Do we need an anti-bullying law to protect Christians?

Facebook now offers two new pages:  "Fire Viki Knox" and the "Do NOT Support Viki Knox Page."  Queerty called Knox the “D***** of the Week.”  Why?  When her high school in Union New Jersey promoted Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender History Month on a bulletin board display, special ed teacher Viki Knox criticized it online, posting: “Homosexuality is a perverted spirit. . .”

Knox didn’t single out a specific person with same-sex attraction.  Rather, she wrote in a general way about the nature of homosexuality. She distinguished between persons and their actions, mentioning that she loves her gay friends and admitting that she was a sinner as well.  However maladroit her delivery, her point was the Christian principle:  love the sinner and hate the sin.

In contrast, protesters are specifically targeting her by name.  They want Knox investigated and fired.  They don’t seek a discussion on whether or not it is appropriate for high schools to promote homosexuality.  Or whether a person who believes homosexual behavior is a sin can truly love individuals who have same-sex attraction. Instead they are outraged that she has the nerve to disagree that homosexuality is a social good. 

The anti-Knox protesters imply that merely discussing the ethics of homosexuality is in and of itself hate-filled.  When did debate become hate?

Remember those days of silence when activists put duct tape over their mouths to signify that people with same-sex attraction are afraid to speak out for fear of being bullied?  Now they want to silence people who disagree with them.  Isn’t that bullying?

Anti-Knox protesters chant the mantra:  “No hate in our state.”

Hate?  Look in the mirror. 

No hate in our state: Video of protest at Viki Knox's school

From NOM, here's a view of the protest at the Union, New Jersey high school which displayed the Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender History Month bulletin board that Viki Knox criticized on Facebook:

Governor Shumlin chooses gay rights activist for VT Supreme Court

WCAX reports Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin appointed Middlebury attorney Beth Robinson to the VT Supreme Court.  A “gay rights activist for most of her legal career,” Robinson was instrumental in promoting civil unions in 2000 and gender-segregated marriage, which became legal in Vermont in 2009.  

If the lawsuit against the Wildflower Inn goes to the VT Supreme Court, will Robinson judge in favor of a couple’s right to celebrate their gender-segregated marriage at the inn, or the innkeeper’s right to decline the celebration based on their religious preference for gender-inclusive marriage? 

"I see the Supreme Court as a place where the rubber meets the road and the concepts and ideas we call law intersect with the lives of real people and I think it is a tremendous responsibility," Robinson said.

Vermont law has intersected sharply with the lives and business of the Wildflower Inn owners.  How many more businesses in Vermont will be sued for their religious beliefs?

As a Vermont Supreme Court Justice, which would Robinson choose?  The right to force others to celebrate gender-segregated marriage against their will, or the freedom to support gender integration for religious reasons?  

ACLU defends teacher’s right to call homosexuality a ‘sin’

The Star Ledger reports that New Jersey special education teacher Viki Knox is being investigated for comments she made about homosexuality on Facebook.  Reacting to a high school display honoring October as Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender History month, Knox called homosexuality a “sin” that “breeds like cancer.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey defended Knox’s right to free speech.  Legal director Ed Barocas stated:  “Although we do not agree with the sentiments expressed on Ms. Knox’s personal Facebook page, her comments are protected by the First Amendment.”

Barocas went on to suggest that the school “investigate” Knox to determine whether “she is performing her job in accordance with school policies and the state’s Law Against Discrimination.”

With a defense like that, who needs a prosecutor?

Doctor says giving transgender child drugs is ‘child abuse’

"It's like performing liposuction on an anorexic child."  

So says professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Paul McHugh.  He is referring to the hormone-blocking drugs given to eleven-year-old Tommy so he can delay puberty and leave his gender options open.

Tommy was adopted by a lesbian couple, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, who chose to give him the controversial hormone blockers.  They say he identifies as a girl and they are following his lead.

Dr. McHugh calls this “child abuse.”  Senior managing health editor of FoxNews.com, Dr. Manny Alvarez claims hormone blockers pose dangerous risks:

“There are significant potential problems necessary for growth and development.  Potential long-term effects can include other abnormalities of hormones, vascular complications and even potential cancer.”

 While Catholic adoption agencies are pushed out of business by state governments for refusing to place children with same-gender couples, this California lesbian couple is free to adopt a child and sanction a gender-change.  

There is a problem here, but it certainly isn’t Tommy’s male gender.

Read more (including link to video interview with Tommy, Moreno, and Lobel)

Win the gay marriage debate by calling it gender-segregated marriage

 We have friends, neighbors, and relatives dealing with same-sex attraction.  We don’t want to alienate them, however, we don’t want to see confusion and delusions in an institution as crucial to society as marriage.  We agree that males and females are equal in worth and dignity, but we realize that men and women are not interchangeable when it comes to sex and marriage.  

How can we:

·      Speak our minds without losing friends, or our jobs?

·      Frame the debate in a way that everyone can understand, even children?

·      Avoid being called homophobic and hate-filled?

·      Change opinions about “gay marriage” without offending gays?

Simple.  Leave homosexuality out of the debate.  

Instead, let’s deal with the defining characteristic of this new trend.  When two men “marry,” it is a gender-segregated marriage; women are excluded from this twosome.  When two women “marry,” it is also gender-segregation.   In this case, men are excluded.  So we can accurately call this new movement “gender-segregated marriage.”

Two men can marry each other for legal benefits even if they’re not gay.  So calling it “gay marriage” is a misnomer.  However, it is indeed gender-segregation. 

Calling it same-sex marriage is also inaccurate.  Two men have different body parts from a man and a woman; it’s definitely not the same sex.  But do we really want to talk about that?  Who wants to be the one who brings up sodomy in the conversation?  We can easily avoid that topic by referring to this as gender-segregated marriage.  That keeps it G-rated.

The question is no longer:  Do you support gay marriage?    Now we need to answer: Is gender-segregated marriage good for society?  Or is gender-integration better?

Gender-integrated marriage encourages diversity and tolerance.  We learn to understand, accept, and adapt to those who are different from us. 

The genders are complementary; they produce synergy.  They create together what two men can never even hope to accomplish:  the next generation.  Children are the future of society.

In contrast, gender-segregated marriage is exclusive.  It excludes the complementary gender.  It excludes procreation.

So the next time someone asks what you think of gay marriage, ask him how he feels about gender-segregated marriage.

Herman Cain’s values: life, marriage, liberty

 At the Values Voter Summit, Herman Cain defends life from conception, marriage between one man and one woman, as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rising in the polls for the Republican nomination for president, Cain can work a crowd with a strong pro-family message.  

Excerpts from Lifesitenews:

"I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. . .  I would have asked the Department of Justice to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act."

What a treat it would be to see him debate President Obama.