Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana

….with Bruni’s logic is that the churches (at least in the North) were not followers, but rather leaders, in the fight against slavery, building from the reality that you really can’t support the American “peculiar institution” without a huge blind spot on the Torah’s prohibition of “man-stealing”. He’s confusing the late recognition of a moral blind spot with a repudiation of moral authority—nothing of the latter sort was at hand for slavery, while the latter is required for an about face on homosexuality.

It’s also worth noting that while science has a lot to teach us about homosexuality and such, it’s not exactly complimentary to the practice. Evolutionists, if honest, have to refer to the practice as defective since it discourages breeding—or at least go through spectacular logical contortions to contrive a scheme where it is not in fact a “birth defect.” The 1991 Bailey twins study, which found a 52% correlation of homosexuality with identical twins, more or less repudiates the idea that homosexuality is predominantly genetic. The very social science used by homosexual rights advocates to make the claim of discrimination against homosexuals also demonstrates….that as it exists today, it’s a pretty unhealthy way to live in many ways. Medicine also tells us something about this, and each time I give blood, I’m asked several times in different ways about homosexual behavior for this very reason—it ain’t just HIV. (hepatitis, e coli, other infections also figure in this)

My take is that the institution of same sex mirage is ironically likely to backfire against homosexual rights advocates because it will make the sexual behavior of homosexuals a matter of public record—and the world will see how often they marry (or do not), how long they’re married for, and the like. So far the evidence I’ve seen indicates a very different view of family life than most heterosexuals have, even most unbelieving heterosexuals.