YouTube Joins the Homosexual Debacle

20130702-211214 After the U.S. Supreme Court declared DOMA to be unconstitutional, YouTube joined the debacle by taking sides with the homosexual movement.  Personally, I am not surprised, I don’t expect any different from a God-hating society.  It is simply a sign of judgment perfectly consistent with Romans 1.

Furthermore, I don’t believe it is the government’s business to define marriage.  They have no authority or foundation upon which to do that.  So I disagree with both those who advocate that government should allow only heterosexual marriage and pass legislation banning any others, and with those who advocate that the government should allow homosexual unions.  I realize that will be controversial to some of my brothers and sisters in Christ, but why do I say this?  Because both sides start from a flawed foundation: They believe the government has or should have the authority to regulate a God-given institution.  Where in Scripture do we see that?  As soon as you give that power to the government, why be surprised when it revokes DOMA, for example?  If you give that away to the government, it may or it may not do what you wanted them to do.  If you are a Christian advocating the government’s involvement with the institution of marriage, keep in mind that your starting point is the word of God, the government’s is not.  And you should not and cannot expect unbelievers to act consistently with their God-given conscience, yet polluted with sin. 1

So why am I writing this?  The problem is in the caption:

We believe that everyone has the right to love and be loved.”

“What, why, who are you proud to love?”

Let’s start with the first caption.  Consistent with the statement underneath this one, this statement really admits more than probably the LGBT community is willing to accept.  As soon as you destroy the meaning of marriage, as soon as you do away with all concept of a God-honoring, lifelong covenant with a person of the opposite sex for the glory of God, the doors are flung wide open for this very statement: Be it a man or a woman, men or women, boy(s) and girl(s),  brother(s) and sister(s), dog(s) or cat(s), cow(s) or horse(s), a boat (2), or even yourself (3), you should be proud to “love” whatever and whoever you want, right?  The liberal agenda is not really looking to be included in marriage, but to destroy the notion of it completely, to obliterate all objectivity and meaning to the words “husband” and “wife.” 4  Listen to the words of LGBT activist, Masha Gessen in the following video:

Now, let’s go back to our point.  Why do I say consistent?  Because of the caption underneath, which is the statement of faith of the religion of our day:

We believe that everyone has the right to love and be loved.”

Of course, by “love” we understand YouTube not to mean the love human beings have toward parents and siblings, but the desire to engage in sexual immorality with whoever and whatever people want to do this with under the guise of “loving, committed relationships for life.”

Many objections can be raised to the above.  It is not my intent to address those in this post, as I already have in a previous post.  There is one unanswerable objection that I have raised and will do so again in this post, which we will deal with in the rest of the caption.

“We believe that everyone has the right to love and be loved.”

The main inconsistency often found in liberal rhetoric is that of failure to define terminology.  The priests of the liberal movement, both in so-called Christian circles and secular, preach tolerance, love, and condemn “hate speech,” and intolerance.  Of course, what “tolerance” and “intolerance” mean is confined to that which is agreeable to their position.  Tolerance ends where there is disagreement with their position.  Intolerance is any view that does not accept liberal rhetoric.  As soon as someone steps out of the accepted norm, he or she is condemned as a bigot, homophobe, intolerant, arrogant, unloving, hateful person (5); many even equate disagreement with homosexuality with slave-owner mentality! 6

My challenge is this:  Are you truly ready to stand by your statement consistently?  Does everyone have the “right’ to “love” and be “loved”?  Are you ready to extend this “right” to polygamists, one of their spokeswoman reported as stating,

We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail“? 7

Or to pedophiles?  How about those who practice bestiality or necrophilia?  On what consistent basis will you deny them the “right” to love and be loved?  As polygamists cheer this further breakdown of the meaning of the covenant of marriage with you, will you be intolerant, hateful, bigoted, racist, and unloving? Shouldn’t they be “proud” to love whatever and whoever they want?   Don’t they have the “right” to love and be loved?  It is about time that those who advocate homosexuality step up and address this question honestly and objectively.

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.” – Dr. James White

Check out more articles on homosexuality here.





5. Street Preacher Interrogated by Police: