I am going to demonstrates that — when it comes to speaking the truth — I am not afraid to grab and hold on to the third rail by saying that Dr. Carson was not entirely wrong in what he said about homosexuality being a choice.  There is plenty of evidence to suggest this is true, and those who are aware of the history behind the homosexual agenda understand this.  I suspect Dr. Carson is one of those who knows the truth of this history, and that it may have played a factor in his comments tot he media this past week.  Either way, the facts are clear: homosexuality is being used as a political tool, and the shield of political correctness is being used to protect that agenda.  You will likely feel it in the way you are reacting to this post now, or in the comments that are sure to follow.  I fully expect to be called a ‘homophobe’ and/or a ‘hater’ for writing this post.  But the PC attacks that are sure to follow those who try to expose the truth do not change that truth.

I want to start by telling you about a statistics class I took when I was earning my Sociology degree.  My professor was an anomaly in that she intellectually honest.  She did not allow political correctness in her class.  If you could not argue factually, she dismissed your opinion and paper.  She used several controversial studies to help us understand what we were supposed to be learning.  One of them was the study that resulted in second hand smoke being declared a carcinogen.  That same study showed the milk and peanut butter are more dangerous than second hand smoke.  He point was to show us how statistics are manipulated for political purposes.  I remember this because she also used a study on homosexuality in this class.  It revealed that, before the AMA was pressured into changing its position on homosexuality, it was treated as a psychological disorder.  In this study was the data showing that those who were treated successfully ‘converted’ back to heterosexuality some 98% of the time with a recidivism rate of less than 3-5%.  He point to us was clear: the data we were hearing in the media did not match the data in the study that was being sited, and that is all she said or would allow to be said.  She refused to allow us to argue over any moral aspect of the issue.  She kept us focused on statistics and how they are manipulated.  But she was teaching us the truth, and you can read more about that here.

Now, when the media purposely and knowingly manipulates information to form, shape and direct public opinion — especially when it has the support of the government — it is called propaganda.  It is lawless on its face as it is a form of a lie.  Disinformation for the purpose of manipulation is a lie.  However, a free press that can be trusted to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is an essential element to maintaining a free and self-governing society.  So, when such the media in a free society starts to lie to the people, the media has turned on that society.  Again, this is lawlessness and a gross violation of Natural Law as it is a subversion of the Social Contract.  If it happens to often or for too long, the Social Contract is destroyed and that society along with it.  Tyranny then follows.

While there are those who will argue otherwise, there are a few facts that few of us have the courage to address anymore.  This is because of more lawlessness.  Political correctness is used to silence people.  If necessary, it is used to destroy their reputation and their careers.  These are illegal acts, both under our civil laws as well as Natural Law.  Yet, today, this is exactly what our media, schools and even government do to anyone who questions the PC narrative.  However, these lawless attacks do not change the facts that no one has ever shown a medical cause for homosexuality.  There is no genetic or biological evidence for homosexuality.  It is also a violation of the Natural Laws governing both evolution as well as survival of the species.  In short, there is no ‘scientific’ evidence or reasoning that can demonstrate a person is born a homosexual.  At the same time, the evidence that it may be a psychological condition that can be successfully treated has been forcefully buried and now denied by the same forces enforcing the PC narrative in our society.  This is lawlessness.

Another aspect to this issue is its sociological aspect.  Bisexuality is a growing trend — especially among teenaged girls.  NBC News has one piece that calls it ‘experimentation.’  It is one of many such stories, but the truth in Dr. Carson’s statements about sexuality is right in the headline of the NBC News story.  It is a matter of logic that ‘experiment’ implies choice.  If you are born one way or another, then you do not need to ‘experiment,’ you simply are.  Furthermore, I have personal knowledge of this issue.  I have seen people who were pressured into bisexuality.  Eventually, they outwardly embraced it.  It gave them access to and acceptance from the sub-culture to which their friends belonged.  However, the same people eventually left because it was not what and who they really are.  I have several such friends, and they all tell me it consumed them until they got out of what they openly say is nothing more than a lifestyle.  Now, this is not to say that all homosexual and/or bisexual people have consciously chosen their orientation, but it does show that it is not only possible, it happens far more than our PC culture will allow anyone to say.  This is lawlessness.

Sticking with the sociological aspects of this issue, let’s consider the popular notion that we can chose our gender orientation.  Or more importantly, that there is no difference between boys and girls when they are born.  That what makes them act like boys and girls has more to do with the way they are raised than biology.  It’s called ‘gender bias.’  First, gender does not mean sex.  It is a grammatical term that has been equivocated with sex, so this is a violation of the laws of both logic and the English language.  But more importantly, the notion of gender bias being social in origin undermines the GLGBT claim that they are born that way.  If we accept the argument of gender bias and believe that boys and girls take on male or female identities because of how they are raised, then homosexuals are nothing more than the product of being socialized female instead of male (and vice verse a).  Once again, this would seem that science is against the homosexual argument.  However, in this case, good studies have shown that men and women really are born different, and that gender bias has more to do with another political agenda which is tangentially related to that of the GLBT lobby. Either way, it is all more lawlessness.

In large part, what we have in the homosexual lobby is a political agenda aimed at undermining our society by infiltrating and turning our legal system and supporting social institutions against us.  Our schools and entertainment media are being used to indoctrinate people — especially children.  It is being done by attacking both our morals and our ability to maintain our moral standards.  Our founders told us that morality is essential to liberty, and that morality must be founded in a belief in God.  By using government to force people to act against their religious beliefs, and — through the schools ad media — to separate people from what their parents tried to teach them about God and God’s laws, the LGBT lobby is subverting our society.  But more than that, they are waging war against the principles of both democracy and representative government.  In order to survive, a society must be allowed to set and enforce moral standards.  Every time the the courts strike down a law that the people have legally passed, or an amendment which was legally passed which aim to set and enforce society’s moral standards, the courts act in violation of both civil and Natural Law.  the LGBT lobby has done just this: used the courts to lawlessly strike down lawful actions by the people and their duly elected representatives.  This is lawlessness.

Now, lest someone argue that the LGBT lobby is only seeking equal protection, let me state this clearly: they already enjoy equal protection under the law.  They have every much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as you or I.  But this is not what they want.  They want to use the government and social institutions to force society to accept their changes to Natural Law.  When they force a new definition of marriage on society, it is a lawless act.  When they try to equate a civil right with a Natural Right, it is a lawless act.  When they use the courts to override a persons First Amendment rights to speak our or practice their religious beliefs, it is a lawless act.  In fact, the entire LGBT agenda is based on the lawless forcing of a minority’s desires upon the whole of society, and the use of force against otherwise law abiding people is always lawless.

So, feel free to call me whatever names you chose.  It will not bother me because I answer to a higher authority: the Truth.  In this case, the Truth is the LGBT agenda is lawless and it seeks to destroy our society.  We cans see this is true by taking the LGBT argument to its logical conclusions.  If people are born homosexual without any evidence to the fact, then bigamists and polygamists are born that way, too. If people are born homosexual without any evidence to the fact, then so are pedophiles and rapists.  If people are born homosexual without any evidence to the fact, then so are racists and murderers.  But, if you argue that polygamists, pedophiles, racists, rapists and murderers can be judged by their acts instead of genetics, then the LGBT argument falls under the same thing: an action and not a matter of genetics.  And, if we accept that people are guiltless based on genetics, then we must also do away with the law for it is unjust to punish anyone for something over which they have no control.  In short: if you accept the LGBT argument, you must accept the notion that the natural state of man is licentiousness which — by definition — is lawlessness.

[NOTE: at no time did I attack anyone personally.  I have gay and bisexual friends.  I love them, but I also understand they are lawless in their lifestyle.  I know this because I know I am equally lawless, just in other ways.  We are all lawless because we all sin.  But this does not mean we ignore the law…or excuse those who break it.]

I have been hard on Glenn Beck on this and especially on my other blog, The OYL.  However, I do not mean to give the impression that I have anything against him, personally.  It’s just that I do not like the general direction he has been heading, and I am strongly opposed to the message he has been teaching to his audience.  A perfect example of where Beck and I differ can be found in his current position regarding the Constitution and the Libertarian ideal.  In the first hour of his 6 March 2015 radio show, Beck said that the Constitution and the Libertarian ideal are the two keys to ‘saving’ America.  In fact, he went so far as to say the Constitution was ‘divinely revealed.’ I couldn’t disagree with Beck any more than I do, but more than that, many of the founders disagreed with Beck’s current position on these matters.  If you are unsure about your own position on this issue, let me ask you to read and consider the rest of this post before you make a decision as to what you should believe.

First, the only ‘divinely revealed’ law ever given to man is The Law of Moses.  Benjamin Franklin is just one of many founders who assented to this fact.  So let us put this part of Beck’s position behind us before we turn the Constitution into an idol.

This brings us to the Constitution, itself.  For far too many, it has become an idol.  Too many of us revere it to the point of worship, and this is the source of much confusion.  The Constitution is just a tool.  It is neither the source of our rights, nor the only means by which we can protect our rights.  It is just one of many possible applications of the principles of Natural Law. The principles and ideals which guided the founders in writing the Constitution are where we should be focusing our attention.  Unless we understand and fully embrace these principles and ideals, then we can neither understand, adhere to or repair the Constitution.  Once again, the Constitution is just the ‘how‘ of America.  The Declaration is where we find the ‘what‘ and the ‘why‘ of America.

Now that we have identified the Declaration as our founders statement of what they believed, let us consider how those principles and ideals relate to the Libertarian ideal.  At first, it may appear as though Libertarians and the Constitution are a natural fit, but this is because too few of us understand the Libertarian ideal.  While it is a bit of a simplification, the best general way to explain is found in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.  But the philosophy of Ayn Rand contains a fatal flaw — the same fatal flaw found in the Libertarian ideal.  Neither Ayn Rand nor the Libertarian is capable properly adhering to the Constitution because their core beliefs reject the principles and ideals in the Declaration.  The key component missing from both Rand and Libertarianism is a dependence on a Creator who is actively involved in the affairs of man, and Who will judge every individual for their actions in this life.

That our founders believed this is not open to question.  They all said so — even Paine, Jefferson and Franklin (though Paine latter changed his opinion on this point — and was attacked by Franklin for doing so).  Though he is just one of many, John Adams made this point very clear:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Adams forcefully asserts that it is not the Constitution — or even the law that keeps people from trampling on each other, it is their moral sentiment.  Adams and the founders also said that morality only comes from religion (i.e. a belief in God).  So, according to our founders, if the American people ever turn away from their belief in God, then the Constitution will be destroyed — and liberty lost.  Rand was an atheist, and — while allowing for people to believe in God — Libertarians reject the belief that liberty requires a general religious foundation among the people.  This is why Beck argues that government has no place in matters such as marriage.  The founders would never have allowed the current argument over gay marriage, but the Libertarian believes that there is no place for government in such matters.

The controversy over gay marriage is actually an example of lawlessness.  First, it is a violation of Natural Law.  But it is also a violation of Constitutional law.  We see it in the way the courts are overturning State amendments that were properly and legally passed by the People and their representatives.  This is the negation of republicanism (and the principle of ‘democracy’).  But the U.S. Constitution guarantees the States a republican form of government while granting no authority to the federal government to meddle in matter such as marriage.  Every time a federal court rules on this issue, they act lawlessly.  Yet, the Libertarian ideal sides with the courts.  This places them in contradiction with both the Constitution and the Declaration,  and it is because the Libertarian ideal rejects the key element of liberty — God!

The founders understood that, when men turn away from God, anarchy follows.  People will no longer feel restrained in their behavior and will push to change the laws and government to allow them to do as they please.  The founders often used the word ‘licentious‘ to describe this behavior.  The careful observer will notice that this is a large part of the problem with our society: a growing sense of licentiousness.  Once again, this comes from the fact that we have divorced the Constitution from the Declaration.  If we had not done so, and we still understood that the Declaration is founded in Biblical principles, we would know that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ is not a ‘right’ to do whatever makes you feel good.  It is the right to be allowed to pursue the virtuous life.  But virtue often means you must deny yourself those things you ‘want’ to do those things you ‘should’ do.  But how do we know this is what our founders believed?  Once again, this is not the only founder to say so, just one of the clearest in stating the founders’ opinion:

“Liberty and happiness have a powerful enemy on each hand; on the one hand tyranny, on the other licentiousness [anarchy]. To guard against the latter, it is necessary to give the proper powers to government; and to guard against the former, it is necessary that those powers should be properly distributed.”

–James Wilson

So, what happens when people turn away from God and push the government to make their carnal desires legal?  Once again, the founders explain the process, a process they studied in the process of constructing our government — to prevent this process as best they could:

“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.”

–George Washington

In other words, once the people turn from God, they become morally corrupt; and once they become morally corrupt, tyranny takes over. Now, look at America and tell me this is not happening before our very eyes.  Then look at the founders and tell me they were wrong in their warnings.  Finally, consider the fact that this same cycle has repeated in nearly every society where liberty was lost and tell me there is not a causal connection.  It even happened to Israel: they turned from God and as a result, they fell into immorality and God destroyed them.  So how can the Libertarian ideal ‘save’ America when it rejects the key element of liberty — God?!