosexuality by the mainstream and you’ll catch serious heat. Ironically enough, one will be judged by those who deem themselves most “tolerant” and “non-judgmental”. This phenomenon has spilled over into the strangest places.

Take sports radio for example. Yesterday, a woman called Eileen called the nationally syndicated Jim Rome Show. Rome is funny, has pretty solid takes and interviews the biggest names in the sports world (except for Tiger Woods and apparently Manny Ramírez).

Eileen shared that she takes her daughter to WNBA games. But Eileen is concerned that the WNBA is solely marketing to lesbians. I don’t know how accurate this is, probably not very. After all they’re trying to make money (and keep a struggling league afloat) and they’ll target whatever demographic helps them do this(this was pretty much part of Rome’s take).

However, the implication of Eileen’s statement was clear: she didn’t want her daughter exposed to that “lifestyle” being presented in a manner which makes it seem harmless (at best) or even moral (at worst).

After the call, Rome, predictably busted out with an emphatic “Come on Eileen” (from the classic by Dexys Midnight Runners, right) then proceeded to break out in hives. He even used the word “offensive” in response to Eileen’s take. Why? Because the caller took a stand and is concerned for the endemic acceptance of this particular vice.

I found Rome’s indignation interesting especially since:

  • He denigrates the WNBA on a regular basis and has indirectly referred to the players as “horses” (let it be said that the fact that it is unwatchable is no reason to do this)
  • His takes often involve calling out athletes who disrespect something as worthless as “the game”
  • His takes often involve judging athletes/celebs who engage in activities as grievous and sinful as homosexuality [for example rape, disregard for one’s own children, fornication, drunkedness because thankfully these sins are still recognized as such and haven’t been normalized]
  • He repeatedly pokes fun at Michael Jackson’s alleged pedophilia yet balks when a caller dares to show a modicum of indignation towards homosexuality


Often this topic is posed to proponents of gay “marriage”. The issue is posed by people (like me) who understand that once marriage is re-defined to whatever fallen humanity wants it to mean, then in the words of Kevin Garnett, “Anything is possible!”.

People marrying their pets, their siblings, their PS3’s, why not?

ABC’s John Stossel, one of the resident libertarians over at Townhall, wrote a piece on polygamy:
How Many Wives Is Too Many?

He interviews polygamists (no, they’re not Mormons) who are upset that this way of life they prefer is illegal here in the States. For example, polygamy activist Mark Henkel is quoted as saying,

Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! And that’s all OK, and he’s making great money, and that’s all fine and great entertainment. But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he’s a criminal. That’s insane!

Does he have a point? Now, Christians will object on Biblical grounds but Henkel has something for “religious leaders” as well,

If they’re saying that’s immoral, they’re calling the greatest heroes in the Bible … immoral! … Saying that Abraham, with his three wives, was immoral. Jacob had four wives. David had seven known named wives before Bathsheba.

Of course, Henkel is mistakenly assuming that God approved of these men’s deviation from His plan: one man, one woman.

Stossel’s column brings up several questions:

  • Why is polygamy still illegal?
  • Should it be legalized so long as it takes place between consenting adults?
  • Why doesn’t the media warm up to it as they do towards gay “marriage”?
  • Would it help if gay polygamy was thrown in?

Mohler at New Attitude 2008

Dr. Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, held a Q&A session, you can download the audio here.

On special revelation [Scripture], he quotes one of his mentors Carl F. Henry,

Revelation is God’s gracious self-disclosure whereby He forfeits His own personal privacy so that His sinful creatures might know Him.

On Biblical inerrancy,

The doctrine of inerrancy is necessary but not sufficient. If you do away with it you cast doubt on every single word of Scripture and usually those who do that have an agenda that becomes very transparent very quickly. In other words, there is something in the text they don’t like or can’t handle.

On the Christian response to homosexuality,

We can also say too much by trying to elaborate upon what the Scripture says as if the Scripture has a focus on homosexuality in 3rd Corinthians

On Postmodernism,

What if the postmodernists are right and the Scripture means what you say it means? Well you pretty much end up with Christianity in America, I guess. That’s pretty much what it looks like, but that’s the problem isn’t it? The only corrective is the Scripture means what God meant and it’s our responsibility and discipline to study the Scriptures to hear the Word of God and to obey.

Looking forward to reading Dr. Mohler’s book, Culture Shift: Engaging Current Issues with Timeless Truth.

There is no Such Thing as Gay Marriage

Yes the courts and the lobbies that bought them off can shove the concept of gay “marriage” down our collective throats and even if perhaps in the not so distant future they will, in Orwellian fashion, force resistant churches to “marry” homosexuals, the union will still not be (it cannot be) marriage.

One man, one woman. I know it’s not difficult to understand, but it can be difficult to accept for fallen creatures hellbent (no pun intended) on defying the statutes of their Maker.

That humans have twisted and spat on God’s design through divorce, broken homes and the like is an even greater testament to man’s natural enmity towards God but it is not an excuse to try to label unions that aren’t marriage as such.

It’s not marriage plain and simple and no amount of forced indoctrination can change reality. As Pat Buchanan remarked in his latest column,

To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature’s God have already defined. As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it’s still a pig.

Click here to read Mr. Buchanan’s column.

Chris Seay Tries to Clear the Air in Montrose

I have heard great things (from great people) about Ecclesia, a local church which by all accounts caters to the younger set who are ________ (verb) with church as usual, whatever that means.

The church is located near downtown Houston in an area known as Montrose. The area is progressive (so-called), and reminds me of Austin. Back in my high school days, we used to make crude and sophomoric jokes about the area due to it being the epicenter of Houston’s gay community.

I cannot think of a better place than Montrose to place a church. The Houston Press is the local so-called progressive paper (so much so that it’s free!), much like the Austin Chronicle in that fair city.

They have covered Ecclesia in the past, in fact they featured her along with her pastor, Chris Seay, back in 2003.
“Gen-X Gospel:Ecclesia beckons the young with a blend of Christianity and counterculture”

The piece appears to be fair to its subject, though the constant (though hardly surprising) bashing of “religious institutions” on the part of the Press not to mention some of the interviewees is a bit tired and overly simplistic. Why let reality get in the way of pet perceptions?

Also, there is nothing like a solid f-bomb from a congregant (especially when describing the humanity of the church’s elders) to give a church some modicum of street cred in an area like Montrose.

Then this happens,
“Hands Off Our Gays! Rumors surround a Montrose church”

Not sure what a “gay-recovery program” is but Pastor Seay was quick to point out that,

We [Ecclesia] are definitely not starting any gay-recovery programs. We hate that stuff.

Apparently Seay’s words are given further elucidation by the Press. The Press writer cheekily reminds the reader,

Then again, Seay once told Mother Jones magazine that, while he condemns homosexuality, “It is no different than sleeping around or chronic masturbation.” In fact, it’s no fun being gay without sleeping around and chronic masturbation, he somehow didn’t go on to say.

Then as if to hang Ecclesia and her mission on her own petards,

Contributing to the hard feelings on the messageboards is the fact that Ecclesia holds itself out as being different from establishment churches.

The best quote of all is from a resident who for better or for worse picks up the banner and waves it from the top of Chapultepec Castle,

“It’s not like they are First Baptist — love ’em or hate ’em, you know exactly WHAT they are and why they would be in the neighborhood,” wrote one resident. “This…this seems dishonest and creepy.”

Forget the fact that Seay “hates” these kind of programs, I guess that’s not enough for our concerned resident. Could it be that her incredulity is based on the perception some people have of “religious institutions”?

It would have been good to ask this person to elaborate on First Baptist and “WHAT they are and why they would be in the neighborhood”?

See (no pun intended)? It always comes back to the establishment churches, to quote the great golden philosopher,

This is all your fault!

Javier Bardem’s Way of Sticking it to the Church

Mr. Bardem is a Spanish actor who tonight took home the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role in the film, “No Country for Old Men”.

During his acceptance speech, he humorously thanked the Coen Brothers, who directed the work, for putting “one of the most horrible haircuts in history over my head.” (see below)
bardem.jpgMiramax Films

Leaves one to wonder if Jav realizes that this ‘do has been back in style amongst some sectors of today’s youth. Though, in infants the ubiquitous bowl cut is always fresh, right moms?

To sate my natural curiosity I went over to Wikipedia to read up on the presumably talented Bardem and found an interesting factoid about him. The factoid linked to a story on Univision’s website in which he is quoted as saying,

El actor español Javier Bardem aseguró en París que se casaría “mañana mismo” si fuera homosexual, “sólo para joder a la Iglesia”. [Spanish actor Javier Bardem asserted in Paris that he would marry ‘tomorrow’ if he were homosexual, ‘only to stick it to the church.’]

The Wikipedia’s entry translates “joder” with the f-bomb (“get married tomorrow, just to f*** with the church”). This is a tad harsh and the Spanish word doesn’t carry nearly the vulgarity associated with that English word, I believe my paraphrase to be somewhat more accurate though I won’t deny any colloquial influence.

Nevertheless, I thought it interesting that Bardem would seemingly protest the Church’s (The Roman Catholic Church) stance on homosexuality by theorizing on the best way to be uncharitable towards the very people whose lack of (in Bardem’s view) tolerance and acceptance he disagrees with.

Given the irrationality that is the hallmark of the darkened human mind, Bardem’s words are not surprising.

2007 Quotes of the Year

According to one Fred R. Shapiro of the Yale Book of quotations as cited in this story, here are the top 10 quotes of 2007,

1. “Don’t tase me, bro.” — Andrew Meyer, a senior at the University of Florida, while being hauled away by campus police during a speech by Sen. John Kerry. [I wonder if reaction would have differed had this happened during a John Cornyn speech…]

2. “I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and [the] Iraq and everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for us.” — Miss Teen South Carolina Caitlin Upton (below, yes the one on the right).


The quote was Caitlin’s response during the Miss Teen America contest, after she was asked why one-fifth of Americans cannot find the U.S on a map. [I believe Ms. Upton might have written a book about her experience, see below]


3. “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking at Columbia University in New York. [And in Saudi Arabia I understand they don’t have thieves]

4. “That’s some nappy-headed hos there.” — radio personality Don Imus, referring to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. [Had Imus been a rapper and dropped this line in a “song” this would have been a non-story]

5. “I don’t recall.” — former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ repeated response to congressional questions about the firing of U.S. attorneys. [Perhaps Roger Clemens should dump Rusty Hardin and hire Gonzalez]

6. “There’s only three things he (Rudolph Giuliani) mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11.” — Sen. Joseph Biden, speaking during a debate for Democratic presidential candidates. [Wait on it…]

7. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, referring to Vice President Dick Cheney. [I wonder what Harry thinks of Congress’ current approval ratings?]

8. “(I have) a wide stance when going to the bathroom.” — Sen. Larry Craig, explaining why his foot touched the foot of an undercover police officer in an airport men’s room. [I had a friend who shared with us that he also had a wide stance yet he never had the Senator’s problem]

9. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” — Sen. Joseph Biden referring to rival Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. [Biden is my “Person of the Year” for making it on the list twice, wonder if Sharpton would have ignored such a comment from a Republican?]

10. “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.” — Former President Jimmy Carter, referring to the Bush administration. [Is the man who handed Iran to Khomeini really going to critique other Presidents?]

Dr. James Watson Makes Regrettable Comments

Dr. James Watson, who along with Francis Crick, “discovered” the double helical structure of DNA, with a little help from one of their friends, X-Ray Crystallographer Rosalind Franklin.

Watson and Crick won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their groundbreaking work as well as worldwide acclaim.

Dr. Watson was to speak to an audience at the Science Museum, but his speech was canceled due to some ill-advised comments he made.

According to this story,

DNA pioneer Dr Watson, who discovered the double helix with Briton Francis Crick, has been roundly condemned for saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.


Dr. Watson was also quoted as saying that while he hoped all races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.”

He also added,

there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of people geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.

Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so

Then of course, a statement to avoid the inevitable conclusion of his statements,

However, he said people should not discriminate racially, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented.”

These statements seem to be a racist’s dreams come true. One can almost see a collective “I told you so” from white supremacist groups.

I wonder if Watson realizes the import of what he allegedly said, and if he’s going to get Carleton Coon(ed) for said comments.  Probably not since Watson’s words will probably be dismissed as the ramblings of an old man.

Watson has also made other brow raising comments, according to this story,

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be a homosexual.

Wonder what Joel Ginsberg would say to that?

The “Gay Gene” and Abortion

Caught this story from the AP,

“Study Seeks Genetic Links to Being Gay”

An interesting item from it,

Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals, said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

According to this statement from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) website,

RESOLVED: that the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association supports the right of women to choose medical or surgical abortion, and be it further

RESOLVED: that the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association urges health care providers, in the context of a non judgmental sexual health history and when appropriate, to provide women with the full range of choices with regard to birth control so as to prevent unwanted pregnancy; and, if unwanted pregnancy occurs, with the full range of choices including abortion, and be it further

RESOLVED: that the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association affirms the right of all providers of reproductive health care to do their work free of harassment, intimidation, and danger.

I wonder how Ginsberg would mesh his statement in the AP piece and his organization’s statement?

If a prenatal test could reveal the sexual orientation of an unborn child (I know it sounds ludicrous but bear with me) and the expectant mother sought an abortion, would the GLMA then:

  • support the rights of this woman to choose medical or surgical abortion?
  • urge health care providers. to provide this woman (if saddled with this unwanted pregnancy because her child would be gay) with the full range of choices including abortion?
  • affirm the right of all providers of reproductive health care to do their work free of harassment, intimidation and danger, even from the GLMA itself?

I wonder if Ginsberg is “pro-choice”?

If so, I wonder if he realizes that he is now pro-life?