I am at a loss to understand what his objective is. Indeed, I will preface this reply with the absolute fact that all of the repression in the world will not result in one less gay or transgender person in the world It will only serve to make the lives of the same LGBT people more difficult. So what is the point? Do these people really subscribe to the belief, contrary to medical and social science, that people choose to be a sexual minority? Aside from science that makes no sense at all. It is a thoroughly illogical conclusion absent any confirming evidence.
I don't know much about Weatherbe beyond his religion inspired spew. The results of a Google search suggest that he is one of those people whose pedantic polemics dot the conservative Catholic landscape. Weatherbe claims to be a journalist. In June, Weatherbe was floating the crazy idea that the Orlando shooter was motivated by bad sex with a Latino (seriously). That imbecilic diatribe, essentially blaming the victims, might have been the most spectacularly stupid reaction to the Pulse Nightclub massacre that I heard or read. That moronic post should have disqualified Weatherbe from further contributions to LifeSite. It did not.
Eliminating quite a bit of surplus gibberish:
The rewards for fighting the good fight here in Canada and America are the souls of future generations saved from sexual sin and the lives preserved from the physical and psychological ruination that flow from that sin. The pro-life movement fights for the flesh-and-blood lives of unborn children and the soul of our nations. It’s big.Apparently, Weatherbe is gratuitously combining anti-choice rhetoric with homophobia. It is confusing confusion. More importantly he is wed to the notion that somehow being less tolerant will change the number of LGBT people in the world. At the risk of being repetitive, not by so much as one person. Repression can keep people in the closet. What good does that do? Eventually people will be who they are and there is nothing that Weatherbe or the entire Catholic Church can do about that. Nothing.
Or is Obama right? Are social changes irreversible? History teaches that it is tough but not impossible to buck social trends. These days, social change is achieved through big spending – grants paid out not only by the likes of left/progressive George Soros, but by left/progressive Barack Obama.That's it. Blame the Jew. George Soros is responsible for everything that every conservative Christian does not like. That's the least of the problems with this paragraph. I have no idea what grants he is referring to but social acceptance of LGBT people has little to do with money. The simple explanation is that people are increasingly aware of the fact that LGBT people are more like them than unlike them. The CEO of the world's largest company (Tim Cook, Apple) is gay. What he does in his bedroom is of no importance when compared to what he does in the boardroom.
Ah, they say, but Mr. Cook is immoral! According to whom and by what standard? Ancient texts of dubious provenance that are misinterpreted? Their sainted hero, Thomas Aquinas was a proponent of slavery. That's immoral. It is also immoral to falsely claim that gay people are “objectively disordered.” That is a lie promoted by people who lack the relevant education to make that claim. It is immoral to falsely claim that transgender people are “gender confused” and then do violence to them by refusing the common courtesy of using correct pronouns. It is immoral to persuade the parents of LGBT children that their kids can be “cured” through so-called reparative therapy. And by the way, what needs repair is bad parenting so have a big helping of guilt. It is profoundly immoral to lie about treating people with dignity and respect while you are treating them with indecency and cruelty. Ultimately these, and other things, are the lies that are the product of substituting superstition for science.
In fact, the whole LGBT promotional effort of the U.S. Justice and State Departments ought to dry up now, thanks especially to the voting choices of evangelical Christians.Was this guy ever intellectually honest? Justice, diversity, acceptance and tolerance do not equate to the promotion of sexuality. Equality for gay people does not create any gay people and inequality for gay people does not create any gay-to-straight people. And by the way, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million people.
Conservative Christians have already demonstrated the LGBT agenda is resistible. Many states have pushed back at the softest spot in the left/liberal advance, with washroom laws to protect female modesty and safety, and with religious freedom protection laws that push back against of <sic> homosexual privilege and intolerance.Right, it is those intolerant gay people who operate from a perspective of privilege. Psychologists call that projection. Bathroom laws don't protect anyone from anything. They are aimed at public school children — extremely fragile transgender teens. Those laws further marginalize, stigmatize and isolate those kids and they are still going to be trans. This guy should also learn something from North Carolina. Constitutionally, we are not supposed to advance conservative Christianity. North Carolina has already paid a very heavy price for having done so.
Equatorial Africa is pushing back too against Obama’s LGBT diplomatic initiative. But even before that, Uganda famously pushed back against the AIDS establishment’s evangelization of condoms and sexual permissiveness as the answer to that fatal STD.It is astonishing how an opinion about LGBT people must include a detour to AIDS. Of course AIDS in Africa is a heterosexual problem. No one is advocating for “sexual permissiveness.” That is simply dishonest nonsense.
Our information on the AIDS establishment comes from public health expert Edward Green, the former head of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research project, who in 2010 famously said Pope Benedict was right about condoms not helping Africa.Green said that the pope might be right. Green's comments (including subsequent interviews) are far more complex. Green is actually a proponent of condom use. His quoted approach is ABC — abstain, be faithful, use condoms. Green's concern is that the distribution of condoms results in riskier behavior (obviously without condoms). If we could get everyone to actually use rubbers the prevalence of AIDS in Africa would decrease considerably. The Church's position is theological and it kills people.
Because AIDS spread first and fastest among male homosexuals, Green reports, the NGOs and government agencies that sprang up to fight it recruited their leadership from the homosexual community.Weatherbe fails to cite any sources of this information. He is appealing to a stereotype that does not exist. Are there gay people who act irresponsibly? Sure. Just as their are heterosexual people who act irresponsibly. Sexual orientation cannot be changed and the proof is far from flimsy. No one has ever proved that anyone's sexual orientation has ever changed due to some intervention. The notion that we did not strongly encourage gay people to use condoms and reduce sexual partners is absolute nonsense. The use of condoms (which have a very low failure rate) virtually eliminates the transmission of the AIDS virus. Gay people are not the likely cause of AIDS in Africa.
This group adamantly defended their multi-partner, promiscuous mores as a big part of their identity. They cited flimsy empirical evidence showing that people’s sexual behavior could not be changed. So it was not only immoral to ask homosexuals to limit their sexual activity, it was ineffective. Condoms were the only solution because they wouldn’t cramp anyone’s sexual style.
But what does any of this have to do with societal acceptance of LGBT people?
It is the inexorable need to define gay people by their sex lives. It is a way of marginalizing LGBT people and that is the intent. “Tim Cook might be the CEO of Apple but he is also a degenerate filthy pervert so I am superior to him.” At least that seems to be the thought process. None of what we do in, or for, our communities matters. We are defined by AIDS transmitting anal sex by religious crackpots who do not approve of gay people because of slavish devotion to those aforementioned ancient texts. They use shame as currency.
But before the party line was imposed, actual homosexuals in places like Vancouver did change their behavior — and did reduce their infection rate. And in AIDS-stricken Uganda, the churches, mosques and government devised the ABC campaign that pushed Abstinence before marriage, Being faithful in marriage, and using Condoms only as a last resort. It succeeded in changing public behavior and ending the AIDS epidemic.What the fuck? In 2015, an estimated 1.5 million Ugandans were living with HIV, and an estimated 28,000 Ugandans died of AIDS-related illness. The estimated HIV prevalence among adults (aged 15 to 49) stood at 7.1% as of 2015. The number of new HIV infections in Uganda increased by 21% between 2005 and 2013. That's four years of Bush and five of Obama. And Green's ABC is not to use condoms as a last resort but to use condoms. The goal is not no condoms but no unprotected sex. Spouses should not be passing the virus to each other. Nor should they make AIDS-infected babies.
In the end, the AIDS establishment pressured Uganda into backpedaling with the predictable result of an increased infection rate. But the story teaches two lessons: first, the truth can prevail over lies; and second, in this fallen world, the truth will prevail only with the utmost effort.
Is this about excusing the Church's superstitions regarding condoms or is this about LGBT people?
One way to think of homosexuality is as an addiction, and one way to think of addiction is that it is the result of seeking to satisfy a natural, God-given need in the wrong way. The real need is for the lifelong and life-bestowing fellowship of marriage. Attempts to satisfy that need with casual sex are doomed to be unsatisfied, which is why they keep going back for more.Weatherbe can think about it any way that he wants (if he really thinks about anything). However, a sexual orientation is not an addiction. It is an amazingly stupid proposition to believe that it is. Nor, for that matter is gay sex an addiction (any more than straight sex is an addiction). Furthermore, gay people marry and stay faithful to their spouse, just as straight people do.
Which all leads me to question; just how insecure is Weatherbe? Apparently he does not realize that straight people have the same sexual urges as gay people and that lack of understanding is telling.
Obama’s message of irreversible LGBT “gains” is mirrored in the claims that addiction is incurable. An addictions specialist, Californian Robert Weiss, came to my hometown to talk about sex addiction and emphatically asserted that once the production of an addictive product had reached industrial scale, it was unstoppable at a social level. (But individual therapy or self-help groups could work).Face-palm, face-palm, face-palm! Apparently sex addiction is a homosexual pastime disproportionate to heterosexuals. Where the fuck is the peer reviewed study published to a respected scholarly journal in support of that idiocy? What does any of that have to do with societal acceptance of LGBT people?
This is manifestly false. Cigarette smoking is the obvious example of a mass-produced, addictive product whose influence has been severely curtailed by public policy. Rampant drunkenness was also successfully addressed. Though it is often argued that Prohibition failed, or that it only encouraged the rise of organized crime, it did stop the excessive drinking by the working poor in Canada and the U.S.Oh no. So being gay is just like being a cigarette smoker? LGBT tolerance creates more LGBT people? Does this guy read what he writes? Does he have no idea of the absurdity of these claims which are offered to justify the teachings of the Church?
I have to skip some superfluous bat droppings and get the to the conclusion:
Yet the truth won’t be enough. As Christians, we know this. In the short and long runs, our actions must be linked to compassion. Until and unless we can manage to tell the truth without it impairing our love for those who have fallen into the LGBT lifestyles – and until and unless we can express love for members of the LGBT communities without it preventing us from telling the truth about how mistaken they are – we don’t have a hope.The “truth” is not what is expressed in those ancient texts — as much as Weatherbe would like that to be so. What really pisses me off about these self-righteous fools is that after paragraph upon paragraph of lies, intolerance and abject hate they profess truth, love and compassion. Even then he refers to sexual orientation as a “lifestyle.” The simple truth, the one that we know to a an absolute certainty, is that LGBT people do not choose to be LGBT. Their god did that or nature or biology.
With all those pieces in play, we can reverse much.
Another truth is that more than 60% of Americans support same-sex marriage which means that considerably higher numbers do not disapprove of gay people. Another simple truth is that the Church's disapproval of LGBT people does not alter the sexuality of anyone. Perhaps Mr. Weatherbe already understands this and is just railing against his own emotions as a form of disproving or dispelling them. I am searching for some explanation of his aberrant behavior.
My late father, a successful CEO, used to admonish me never to argue with stupid people. “You cannot win,” he would say. I'll ponder that as I click on the “Publish” icon.