Beyond the "Shades of Gray"

Because Homosexuality is the Symptom, Not the Solution

Media Commentary Section

For easier navigating, the Table of Contents below has click-on titles.
~ This section was last updated on June 28th, 2012 ~


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material and/or graphics contained within this article are reproduced for non-profit, educational purposes only. For more information, go to

Table of Contents:

You are Here: Simply click your mouse on the section you would like to go to, or scroll down through the entire article as you read it. There is also a link available at the end of each section to return here if you so desire.

You Can Also: Make a Donation

Marvel and DC Children's Comic Books Introduce Openly "Gay" Characters

Apparently, 2012 is the year for gay comic book characters to suddenly "come out of the closet," and play their part in the real-world culture war, by indoctrinating innocent young comic book readers to the homosexual lifestyle.

Marvel Comics has already introduced Northstar as a gay superhero in their X-Men series, and the comic book company even staged a gay "marriage" between Northstar and his "partner," Kyle, in their June 20th, 2012 issue. Now, DC Comics also appears to be following suit. Because their 1940's Green Lantern character, Alan Scott, is also going to be returning to the comic book pages as an openly "gay" superhero character. But why?

During this election year, we've seen the adult population targeted with President Obama giving speeches endorsing gay marriage, and with the Federal Courts also picking up the issue, such as with the reversal of California's Proposition 8. However, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute, he estimates that only 1.7 percent of the entire adult population in the United States is actually gay. Yet the way the media and the liberal left hype up this issue, most Americans probably think the number is much, much higher.

So, why the sudden need to make a comic book superhero gay? Aren't comic books for kids? And aren't they supposed to entertain our youth with short stories of how good prevails over evil? Then, what's the real agenda here? I sincerely doubt that any normal kid in America, while reading a comic book, has ever stopped to wonder if his or her favorite comic book superhero is "gay" or "straight!" And that is why there can be only one logical answer behind this course of action:

Both of these comic book companies have bought into today's radical homosexual agenda of political activism, and the only real purpose of introducing such a storyline has to be in order to introduce homosexuality to our children as a superhero trait.

The radical homosexual agenda seeks to indoctrinate our sexually confused children into accepting homosexuality as normal, in spite of the views of their parents. And because our children do often desire to emulate the superheros that they read about in these comic books, it is not a huge leap to consider the logic that these same impressionable young children then may also desire to emulate a "superhero" trait, such as the characteristic of homosexual behavior, as it is now being portrayed within these comic books.

Dear God in Heaven! Can someone please wake me up now, from this immoral and completely irresponsible nightmare that has become known as The Homosexual Agenda in America? God help us!

Commentary on USA Today's, Forum Article: "On Gay Rights, Keep Fighting or Adapt?"

In a USA Today newspaper article, by Tom Krattenmaker, which appeared in the newspaper's "Forum" section, on Valentine's Day, 2011, Mr. Krattenmaker began his opinion piece by overtly suggesting that if this were a football game, and the teams playing were biblical truth vs. civil rights, then conservative Christians should concede, and realize that there's no way of coming back strong enough to win the game at this point.

First of all, Mr. Krattenmaker, we're certainly not playing a "game" here. And second of all, we all win in this by acknowledging biblical truth, with regard to homosexual behaviors. American's have just become spiritually blinded to that fact.

The subtitle to the article made a similar suggestion, saying, "whether the issue is one of civil rights or biblical truths, conservative Christians should consider whether opposing homosexuality is really where they want to plant their flag."

Well, I have considered it, and to that reasoning I simply counter that the Christian Faith does not plant it's "flag" on this issue, or upon any other single issue. And you can label them "conservative" or what have you, but genuine Christians are not in the business of compromising or conceding truth over to depraved reasoning.

In true form and fashion, the author ended the article in much the same way he began. He ended his opinion piece by asking this negatively comparative question:

"Fighting to the end might sound gallant, but it's not a road to glory so much as a ticket to infamy--an infamy akin to that borne by the likes of Bull Conner, George Wallace and other villains of civil rights history. Is that any hill for Christians to die on?"

What Mr. Krattenmaker did here was not intended to ask a legitimate question. But rather, it was intended to employ a derogatory tactic: His real intent was to cause the reader to associate today's Christian opposition to homosexual sin, with "infamous villains" out of civil rights history.

I have said time and time again that homosexuality has absolutely nothing at all to do with civil rights. The gay-rights activists have certainly managed to attach a civil rights "spin" to their movement, in order to cause a naive public to sympathize with them. But biblically defined homosexual sin will always be sin, and it has nothing at all to do with the true civil rights movement.

A highlighted caption box in the center of the article stated that the religion-focused column "seeks to illuminate the national conversation." But just what conversation are you trying to illuminate here, Mr. Krattenmaker? Because it appears to me that your article is suggestively biased, and that the only conversation that is given any merit there is the rhetoric and propaganda of the homosexual movement itself. What about the way you've just "villainized" the real hope of the Christian message that draws and calls people toward true repentance... what about that? No one "wins" when you do that!

Homosexual sin is not up there on some special pedestal, so that people who have allowed themselves to become entrapped by it have any lesser obligations toward repentance than other people do, when responding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And no less of a provision has been made for the homosexual, through the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior, than has been made for any other person... every one of us has fallen into sin, and we are all equally called to repentance. Homosexuality is no different than any other sin in that regard.

Though I find it to be completely irresponsible of USA Today, I suppose Mr. Krattenmaker has the "freedom of speech" right to express such views. But I don't see that genuine Christians will stop trying to bring the Love of Jesus Christ to the homosexual, just because the gay-rights movement has been somewhat successful in demonizing Christian beliefs about homosexuality. And in spite of what may appear to be happening with gay rights in America, God's views on homosexual behaviors will remain steadfast and unchanged.

Another USA Today Article: "When the Bible Becomes a Weapon"

As if the first article wasn't enough for USA Today, just fourteen days later they followed up with another article that demonized the Bible itself, along with its clear admonitions against homosexual behavior.

In the second article, written by Henry G. Brinton, he takes single Bible Scriptures out of their proper and true context in order to make his point, in the same ways that the slave traders did when they tried to use Scripture to condone slavery in America. He also takes George Washington out of context to do the same. The writer then makes the deceptive and misleading (albeit, clever) association between what the slave traders did, with what people like myself are doing today when we mention the Bible's clear admonitions against homosexual sin, even though we mention those biblical admonitions within their proper and true context and understanding. Unlike this activist-minded writer in USA Today has done, we are not trying to use the Bible as a "weapon" (as the article's title suggests) or even to deceive you into seeing things our way. We are merely pointing out the truth that is so clearly outlined in Scripture... truths that anyone can see for them self, if they will just look!

So, how is what USA Today is doing now through these articles, any different than the historical misuse of the Bible that they seem to be vilifying? There is no difference! USA Today is doing the exact same thing (misusing the Bible) in order to support and condone homosexual sin. But even worse, they make us out to be the "bad guys," as they're doing it. And that, my friends, is appalling.

Commentary on the 2009 Miss USA Pageant Controversy

The Miss USA Beauty Pageant has certainly joined the hypocritical ranks of homosexual activism, by including Mr. Perez Hilton on its 2009 judging panel. Hilton, who is openly-gay and a very outspoken activist-blogger, is well known for his flamboyancy throughout Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment community. Mr. Hilton placed a very activist-minded type of question into the contest drawing bowl, which was then drawn by Miss California, Carrie Prejean, during the final portion of the beauty contest.

After Miss California drew the question, and before the question was presented, one of the two Masters of Ceremonies opened the question card and announced that the question would be from the eighth judge, Perez Hilton. Then immediately, the other MC turned to Mr. Hilton and the judging panel to ask, "Are we worried?"

Seeming to know that an activist-minded question was about to be given to Miss California, someone else from the judging panel can then be heard off camera, answering the MC, "You should be!"

Mr. Hilton then asked, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?" Such a controversial question was quite obviously a litmus test for Mr. Hilton's own personal, gay activist-minded agenda, rather than a reasonable question for a finalist in the 2009 Miss USA Beauty Pageant.

Carrie (Miss California) answered Mr. Hilton in this way: "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and that's how I think that it should be, between a man and a woman." And her response was even supported by a clearly heard round of affirmative and agreeing applause from the audience, which actually began before she was completely finished answering the question, and which also drowned out the hearing of any of the "boos" that Mr. Hilton claims were also present within the audience's response. Because, if there actually were any boos that were given, well, I certainly didn't hear them in the video playback.

But unfortunately, gay-activism apparently won out among the judges, and Miss California finished the pageant as the runner-up, following the final judging of the evening. And, according to pageant judge Perez Hilton himself, it was specifically because of the way in which Carrie had answered his controversial question on gay marriage, that she did not win the Miss USA Crown that night. To me, this sort of litmus test is beyond outrageous. But it shows us just how far that gay activists intend to push America with their very one-sided political agenda.

The real hypocrisy of this incident, and of Hilton's own personal agenda, surfaced immediately after the contest, however. This is when Hilton wasted no time at all in going to his own Internet blog-site, in order to record and quickly post a video rant, wherein he actually calls Miss California a "dumb b - - - -" for the manner in which she answered his question. This video is also where he makes the assertion that this is precisely why she lost the contest that evening. Hilton continued his rant by saying that if Miss California had actually won the pageant, that he would have gone up onto the stage himself, and personally removed the crown from her head in protest!

How incredibly unprofessional and childish this response was, especially from someone who is supposed to be an impartial judge! But this shows us the real definition of the "tolerance" that these activists are speaking of through all of their propaganda. When gay activists say that they want "equal treatment under the law," what they really desire is to silence and demonize any moral view that is in opposition to homosexuality. No, they don't want "tolerance..." What they really desire is to be in complete control of our society, and to criminalize any other opposing moral viewpoints toward this issue.

To Mr. Hilton's credit, he did later apologize for his remarks. But his hate-filled words had already done their damage by then, and the outrageous hypocrisy and bias he had initiated through his video blog just continued to perpetuate itself further.

That hypocrisy was seen first through the willingness of the national news media to simply let this entire incident go by, without any negative criticism or repercussions against Mr. Hilton at all, while giving wide coverage to the negative feedback that was being generated toward Miss California. And then the hypocrisy continued beyond the news media. Adding to the already outrageous display of whining and cry-baby antics from Mr. Hilton, weeks after the pageant there is now a new move afoot by other gay activists in California, who are demanding that Ms. Prejean also be stripped of her title and crown, as "Miss California" 2009. So there seems to be no immediate end in sight to their whining and complaining over Ms. Prejean's willingness (when questioned by a gay activist) to stand up to him, and politely express her biblically sound and moral stand on the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage. And yet there still seems to be no outrage at all over this activist-minded question itself. But in my opinion, if Hilton and these other gay activists don't want to hear a biblically sound answer, then they should probably stop posing such questions to people who may still hold true to their biblical values!

And let's also consider what would have happened if the tables had been turned, and the circumstances had been just the opposite. What if this very same question had been posed by a Christian judge who happened to be included on the judging panel, and then that same Christian judge had gone to their own blog-site and posted derogatory comments like Hilton's, but they were against a pageant contestant who had answered the question in support of gay marriage instead? If that had been the case, then I'm quite convinced that the national media would still be ranting over it a full year later, and that they would in no way have allowed it to come to rest, until that judge had been literally driven out of Hollywood and the pageant industry itself, and Donald Trump (owner of the Miss USA Pageant) had been made to apologize for allowing a Christian judge onto the panel. And then they would have probably also demanded that the crown be restored to the finalist who had answered the controversial question to their own liking, had the finalist then taken second place, as was the case for Miss California in this incident.

At the time of this commentary's first draft, only days after these events, I was bewildered by the one-sidedness of it all, as I read through portions of several blogs where other actors and entertainers continued chiming in with their own personal views about it, and the Hollywood crowd was still bad-mouthing Miss California with even more vulgarity, while continuing to turn a blind eye to Hilton's own hateful comments. Their open hypocrisy over this issue is just incredible!

The videos of Miss Prejean's answer, and of Mr. Hilton's derogatory remarks, are both available for viewing below.
But be warned:
Mr. Hilton's remarks are vulgur and offensive in nature.

Commentary on Parade Magazine's Article, "Mentoring Programs Change Lives"

Parade Magazine is a nationally syndicated insert that appears in many Sunday newspapers across America. On March 15th, 2009, the magazine featured a story titled, Mentoring Programs Change Lives, by Kevin Sessums.

On the surface, the article appears to be a tastefully done account of Mr. Sessums' own experience in having mentored 14-year-old Brandon, since the age of 7. Sessums tells the story of how he desired to become a mentor to a boy, because of his own tragic difficulties while growing up, and how he met young Brandon through a "Buddy Program" at a New York City Family Center. So I will even pause at this point, and applaud Mr. Sessums for having the desire to make someone else's life better than his own. However, there is a lot that this article fails to reveal about Mr. Sessums' method of "mentoring."

The article goes on to give an account of Mr. Sessums recently having taken Brandon to go and see a live, Broadway performance of the play, "Equus," starring Daniel Radcliff, of the acclaimed "Harry Potter" movies. And this is where the uninformed reader will completely miss the inappropriate implications of what this article is revealing, with regard to Sessums' "mentoring" style.

What this Parade article didn't reveal to its readers is that Sessums is a 53-year-old, openly-gay man, and that Equus is a "play" that offers full-frontal male nudity to its audience! So, you tell me... how is it appropriate "mentoring" for a 53-year-old gay man to take a 14-year old boy to go and see such a production? This sounds much more like an indoctrination into the homosexual lifestyle, to me!

I wonder if New York City's "Buddy Program" approves of Mr. Sessums' choice of mentoring environment that day, for young Brandon? And it also causes me to wonder what other things Sessums may have exposed Brandon to over the past seven years? And let's cut to the chase... What is truly important to the people responsible for running this "Buddy Program" in the first place, since Sessums is a journalist who has, in times past, written quite graphically in other articles about his own homosexual escapades with other men? Once again, the tragedy here is that political-correctness and the advancement of the homosexual activist "agenda" are taking a more important role, rather than ensuring that the children within this program are being protected from inappropriate environments and delinquency.

The Parade article failed to mention such things to the readers, because they know that people aren't blind, and they know that better informed readers would quickly realize that taking Brandon to see such a production was not in any way a "mentoring" experience for him!

Commentary on the Lifetime Airing of, "Prayers for Bobby"

Based upon the book, "Prayers for Bobby," by Leroy Aarons, the Lifetime Network premiered this movie, based upon actual events, on January 24th, 2009, on its original Lifetime channel.

The movie was described on Lifetime's own website in this manner:

"Academy Award nominee and Golden Globe winner Sigourney Weaver stars in this emotional true story about a 1970s religious suburban housewife and mother who struggles to accept her young son Bobby being gay. What happens to Bobby is tragic and causes Mary to question her faith; ultimately this mom changes her views in ways that she never could have imagined."

First, I'm going to agree with Lifetime, that what happened to Bobby was very unfortunate and tragic, both for him, and for his family. If his situation had been handled differently, then perhaps Bobby would never have taken his own life. That was the theme of the entire first-half of this movie.

Even still, the fact is that no one will ever know that with total and complete certainty. We know that Bobby was obviously capable of suicide. What we don't know is rather life's many ups and downs might not have driven him to that point in a different set of stressful circumstances. Suffice to say that I do wish that Bobby was still alive. And I also recognize suicide to be a tragic and very permanent solution that removes any hope of a brighter future for those who are driven to that point, and one which devastates the lives of the loved ones who are left behind.

But then I am also bound to disagree with how this movie has taken such a one-sided, politically-correct approach, in order to emotionally portray and "spin" the deep tragedy of these events. Once again, homosexuality comes out being portrayed as virtuous, while Christian Faith-based beliefs about homosexuality are portrayed as harsh, cold, and uncaring... In other words, a biblical approach toward homosexuality is viewed as completely inappropriate, because of the way the Christian Faith is being associated with what has been depicted here.

Lifetime gave us a fair glimpse at some of the ignorance that does exist, within the Christian community, in our failure to understand the extreme depths of this issue, and how difficult rejection can be for any person who has to deal with it. And it never hurts for Christians to be reminded to do some soul-searching of their own on certain issues. So I will also agree that the very necessary compassion, wisdom, and love of true Christianity were certainly missing from the atmosphere that was created by Bobby's mother, in Bobby's home environment. But the love of true Christianity does not equate to the acceptance of homosexuality, which was so much the theme of the second-half of this movie, either. Someplace in between these two extremes is found the loving balance that God's own heart intended.

Lifetime did an amazing job of portraying the character of Bobby in such a way that it allowed viewers to see, in part, how completely the "idea" of being a homosexual can consume a young person's own sense of identity, so that it becomes their identity. People who have never experienced "homosexual" desires need to understand this fact if there is to be any compassion in their response. But people also need to understand that they are being deceived by this idea, today, that this thing we call "homosexuality" is an unchangeable condition.

So, in that aspect, Lifetime was just another pawn in all of the propaganda, in the way it portrays the acceptance of homosexuality to be the only viable solution for suicide prevention. And this approach is completely devoid of the other legitimate options that are indeed available to those who desire, by their own free will, to seek a path that offers them the hope for change.

Genuine Christianity is not a "cure" for homosexuality, any more than praying enough, or having enough faith will, by themselves, bring about the desired "change" that people seem to hope for. But genuine Christianity is a personal relationship with God, and it is through that relationship that God can walk a willing person through the issues that have led each individual person to believe that they were homosexual. And that journey is unique. It will be different for each individual person who desires it, just as every individual person is unique from the next.

I'm not at all surprised that Lifetime took the politically-correct approach, however. Any other approach, even a very balanced one, would have brought the wrath of the boisterous homosexual-rights machine down on Lifetime, for including any information that the homosexual activists don't want the public to be made aware of. So we'll never see the movie that would dare, today, to approach this subject with any balance of truth which includes the fact that homosexuality has never been proven to be biological or genetic in nature, and that there are many stories and accounts available from both men and women, who have left their homosexual lifestyles behind, and are successfully living their lives today as heterosexuals. So now, let's look at Bobby's situation, as it was portrayed by Lifetime, with some balanced perspective added in.

I will agree that Bobby's mother, Mary Griffith, did make some very regrettable mistakes in dealing with her son's actual needs. She applied the "letter" of biblical law to her son's situation, without any of the grace and compassion that brings life, under the leadership and guidance of the Holy Spirit. And without that relationship in play, all you have is plain old, dry religion, rather than Christianity in its truest sense:

"[God] has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
2nd Corinthians 3:6

Nevertheless, this tragic mistake on the part of Bobby's mother does not invalidate the truth about homosexuality that is very clearly found in Bible Scripture! Nor does it diminish the hope of forgiveness and freedom from sins like homosexuality, which is also so clearly evidenced in scripture. So, biblically speaking, God is still very committed to the love and compassion that is indeed freeing people from homosexuality today:

"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
1st Corinthians 6:9-11

Additionally, I'm going to take issue with a statement by the character of Reverend Whitsell, who was played by openly-gay actor, Dan Butler. In the scene, as Bobby's mother asks the Reverend about a biblical passage that very clearly condemns the sexual acts of homosexual behavior, he tells Bobby's mother, "There are other interpretations of the Bible, Mrs. Griffith." The implication there, of course, is that Bobby's mother had been mistaken in her interpretation of such passages, and in her reasoning that God condemns homosexual behavior in the Bible. And so the dichotomy in biblical truth that shows us how God can love a person unconditionally, while still clearly condemning the sinful behaviors of that same person, is lost.

Of course there can be subtle differences in the interpretations of scripture, from one person to the next. But Bobby's mother had interpreted that passage the same way that any reasonable individual would have. So, biblical interpretation was not the real issue here. And what the Reverend Whitsell did was a clear act of conforming biblical scripture to fit the person, rather than the personal act of obedience and faith that is required of each believer, to allow themselves to be transformed and renewed by scripture:

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will."
Romans 12:2

No, Mary Griffith's mistake was not in her interpretation of scripture, but in trying to uncompassionately force that truth upon her son, when he was not in a frame of mind to be able to accept it. Only when biblical truth is willingly accepted can the person of the Holy Spirit, in turn, then bring the deeper revelation of its truth down into the heart of the believer.

In another scene, after Bobby "comes out" to his family, Bobby's mother is shown placing scripture verses throughout their home. And as she does so, she tells Bobby, "When the Holy Spirit controls your life, He will produce love, joy, kindness, goodness, and self-control."

There are just a few subtle, but far-reaching errors within that scene... First of all, the Holy Spirit doesn't "control" anyone! Again, it is an act of faith and obedience, on the part of each Christian believer, to choose to follow the leading and promptings of the Holy Spirit:

"Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires."
Romans 8:5

"So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature... Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit."
Galatians 5:16 & 25

And second, the character of Bobby's mother mentions only five of the "fruits" of the Holy Spirit, when there are actually nine of them within the Bible passage that is used for that scene. They are, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). But none of this fruit of the Holy Spirit will manifest in the life of a person who has their own mind set on their homosexual desires, rather than upon what the Holy Spirit within them is desiring. It all has to go hand-in-hand, because God will never violate the will of our own individual free choice.

In the real life events leading up to Bobby's tragic suicide, given what has been portrayed of them through this movie, I suspect that Mary Griffith and her son, Bobby, were perhaps both more focused on his homosexuality, than either of them were ever focused upon their individual relationships with God. Because, within that relationship we'll find his compassion and grace for dealing with things like homosexuality, and so much more! And Bobby's mother would have been more sensitive to the peace, patience, faithfulness, and gentleness, of the Holy Spirit, which were omitted from the passage she used in the scene I mentioned above. But again, a compassionate and loving approach should never be taken to imply that God accepts the behavior.

After Bobby's suicide, what Mary Griffith found in the Reverend Whitsell, and in the PFLAG organization, was a support-network of people that were saying the things she could find meaning and purpose in identifying with, during a period of horrible grief and self-blaming. It may have been compassionate, and they all may have had the very best intentions at heart. But sadly, they are also all in error to believe for a minute that God's call to repentance from sinful behaviors is not also ever-present alongside of God's love, compassion, and grace, in our Christian relationship with Him:

"But among you 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."
Ephesians 5:3

"My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in. Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding."
Proverbs 3:11-13

"And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: 'My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.' Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
Hebrews 12:5-7

That's why it is imperative that we learn the truth about where homosexual desires come from, and begin to deal with those issues compassionately, but also legitimately. And normalizing it is not a legitimate course of action for any behavior that is still so very misinterpreted and misunderstood, both by the people who have experienced it, and by those who have not.

And no parent can force biblical truth upon an unwilling 19-year-old son, who is otherwise convinced that his homosexual feelings are his identity, either. Biblical truth must be willingly learned and accepted by a person, first, before the person will ever become open to the freedom that it actually offers to them. Until then, all they'll be convinced of is that you're trying to change, or take something away from who they are. And this, unfortunately, is the predicament that Bobby Griffith found himself so tangled up in the middle of.

As Christian believers, we must work toward better conveying Christ's love and compassion to the people who are entangled and enslaved by such things, or our commission to share Christ's love with each person will continue to be lost within the distraction of our preoccupation with their sexual behaviors. Their individual struggles to overcome such things can be more difficult than most of us will ever realize or comprehend. But behind the mask of the homosexual behavior in every one of them remains a human being who needs to know the Lord, Jesus Christ. And ultimately, only they can make the individual choice to seek to understand and turn away from their homosexual behaviors, as they purpose to seek and respond to God's calling, "in spirit, and in truth." (John 4:24)

President Obama Forces the LGBT Agenda on America

WARNING: The Official, US Government website for the Office of the President,, after it transitioned from President Bush's administration over to the hands of the Obama Administration, wasted absolutely no time at all to publicly declare that the team of President Obama and Vice President Biden intend to force a very radical, "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered" (LGBT) agenda "for change" upon our American citizens. And given all of the civil-rights rhetoric that is being used, it's quite clear that this is a manifesto of sorts, and that the Obama Administration intends to force this homosexual agenda on America, rather the American People are willing to accept it, or not!

Here is the list of their irresponsible intensions, which were posted at noon on the very same day as the presidential inauguration:

Support for the LGBT Community:
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
Fight Workplace Discrimination
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell
Expand Adoption Rights
Promote AIDS Prevention
Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS

With, perhaps, the exception of the last two items in the list (keep in mind that the entire list falls under the heading of, "Support for the LGBT Community" ), what this really means for Americans is total and complete, forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and behaviors, if President Obama gets his way. And with a free ticket in the form of both a Democrat-run Congress and Senate, it is entirely possible that he will get his way.

I encourage you to read this alarming agenda for yourself, on the official White House website. On that website, under each topic listed above, you'll find a full paragraph of gay-rights propaganda, dressed up to make the normalizing of an immoral behavior appear to be a civil-rights agenda. It unashamedly includes allowing homosexual couples the right to freely adopt children; hate-crimes legislation that not only devalues heterosexual victims of crime, but which also criminalizes our free speech, and the ways in which people believe that this behavior is biblically immoral; a forced indoctrination of "acceptance" being taught to our own children in public schools, without parental consent; open homosexuality in the military (legislation for this aberrant act has now been signed into law by President Obama); the right for homosexuals to marry; forcing all 50 states to legally recognize homosexual marriages from other states, even within those states wherein the citizens have already spoken out on this issue and voted to ban same-sex marriages, by repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act; forcing employers, and even church organizations, who may hold strong moral convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual behaviors, to have to hire homosexual individuals under federally mandated requirements similar to those of affirmative-action; and so much more that voters will now be denied the right to ever have a voice or say-so, in order to prevent it all from happening.

So I would also strongly encourage everyone who has concerns about this to immediately contact the White House, your Congressional Representative, and your Senators, in order to voice your opposition to this homosexual, White House agenda. Citizens must voice their opposition now, if there is to be any hope of preventing this from happening to America! I can't even possibly begin to stress the great importance of this point clearly enough, at this junction of such a complete and unprecedented political shift in our government's morals and ideals.

Please pray for President Obama. And may our merciful God turn the heart of our president away from this homosexual agenda, and open his eyes to see the truth about homosexual behaviors and addiction, before it's too late to stop it from becoming the law of the land.

Former Christian Singer & Song Writer, Ray Boltz, "Comes Out"

The Christian community has learned of the shocking news that former Christian singer and song writer, Ray Boltz, has announced to the world that he is "gay."

Over the weekend of September 12th, 2008, as a result of his interview with a gay magazine, The Washington Blade, Ray Boltz, at age 55, made the announcement public.

Mr. Boltz had actually alluded to the issue on his own official website, prior to the magazine interview, by making positive references to the Metropolitan Community Church (the so called, "gay Christian" church), and saying that if people "knew who I really was, I would never be accepted."

In the magazine interview, he adds, "I'd denied it ever since I was a kid. I became a Christian. I thought that was the way to deal with this, and-- prayed hard and tried for 30-some years. And then at the end, I was just going, 'I'm still gay. I know I am.' And I just got to the place where I couldn't take it anymore... when I was going through all this darkness, I thought, 'Just end this.' "

But perhaps the most tragic part of the entire interview is when Mr. Boltz said, "This is what it really comes down to: If this is the way God made me, then this is the way I'm going to live. It's not like God made me this way and he'll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be... I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself."

Ray Boltz simply gave up. He stopped fighting the "good fight of faith" that we are all called to engage in, as Christian believers. And he has fallen prey to the lie that tries to make homosexual behavior somehow different from all of the other sins that believers are called upon to repent of (called upon to turn away from).

Even the Apostle Paul, who wrote over two-thirds of the New Testament, said that he struggled to overcome some, "thorn in the flesh," that had been brought by a "messenger of Satan." And three times, we're told, Paul literally pleaded with God to take away this "thorn," which was most likely a sinful temptation of some sort, since it did come from Satan. But God doesn't take away the temptation. Instead, God simply reminds Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." In other words, "Get your eyes off of the temptation you're facing, and get them back on me, Paul!"

I submit to you that God's grace is also sufficient for Ray Boltz, just as it was for Paul, and just as it has also been for me. But our brother has lost sight of that sure hope and belief, amid this powerful deception of homosexual activism within the lies that are preached by the Metropolitan Community Church. And he reached out for hope in that spiritually-dark place, because the real "church" seemed to offer him no hope of understanding or acceptance. So it is absolutely tragic to me, personally, that there was no one close enough to Ray Boltz, within the real Body of Christ, that he felt he could confide in, reach out to, and talk with about his struggles, for those "30-some years," so that he could have come to terms with his homosexual feelings. Rather than this false security of the UFMCC lies that are deceiving him now, what Ray Boltz truly needs is a genuine friend he can confide in, who will help him to understand the real issues behind his homosexual feelings, in the light of the truth of God's Word. Alone and without such a friend, Ray spent those thirty years simply trying to suppress the feelings or behaviors, and he gained no genuine understanding of why he came to experience them.

Please pray for God's light to illuminate the truth to Ray Boltz once again, during the days of darkened understanding that are ahead of him, through this unfortunate, personal decision he has made.

About the Metropolitan Community Church: In full, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, or UFMCC, claims to be a Christian church. However, this organization completely ignores and abandons biblically-sound theology and teaching, with regard to the clearly defined sinfulness of homosexual behavior, which is found in the Bible:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron."
1st Timothy 4:1-2

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-- having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."
2nd Timothy 3:1-5 (paraphrased)

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
2nd Timothy 4:3-4

"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."
Jude, verse 4

The MCC was originally founded in 1968, in Los Angeles, by a man named Troy Perry, and it now has congregations in many major cities throughout America, and in other countries as well. The organization is known for it's complete acceptance of homosexuality, without any call to biblical repentance for the behavior. To the contrary, the teachings of this organization actually encourage homosexuals to proudly accept their behaviors, and to continue participating in their life of sin, convincing their deceived, homosexual members that God created them "gay."

To take from an appropriate example, in the Gospel according to John, we know that Jesus did not condemn the sinful acts of a woman who was caught in the sin of adultery. But Jesus did not condone the sin either! After he forgave her, Jesus clearly told her, "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:11)

Likewise, homosexuals need to be taught the loving forgiveness that is available to each of them through Jesus Chirst, together with Jesus' command to also repent of their sinful behavior. Because the very same grace that is available to every believer to overcome sin, is also made freely available to every person who is entangled by the sin of homosexuality.

Commentary on People Magazine's Exclusive: "Clay Aiken: I'm a Gay Dad"

On September 24th, 2008, the fact of what many of his fans had apparently "suspected" for some time, was confirmed: Singer Clay Aiken admitted that he was "gay," in an article that was published as an "exclusive," by People Magazine.

But as if that revelation wasn't going to be "exclusive" enough, the article was titled, "Clay Aiken: I'm a Gay Dad." And so, People Magazine has also taken the opportunity to support "gay parenting" (in this case, by artificial insemination), through their publishing of this article.

In the interview, Aiken says, "It was the first decision I made as a father. I cannot raise a child to lie or to hide things. I wasn't raised that way, and I'm not going to raise a child to do that." But what an incredibly ironic thing this was for him to say, considering the fact that the entire homosexual lifestyle itself is based upon lies!

Then, while speaking of his newborn son, Aiken continues, "I have no idea if he'll be gay or straight. It's not something I'll have anything to do with, or that he'll have anything to do with. It's already probably up inside the code there ... No matter what the situation you're in, if you're raised in a loving environment, that's the most important thing." And therein you see the great deception and lie of this very risky attitude of normalizing homosexuality: External factors of upbringing and relationship issues are not even considered within the equation of homosexual behaviors, by these people. They have all bought into the reasoning that they were born that way, when there is still no genuine scientific evidence to be found anywhere today, which will support that theory. So, I'm sorry to have to say so, Mr. Aiken: But if your son does turn out to be "gay," then you'll have everything to do with that, Sir. In fact, your own homosexual behavior may even encourage it!

The other very disturbing portion of this interview is when People Magazine refers to Clay Aiken as,"born again," within their article. You see, homosexual activism is now beginning to steadily creep into what the rest of the world perceives to be the real "Body of Christ," and genuine "Christianity." Using announcements and stories like this one, (and that of singer, Ray Boltz, which I commented on directly above), the "homosexual activist" agenda hopes to put a bran new face of morality upon homosexual behavior in our society, by making it seem to be "Christian," and "family oriented." And at the very same time, the other side of this type of activism uses negative language that attempts to portray the genuine Body of Christ as the ones who are not being "biblical" toward these issues.

The greatest potential danger I see coming of this kind of activism, is that people in the Body of Christ who do struggle to overcome homosexual issues, may now feel "empowered" to "come out," and embrace homosexual behavior themselves. Such people may think to themselves, "Wait a minute. Clay Aiken and Ray Boltz are both Christians, and they came out! Why shouldn't I do the same?"

But what does the Bible have to say about these kinds of deceptions, my brothers and sisters? It says:

"Woe to those who draw sin along with cords of deceit, and wickedness as with cart ropes... Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
Isaiah 5:18 & 20

So, rather Clay Aiken succeeds in creating a "loving environment," or not, what he and People Magazine have just done here is tragic, all the way around! It's tragic for him, it's tragic for his son, it's tragic for our society, and it's tragic for innocent, Christian believers, who will be persuaded to give up their "good fight of faith," specifically because of deceptive portrayals of "Christian" normalcy, such as these.

Commentary on the M-TV Series for Teens, "Made"

Irresponsibility strikes again! This time, it was M-TV as the guilty party. Now, I'm not at all surprised that M-TV would promote the homosexual lifestyle, and no one else who has even once watched M-TV should be surprised at that, either. But I was quite disturbed to stumble upon the fact, recently, of how the M-TV Network is so callously promoting homosexuality to their teen viewing audience, with no regard at all for the health or moral welfare of those younger viewers.

Parents... Beware of the M-TV series, Made or, "Wanna be Made," as it is also called. This program specifically targets the teen-aged M-TV viewing audience. On the surface, "Made" seems to be a fun program that gives different teens an opportunity to pursue their seemingly unreachable dreams. The dream topics cover a wide range, like that of being a star athlete, or becoming a rock star, or a competitive figure skater, or even getting into shape for a triathlon, or some other competition. But there's more to do with this show's intentions, than just what's on the surface!

In the program's ninth season, Made spotlighted a 19-year-old young man from Ohio, named Brandon. The theme of the episode is that Brandon was a 272-pound young man, who desired to loose weight and get into shape, in order to participate in a triathlon. But that wasn't the only reason that Brandon wanted to get into better shape... Brandon also openly admits his homosexuality during the first few scenes of the show, together with his desire to be in better shape so that he could find a "boyfriend." So, not only does the show follow Brandon's progress and training in preparation for the triathlon, but the producers also follow Brandon's progress down the path of homosexual behavior! Now, is it just me, or is that really just absolutely absurd?

The program included a segment that showed Brandon "training" with the local, gay swim club, and there being befriended by an older, male homosexual, whom Brandon admits being attracted to. Then the show continues to follow Brandon, as this older male phones him for a "date," and takes him out for a "night on the town," and Brandon's first visit to a "gay, strip club." And if that wasn't enough, the camera then follows the two men into the club, where male dancers in the background had to be digitally covered, in order to keep their genitals and buttocks from being exposed to viewers. And then the club segment concludes by showing Brandon being invited onto the stage, to actually dance with one of the male strippers. Yeah, that's just exactly what parents desire for their influential teen-agers to be watching on television... right?

The show irresponsibly aired all of this homosexual, "male bonding" with a completely positive and supportive spin, that avoids any mention at all of the extreme health risks which are so much a part of the sexually promiscuous, "gay strip club" and "gay bar" night club scenes. There was no warning about HIV or AIDS, other types of VD, hepatitis, promiscuous and group sex, or about the illegal drug activity that is so prevelant in the homosexul lifestyle, at any time during the show.

And the signs of the "triggers" to Brandon's homosexual behavior were all very evident throughout the show as well, in spite of the fact that these things were purposely overlooked and unhighlighted by the M-TV producers, all for the sake of political correctness and, of course, "tolerance," I'm sure. For example, Brandon's mom was obviously the most influential adult in Brandon's life. But, where was "Dad," or at least an active, male mentor for Brandon to look up to? There was none shown! And additionally, Brandon was an over-weight kid with a low self-esteem, who clearly desired to be accepted by his peers (the other boys), as he was growing up. That combination is a very common environment for same-sex attraction issues to develop, during any young man's adolescence. But, of course, none of these facts are ever highlighted, so that homosexuality continues to be affirmed, and deceptively spoon-fed to the teen-aged viewing audience.

So, "Well done! Way to go, M-TV!" I mean, with shows like "Made," it looks to me like the gay community has itself yet another official recruiter, which will encourage more and more of our young men and women, who may be confused about their sexuality, to just "come out" and be "gay!"

Yes, folks. I know that last line was just a little sarcastic... But then, it was also intended to be. There's just no more room for being "nice," when it comes to confronting gay activism such as this.

Commentary on What "Protecting Freedom" Actually Means to the ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union. The official slogan on their news letter reads, "Guardians of Freedom." And on their official website it reads, "Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself." But just what does this supposedly, "reputable organization" actually mean, when they speak about protecting "freedoms," and "civil liberties?" Even a quick glance at just some of their case history will reveal this organization's extremely biased motives and intent.

In the United States, the majority of registered voters still have a reputation for consistently voting against ballot initiatives, which attempt to make various forms of immoral behavior more lawful for those persons who engage in them. So then the ACLU steps in by bringing a civil lawsuit. They masquerade the lawful choice of our society to restrict such behaviors, as being a violation of an individual person's "civil rights." In other words, the freedom of the individual is more important to these people than the moral views of the society where they live.

This is the way they've said it on their web site: "The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights." But with freedom comes responsibility! And this ACLU interpretation of our constitution places an individual's "right" to civil liberty, above the responsibility and necessity for a free society to maintain civil order.

They go on to say that these "civil freedoms" are mandated to individuals through the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent constitutional amendments. However, show me in any of these constitutional documents where homosexuality and transgenderism are behavioral freedoms that are guaranteed to a person as rights! Our constitution doesn't say this, but liberal-minded federal judges do, through their own, gross misinterpretations of constitutional law. Therefore, it is a very common ACLU practice to "back-door" the will and consent of the voting, moral majority, by legislating these immoral behaviors into law, through individual judges within our Federal Courts system. And they get away with it all the time! This is the main avenue that the homosexual activist agenda uses to force its will upon our society. They're using our own courts system against us, and the ACLU is funding and fighting these cases on their behalf. The ACLU's own, "Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered Project," admits this in writing:

"The LGBT Project brings impact lawsuits in state and federal courts throughout the country--cases designed to have a significant effect on the lives of LGBT people. In coalition with other civil rights groups, we also lobby in Congress and support grassroots advocacy--from local school boards to state legislatures. As part of the broad civil liberties mission of the ACLU, the Project brings the LGBT community together with other social change movements in order to achieve a just society for all. Today, the ACLU brings more sexual orientation cases and advocacy initiatives than any other national civil rights organization."

Most recently, a man by the name of David Schroer applied for an analyst position, with the Library of Congress. After Mr. Schroer was selected for the position, he then revealed to his new employer that he would be showing up on his first day of work, and thereafter, as "Diane Schroer," a transsexual woman. The Library of Congress withdrew the employment offer, on the grounds that they had hired David Schroer, a male, and that they had been misled with regard to his intentions. Therefore, the ACLU filed suit... and won!

So, just because this biological man claims that he always "felt like he was a woman," that gives him the right to mislead his potental employer into believing that they were hiring a stable, male individual, for the position they offered. Had he revealed his transsexual desires from the start, then, of course, he would have no case if he had not been hired. He would be but one of several people who had been turned down for the position. But the ACLU uses situations like these, as an opportunity to get one key person (a federal judge) to agree that some supposed, civil rights violation has occurred, with regard to this individual's obvious gender confusion issues. And once a judge agrees, this forces the acceptance of transsexuality, homosexuality, and other behaviors upon our society, against the will of the people.

Federal judges are not elected, but appointed. Therefore, they have no "term of office" to limit the time that they hold their position on the federal bench. So once activist-minded judges like these are appointed, we're pretty much stuck with them! So all I know to suggest is that we all, "be watchful and pray." Because the ACLU is coming soon, to a town near you, with other court cases just like this one!

Reputable organizations which go into our federal courts, to oppose the ACLU in cases like these, both need and value your financial support! Two organizarions that I can suggest are:

The American Family Association or
The American Center for Law and Justice

Commentary on "Noah" and "Luke" of the CBS Soap Opera, "As the World Turns"

Is there anyone who hasn't at least heard of Luke Spencer and Laura Webber? "Luke and Laura" are fictional characters, and the signature "super-couple" from the popular American soap opera, General Hospital.

Despite the character of Laura having once been raped by a drunken Luke, Laura eventually fell in love with Luke, and the soap audience absolutely loved the story line, along with the heroic and exciting adventures that the duo were later written into on the show.

Although other super-couples came before and after them, "Luke and Laura" are the most well known outside of the soap opera realm, and the duo are credited with defining the term "super-couple." This caused other soap operas to follow suit and copy the successful formula. Yet, who would have ever thought that any network would risk doing so with a gay, super-couple?

The characters of Luke and Laura were wed on November 16, 1981, with some 30 million viewers watching the show. And the episode remains the highest-rated hour in American soap opera history... so far. But wait, Luke and Laura! Here come "Luke and Noah!"

Noah Mayer and Luke Snyder, or "Nuke," as they have also become known among fans of this "gay super-couple," have been written into the cast of CBS's daytime soap opera, "As the World Turns." And the writers at CBS seem to be increasingly intent on casting the fictional characters into a "Luke and Laura" type of story line, with romantically involved scenes, and a little bit of the action-adventure drama being added into their roles as well.

And, oh yes! The homosexual propaganda machine is in full swing with this one, folks, as was evidenced by the public service announcements that directly followed the episodes of the soap opera that featured Luke's character "coming out" to his parents about his homosexuality, and also following those episodes airing the controversial, passionate kissing scenes between the two, male characters. Those public service announcements, as expected, encouraged tolerance, acceptance and support for homosexuals. It's enough to make any uninformed person desire to jump quickly on board, and ride along on the gay propaganda's own freight train of public manipulation.

But there is also some tragic truth that I have seen within the portrayals of these two fictional characters. The fact of their different, individual, inward struggles, and their desire to understand and be comfortable with their sexual desires, for example, are quite often very real dilemmas for such people, that have been honestly portrayed here, from some of the clips that I've seen. And the loneliness of hiding what each one was dealing with inside, together with the very real fear of disclosing it to people who would then reject them, have also been written into scenes with an amount of honesty and realism.

Perhaps the saddest truth of all, however, is hidden behind the very misleading veil of suggested happiness, that is so much a part of the way the evolving relationship between these two characters is being portrayed. It leads one to believe that their happiness can only be found in a life of open homosexuality. And through portraying all of this as a difficult, life-challenge for the characters, it easily and intentionally tugs on all the strings within that part of our own human nature that desire to see people rise above an impossible circumstance and succeed. So it pulls you right into the story with them, because we ourselves want to succeed and be happy in life.

Sadly, this relationship portrayal completely ignores the common truths found within all homosexual behaviors (that there is always something tragic that is hidden and buried deep within those who've experienced such behaviors, and that homosexual sex is a form of acting out to try and comfort that hurting, and erase the scars and confusion left by those kinds of wounds.) And I don't expect that any soap opera or television network will ever acknowledge that fact through the portrayal of a television character or story line, due to the immense pressure in Hollywood from the gay activists.

Commentary on the LMN Airing of, "A Girl like Me"

On May 22, 2008, the Lifetime Movie Network aired a movie which was intended to raise public awareness of, and support for transgendered individuals. "A Girl like Me" is the true story of 17-year-old Peter Araujo, whose life was brutally cut short one evening, after his transgender secret was discovered by a young woman and three other young men. Peter had been sexually intimate with at least one of the three young men, prior to the night of his murder, under the guise of the cross-dressing deception Peter had used to convince all of them that he was a biological female, named Gwen.

From the very beginning of the story, the movie's main theme danced all around the fact of a broken environment Peter had experienced while growing up, living within a fatherless home with no meaningful male mentorship available to him. Peter's home environment was the result of his parents' divorce, and the years of marital discord that had preceded their breakup. But the plot of the movie never even once played upon the very high probability that it was, in fact, this unstable environment which was the most likely culprit and cause of Peter's transgenderism issues. Instead, the movie introduces the theory of "a male child born with a female brain," and just leaves it at that. The movie thereby manipulates the viewing audience's sympathetic but naive response directly into the path of the radical homosexual agenda, which purposes to change societal views through misleading and often blatantly false information.

And in keeping true to the ways of homosexual activist mediums, the movie also portrayed Christianity in a very negative light. As is becoming so expectantly commonplace within their radical agenda, this was done through scenes portraying angry, religious protesters to be waiving signs and shouting at the grieving Araujo Family members, as they attended Peter's funeral, and also from outside of the trials of those who were accused of his murder. Contrary to this portrayal, however, true Christianity remains compassionate toward the whole of mankind, including transgendered people like Peter, and the personal gender issues which he failed to either understand, or to overcome without turning to sin. Therefore true Christian believers will also continue to refuse to cater to such compromise, while remaining compassionate toward the individual. Jesus Christ would not have ignored the truth that was the tragedy of Peter's circumstance, sinful nature, and personal choices. And so Jesus would have confronted Peter with compassion, while also confronting his sinful behavior directly. Because, biblically speaking, responsibility for personal choice still falls squarely upon self, and not upon some theory of a "male child with a female brain."

The four young people who are responsible for ending Peter's life do deserve their just punishment. And it could, perhaps, even be argued that our justice system was far too lenient upon them for committing such a crime. But doesn't Peter Araujo also share some of the burden and responsibility for the events that unfolded that night? Because, without the deception that Peter created by identifying himself to be "Gwen Araujo," there would be no motive for the horrible crime which was committed against him.

The solution to transgender issues is not to become one's opposite gender, and then get society to accept you. No! The solution is to find your gender wholeness through Jesus Christ, and to rely on his strength and Spirit to help you be the person whom you were naturally born and created by God to be.

Commentary on a White House Press Release

In May of 2007, the official White House web site released the photo you see to the left, accompanied by the following caption:

"Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, Wednesday, May 23, 2007. He weighed 8 lbs., 6 oz and was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C. His parents are the Cheneys' daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. White House photo by David Bohrer."

The White House and the George W. Bush Administration, through the publishing of this caption, are not only acknowledging, but even seem to be condoning the homosexual lifestyle of the Vice President's daughter, Mary, and her lesbian partner. And they're also condoning the homosexual parenting that the Cheney's grandchild is to receive, by living within this situation. This is because the caption makes specific, by name mention of Heather Poe (Mary Cheney's live-in, lesbian partner), and labels her as one of the child's "parents," together with the Cheney's daughter.

This happy picture, however, fails miserably to convey the fact that this impressionable child is now destined to grow up, deprived of having that very essential relationship of knowing his Dad in his life. And that depravation, together with this simultaneous exposure to the homosexual lifestyle on a daily basis, is a very troubled way for a child to have to grow up.

The White House has acted completely irresponsibly here, in naming two lesbians as the valid "parents" of this child, just as well as any court of law has acted irresponsibly that would grant parental rights to a live-in, homosexual lover. Because homosexual-partnered parenting is never going to be in the ultimate best interest of any child, in my opinion.

Commentary on the Motion Picture, "Brokeback Mountain"

"Brokeback Mountain," I'll readily admit, is a strategically well done, and emotionally persuasive, "feather in the cap" for homosexual rights advocates today. A presentation of this magnitude, with such clever deception veiled behind the drama of Hollywood's "Big Screen," is exactly what makes this particular film such a dangerous motion picture, if we ever hope to truthfully understand the very broken nature of homosexuality in our day and age. This is why I felt an urgent need to provide some sort of commentary remarks and feedback toward this motion picture here.

Following the film's release, "Brokeback Mountain" received more than its fair share of entertainment and media attention from the motion picture awards it was nominated for. But mainstream America still wasn't interested in seeing a "gay cowboy love film." So then it gained even more notoriety and national media exposure, when President Bush was asked if he'd seen the film, and the question itself made national news headlines. And after that, CNN and others were all giving free publicity to this film. And now, the DVD has also been released to the public.

First, the movie's banner reads, "Brokeback Mountain... Love is a force of nature." But what should be written there is, "Brokeback Mountain... Sin is a force of human nature." Having received a motion picture rating of R, and done in true, worldly, Hollywood fashion, the film also featured a website that provided a link for people to "Share Your Story," thereby prompting people to participate in the suggestions of the film's overall theme. And it fished for its audiences with a luring movie trailer that easily captured one's imagination and attention, through glimpses of male intimacy that were accompanied with the captions, "It was a friendship... That became a secret. There are places we can't return... There are lies we have to tell... There are truths we can't deny."

I found that just the movie trailer by itself could be emotionally disturbing and mentally distracting, in the way it attempts to set the stage for viewing the entire story. And no doubt, the film did this as well, only on a much greater scale.

It was propaganda at its most deceptive level. So make no mistake! The film specifically targeted those in the audience, men in particular, who chose not to act upon a homosexual longing or attraction that they may have once had, in order to leave those who have done so with an emotionally charged sense of regret. And such a regret could become haunting to one who is unaware of the true, broken nature of homosexuality. The subliminal suggestion that seemed to come from seeing the film, is that you can't be happy or complete, unless you resolve homosexual longings by pursuing them. So I would strongly caution and persuade anyone struggling with unwanted, homosexual issues, to avoid seeing this movie at all cost, if you really desire to avoid the grief and doubts it will surely bring to you, apart from a healthy relationship with Jesus Christ.

But even if you've never sensed such longings, or never had to deal with unwanted, homosexual attractions before, this film also toys with the drama and portrayal of broken relationships, (something familiar to nearly everyone). It uses this ploy deceptively well, in order to capture the support and emotions of everyone else in our society who might be willing to abandon the biblical, world view of homosexuality as being sinful, and contrary to nature itself. And it spread the icing on the homosexual agenda's cake, with a depiction of hate-based violence that would rightfully pierce the heart of any individual who has an ounce of compassion.

The motion picture accurately touched around some of the tragic, relationship issues that are known to contribute to homosexual behavior itself. However, by the very nature of the film, the misunderstanding and sympathetic response among audiences is more likely to be an ungodly acceptance of homosexual behavior, rather than that of godly compassion for the homosexual person. Because the movie failed miserably to point out the cause and effect connection between what transpired in the adolescent lives of the characters, and the fact that this is what caused them to have their homosexual longings.

The movie also featured several lines that belittle our Christian Faith, and biblical beliefs in general. So, in response to one of the movie trailer's own captions, "Yes, there are truths we can't deny. And those truths are biblical!" So keep in mind that "Brokeback Mountain" is just a man-made movie, based upon fictional characters, within a fictional story. In fact, the only portrayal worth giving any real consideration to at all within the film, was found in its depiction of the two families that were left broken and destroyed, because of the sinful choices that the film's two main characters made.

There is certainly nothing wrong with two men who share and express a deep bond of love and affection toward one another, within the framework of a biblical friendship. However, there is indeed a sexual barrier missing from this movie that must never be crossed within such a relationship, in real life, if such a friendship is to remain godly and biblical. But the theme and suggestion of this motion picture is that our society is missing out; that we've done an injustice to love, and therefore to ourselves; that we should abandon God, and abandon ourselves to a falsified moral standard where homosexual relationships are accepted and normal, so that we can all live happily ever after. But what that actually equates to is an unwillingness to face the pains and struggles of resisting evil temptations, while endeavoring to live a godly life within a world that is sinful. So I'll tell you again quite plainly, my friends, that in God's created order of things, homosexuality is and will forever remain a sinful behavior.

Please pray fervently for those who struggle to overcome their unwanted, homosexual attractions and desires. Pray that they'll all find that freedom in Jesus Christ. And pray that this film does not become a stumbling block for any of them along the way! Amen.

Commentary on the ABC News, "20/20" Program

On September 22, 2007, ABC aired a one-sided segment on their 20/20 news program, entitled, "The Toughest Call: Conversion Therapy."

In the news segment, journalists Alison Lynn and Maggie Burbank reviewed the story of Steve and Jennifer Lee, a married couple who had divorced after Steve participated in "group therapy" sessions offered through their Mormon Church membership, but then felt that he was still unable to change his homosexual orientation.

As within nearly every other news story that I've ever seen which has touched upon the subject of changing one's sexual orientation, this segment's focus, from start to finish, was also to spin the story with a negative and invalidating approach toward the ex-gay message of hope.

The journalists do this by selecting only that information and subject matter that will support the hidden, homosexual agenda which is indeed driving the political correctness within each story, rather than a balanced reporting of all of the facts involved. In other words, it's obvious that news programs like these no longer trust their viewing audiences to arrive at the "right" conclusions through more balanced information gathering. But instead, these networks present information from just one side, as if the viewing audience was a jury, and any possibility or hope of change was on trial. But then only the pro-homosexual side is ever allowed to be heard during the segment, in order to "present their case."

It is unfair to suggest, as this 20/20 story clearly did, that the genuine change which I myself and many others have experienced and embraced, amounts to nothing more than "brainwashing." The fact is that in this news segment, far too few circumstantial facts were presented about Steve Lee's individual situation, in order to be able to draw any reliable conclusion as to why Steve gave up on the possibility of change. His situation was used for the sole purpose that it seemed to support the politically correct spin within the segment.

But that's not all! While researching the content of this 20/20 spot, I also found out that ABC is currently soliciting, via their web site, to find "interview subjects" for a future 20/20 segment that is to be titled, "Is Your Baby Gay?" The 20/20 web site states (and I quote),

ABC News "20/20" is examining gender and sexuality in children younger than 12 and is specifically asking the question, "Is your child gay?"

Do you have a young child who you believe is gay? How old is your child and how long have you been aware of this? If you have a daughter or a son who you believe has a different sexual orientation, we would like to hear from you.

When this new segment airs, I suggest to you that it will be just as one-sided toward supporting the homosexual agenda as the Lee's story was. And even worse, much like the CBS 60-Minute spot that is detailed below, I predict that this segment will also give supportive rhetoric toward the very dangerous practice of making assumptions that a child is "gay," so that the child can be catered to as such, much earlier on in life. And that, my friends, is simply an unconscionable thing to do to any child!

Commentary on the CBS News, "60-Minutes" Program

The CBS 60-Minutes news program reported it callously & irresponsibly wrong!

On the evening of March 12, 2006, CBS viewers were spoon fed a huge package of homosexual propaganda and lies. In the segment of the 60-Minutes news program that was entitled, "Gay or Straight, The Science of Sexual Orientation," journalist Lesley Stahl reported to their viewing audience of only God knows how many millions, the following information and statement as if it was an established and reputable fact:

"Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture--namely overbearing mothers and distant fathers--but that theory has been disproved."

Oh really, CBS? First of all, what is the source? Who disproved it? How was it disproved? When was it disproved? Of course CBS didn't bother to say. Instead, they just throw unsubstantiated statements like this one out there, hoping that a naive viewing audience will just accept such irresponsible rhetoric without asking any questions. But this statement is a blatant lie!

To name just two of many very reputable psychologists who've published several great books, all current and still in print, that clearly identify nurture issues in the development of homosexual orientation, there is Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and Joe Dallas, former president of Exodus Ministries.

CBS made this ridiculous statement and then proceeded to show video footage of nine year old twin brothers, Jared and Adam. Jared is your typical boy, while they reported that Adam has something called "childhood gender nonconformity." Yeah, that sounds like a technical enough term to wash over the fact that his single-parent mom allows Adam to paint his fingernails with nail polish and decals, buys him dozens of girl's toys to play with, and has decorated his bedroom in a little girl's fairytale play theme! And Adam's mom has apparently been helping him to become gay for 7 or 8 years now, because she claimed to have begun to notice a "difference" in Adam when he was only 18 months old. Oh come on, give me a break! This really is going way too far.

And did you catch that about there being no Dad in Adam's home? I noticed it right away. But of course CBS certainly didn't point it out for any of us during the segment. Because, of course, according to their statement, distant fathers and nurture issues have nothing at all to do with Adam's current behavior pattern. And it was portrayed as completely acceptable and labeled "supportive" that this Mom's foolish choices in catering to Adam's "condition" probably have a whole lot to do with Adam's current, effeminate behavior. And yet she is practically molding this impressionable, nine year old child into a homosexual!

What a complete tragedy this is for young Adam. Shame on his mother! And shame on you as well, CBS!

I have asked CBS for a retraction, but I sincerely doubt any of us will see one from them. And so I am compelled to respond to such propaganda right here.

Commentary on "I Now Pronounce You, Chuck & Larry"

"I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" is billed as a situational comedy about two very "straight," Brooklyn firemen, who stage a fake "domestic partnership," after Larry (a widower) learns that he can't name his children as the beneficiaries on his life insurance policy, without remarrying. But Larry still misses his wife and isn't ready to remarry. So he talks his buddy, Chuck, into faking a gay "domestic partnership" with him, in order to name his children as his beneficiaries. Yet, amid the situational comedy, Universal Studios has also seen the need to intertwine some very blatant and bigoted, Hollywood propaganda throughout the movie, which is clearly meant to support and advance the gay-rights propaganda machine and homosexual agenda, while also demeaning persons who hold faith-based, biblical morals.

In one scene, the fake relationship inspires a third, very stereotypically masculine fireman, to "come out of the closet." And as he does so, he suddenly transforms his very masculine persona to that of effeminate mannerisms, and then says to Chuck, "My whole life I've been living a lie. But you and Larry have given me the strength to be true to myself. 'To thyne own self be true.' There's nothing worse than pretending to be something that you're not." But the homosexuals have this perception completely backwards. Failing to be "true to himself" is exactly what a man is doing when he abandons the sexual part of his gender and then engages in sexual behavior with another man, rather than with a woman! So what a shame it is today that our misdirected society encourages homosexual behavior, rather than encouraging such men (or women) to seek understanding of and healing for their internal issues of gender inadequacy. In the scene that follows, this guy is viewed entering the shower room at the fire department, where all of the guys are showering, and he starts dancing and singing in the nude to, "I'm every woman."

Another scene at the beginning of the film establishes the fact that the term, "faggot," is very derogatory, and adds, "Gay is the accepted vernacular today." I don't disagree. However, then the movie links the use of this derogatory term with faith-based beliefs, in a stereotypically bigoted scene that demeans our Christian morals.

In the scene, a "minister" who is leading a group of sign-waving religious protesters, yells through a megaphone at a group of homosexuals who are just emerging from a gay, social event. The actor portraying the minister announces in a judgmental rant, "Sinners and fornicators, we are not here in anger! We are here to save you from eternal damnation." But a male employee at the establishment tells the protesters that it is a private event, and tells them to "give it a rest." At that, the minister then yells back, "Aren't you worried about where you will spend eternity?" And with that, the crowd of protesters then applauds and cheers their leader on, and then erupts into a repeating chant of, "Gay is not the way! Gay is not the way..." The scene then shifts back to the homosexual crowd, where Chuck observes a gay man in tears because of the protesters, and Chuck starts to become angry at the situation. Larry turns to their lawyer (who's brother is also gay) and asks her, "Is this all these guys have to do on a Saturday night?" And the lawyer consoles him by patting him on the shoulder, and saying, "They just want everyone to be as miserable as they are!" The scene closes with the so-called "minister" himself calling Chuck a "faggot" through the megaphone, and Chuck justifiably belting the guy right in the jaw for it, and knocking him to the pavement.

Now, I'm really sick and tired of this kind of stuff from Hollywood! The homosexuals are always portrayed as the victim, while Christians are portrayed as uncaring bigots. It's unconscionable that the homosexual advocates who put scenes like these together will demand that the general public stop demeaning their very controversial sexual behavior, and yet they feel that in the process it is just fine to demean the beliefs of people who hold faith-based values toward homosexuality, by consistently misrepresenting them in this negative, stereotypical fashion. Would I condone a crowd of religious protesters who were actually acting in such a manner? Of course not! But then I certainly don't condone the film industry's habit of casting everyone who holds such a faith-based view of homosexual behaviors into this very negative, Christian stereotype either! But Hollywood does it all the time, and does it unapologetically.

Another disturbing situation portrayed in the film is how Chuck and Larry go from one shameful extreme of showing Larry's young and effeminate son the centerfold of Chuck's pornographic magazine, in order to "see if he likes it," and then shift to the other extreme of actually encouraging his effeminate behavior. The boy wants to audition for a female part in a school play. But instead of encouraging the boy's talent for singing and tap-dancing in a more appropriate masculine role, this was clearly a scene designed to persuade viewing parents to encourage and support cross-gendered behaviors that they may see emerging in their own children, right in line with the homosexual agenda that also demands that we teach our children today that homosexuality is a "normal" behavior.

The final scene I'll take issue with is during the public hearing which takes place to decide the legitimacy of Chuck and Larry's domestic partnership. While Larry's elementary school-aged daughter is being questioned, she closes her testimony with this ridiculous lie, purported as if it were a scientific fact: "Bottle-nose Dolphins, Orcas, Gray Whales, Harbor Seals, and West Indian Manatees... Species that sometimes mate with the same sex: Bottle-nose Dolphins, Orcas, Gray Whales, Harbor Seals, and West Indian Manatees." And then the City Counsel Member in charge of the proceedings looks at her and says, "I didn't know that. Well, now I'm glad I do! Thank you, my dear." But this is nothing more than a gross fabrication and lie, added in to keep the viewing audience sympathetic toward "homosexual marriage."
(also see the section of the main article that addresses this
myth of animal homosexuality)

It was less than humorous comedy, interlaced with plenty of homosexual rights propaganda. That's what this film was about.

Outreach Donations Accepted!

I do accept donations for outreach ministry efforts. 100% of any amount you desire to give (less PayPal's transaction fees) will be tagged and used for the purpose of Christian evangelical outreach ministry to the homosexual community. Since I am not an official ministry organization, however, though greatly appreciated, your donation is not tax deductible. The button below will allow you to give a financial gift through a secure, online PayPal transaction. Thank you, and God bless!

Official PayPal Seal

I'd Like to Hear from You!

You are invited to contact me with any comment, question or concern that you may have as a result of reading my testimony or this article. Please, communicate any disagreement in a civil tone, and I will try to address your concerns. Vulgarity or rude comments will only result in one reply, and the blocking of your e-mail address from my mailbox.

Just click on the mailbox to e-mail your comments & questions to

To return to the main article,

Click on the title above, or the picture to the right: