![]() |
||||||||||
|
Dr. Albert Mohler: “Gay” Culture and the Riddle of Andrew SullivanNovember 6th, 2006
From Gay Culture and the Riddle of Andrew Sullivan, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Oct 27, 2006:
In the October 24, 2005 issue of The New Republic, Sullivan writes about “The End of Gay Culture.” Of course, Sullivan’s perspective on homosexuality and gay culture is deeply rooted in his own homosexuality and his ardent embrace of his own homosexual lifestyle. He is anything but a dispassionate observer… As he reviews the impact of the HIV crisis, Sullivan points to some patterns that emerged in its aftermath–patterns that would likely be missed by those outside the gay subculture. The emergence of lesbians as leaders of the major gay rights organizations was, Sullivan suggests, largely due to the fact that the gay male leaders were largely dead… “Gay marriage is not a radical step,” Sullivan insisted… But, even as Sullivan argued for the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage, more radical homosexual theorists were dismissing marriage altogether. As Sullivan explained,
Sullivan’s 1995 book, and his most recent article, must be read in light of his 1998 testimonial, Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival. This book was written after Sullivan had been diagnosed as HIV-positive. As he recalled:
When a high school friend asked Sullivan how he had contracted the virus, Sullivan informed him that he had no idea which sex partner had been the source of the viral transmission. “How many people did you sleep with, for God’s sake?,” his friend asked. Note Sullivan’s answer carefully:
In other words, the public Andrew Sullivan emerged as a major proponent of responsibility, stability, and self-control, while the private Andrew Sullivan was deeply involved in homosexual promiscuity. All this broke into public view in 2001, when a homosexual columnist discovered that Sullivan had been posting advertisements for unprotected homosexual sex at internet web sites. The ensuing controversy within the gay community was vitriolic, even as it was revealing. “The End of Gay Culture” is an eye-opening essay. As an exercise in cultural analysis, it demonstrates genuine insight and an insider’s perspective. More than anything else, Sullivan’s article should awaken thinking Christians to the fact that homosexuality is being normalized in the larger culture. This surely represents a matter of urgent missiological concern, for the normalization of sin represents a progressive hardening of the nation’s heart against the Gospel. At a more personal level, this article reminds me to pray for Andrew Sullivan. I say this even as I realize that he may be more offended by my prayer than by anything else. In most of his writings, Mr. Sullivan demonstrates a consistent and ardent determination to celebrate homosexuality as central to his own self-discovery and personhood. Yet, he also reveals significant doubts. When he explains that he “never publicly defended promiscuity” nor publicly attacked it because “I felt, and often still feel, unable to live up to the ideals I really hold,” I detect a glimmer of doubt. I have faced Mr. Sullivan in public debate on issues related to homosexuality. I consider him to be among the most gifted, thoughtful, and unpredictable intellectuals on the current scene. More than anything else, I want Mr. Sullivan to find his self-identity and deepest passions in the transforming power of Christ–the power to see all things made new. Without apology, I pray that one day he will see all that he has written in defense of homosexuality, and all that he has known in terms of his homosexual identity, as loss, and to find in Christ the only resolution of our sexuality and the only solution to the problem we all share–the problem of sin. Andrew Sullivan has been a focus of my prayer since I first learned of his HIV-positive status. I do pray that God will give him strengthened health and the gift of time. After all, our Christian concern should be focused not only on the challenge of homosexuality in the culture, but the challenge of reaching homosexuals with the love of Christ and the truth of the Gospel. Resources for Tuesday’s ElectionNovember 6th, 2006From the homepage of Concerned Women for America: State Referendums
Chad and David Engineer a Baby Who Will Never Know a Mother’s Tender LoveNovember 5th, 2006Excerpted from Ready to Be Dads, But They’re Going to Need Help, by Kevin Sack, published Oct 29, 2006, by Los Angeles Times: Chad Hodge liked #694. She was a 21-year-old college student, 5-feet-5, 135 pounds, with straight brown hair, blue eyes and a narrow nose. She had won 16 awards in high school for academics and music, and scored a 1210 on the SAT. She was outgoing, intelligent, responsible and friendly, or at least she said she was. Chad wanted her to be the mother of his children. But David Craig, Chad’s partner of seven years, had his heart set on #685. She was a teacher, 23, 5-feet-2, with wavy blond hair and light blue eyes. She wore a size 0. She had been a varsity tennis player in high school, a ballerina and a classical pianist. For two hours on that day in early 2004, Chad and David sat in a small office at Genetics & IVF Institute, a fertility clinic in northern Virginia, and sifted through the dossiers of prospective egg donors. It felt more like catalog shopping than human reproduction. The previous fall, they had decided to have a child through a gestational surrogacy arrangement. They would pay one woman to provide her eggs and then, after fertilizing them in vitro with their sperm, pay another woman to carry the resulting embryos to term… Rather than creating a life in the privacy of a bedroom, Chad and David would plot this conception in law offices, doctors’ suites and Internet chat rooms… Once Chad and David narrowed their choices to six, they were allowed to view adult photographs. They didn’t want to consider appearance at the exclusion of all else, but they couldn’t deny, in the privacy of that room, that it mattered. “You can’t ignore it,” David said. “I mean, who wants an ugly child?” …David…had serious reservations about being a parent. He liked their life as it was, he said, and he wasn’t convinced he was the nurturing kind. He worried that having two good fathers might, in the end, be just as unfair as having one inadequate one… “We want the life experience of having kids,” he told Chad, “but are we going to deny them the life experience of having a mother?” The Confession (Part II): Radical Proponents of Same-Sex “Marriage” Gaining PowerNovember 5th, 2006Be sure to read The Confession (Part I) posted below…
Excerpted from The Confession, Part II, by Stanley Kurtz, published Nov 1, 2006, by National Review: …Around the time the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement was released, a controversy broke out over news that the Boston Globe had told its gay employees to marry their partners or face losing their domestic-partnership benefits… According to [Globe journalist Zak] Szymanski, “Many national LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] groups, despite their large investment in securing gay marriage, agree that there is a problem with a society that values marriage over all other family forms.” For example, Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and a major spokesman in the battle for same-sex marriage, said, “We’re deeply disappointed by the Globe’s decision, and >we do not feel that benefits should flow only from marriage, because a married couple does not reflect the reality of the American family, gay or straight.” Michelle Granda, of GLAD, which Szymanski calls “the group that is widely credited with winning same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,” said, “We have always believed families are configured in many ways and that marriage is not the answer for all families.” …Here we have a clear indication of the family radicalism that hides beneath the only apparent conservatism of same-sex marriage advocacy groups… A Striking Development A Political Future …This all means that in a post-gay-marriage world, the political organization of the gay community will shift. For now, “conservative” proponents of same-sex marriage are out in front, supported by a vast array of considerably less conservative activists and lobby groups. Meanwhile, the radicals are marginalized and/or intentionally keeping a low profile. In a post-gay-marriage world, this situation will flip. The radicals will step out in front, supported by largely the same coalition of activists and lobby groups who currently support same-sex marriage. At that point, the conservatives, no longer needed to run interference for the larger movement, will be quietly put out to pasture. By then we shall be well beyond same-sex marriage. Listen carefully to the words of same-sex marriage supporters, and they confess as much themselves. The Confession: Have Same-Sex “Marriage” Advocates Said Too Much?November 5th, 2006Excerpted from The Confession, by Stanley Kurtz, published Oct 31, 2006, by National Review: Suppose a large group of same-sex-marriage activists came together and made the following confession to a group of same-sex-marriage skeptics:
For all practical purposes, this confession has already been offered. A good part of the substance of the above message was conveyed this past July, when hundreds of self-described lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers released a manifesto entitled, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.” Among other things, that statement called for recognition of “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” GUILTY: Justice for the Family of Mary StachowiczNovember 5th, 2006Excerpted from Man Guilty in Slaying of Woman, published Nov 3, 2006, by Chicago Tribune: …It took jurors fewer than three hours to find Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, guilty of the murder and sexual assault of Mary Stachowicz, 51, on Nov. 13, 2002.
…Gutierrez could receive the death penalty.
Run, Don’t Walk, from ECUSA’s Incoming Leader: Homosexuality Not a ChoiceNovember 4th, 2006Excerpted from ECUSA’s Incoming Leader: Homosexuality Not a Choice, Jesus Not the Only Way, by Jody Brown and Allie Martin, published Nov 2, 2006, by Agape Press: Where does [Katharine Jefferts-Schori] stand on the issue of homosexuality? The Episcopal Church has been embroiled for years in a debate over the ordination of homosexual clergy and “blessing” ceremonies for same-sex couples. Jefferts-Schori supports both — and in fact, she voted in 2003 to confirm her denomination’s first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson. She told AP that she does not believe the Bible condemns “committed” homosexual relationships. God, she says, made some people “gay.” “Sexual orientation is pretty clearly defined at a very early age, before the age of reason. It’s not a choice,” she said. “In that case, a person of faith would need to say that it’s a piece of how one is created.” Consequently, she says, the Church should offer what she calls “a sacramental container” to help homosexuals find “holy ways of living in relationship.” Scriptures in the Bible about homosexual acts being sinful, she says, are misunderstood. “They’re not about what today we see as mature human beings entering into committed relationships with each other on a full and equal basis,” says Jefferts-Schori, who believes such “committed” relationships can be blessed. “The religious community’s job, really, is to help all human beings find healthy and whole and holy ways of living in relationship.” Run, Don’t Walk “I think they need to run, not walk, to the exit and find an orthodox Episcopal church,” suggests Anderson. According to Anderson, the Episcopal Church cast off biblical beliefs long ago in favor of postmodernism. Jefferts-Schori’s comments, he claims, is merely in harmony with that. “Her remarks with regard to the plurality of ways to God are consistent both with what she has said before and with what the top level of leadership in the Episcopal Church has been saying now for probably a decade,” says Anderson. One Family’s Letter to Wal-Mart CEO Lee ScottNovember 4th, 2006You, too, can make a difference – and here’s how… October 26, 2006 Mr. Lee Scott Dear Mr. Scott: My husband and I have written to you before to tell you how very disappointed we are that you have led Wal-Mart into a pro-homosexual stance. Because we know what the medical consequences of homosexual activities are, we are worse than disappointed that you have chosen to tarnish the wonderful family friendly reputation of Wal-Mart in order to chase after the business of a small percentage of the American public. The medical consequences are clear:
You have left us no choice but to boycott Wal-Mart and to tell our friends and acquaintances to do the same. I would encourage you not to ignore those of us families who believe strongly in traditional family values. We have big Internet networks, and the word is spreading all across our country that Wal-Mart has redone its image and is courting business from the homosexual lobby. You may think that Wal-Mart’s sales have dropped off because of the pressure from labor unions, but what you really need to know is that there are thousands of us out here who have stopped shopping at Wal-Mart because of your pursuit of the homosexual agenda. Some of us may not have said anything but have quietly stopped shopping at Wal-Mart. Others of us are more verbal about our outrage. In our minds Wal-Mart has lost its clean family image. We used to try to change people’s minds when they would say something derogatory about Wal-Mart. Now we agree with them and shop elsewhere. Enclosed you will find copies of the receipts showing that our family has spent $835.41 (from 9.7.06 – 10.22.06) at other stores and gas stations. We used to make most of our purchases at Wal-Mart but not any more. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Garner |
|
||||||||
Copyright © 2006-2021 Americans for Truth. All Rights Reserved. |