Book review:  A Queer Thing Happened to America:  And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been, by Michael L. Brown

Note: Dr. Brown will be giving a policy lecture about his book at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC on Thursday, January 5, 2012. For more information and to register, click here.

Reviewed by Caleb H. Price

In the span of a few short years, American culture has undergone a breath-taking shift in attitudes about homosexuality and transgenderism. Behaviors that were recently viewed by most to be unseemly, if not immoral, are now embraced.  What was good is now evil. What was evil is now good.

And while homosexual and transgender activists insist that there is no agenda in play, a closer look shows that this 180-degree turn was no accident.

In his latest book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, Dr. Michael L. Brown documents this cultural sea-change. Here, he takes the reader on an eye-popping account of the strange and bewildering trajectory that gay activists have charted for America.

And he persuasively argues that the trip we’re on will result in the catastrophic deconstruction of the most basic building blocks of human society – biological sex, marriage and family.

The topics covered in this comprehensive work are timely and helpful for understanding the GLBT political agenda. Brown fearlessly engages political correctness on these issues and winsomely encourages concerned citizens to step up the plate and take action before it’s too late.

Specifically, Brown details how our schools and universities have been strategically targeted by GLBT activists to bring about their revolution in the span of two short generations. Terms like “tolerance” and “diversity” now almost exclusively refer to sexual orientation and gender identity. And intellectually honest debate on these issues has been completely stifled in the academic and mental health professions.

In this context, Brown offers a strong rebuttal to the “born gay’ myth and the largely unquestioned view among cultural elites that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are equivalent to race. And he points out the undeniable and disturbing parallels of this equation to issues like polyamory and pedophilia.

Continue reading »

Comments: 2 |

Ever since the highly-publicized suicide of a New Jersey college student in September of 2010, pro-homosexual activists have been using the issues of bullying and teen suicide as tools in pursuit of their political agenda, and as rhetorical weapons against those who oppose it. Every time another report surfaced about a suicide by a teenager who identified as or was perceived to be “gay,” and who had reportedly been bullied, the finger would be pointed directly at conservatives. Bullying causes suicides, we were told, and public expression of conservative political, social, or religious viewpoints concerning homosexuality causes bullying. Affirm homosexual conduct as morally neutral, or more kids will die.

As early as October of 2010, however, experts on suicide prevention were warning that this simplistic approach linking suicides (which are always tragic) to bullying (which is always wrong) could do more harm than good. An article based on an interview with Ann Haas, research director for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, asked, “[W]hat if the way we’re talking about these suicides could actually be encouraging vulnerable young people to copycat the tragic behavior?”

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

According to today’s Wall Street Journal, a homosexual activist named John Becker owes Marcus Bachmann’s counseling practice $150 for failing to cancel two counseling appointments. Becker disputes this, asserting that he canceled the appointments on time and therefore owes nothing. As a result, Bachmann has told the gay rights organization “Truth Wins Out,” under whose auspices Becker secretly filmed an interview session with a Bachmann counselor in an effort to get anti-homosexual comments on tape (Becker failed; the counselor was tasteful and helpful throughout) that he will turn the bill over to a collection agency unless it is paid forthwith.

Bachmann, whose wife is running for the presidency and is therefore a target of activists who oppose his views on traditional marriage, argues that “it’s not the amount of money. For us, it’s the principle.” Imagine that: a business owner standing up for his staff and himself, using legal means to do so, and insisting that since Becker “signed a contract that stated he would pay for no-shows,” that Becker be held to account.

All I know of the case is what the Journal reports. If Becker is telling the truth – that he canceled his meetings in an appropriate time-frame – let him prove it. If he’s not, let him pay what he owes.

This is not a “petty and vindictive campaign of harassment and threats” against “Truth Wins Out,” as the group’s director, Wayne Besen, asserts. It’s about responsibility, keeping one’s word, and paying what is owed. “A promise made,” wrote the poet Robert Service, “is a debt unpaid.” Enough said.

Comments: 1 |

Two acts of vandalism were committed in recent days against facilities associated with the debates over homosexuality—one on each side of the issue.

In Arlington Heights, Illinois, bricks were thrown through the glass doors and windows of the Christian Liberty Academy. That night, the Christian school was to host a banquet put on by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH), a pro-family organization led by Peter LaBarbera. The banquet was to feature presentation of an award to Scott Lively, another pro-family activist who heads Abiding Truth Ministries.

In the other incident, an office door and two display cases of the GLBT Center at North Carolina State University in Raleigh were defaced with spray paint, including an anti-gay epithet.

Both acts of vandalism were contemptible, and Family Research Council (FRC) condemns them both equally. The debates over homosexuality, however emotional they may become, should be carried on peacefully by those on both sides. Physical attacks on people or property are never justified. (Will liberal groups join us in equally denouncing both acts? The Southern Poverty Law Center, which is quick to accuse conservatives of “hate,” chose to blame the victims, criticizing the attackers in Illinois primarily for “[a]dding fuel to a fire started and stoked by anti-gay activists.”)

So are there any differences between these two incidents? Yes. There is not the slightest evidence that the spray paint attack at NC State had any connection with any religious or political organization or public policy issue, or that it was perpetrated by anyone other than a lone thug.

Continue reading »

Comments: 6 |

This is Part 2 of a 2-part blog post based on the transcript of the Proposition 8 trial–the legal challenge to the state constitutional amendment, adopted by California voters in 2008, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today (Monday, September 19), Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded “staged reading” of a new play–one based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown). The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now “out”) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walker’s opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Yet the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex “marriage” advocates that “gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of ‘who they are.’” It also directly contradicts Judge Walker’s “finding of fact” number 51: “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.” In fact, Stier’s testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movement–the claims that people are “born gay,” and that a person’s sexual orientation can never change.

Continue reading »

Comments: 3 |

A few years ago the New York Times ran a story about a new social phenomenon:  Couples, who claim to love each other, who have an exclusive sexual relationship, and who share financial expenses, are choosing not to live together.  The arrangement is called “Living Apart Together,” and apparently it’s on the rise.  The couples interviewed spoke of their need for “alone time” and “personal space” and a desire not to “wait on” the other person they claim to love.  “Why bother joining households and lose a great city apartment?” one suggested.

Reading that story brought to mind how Woody Allen once described the perfect arrangement he had with Mia Farrow:  separate apartments on opposite sides of Central Park where they could see each other’s lights go off at night.  But we know how that ended.   (For those too young to remember:  Woody ended up having an affair with, and then marrying, his own stepdaughter, and in his defense famously said, “The heart wants what the heart wants.”)

Last week the London Telegraph reviewed another new social relationship trend:  people who are neither married nor in love (nor, in some cases, even acquainted) are apparently having children together through the use of in vitro fertilization.  Why?

The story leads with examples of homosexuals who wanted to have a child of their own partnering up with people of the opposite sex to share biological material.  But also interviewed was this single heterosexual woman, approaching the end of her fertile years, who explained:  “In a worst-case scenario I would seek an anonymous donor, but I’ve always thought a child needs a father.  At the very least I wanted a donor who would visit regularly.”

What kid wouldn’t want Daddy Sperm visiting regularly?  But why does little Johnny hide under the bed when the door bell rings?

Comments: - |

Last month’s Senate hearing on a bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) featured a clash between Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and one of the witnesses defending DOMA, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family.

Minnery’s testimony referred to the social science evidence showing children do best when raised by their own mother and father. He referred to one such study in his prepared testimony this way:

“In fact, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services explains in its new and exhaustive report, Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007, that children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”

Franken, however, triumphantly noted that in fact, these superior outcomes were associated with “nuclear” families, defined as “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.” Since the definition made no mention of the gender of the “married” parents, he concluded that “nuclear” families could be headed by “married” homosexual couples, too.

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

Jim Wallis’s Sojourners’ magazine has decided not to publish an ad by “Believe Out Loud,” an organization which describes itself as follows:

We believe Jesus’ message compels us to welcome all, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. Show the world that you can be Christian AND believe in LGBT equality. Join the movement to unite a million Christians for LGBT equality in the church and beyond.

Although in past years, Sojourners has taken stridently liberal positions on all manner of hotly-contested issues, tacitly endorsing homosexuality is, apparently, too far a stretch.  “Sojourners’ constituency, board, and staff are not of one mind on all of these issues,” wrote Wallis at the Sojourners blog this week.

This indubitably is true: At least one of the publication’s Board members, Ron Sider, is a signer of the Manhattan Declaration, as is contributing editor Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.  In signing the Declaration, they  joined other signatories (including this author) in affirming that “we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise?”  How, indeed.

Continue reading »

Comments: 2 |

On February 25, 2011, FRC’s Peter Sprigg and Pierre Bynum testified before the Maryland House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee voicing their opposition to a bill that would redefine marriage.

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Pierre Bynum’s testimony.

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Peter Sprigg’s testimony.

Comments: - |

When a journalist does not reveal the most important part of a news story until the middle of it, instead of opening with it, it’s known as “burying the lead.”

This appears to be what the Pentagon has done with the report of its Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on the subject of homosexuality in the military.

The report, and most of the media coverage, emphasized the conclusion from a survey of Service members that “70% of Service members predicted it [repeal of the current law] would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.”

However, as we have already noted, interpreting the “mixed” category as being supportive of repeal is questionable at best. Advocates of repeal do not agree that it would affect the military “equally as positively as negatively,” which is what the “mixed” response refers to. We could just as easily note that “62% of respondents believed that repeal would have at least some negative effects.”

The even more revealing statement, however, does not appear in the report’s Executive Summary at all, but only shows up on page 49. Referring to responses in focus groups and other forums which were provided to allow feedback from the troops, the CRWG was forced to admit that “our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal of the current policy.”

Of course, the report hastily notes that these were not scientifically representative samples of the force as a whole, and the survey was. However, as we must repeatedly point out, the survey did not ask whether respondents were for or against overturning the current law. Hence these less formal media were the only way for the troops to express their views on the central issue.

Whenever you hear that vague and misleading “70%” figure, remember that buried lead on p. 49—that “the majority of views expressed were against repeal.”

Comments: - |

There are numerous arguments pro and con on the issue of homosexuality in the military, but the survey of Service members released by the Pentagon on Tuesday has decisively proved at least one argument against the current push to overturn existing law, and decisively refuted at least one argument in favor of that effort.

The Comprehensive Review Working Group report actually identified these arguments in their summary of “What We Heard” about the issue. One argument against repeal was described as: “Why now? We are at war.” Many have argued that with our armed forces stretched by the demands of two wars, this is not the time to impose further strain by implementing a radical change in personnel policy to appease a political interest group. (FRC does not believe there would ever be a “good” time for such a change—but the immediate circumstances are nevertheless a legitimate concern for lawmakers facing an immediate legislative vote).

It has been widely reported that soldiers and Marines in combat arms units were more likely to predict negative impacts from repeal of current law than were other Service members. While 62% of all Service members expected at least some negative results if current law were overturned, the same was true of 74% of all Marines and of Army combat arms soldiers, and 82% of Marines in combat arms units. An outright majority of the latter group, 57.5%, declared bluntly that it would affect their “task cohesion” either negatively or “very negatively,” while a minuscule 9% foresaw a positive impact.

The people on the front lines of our wars are the most concerned about repeal—a compelling argument against it.

On the other hand, the CRWG described the advocates of repeal as arguing, “We need everyone willing and able to serve.” In other words, the military simply cannot afford to lose the skills of existing or potential homosexual Service members. This is an issue of recruiting and retention—what policy will provide the military with the personnel that it needs.

Here again, the results are overwhelming. The surveys showed that the number who would be less willing to recommend a military career if open homosexuality is permitted is four times higher than the number who would be more willing to recommend it. In addition, the percentage who would themselves leave the military sooner than planned or consider doing so if current law is repealed, was more than six times higher than the number who would stay longer or consider doing so.

It’s clear—the personnel losses to the military as a result of repeal would vastly outnumber any gains from allowing homosexuals in the ranks.

These are two strong points against the effort to overturn current law, even in a report designed to support that effort.

Comments: 1 |

(Caution: Some of the information below, and the website it describes, are not appropriate for children.)

Some homosexual activists are their own worst enemies.

The latest evidence of that fact is a website recently brought to my attention by someone who wrote to the Family Research Council. I refuse to post an actual link to this website, but you can easily type it in yourself.  It follows the form of f**h8.com, with letters in the second and third positions.

The beginning of that web address is the three consonants of a well-known four-letter obscenity known as “the f-word.” The “h8” at the end of that address stands for “hate.”

Homosexual activists have been spelling it “h8” ever since the successful 2008 campaign in California to pass Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine of the fifty states now have such amendments.

Leave aside, for the moment, the mystery of how treating uniquely the human relationship that is uniquely capable of reproducing the human race, and believing that children deserve a mother and a father, could possibly constitute “hate.”

If you go to the website, you will find a short (two minutes or so) video. It consists of several people ranting and raving against the opponents of same-sex “marriage”–while repeatedly “dropping the f-bomb.”

Is this supposed to be funny? Do homosexual activists really think that the way to persuade opponents of same-sex “marriage” to support it is–to swear at people? Repeatedly?

During the Proposition 8 campaign, one of the most effective issues for advocates of Prop. 8 was the concern that children would be taught to affirm and celebrate homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” in the public schools. Opponents vehemently insisted that same-sex “marriage” would have no impact on schools or on children whatsoever. So then what happened? A class of first-graders was brought to San Francisco City Hall to witness the wedding of their lesbian teacher. So much for the “no impact” claim.

Another example occurred in the recent debate over legislation that would repeal the current law against open homosexuality in the military. To break a filibuster, liberals had targeted two Republican senators–Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. To sway the votes of Collins and Snowe, homosexual activists staged a major rally in Maine the day before the vote. The headline speaker was Stefani Germanotta, the 24-year-old, strangely-dressed, boundary-pushing pop singer better known as “Lady Gaga.” The effort failed, as Collins and Snowe voted with the rest of the Republican caucus. But did homosexual activists really believe that the gentleladies from Maine would be persuaded by Lady Gaga?

Actually, the point of the anti-“H8” web video is not to change minds–it’s to raise money. You can buy t-shirts, buttons, or stickers bearing the “F**H8” message, or milder and less cryptic ones like, “Some dudes marry dudes. Get over it.” Proceeds will “help fund the fight for equal marriage rights.”

Five dollars from the sale of each thirteen-dollar t-shirt is donated to one of four pro-homosexual activist groups (none of which sponsor or endorse the website). One is the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was founded by Hollywood actor and director Rob Reiner (yes, the “meathead” from All in the Family) to hire Republican and Democratic super-lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies for a federal lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. So the August decision by Judge Vaughn Walker (now on appeal), that same-sex “marriage” is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, was funded (at least in some small part) by “f-bombs” on the web.

But what is really shocking about the video is this: three of its participants are children. Not teenagers–young, pre-adolescent children. One is a boy who appears to be about six years old. Another is a girl who looks to be perhaps nine. The third is a girl who is perhaps eleven. And yes–the children drop the “f-bomb” too.

Is this supposed to be funny? It’s not. It’s child abuse.

Two of the children make specific reference to their “gay” parents. I don’t know if this is true, or if they are just young actors reading a script.

But either way–can they really believe that swearing children are a good tool to expand support for their cause? Are we to understand that this would be the brave new world under “gay” parenting and same-sex “marriage”–a world in which parents teach obscenities to their children, then put videos of them using those obscenities on the web to raise money?

If so–God help us. And God save the children.

Comments: 6 |

Mark Thompson has posted a piece on Time magazine’s “Swampland” blog regarding the possible overturning (which he considers “inevitable”) of the current law against homosexual conduct in the military.

Such a radical change in military policy is hardly “inevitable.” Legislation to repeal the law is on life support following last month’s Senate vote to block it, and Judge Virginia Phillips’ muddled ruling that the law is unconstitutional ignored so much existing precedent that it is unlikely to be upheld.

Thompson, however, has delved into the archives of military history and relates findings about how African Americans were integrated within the armed forces without major difficulty. He concludes that the “integration” of homosexuals would take place just as smoothly.

One key difference, of course, is that blacks had long been eligible to serve in the military, but had served in segregated units. In contrast, homosexuals have always been considered ineligible for military service at all. (The popular misnomer “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” misleads many into believing that active homosexuals are currently welcomed by the military as long as they stay in the closet. The truth is the opposite—the 1993 law mandates, with very limited exceptions, the discharge of any servicemember who “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.”)

Furthermore, Thompson simply assumes the answer to two critical threshold questions:

1)      Is being “gay” like being black?

2)      Is sexual conduct relevant to military effectiveness?

The logical answer to #1 is no. Homosexuality is a behavioral characteristic; being black is a superficial matter of skin color. The racial integration of the military was successful precisely because it proved that the behavior of black soldiers did not differ from that of whites. But with homosexuality, a difference in behavior is what defines the issue. Do not be fooled by vague references to “sexual orientation” as though it were an innate characteristic—what homosexual activists now seek is the right to continue engaging in homosexual acts while in the military .

Homosexual activists compare “sexual orientation” to race in order to obscure the important differences between sexual attractions, behavior, and self-identification. Only the attractions are, like race, involuntary; but none of these elements of “sexual orientation” are (like race) inborn, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution.  The 1993 law which homosexual activists seek to overturn is focused on homosexual conduct, and treats attractions or self-identification as relevant only because they are evidence of “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.”

So does the military have a legitimate interest in regulating the sexual conduct of its members? The answer has always been yes, with respect to heterosexual conduct as well as homosexual. Adultery, for instance, remains a crime in the military, at a time when the civil law has long since become indifferent to it. As Congress found in 1993, “high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion . . . are the essence of military capability,” and there is no doubt that sexual conduct can threaten those standards and harm that capability.

Sexual tension, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are problems that exist among heterosexuals in the military—but those problems would increase if homosexuals were allowed to serve, because it would be impossible to separate homosexuals the way that men and women are separated in their most intimate settings (showers, sleeping quarters, etc.). Increased health problems among homosexuals (in particular, dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV among men who have sex with men) would pose a direct challenge to military readiness.

The analogy to the racial integration of the military, even if it had any validity, would apply only to the concern that homosexuality in the military would damage recruiting and retention of personnel. But those are only two out of the nine likely negative consequences of repealing the current law that were identified by Col. Robert Maginnis in the FRC booklet Mission Compromised.  The others are:

• Damage to unit effectiveness.
• Health consequences with high cost.

• Threats to freedom of those who morally object to homosexuality.
• Special protections for homosexuals.
• Taxpayer-funded benefits to homosexual partners of servicemembers.
• Possibility of costly new living arrangements to protect privacy.
• Changes to military law and regulations regarding sexual offenses.

The argument that, as the “gay” newsmagazine The Advocate recently declared on its cover, “Gay is the New Black,” is one that most blacks resent, and that simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny.

Comments: 1 |

During the presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama famously told Pastor Rick Warren that determining when human personhood began was “above my paygrade.”

A professing Christian, he could not bring himself to concur with the plain teaching of the Bible that from the moment of conception, human life in all its biological fullness begins at conception.

An educated man, he could not sufficiently evaluate the clear scientific evidence that with the entire DNA any person ever possesses present within the embryo from conception onward, personhood starts at conception.

A father, he could not affirm that his precious daughters deserved legal protection in their mother’s womb, from conception until birth.

Since then, his income must have dramatically changed, as he has initiated a nationwide health care mandate that funds and subsidizes abortion-on-demand, exported abortion overseas through American funding thereof, and even sought to have taxpayers subsidize abortion on our military bases.

As President of the United States, Barack Obama has been a deliberate, systematic evangelist of the culture of death.

Yet despite his professed theological mystification regarding the sanctity of unborn life, President Obama has no moral or intellectual difficulty in asserting that homosexuality is not a choice but the result of “people being born with ‘a certain make-up’.”

At a televised event targeting the nation’s youth,

… (when) asked directly if gay or transgender people have a choice or are born that way, Obama told a town-hall style event with students that he was no expert, then added: “I don’t think it’s a choice. I think people are born with a certain make-up.”

“We’re all children of God,” Obama said. “We don’t make determinations about who we love. That’s why I think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.”

The President is wrong: Biology offers no sanction to the view that homosexuality is genetic, nor does Christian theology applaud or passively accept same-sex intimacy.  The God of love is also the God of truth Whose Word teaches that any kind of sexual intimacy other than that experienced by a man and a woman within marriage is offensive to Him.

No pay-level is needed to affirm these things: They are obvious from science and Scripture.

President Obama might be, as the Leftist religious commentator Jim Wallis asserts, “almost a public theologian.”  He is just not a very biblically faithful one.

The Bible tells Christians to pray for their political leaders.  This includes, of course, President Obama.  May we pray that this man who so obviously cherishes his own wonderful family sees that abortion and homosexuality are not morally neutral choices to be facilitated by a government founded on the principle that the “right to life” is a gift of the Creator.

Comments: 5 |

Men who choose to engage in sexual relations with other men place their health in serious jeopardy—and thereby endanger the public health as well.

Unfortunately, like the nakedness of the Emperor in the children’s story of the “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” this is a truth that is so obvious—yet so politically incorrect—that it is rarely spoken aloud.

When those of us who disapprove of and seek to discourage homosexual conduct speak this truth, we are routinely vilified as “hateful.” So let me step aside altogether, and let the secular, scientific, non-political experts speak for themselves. Below is a recent press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I reproduce it here, verbatim, in full, and unedited—except that I have highlighted in bold what are, in my opinion, the key findings.

I offer only one editorial comment. The CDC spokesman is cited as saying, “There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men.” This is plainly false. There is, for example, a single and simple solution for smoking-related illnesses, and we have all heard it—“If you don’t smoke, don’t start. If you do smoke, quit.”

It’s long past time for public health authorities to say the same about men having sex with men.

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

It seems that homosexual activist groups can’t even raise money without using sexual innuendo.

I happen to be on the email list for “Equality Maryland,” the state homosexual activist organization (it’s always good to know what the opposition is doing). They are planning to raise money with a “Jazz Brunch and Silent Auction” on Sunday, October 18 in Baltimore.

But I was startled by the poor taste (and the poor proofreading) of the subject line for an email invitation to this event that I received on September 28. It read: “Care to engage is [sic] some ‘Four Play’?” (The gimmick was that you would get a discount when purchasing four tickets.)

I wondered if they would be embarrassed or get any negative reaction—but apparently not. On October 7, I received a follow-up email with this subject line: “Forget ‘Four Play’ . . . how about a ‘Threesome’?” Offering a discount for the purchase of only three tickets this time, the message came complete with a publicity photo from the old “Three’s Company” TV show.

When homosexuals promote their political agenda in the public square, they argue that it’s not about sex. It’s about love, families, equality, justice, etc., etc. They don’t want people thinking about two men or two women having sex. (This is why they prefer the term “gay” rather than “homosexual.”)

But when talking to each other, the agenda becomes more clear.

It’s about sex.

Comments: 5 |