Approval Demanded by the Homosexual Spirit

Approval Demanded by the Homosexual Spirit
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND10/20/2008

Finally, “Straight Talk” From the Homosexual Agenda

by: Austin Nimocks
Monday, October 20, 2008
Back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.
Now, I realize that you probably believe that your fair-mindedness is sufficient for any number of circumstances in life, but on this issue, you have been duped. You see, moral approval goes well beyond fairness or tolerance. It requires you to look upon the homosexual behavior of another and say to yourself and others, “That’s a good thing.” Moral approval means that you plan to teach it to your kids as righteous and true, and not just as something that other people do (and then secretly pray that you never find your kids doing). Moral approval means that you must reject other people, businesses, and persons who do not morally approve of homosexual behavior.
Most of all, moral approval means that you not only permit it in your home, but you embrace it. You applaud TV shows that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it, and you may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to the very essence of our person.
Not convinced that anyone could want something that radical from you? Well, there’s no need to accept something just because I say it. Instead, look at the strategy employed by those who promote this agenda—in the courts. That alone tells you something. Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. From just this small sample of court cases, you can see that tolerance or simple access to certain “benefits” is no longer enough. What is desired is court-ordered moral approval:
In New Jersey, the state launched an investigation of a Christian ministry after it declined to host a civil union ceremony for two women on its property. The women could have held their ceremony anywhere—and eventually did hold it somewhere else—but they filed a complaint anyway because they loathed the ministry’s lack of moral approval.
In New Mexico, a same-sex couple filed a “human rights” complaint against a photographer who declined to photograph their “commitment” ceremony. The photographer lost and was ordered to cough up more than $6,600 in attorneys’ fees. Before the ruling, the couple hired a different photographer from the myriad of other ones available, but still chose to retaliate against the first photographer for her lack of moral approval.
Download Full Article:

From: John
To: Thomas Lee Abshier
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: Homosexual agenda revealed

John: I think this article is well written and makes some excellent points — some points I never thought about before. But I also think it overstates the case.
Thomas: (Note: The following response to your comments is 20 pages long. I recommend you read and consider it in sections. I have repeated some of the concepts, because each of your comments contained different considerations, and elements of previous points.)
The article graphically illustrated the real threat to freedom of choice and speech presented by the homosexual spirit. The stories of homosexuals successfully suing people for refusing to give moral approval to their lifestyle gives concrete evidence that society has already begun to formally cast aside our Judeo-Christian moral system. We have long predicted the arrival of the day when our laws, once based upon our Forefather’s faith, would reflect Secular Humanist philosophy instead, and that time now appears closer. In response we must pray, act, vote, and educate our fellow citizen in the principles and Truth of the Biblical life-perspective.
Liberty survives to the extent that each individual chooses to limit his behavior to good, Godly, and moral activities. Freedom, Capitalism, and Christianity are pillars of America preeminence as a land of prosperity, peace, opportunity, and power, and we risk them all by abandoning our commitment to Godliness. The homosexual movement and its sympathizers now seek to replace the very core of our moral fabric with a set of values that the God of the Universe has explicitly warned is would result in the earth itself vomiting us out . The Politically Correct chauvinists serve as the useful idiots who support the banning of Christianity from the society in the name of civil liberty for practitioners of sin. We are now witnessing a slow motion national suicide, as America yields to the pressure of false guilt and puts on a yoke of submission to the unrighteous morality of the homosexual agenda.
John: I think there is a fine line between moral approval and moral acceptance. For example, I happen to favor the arts (music, drama, performing arts, visual arts, etc.) and I consider them to be high callings. But I recognize that some people prefer to watch or play team sports – which I sometimes consider no better than making you into a “trained seal” that can stand on a ball and honk a horn. Personally, athletic skill does nothing for me aesthetically or morally. Yet, I would not consider sports to be immoral. I accept that some people will choose sports to watch and engage in, though I personally find them distasteful and a waste of time.

Thomas: Neither art nor sports are inherently immoral, as opposed to homosexuality. Both art and sport can be a form of worship and a medium by which the human heart engages in appreciating aspects of God’s creation. The comparison of arts and sports with an immoral, perverted, and sinful lifestyle is not an equivalent analogy since the analogy assumes that both sports and homosexuality are morally neutral and hence choices that would be a matter of preference rather than having deep social consequences.
Thus, the consideration is not about live and let live, choice, and tolerance, the argument is really about whether there is such a thing as sin, absolute evil, and wrong moral choices. As a Christian I organize my choices and morality around God’s revelation of the laws of nature and the patterns of behavior that produce the highest levels of satisfaction in life. I believe that following the laws of nature and long-term personal satisfaction are identical to those revealed in scripture. As a Libertarian and atheist, you probably organize your judgment of morality around concepts of self-determination, freedom, natural law, and an Ayn Rand type of secular humanism.
The place where people disagree with this thesis (i.e. that God’s law and perspective is identical to that which would produce the highest and best good for human relationships and happiness) is in general around the issues of human sexuality. The Libertarian, atheist, and liberal argue for the freedom to follow one’s own passions regarding the “victimless” crimes of sexual license. But, they are not victimless crimes because all the sexual transgressions multiply their effects outside of the individual. When any population of sexual transgressors become large enough, the effect of the group mind of adulterers, fornicators, pederasts, sadomasochists, homosexuals, etc. can significantly affect the tone of the society.
If homosexuality were only a private personal preference and its influence spread no further, then its practice would probably have only a modest effect upon the social order. But, homosexuality appears to engender a spirit of enrollment in those who practice it. The examples above illustrate the desire of the homosexual spirit to impose moral approval by the society, and in particular to place its morality as a superior system to Christianity. It desires complete influence over the legislative and judicial philosophy of the nation and desires imposing enforcement against the right of Christians to believe and teach that homosexuality is a wrong, unGodly, unhealthy, and society-degrading practice. Thus the conflict between: 1) The atheist-liberal-libertarian perspective that all victimless, preference-based lifestyles should be honored, and 2) The Christian standard which declares that there is a right way for humanity to behave as revealed in the Bible, and that all other ways are less-than-perfect, erroneous, suboptimal, and hence sinful.
Sin produces pain and hurt to self and/or others. Sin is defined as anything outside of the perfect moral order of peace and health as defined by God. He has given us instructions and warnings to guide us in the ways of life-giving patterns of thought, speech, and action in this free-will universe. The casual observer can observe the obviously barren nature of homosexual relationships, and the dedication of homosexual activism to impose societal endorsement of their lifestyle. Homosexuality in its individual practice (i.e. the interview of the random homosexual on the street) appears to bear somewhat benign fruit. But, in sufficiently high concentration, homosexuality has shown itself willing to impose its moral standards upon a society. The sequence of decay result in from that new moral pattern is subtle and complex, and the long-term nature of the decay makes the downward slide almost imperceptible. For this reason, God warns us to avoid allowing these seducing spirits into our moral system.

John: So, here is an example of something that I would not cheer for and not say “that’s a good thing”, and I would not want my kids to be involved with, and yet I will accept that some people will make their choice for sports and are not evil, though I may suspect that they are less than intellectual for making their choice. I always told my son that there are better things he can do with his time than develop a taste for, or engage in, athletic activities. Yet I would never tell my son that we should act to make athletics illegal.

Thomas: I fully agree that sports are neither good nor bad. But, just like any other morality neutral activity, sport can be taken to an extreme and become a distraction from involvement with family, introspection, intellectual development, and spiritual understanding. Even morally neutral pursuits can be abused by spending excessive time, attention, and energy on these activities. Taken in the proper frame, sports are as much an art form as still life, theatre, and music. To get the most from any life activity, we should approach it with a meta-perspective. For example, art is of little value if the mind and heart are not engaged to learn lessons, stimulate memories, and engage in introspective comparisons. Life is richer as we more deeply understand the connectedness of life, deeply involve ourselves in the drama of the moment, and appreciate being fully embraced and involved in God’s world. But again, these considerations about how we appreciate and experience art and sport have nothing to do with whether or not we should allow homosexuality to proliferate and be practiced without moral injunction and disapproval on a societal level.

John: I think gays would like to be thought of in that way — they do not necessarily want you to cheer and say it is a good thing, better than what I am doing, etc.
Thomas: Yes, you are right. Homosexuals would love to have everyone think they were just normal, average, and totally healthy. But, such an attitude toward them would be wrongly given since homosexuality does not fall into the category of morally neutral behaviors. There are individuals who may not care about applause and approval, but the spirit of homosexuality desires to be exalted above all others. It is a dominating, enrolling, and commanding spirit when sufficient numbers of its subjects are banded together.
John: They want us to look at them for choosing something we would not choose, but on the same footing as anything we do choose.

Thomas: Individual homosexuals may in fact want to practice their lifestyle and be left alone while destroying their own souls, and reaping the rewards of their own sin on their own bodies, souls, and spirits. But, the embrace of any sin will degrade a society, regardless of whether it is pride, greed, lust, selfishness, or murder. The moral fiber of our society has eroded, and will continue to erode, because of the bending to the ethics of Political Correctness. The Politically Correct philosophers claim that Christianity is intolerant because it names homosexuality a sin. They have turned homosexuality into a civil rights issue, and under this banner have justified exerting the power of the state on Christians to force the moral approval of homosexuality. The homosexual agenda is not Libertarian-friendly as evidenced by the homosexual activists who have colluded with the state to impose their standards of restricting speech and enforcing morally repugnant behavior upon Christians.
But, we cannot call upon Libertarian principles to justify our stand in favor of Christianity. Rather, we must choose to simply choose our allegiance to Christian principles and declare they are Right, True, and good, and that the Politically Correct philosophy is wrong. We cannot escape legislating morality; the question is only whose morality will shape the laws of a nation.
Evaluation of the morality of homosexuality requires a mutually exclusive, one-way declaration of societal approval or disapproval of homosexuality. Either homosexuality is good, and a true civil right that society should enforce, or it is wrong; in which case it should be named as sinful and rejected at the very least by societal disapproval. Social forces have polarized strongly around this issue, and a societal decision will eventually be imposed upon the people, probably by an activist court decision or a leftist legislature.
This conflict clearly illuminates the fact that two mutually exclusive worldviews exist and are competing for preeminence. Logic requires the choice of one as Right (life giving, True, Godly, prospering) and one as wrong (moving toward death and decay, antithetical to God’s natural law, and impoverishing). Such stark and mutually opposed philosophies make a complete laissez faire solution impossible. The two perspectives cannot live in the same societal space as the dominant, socially enforced paradigm. A single societal solution requires one to submit as subservient. Comparing the two moral systems: 1) Christianity at its base is required to declare homosexuality a sin. 2) Homosexual activists have clearly demonstrated their willingness to restrict the right of Christians to speak publicly against homosexuality in other countries.
Societal approval or disapproval of homosexuality is an issue where mutually exclusive perspectives will be decided based by the moral declaration of the people, or by the dictates of the courts, which will impose fiat law on the masses. Regardless of the method of resolution, the result will be that one group will be suppressed or censured by law. The question is whether we should suppress Christianity, with its God honoring commitments to Right and fair behavior, or should we censure homosexuality, with its barren, unnatural, and imbalanced relationship to polarities?
As you know, my opinion is that if homosexuality were content to practice only in the dark, and never attempt to influence the larger culture, it would still be a weight and detractor to the perfection of the culture, but its influence would probably remain sufficiently small so as to be tolerable. But, given the noxious and pernicious tendency of homosexuality to impose its standards of morality on the rules of societal conduct, it cannot be allowed to gain a preeminent social voice.

John: Now, whether or not I can do that, or feel that way about them, is an entirely different matter! But I am saying that, based on the gays I know, this is what I interpret that gays want, as distinguished from the claim in this article.

Thomas: There are no doubt homosexuals who just want to get along, live and let live, and do their own personal practice. But, the spirit of homosexuality is evil and opposes the natural Godly order. It does not want to just coexist, it wants to dominate, dictate, and rule. It wants to silence a societal standard that condemns it, and establish a social standard that embraces and exalts it. Domination and control are drives that ensure survival; all of life, spiritual and physical appear to have a survival drive. The homosexual spirit seeks to silence and dominate its critics. In particular, it seeks to outlaw the Christian teachings against homosexuality. The Judeo Christian ethic seeks to teach every man to embrace goodness, and recognizes that God has given men the choice to do evil. As Christians, we believe that God has given man the charge to take control of our passions, both personally and as a society. As such, we should adopt a legislative framework, which includes the principles of sexual purity, sanctity of life, right of self-defense, and the responsibility of men to provide for their families.
The proper choice is for society to willingly recognize, codify, and live by the restrictions of lifestyles, rules, and patterns of truth embedded in the universe. God-given patterns of life cannot be broken without being broken. Homosexuality is the dividing point between freedom of choice and societal decay. Adultery, fornication, and abortion are close family spirits, all of which will likewise disassemble the finest fabric of the social order. The suppression of Christianity as a primary social pattern will prevent the best flower of society from blooming.
John: Now, the bit about the gays suing the photographer over not accepting them is obviously way over the top in my view. Gays have the freedom to be gay, and I have the freedom to be offended. And gays have the freedom to be offended by me. I don’t have a problem with that.
Thomas: You are assuming that the homosexual spirit will allow you to retain your freedom to be offended. That is exactly the problem; the homosexual spirit wishes to use the force of the state to prohibit objection. They wish to pass laws which will require you to proactively act upon their desire for you to hire them, teach their lifestyle as normal to young children and give them all the social approval as role models and honorable, even if you object. In fact, even your inner sense of objecting to their lifestyle is unacceptable, and if it were socially possible, you would be sent for retraining to modify your thinking and belief structures. Drugs, sleep deprivation, punishment, and all manner of aversive and pleasure programming would be used if this were allowed as tools of changing the mind and heart of those who object.
You are attempting to follow the principles of Libertarianism, whose philosophy sounds very honorable. But, this philosophy that supports giving freedom to all will allow the imposition of subjugation. The homosexual spirit is treacherous, it will turn on those who give it comfort and aid after it has acquired enough strength. The homosexual spirit, if given freedom, will use its freedom to put others under bondage.
Libertarianism seeks to honor homosexuals’ choice to act however they wish since on its surface homosexuality seems so benign. But if you allow the homosexual spirit to fully enter the system of the legislative process as an equal partner, it will take your goodwill and the freedom you have given it to act in society, and it will use the apparatus of the state to legislate against your freedom to object to their imposition of will.
You are struggling with the questions of whether to organize the society around giving total freedom (license) vs. organizing a society around standards of moral absolutes and enforcing them. As an atheist, you believe there are no standards that God has given, only standards that are obvious to the natural man as violations of personal space. To an extent, I agree, but I contend that all the laws, even the laws of sexuality violate the space of others.
You want to believe that the principles of Libertarianism can free you from the need to pass judgments and declare the Judeo-Christian sexually prohibited behaviors as wrong. But, the data about homosexual legislative and judicial behavior illustrates the destructive nature of those who rebel against the standards of Christianity.
The problem is that the homosexual spirit wishes to criminalize your objection to homosexuality. And this, of course, opposes the precepts of Libertarianism. Above all, you would like to avoid embracing the Christian position of calling homosexuality a sin because this confronts your belief structure as an atheist.
Regarding the issue of whether the state should be involved in enforcing the prohibition of sin, to a large extent, I agree that the state should not be involved in such matters. I consider most of the sexual sins to be more of a parental, peer group, elder council type of problem. The same is true of issues such as abortion, smoking, eating trans fats, and using mind-altering drugs. One position I am firm on is that the state should definitely not pass laws approving the practice of sin.
The state should not be involved in enforcing every moral transgression; rather, the family and local group should be the teachers and enforcers of right moral conduct by using the various tools of discipline. But, if the moral standards of the group and their enforcement decays sufficiently, the people will demand that the state put on the shackles of law to protect themselves from those who disregard the common limits of decency.
We see the people crying out for the state to protect them from social disorder when the church relaxes its teaching of Right moral standards, and families likewise neglect the discipline of their youth. Even homosexuals desire the safety of a society based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. But, they rebel against the standards of Christianity as they apply to sexuality. Thus, they are internally conflicted in their desire to support or condemn Christianity and its influence on the culture.
Even though there is a benefit to the homosexual living in a Christian society, for most, the spirit of homosexuality blinds them and they rebel against Christianity in general. The preeminence of Christianity as a societal standard convicts them as sinners, and they know it. Thus, they seek to eliminate every vestige of Christian influence in the society in an attempt to eliminate the voice of guilt and condemnation their hearts feel. It drives them to remove the influence of the 10 Commandments, prayer, and all other recognition of Christianity as the foundational pattern of social organization.
The evidence of the pernicious agenda of homosexuality should be enough to convince the state to abandon its current passion to legislate and judge according to a totally non-religious bias. The state should fully support the church, family, and educational institutions and their training of children and adults in the Judeo-Christian standards of righteousness. To our detriment, we have criminalized the propagation of morality, outlawed the teaching of God’s laws, and banned His worship in our schools. We have sowed license, self-gratification, and lawlessness into the hearts of two generations of children, and we will reap a society that demands to have all the walls torn down. Broad-Based support for Godliness in the society is the foundation of a good, safe, prosperous, and pleasant society.

John: Freedom of choice includes the freedom to react to the choice of others.

Thomas: This is true, but reacting to the choices of the homosexuals is rapidly becoming a freedom that will be taken away from us by our foolish, self-imposed, slavish, and morally bankrupt service of “freedom”, tolerance, and separation of church and state. The homosexual spirit will soon be criminalizing our expression of objection and choice to not support, embrace, and promote their lifestyle. The above article illustrates the fact that we are already are facing their use of the machinery of state to suppress freedom of speech and conscience.
John: Freedom of association includes the freedom to choose NOT to associate with others, etc.

Thomas: You are right; a truly righteously free society must allow the freedom of non-association. But, the freedom to not associate with, not hire, and not support homosexual behavior may soon be made broadly illegal by those who believe that their freedom/right to be homosexual is being abridged by my refusal to approve of and support them with employment, and marital and parenting rights. The virtue of freedom in a social system becomes a vice when the cry to freedom is used to enforce the embrace of evil within society. Freedom is not the highest virtue, Godliness is. Evil has used freedom as its decoy, as a plausible virtue behind which to stand and associate itself.
We have become a morally unsophisticated populace. We cannot fully blame the state for banning prayer and Bible reading from the curriculum, but we cannot ignore the fact that the State has had a major influence in the secularization of the nation. Mankind has always had a difficult time maintaining its allegiance to the one True God, as evidenced by the Israelites and their frequent rebellion against God, even in the face of miraculous signs. The family should be the cornerstone and foundation of spiritual instruction, but sadly it only takes a few rebels and charismatic leaders to pull a society from its allegiance to Truth.
For 150 years after our foundation, we remained nominally steadfast in our commitment as a Christian nation. The change began when the Warren Court declared in the 1948 “Everson vs. Board of Education” ruling that a new Constitutional principle of “Separation of Church and State” was supremely operative. This began the inevitable slide toward court-ordered removal of all Christian influence from the State-supported educational process. Eventually, the K-12 education reflected this new organizing principle and the schooling experience became an indoctrination in the religion of secular humanism.
The family and church, notoriously poor at keeping the society firm upon the path of following Godly principles, was overruled by the 8 hr/day for 12 years of secular indoctrination. While not fully successful in creating a monoculture of humanistic True Believers, the educational establishment has served its purpose and successfully created a majority of Americans who have doubts about the authority and validity of Christian doctrine and Truth. The graduates of our schooling establishments prefer to allow the populace to follow their own individual truth, rather than support the State in exposing them to, and training them in, the ways of Judeo Christian thought, emotion, and discipline.
Thus, while we cannot blame the state fully for our decline in belief, we cannot ignore the fact that societies have typically fallen from the faith when the general social climate did not support the faith. The effect of unGodly government is obvious, and we have not chosen to adopt, require, demand, and subject our government to the principles of Godliness. (Proverbs 28:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.) As moderns, we would like to believe that we can separate the institutions of church and state, and make the two completely separate. But without a sanctified state, we will live under an unrighteous rule, and the people will groan.

(Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.)

Romans 13 refers to obeying the righteous rulers and the appropriateness of obeying such commands. But, it also states that God’s authority is the only authority. Thus, since there are clearly unrighteous rulers that come to rule over mankind, Romans 13:1 implies that it is God’s will when unrighteous rulers come upon us. When we have rebelled, and forgotten him and his way, we will be chastened. In this way, we purify ourselves as we submit to Him and seek His face again.
Thus, to prevent ourselves from being taken into the place of discipline for purification, as wise citizens we should vote to impose righteousness upon ourselves. We have allowed 60 years to pass since the unrighteous Warren Court imposed the fiat Constitutional principle of “Everson vs. Board of Education” upon us. As a people, we have not had the spiritual insight nor brought ourselves up as a nation-culture-people to say “No, this wrong.” Thus, this abominable has shaped our political interpretation of God and his relationship with man, culture, and government.
Clearly, as a nation, the people of the 1940s and beyond have not lived to the standard of righteousness God desired. He allowed the Warren Court to begin the decay, and we have had 60 years to rectify this error. But, as a people and nation, we have not been activated to throw off this unGodly principle of government. For 60 years we have allowed it to stand and dilute our commitment to righteous self-regulation. For 60 years we have allowed the infiltration of unGodly philosophies, religions, and moral systems to embed themselves and compete with God’s Way of Righteousness in the hearts and minds of men. As such, we deserve the fruit of our error.
It is time for His people to repent, and speak with one voice and reject the Politically Correct mandate of Separation of Church and State. It is time for us to embrace the embodiment of Godly government guided by the Judeo-Christian scripture. It is time to throw down the idols of choice, tolerance, equality, freedom, and privacy, and raise up the standards of the one True God, and govern according to those righteous principles.

John: Freedom is not measured by the choices others make that we approve of. Even Hitler could have supported a definition of freedom like that.

Thomas: As a society, we should only approve of choices that are good, Righteous, and Godly. The human standard of acceptability is skewed by crooked measures such as personal pleasure, power, and lust. Freedom simply means that society has not constrained what our passion or reason desires. Again, freedom cannot be used as a standard by which to judge the highest good, since it is the reward for self-discipline in righteousness. Freedom blooms as a fragrant societal flower when the populace chooses to broadly conduct itself rightly. Making an activity legal and free from prosecution does not confirm its status as Right or good. Rather, that good and Right arises from God’s patterns of Law that He has embedded in nature and the hearts of men. But man, in his limited frame, has difficulty seeing the Truth clearly. We should choose our laws and social regulations based on Scripture, and modify those broad principles of Truth to match the specific needs of the particular social concern. Once implemented, we should examine the large-scale, statistically based effect of this social regulation. Observing societal indicators can identify a belief-behavior as evil (i.e. unGodly, suboptimal, and life-quality diminishing). By watching the multiplier effect of broadly implemented behavior in a large population, its effect is more easily identified.
Such a method gives us an indication of whether we have identified an individual or group behavior as profitable, good, worthy, and beneficial. Such is the same with any personal behavior allowed to proliferate in the society, as the population of practitioners multiplies, its effect and fruit become more pronounced, obvious, and easily identifiable as excellent, neutral, or pernicious. The more benign the sin, the larger the population of practitioners needed to observe before the pain of the sin stands out from the normal foolishness and errors of mankind.
Even the people who approve of a sin will eventually object to it when the population of sinners becomes sufficiently concentrated. When the concentration of sinners rises to a sufficient level, then those who choose to use their liberty to degrade themselves and perpetrate upon others will be so numerous that the buffer of righteousness is saturated, and society begins to noticeably degenerate. A society fails when its borders are breached and it can no longer maintain itself as a separate entity. The society fails when its system of laws and corridors of commerce are disrupted so severely that the people’s needs drive them to scavenge from each other rather than produce goods and trade value for value. Failure may occur when people are so distracted by parasitic activities that they neglect the important forces of decay that are operating in their midst. Obsessions about tolerance, privacy, equality, and choice to rationalize immorality are the type of distractions that cause an unrighteous people to pass laws and engage in judicial maneuvers that compromise security, and financial survival. With sufficient errors of omission and commission, the nation may cry out for a King, a dictator, martial law, surveillance, to bring order and survival. In a nation of free people, a tyrant only comes when the people ask for him to rule and save them.
Ultimately, only Godly Righteousness is fully tolerated and embraced by the entirety of society. It is impossible to satisfy sinners since they will always object that their right to sin is being trampled. They currently use arguments supporting the right of privacy, self-determination, tolerance, equality, choice and other plausible virtues and innate rights have been putatively abridged. They rebel against the restrictions of religion, God, society, and claim themselves to be victims of intolerant bigotry against their particular form of sin. But, such arguments must be refuted by reason that validates the fact that sin cannot be multiplied in a society without having it change the very character of that society. Society must take a stand against sin. The society that embraces the freedom for sinners allows perpetration upon on the rest of society.
Again, freedom is not the highest of all virtues, nor should it be the singular organizing principle around which a society is based. Rather, commitment to Righteousness should be the highest principle, and from following the principles of God, and practicing of loving neighbor as self. When this standard is widely practiced, freedom can be given to the society as its reward for assuming the position of external control required of a government ruling an undisciplined people. Godly freedom requires the sacrifice of our passion to do whatever we want (satisfying our selfish desires to violate God’s laws), and instead volitionally choosing what is Right.
(Note: This entire discussion revolves around the question as to whether homosexuality is harmful to society. I believe that tolerating, and embracing, homosexuality will contribute to the complex of moral degradation of individual and group social standards. When behavior begins to decay sufficiently on the group level, because of the lack of individual self-control, an ever greater level of external control of the individual will be required to moderate the social chaos that ensues.)
John: Instead, freedom is measured by the choices others make that we DISapprove of, no matter how distasteful we think of their choices.

Thomas: You have given a Libertarian definition of unregulated and unqualified freedom and implied that this is the best and highest form of societal organization. But, such a society would not necessarily be good unless the individuals populating this society were all personally regulating their actions and speech according to Righteousness, the absolute standard of goodness as defined and designed by God. Otherwise, unregulated Freedom allows the unfettered destruction of self and others in accordance with the drives of personal desire.
But, the mutually exclusive nature of reality dictates that Freedom cannot be applied equally to both perpetrators and victims. A society can choose to give freedom to only one of two citizen classes: 1) Sinners who oppose God’s laws and violate themselves and others, or 2) Righteous men who wish to: openly speak their beliefs about God’s intent, establish Godly laws to guide society, defend themselves against perpetration, travel without fear, and choose who they will employ, associate with, and serve.
Only a Righteous people will establish a social order which allows enduring freedom.  While any society can choose freedom as a governing principle, sadly, that freedom will fade with time.  In a Law-based society, the realities of men’s selfishness create a cascade of reaction that ultimately ends in the passage of laws, enforcement, and boundaries meant to keep us safe, but it puts us in prisons of our own making.  The same would be true of a market-based government, the only difference would be the mechanism by which people chose to establish laws and enforcement.
Thus, each individual must execute proper/Right self-restraint and defense of personal borders to maximize individual and group freedom.  Since even a Righteous people are still imperfect and sinful, they will naturally violate the boundaries of Righteousness.  Thus, each individual must take responsibility for defending his boundaries, and confront violation through the proper hierarchical sequence.  If such personal police and judicial response is engaged after an offense and properly escalated through the layers, then the State need not intervene to protect the masses with broad-based laws that restrict entire categories of action to the lowest common denominator of safety.
The foundation of freedom is taking personal responsibility in defense of personal boundaries.  Each individual should confront and enforce a violation of his personal space. In general terms, each man should negotiate with his neighbor over disputed issues. If this is unsatisfactory, the family or peer group should hear both sides and render an opinion as to the proper, fair, and right resolution. And, if the dispute is not resolved agreeably, then the community elders should hear and render judgment. If this is not acceptable, a judge who represents the state should be given the power to pass and enforce judgment as per the people’s authorization. This final step is the point of government intervention, and no court or governmental authority should intervene until the invested civilian population has thoroughly processed the violation. By taking personal responsibility to solve your problems, the society maintains control of all but the most egregious violation, hence the ability to have only a Limited Government. When the people ignore their responsibility to confront and discipline offenses committed in their own domain of influence and expect someone else to do it for them, the government bureaucracy will multiply and freedom diminish proportionately.
Libertarian philosophy has many flavors, but in general, it assumes that pain inflicted upon self and others will automatically dampen if a society is open and unrestricted by governmental interference. This theory postulates that destructive and painful behavior will be opposed by the negative feedback elicited by pain, which is true if feedback is properly administered. This theory fails when there is a delay in the feedback loops of society. If each person took personal responsibility for confronting pain and abuse, the society could function with the minimum amount of government as mentioned above. If the offended individuals ignore the pain in their lives and expect that the police, courts, or administrative agencies will handle the bad behavior, the delay and poorly directed feedback will allow large centers of dysfunction to form and maintain stability. Thus, an optimally free society requires that the citizens personally hold a Righteous standard of judgment, and relentlessly confront bad behavior through the proper chain of command.
The freedom to sin and damage one’s own body (with drugs, illicit sex, suicide, unhealthy lifestyle, smoking, excessive alcohol…) is considered a right of Freedom in libertarian philosophy. But, self-harm is simply a disguised form of harming others and diminishing their freedom. An entire society is incrementally degraded in its quality by every act of self-harm. If widely embraced and practiced, perpetration against self results in a society that degrades by degree with each empty and poorly functioning social role. Eventually, the buffer of competence and productivity will be stretched so thin that the fabric of civilized, high functioning and serving society will collapse. Thus, there are no victimless crimes, and there is no absolute right to make wrong choices. Every wrong choice made by everyone has a consequence outside of the individual. There is nothing that is “just my business.” We are all unavoidably interconnected.
We see clearly that Freedom cannot be used as the measure of a good society. There will be a difference in the quality of a society allowing the limited Freedom due Righteousness compared to the unregulated Freedom desired by Sin. The limited Freedom of Righteousness requires the subjugation of one’s self to the disciplines of God, whereas the unregulated Freedom of the Sinner allows all to perpetrate on self or others. Obviously, God has given us the freedom to fail and to perpetrate. We should try to prevent the occasional ignorant and forgetful damage we do to self and others, and we must remain vigilant against our desire for purposeful hurt. This commitment to the highest and best behavior should penetrate deep into the social fabric and culture. In other words, Freedom without an absolute commitment to Righteousness embedded within all men produces a suboptimal society, and the endorsement, approval, and authorization of evil guarantee the spread of degradation.
The question as to whether a Godless society can properly evaluate and choose the same best standards of fairness and righteousness shall be left for another essay. But in short, the perfection of Godliness is recognized and known by every heart, regardless of his acknowledgment of the divine standard and its Source. The fact is that we all know and are convicted by Truth, but without a commitment to the one True God, our reception of that voice and willingness to follow that standard is confused and drowned out by the competing voices of self-interest and deceptive spirits.

(Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.)

The feedback loops that indicate error are weak and delayed and man learns poorly from the evidence of his eyes. The result is that even with the best of intentions, the Secular Humanist and objectivist will have difficulty following the perfection of God’s way. Evidence should be used in organizing our social systems, but it should not contradict the guidance we see in the Word of God. The fact that God allows us to make wrong choices cannot be used as a validation for giving every man complete freedom to do whatever he wants in society. The platform of the creation was given as a barren field to till, fertilize, plant, grow, and harvest. Organization and discipline is the work of mankind. God has given us the freedom to choose good or evil, but the job of mankind is to make the right choices, not simply to be free. To allow the wrong choices of life without opposing them in the name of “Freedom” is to ignore the charge of life God has given us.
As individuals, and as a society, we cannot allow others to behave however they choose. To do so is to worship the god of Freedom (above the God of gods). Worshiping Freedom above Righteousness puts us at risk of being sacrificed on the altar of Freedom by those who choose to exercise their Freedom at my expense. Freedom is only justified and proper for a people who act according to principles of Righteousness, justice, and Godliness. Giving freedom to an evil man authorizes him to perpetrate without boundaries. We are called to establish a Righteous Society, where all are unified in their commitment to Righteousness. Such a state will manifest an environment where the highest and best happiness of the individual and group will be experienced. The child is permitted the freedom to choose evil, once. But after having made that wrong choice, he should be confronted with the consequences of practicing it. The loving parent gives feedback and consequences at the level necessary to teach the child to not destroy himself and others by his habitual embrace of that evil.
The questions at the base of your comments are: 1) “Is homosexuality a sin, immoral, and wrong, and does the practice of it have social consequences that infringe on my happiness and freedom.” I believe the answer to this question is, “Yes”. 2) “Should we have a government that regulates moral behavior?” Again, I believe the answer is, “Yes”. The largest portion of government should be executed between people on an informal operational level. As society becomes more complex, technological, interconnected, and diverse, new problems arise that were not visible in low-tech and low-density life. We should have administrative rules that codify the community standards that establish benchmark standards for professionals, building quality, safety standards, environmental quality, food and drug safety, educational standards, energy needs, land use, and defense. But, we should try to follow the standards ourselves out of diligence and commitment to excellence. Likewise, we should be involved with our neighbor and support each other in righteous compliance with good standards. In a widely distributed society optimization of function can only occur if there is sufficient communication between communities of similar interest. Thus, the professional and trade associations should be the primary first level participants in establishing proper and realistic standards and supporting themselves in adhering to those standards.
At the next layer, where the state actually establishes regulations and administrative rules, this requires the finding and establishing of the proper minimum regulation by government. A Righteous people, who elect Righteous leaders, and who pass Righteous laws can do it properly. With that mix, it is possible to have only a minimum of laws that guide in Righteousness and give consequences to the prohibited (non-free) behaviors. The list of laws will run toward infinity if all the prohibited behaviors are codified as legislation. Thus, if we wish to be a free nation, where all “shoulds” and “should not’s” are not codified, we must be a people who are self-regulated by a correct (God-created) and internally embraced standard of Righteousness. In such a society, we can live at an optimal minimal level of government-imposed restrictions.
The real question is, “What standard of Godliness should we use?” The Bill of Rights declared that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Founders had no intention of giving equal societal standing for all religions. The majority of the Founders were pastors or elders, and nearly all were ardent practitioners of the Christian faith. It is nonsense to declare that the Christian men, who had dedicated and risked their lives to form a new nation, would embed the Constitution with an intentional prohibition to use Christianity as its guiding principle. They did not want a State Church, as had been the case in England. Thus, they expected that the people, deeply committed to their Christian principles and faith, would choose to continue to guide and govern the nation according to Christian principles, and strongly pass their faith on to the next generation. Schooling was done largely at home, using the Bible as the lesson for reading. When public education came, the McGuffey Reader and New England Primer (both extracted from the Bible) were used. Public schooling was an extension of the charge of responsibility to instruct in the faith. With the advent of “Separation of Church and State” doctrine, the children were taken as de facto wards of a secular state, and given instruction in topics devoid of Christian doctrine, thus giving no stable moral reference upon which to stand.
The Libertarian has a problem with government supporting one religion over another, and using the power of the state to enforce compliance with those tenets. As discussed above, there are very different social effects associated with adopting a totally Libertarian approach to freedom, versus adopting a Christian approach to freedom. As individuals, we must each choose whether we wish to put on the yoke of limitations prescribed by the God of the Bible, or whether we wish to worship the abstract god of Freedom and Liberty. I believe the wise man can see that the poor fruit of worshiping lesser gods, and that moderation of Freedom in submission to the principles and standards of Godly Righteousness makes the sacrifice of unrestricted freedom worthwhile.
The Framers intended that Christianity be the vital center pillar supporting our society. Our founding documents established a sacred covenant with the God of Heaven, and He has blessed us to the extent we have honored that covenant by serving Him. Duty requires that we give our lives in the service of bringing His Kingdom on Earth.
We now ask, “How do we return Christianity to the place of prominence that it once held in our society? How do we restore the broad societal allegiance to that original covenant with Almighty God?” As Christians, we must properly represent Christ with the testimony of our lives. We must confront with prayer, words, and action the societal evil that has already established itself in the accepted moral assumptions of the group mind. The revolution that returns Christ to the center of our national morality will be difficult, and there will be opposition to the call for society to submit to the standards of Godliness. The world recoils at the name of Jesus, but we must proudly declare his name and be shining examples of the new life we have in Him.
The hour may be too late to fully repel the Spirit of this Age, and if this is the time ordained by God’s End Time script, then evil will rule for a season, and no human plans and effort can thwart its ascendance. But retreat is not an option, we do not know the day nor the hour when the Lord will come, so we must continue to work to establish the kingdom even in dark times. Speak the Good News into your realm of influence, and work to rescue the perishing. A time will come when the Lord returns with the power to dwell with the faithful. Keep your eyes on the prize; the righteous will receive their just reward.
T.

From: John
To: ‘Thomas Lee Abshier, ND’
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:01 AM
Subject: RE: Homosexual agenda revealed

Tom, thanks for writing all that. Once again, you said a lot of interesting things, and I would like to take time to respond to individual sections that are particularly interesting to me. But no time right now, unfortunately.
But I will say that the original article was specifically about what gays are demanding or expecting from society. My response was intended only to address that one issue — what gays appear to be demanding – and to the author’s statement about that. The article itself, and my reply were not addressing the “morality” of homosexuality. I would actually agree with most of what you wrote but on more biological and secular grounds. But I thought that was beside the point.
I can only base my opinion about what gays expect from society on the case-by-case gay people I have encountered, spoken with, and observed. Some gays somewhere might be pushing a gay agenda. But every gay individual or couple I have ever met are, if anything, self-conscious and just want polite acceptance. I don’t like the idea of treating homosexuality as normal, and I especially oppose raising children to think that it is normal to have married parents of the same gender. So, that’s where I personally draw the line. But, I have yet to find an adult who hates me because he’s gay and I am not. I am not saying they are not out there. I am only saying that has never been my experience.
All the best!
– John

From: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
To: John
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Homosexual agenda revealed
Dear John,
I understand your perspective, and it sounds largely very similar to my mine. I likewise have found that most individual homosexuals were pleasant, although I have seen exceptions to that, especially when discussing the issues of the gay agenda, or more specifically, taking a position arguing against the gay agenda. I think the point where we diverge is in terms of whether there is a gay agenda threat. And even then, it doesn’t sound like you actually disagree with the possibility that there is a threat, it’s just that the homosexuals you have met personally do not seem threatening or desire a great expansion of social influence. In other words, your data set does not include much information that would lead you to come to the personal conclusion that homosexuals are a threat to your right to disagree or deny giving moral approval.
I likewise have never met any homosexuals that hated me because I was heterosexual. But, at her school where there was a high concentration of female homosexuals, Margo experienced pressure, and retaliatory shunning in response to resisting the lesbian advances. Nevertheless, I do not think that hatred of heterosexuals is currently a major theme of the homosexual movement. This may change when the prevalence of homosexuality increases in the culture.
Rather, my point was that there within the homosexual movement, there is a desire to establish societal laws that would impose an overt acceptance and approval of their lifestyle upon me. We can see the creeping incrementalism of laws that are slowly enforcing the societal acceptance, normalization, and approval of homosexual behavior. I believe that this particular issue is going to be a strong pillar used in the removal of our freedom to believe and speak the Christian position of opposing the homosexual agenda.
I have met homosexuals who were active in the movement who wanted to be normalized by law, but I have not met anyone who has specifically sued someone for not being given a job because they are homosexual. While not in my personal experience, it sounds very likely given the militancy and enrollment mentality of the homosexual community that I have seen. I cannot accept this imposition of normalcy that forces me to accept their beliefs and practices as right, good, and normal. When the government adopts tax and regulatory structures that give them the same social recognition as moral heterosexual couples, we have moved closer to the day when I am prevented by law and force from publicly objecting to homosexuality. I brought up the surrounding associated issues of freedom and religion because they were arguments that fit into the entire complex of the consideration of the implication of the normalization of homosexuality.
In 2004, Dr. D. James Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries did a documentary on the erosion of the rights of Christians to speak against homosexual immorality in other countries; the documentary mentioned Canada and Sweden in particular. In those countries, pastors have faced legal action for simply speaking what the Bible says from the pulpit. And, individuals have spent large sums defending themselves against the accusation of hate crimes for speaking the Biblical message regarding homosexuality. This is not the America that I grew up in, nor the America that our Founders intended. They intended a nation with robust support for Freedom of Speech (speech on issues of controversy without government restriction). They especially intended free speech for the proclamation of revelation, admonishment, and revelation from the Bible – the Word of God.
Until then,
Always good hearing from you.
Thomas