Analysis of Minnesota Representative's Comments

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602, or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good afternoon, welcome to the Dividing Line. Certain videos go viral, the only reason this one has gone viral is because of a very tight tightly connected movement, it is a political, well -funded political move, but you may have seen a video that has become popular, currently according to this 182 ,000 views, it's not all that big actually, but certainly more than anything

I've got, that's for sure. But it is a video of Representative Steve Simon in Minnesota, and he is opposing, and again, he who frames the debate wins the debate.

And we must, must, must challenge the framing of the language of the debate taking place in our society right now.

This is a proposed gay marriage ban. As soon as you say that, you've already given it up.

You've given the position up, you've capitulated, you've surrendered.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. You have to focus upon what marriage means and the fact you're creating an oxymoron, and we'll have more to say about that later on.

But basically, there are those in Minnesota who wish to have the Minnesota Constitution reflect what has been, obviously, the definition of marriage since Minnesota became a state in 1858.

I have a little more interest in this than normal, because I am a native Minnesotan. And there is no question that there was no one in the drafting of the

Minnesota State Constitution in 1858 who supported a man and a man marrying and that being called marriage.

And so what you have is a radical redefinition of marriage that is being done by radicalized judges.

And you have the people of Minnesota wanting to define what marriage really is in the

Constitution. But it won't be, that's not, you can't talk like that. This is one movement that has so much power, has so much money, is so deeply instilled now in our society, you can't even speak the truth about it without getting fired from your positions.

And there is no question in my mind that far sooner than we thought, we will not be able to say the things we're saying in this program today without being subject to litigation and lawsuit, that we probably won't be able to win, because truth is no longer a defense in many of these situations.

And next week, on Thursday, May 12th, on this program,

Dr. Michael L. Brown will be joining me. And most of you know Dr. Brown from our encounters debating

Calvinism and our debate together defending the

Trinity and the deity of Christ, preexistence of Jesus, against two Unitarians and a Jewish voice broadcast. Dr.

Brown and I disagree on a number of things, and we agree on a number of things. And a lot of people are really freaked out that we are good friends, despite our areas of disagreement and the fact that we can disagree in a way, hopefully, that reflects well on our commitment to Christ.

But be it as it may, he has written a book entitled, A Queer Thing Happened to America. It's about 600 pages long or so.

I don't have my hard copy. My daughter stole it. Well, okay, I let her borrow it. But I did finish listening to it just yesterday.

It is a tremendous work. I have linked to it in our Amazon bookstore.

And I learned a lot of things I did not know. Most of you know that I wrote a book on homosexuality with Jeff Neal back in 2001, as I recall was the date.

And that was a very difficult book to study for and to prepare for, and so much has happened since then.

There really is almost no overlap between our books, by the way. It's really interesting. Our book is almost totally focused upon the biblical text, and Dr.

Brown's almost totally focused upon what's going on in our society, which most of us, we just don't know about.

We don't want to think about this stuff. But you need to realize that people pushing this agenda, this is their life, and they want your children.

They want your children. They want to usurp your parental rights. They don't believe you have any.

They believe the state has total rights over your children. And they want to inculcate gender confusion.

I linked to an amazing statement. Unfortunately, I'd have to have

Twitter up. Maybe somebody could post that thing I put on Twitter yesterday. It's from England, where a homosexual group was sending out stuff to various, well to all elementary schools, specifically with games and things to ask little boys in first grade to pretend like they are cheerleaders and they have pom -poms and doing all this stuff specifically to create gender confusion amongst the populace.

They want your people, they want your children, and they will do anything to get them. Because they can't have them themselves, so they'll get them any other way they can.

It's an amazing thing. Anyways, as a result, going back to all of this, let me take a look at this to see if it's, if that's what, yeah there it is,

Turretinfan, pull it up there. This is from Christian .org

.uk, gay group to send training pack to all primary schools. I posted this on Twitter, which then gets posted over to Facebook as well.

Currently, I would be reading this to you, but I've noticed ever since they quote -unquote fixed us, our internet is not as fast as it used to be.

Waiting for www .google .com, hear that or Google will slow down a lot. A homosexual lobby group is to spend tens of thousands of pounds on sending a teacher training pack to every primary school in Britain.

In March, it emerged that Stonewall, and when you hear that term, folks, be aware of it,

Stonewall had been sending training packs to some primary schools, and one school governor branded the contentious materials as indoctrination.

Now the charity has announced that it intends to send a training pack to every primary school in Britain after raising more than £50 ,000 from a sponsored walk.

The training pack, which was exposed in March, included a DVD containing some highly controversial best practice tips from primary teachers.

The DVD showed teachers recommending that boys in primary school should be encouraged to try on dresses or dance with pom -poms in the cheerleading team.

And one head teacher even said that pupils should be taught to be resilient to the values of their parents and grandparents.

You hear that, folks? They want your children. One teacher even said that pupils should be taught to be resilient to the values of their parents and grandparents.

The training pack also recommends that teachers read homosexual storybooks and act out the roles in school plays.

Stonewall revealed its plans to inundate the nation's primary schools with its essential teacher training pack following a fundraiser at the weekend.

Laura Dowdy, the lobby group's deputy chief executive, says Stonewall's work can make an even greater difference to the lives of all young people around the country thanks to the success of this year's

Equality Walk. Equality, diversity, all of which means we get to control your children.

Our views are right. Yours are wrong. That's what diversity means in the homosexual community.

Diversity means accepting us. And in fact, to the point where that is a better there's there's again,

I learned a lot in this book. They are now it's the mask is slipping and they are now talking about heterosexualism as a problem.

If you think heterosexuality should be the norm or it's better than any other view, you're a homophobe.

See, not equal. No, no. They've never wanted equal rights. They do not want equal rights. Do not buy that lie.

They do not want equal rights. They want Uber rights. How long have you been saying that? I've been saying that for years.

And it's just getting more and more obvious. Last year's reveal of Stonewall was was set to send every secondary school in Britain a controversial

DVD. The interactive DVD contained a one hour 45 minute feature film entitled Fit, which the campaign group claimed would challenge homophobic bullying.

Fit is an adaptation of Stonewall's highly controversial gay play of the same name, which toured schools during 2008 -2009.

But the play, which was targeted schoolchildren ages 11 to 14, prompted protests from concerned parents who said their children were too young to be exposed to its adult themes.

This is the kind of thing that is going on. It's going on all over the world. And finally, back to this viral video of Steve Simon.

I'm going to let it play. It's about three minutes long. Then we'll go back through it and take it apart.

Listen to it. Here is the, oh, got to plug the computer in there.

Here is the statement. We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe them to be, in the

Minnesota Constitution. And what I'm hearing today and what I heard on Friday was largely a religious justification for a change in the

Minnesota Constitution. I don't think that's right. I don't think it's fair. I think it departs from our tradition. The other thing, which

I know makes some people squirm, but I think we have to discuss it, both during an election campaign, but here at the legislature, too, is how much of homosexuality is nature versus nurture?

Is this something that you learn or acquire? Or is this something that you're born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice like skateboarding or gardening?

Or is this something that's innate with a human being? I want to take a page from what I heard last Friday in the

Senate testimony. There was a member of the clergy, forgive me, I can't remember his name. And he said, you know what? Sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from God.

And I think that's true. And I think the scientific evidence shows more and more every day that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate and something that people are born with.

And I would ask everyone on this committee, not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not even this year, but at a moment when you can be alone with your own thoughts, to ask yourself if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that mean to the moral force of your argument?

Just ask yourself, not now in the glare of the Capitol and caucuses and interest groups, but ask yourself if it's true that sexual orientation is innate,

God -given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument? And I guess to put it in the vernacular, what

I would ask is, how many more gay people does God have to create? Before we ask ourselves whether or not

God actually wants them around. Please keep applause to yourselves.

How many gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives, the way they wish, as long as they don't harm others, is a godly and holy and happy and glorious thing?

I've answered that for myself. I don't think everyone's answered that for themselves necessarily in this room.

But I'm comfortable with a society and a tradition that bends towards justice and fairness and wholeness and openness and compassion.

And I do think, as others have said before me more eloquently, that that's where the arc of history is bending as well.

And I truly believe that in a generation, maybe not even a generation, but certainly many generations from now, if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our

Constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly. And I think that the people who vote for this today and in the future will, although their children and grandchildren can and should be very proud of them for their service to the state of Minnesota, will on this issue not be so proud.

And there may even be some justifiable shame there as well. And I think that's something that we all have to think about and justify in our own consciousness.

So I strongly urge a no vote. We have to be careful. Okay. So there you go. There is

Steve Simon from Minnesota. I thought it was

House of Representatives, but he said something about the Senate. It's Minnesota state government testifying against or speaking against.

By the way, the motion did pass and evidently will be available to the voters,

I guess. I'm not sure what this current situation is, but this was Monday, May 2nd. So it's just a couple of days ago.

Once again, as I put it on Twitter, listen to the reasoned, rational voice of immorality.

Because that's what it is. It is the reasoned, rational voice of immorality. Those who are evil do not generally sound like they're evil.

We now live in a society where you can't call anything evil at all. Well, I'll take that back. You can only call

Christianity evil. You can call, all you can call evil is that which was once good.

But you can't call anything else evil or you're judgmental, hateful, et cetera, et cetera. And the fact that our educational system is producing people who simply do not think deeply any longer at all, these folks are most susceptible to this kind of rhetoric.

Now you might say, well, it's supposed to be an apologetics program. I really don't want to be talking about stuff like this. Well, you know, I understand that.

I have addressed this issue before. I've debated John Shelby Spong and others on the,

Barry Lynn, on the subject of homosexuality. The fact of the matter is the

Bible does address the issue. And my focus has primarily been the defense of a meaningful exegetical understanding of what the

Bible says about human sexuality, especially about homosexuality. But what we have here now is a situation where in Western cultures, we are going to be making a choice between our freedoms, which are being taken away from us and fidelity to the gospel.

It's coming and it's coming a lot faster than anybody thought that it could possibly get here. And so many of our young people have been so indoctrinated by the educational system that they can't even think straight.

You try to reason with them and you just see the system shutting down because they, the logical pathways of their brains have been fried by constant assault by this kind of rhetoric.

And I don't know where that's going to lead unless God has mercy. No society has ever survived the rise of homosexuality.

It's happened in the past and every single one of those societies no longer exists today. It is a destructive lifestyle and it is a destructive worldview.

And that's what makes it evil. Let's listen again. And this time starting and stopping.

I hope I'll be able to start and stop. I didn't have time. I was out of town, rushed to get back into town to be here with you this afternoon.

So I didn't have time to convert into MP3 so we could do it the normal way. So I'm using the straight video here.

And sometimes it doesn't like starting and stopping real well. So we'll see how that works.

But let's listen to it again. We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe them to be in the

Minnesota Constitution. And I stop immediately and say, so whose beliefs will be enshrined?

In the Minnesota Constitution. Are you telling me that the people who wrote the Minnesota Constitution in 1858 were non -religious secularists?

They were not. And the law must reflect an underlying cultural understanding of what is good and evil.

And that will be informed by something, either by atheism and secularism. And hence you need to be consistent.

And we need to throw out all the morality of Western civilization because there's no way to make a neo -Darwinian worldview work with the values that we have enshrined within our society.

That's why we're going through what we're going through right now, is there is a revolution going on. We are not the revolutionaries.

The other side's revolutionaries, but they want to try to make it look just the opposite. But there are religious values already enshrined in the

Minnesota Constitution. And this issue is the issue of what marriage is.

How marriage is defined. That wasn't a question in 1858. And so if the original intention of the authors means anything, if the original worldview of the authors means anything, then it is very clear how they would have understood this.

So again, it is not an enshrinement of some new... They want to paint it like there is some new movement to insert religion into this pure secular society we've already had.

That is absolutely bogus. No one who knows anything about history can even begin to do anything but laugh at such thinking.

But did you hear what I just said? Anybody who knows anything about history. Have you talked with most high schoolers recently?

They have replaced meaningful history with indoctrination. Not real history.

And that's why it works. What I'm hearing today and what I heard on Friday was largely a religious justification for a change in the

Minnesota Constitution. I don't think that's right. I don't think it's fair. I think it departs from our tradition. The other thing...

Now think about that. Religiously motivated change to our Constitution. What they're talking about is defining marriage the way every single person who signed that original document would have defined it at the time.

All you have to do is twist the meaning of words. And again, people who are sensitive to the meaning of words, think logically, follow logical lines of thought, consider presuppositions and foundations of thinking, catch this immediately.

But people who are listening to Lady Gaga don't think that way anymore.

They don't think rationally. They don't think in a logical fashion. They think emotionally based upon the indoctrination that they have received.

And I'm telling you, it is indoctrination. There are certain words now that as soon as you use them, they create a certain emotional response in the next generation that shuts down all critical thought.

Just call somebody a homophobe. Just say you're against diversity. Just say you're a bigot.

That's why you hear these terms all the time. And they're almost never used in a meaningful fashion, but they don't need to be, because it is meant to shut down all critical thought.

Just flatline. It's over with. They have, it's a Pavlovian response.

And it takes a lot of work to get to that point, but we're already there. We're already there.

Which I know makes some people squirm, but I think we have to discuss it, both during an election campaign, but here at the legislature too, is how much of homosexuality is nature versus nurture?

Is this something that you learn or acquire, or is this something that you're born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice, like skateboarding or gardening?

Or is this something that's innate with a human being? And I want to... Now notice he did not even give the possible realm, certainly did not give a

Christian realm. He is going to make the assertion that this is absolutely innate. He's going to go against even homosexual writers who recognize that if this is merely innate, if this is just the way you were born, if this is just genetic or something, if it's genetic, then it can be fixed.

If we can find the quote -unquote gay gene, which they have not, we've mapped the entire human genome and no such thing.

But if they were to find such a thing, then you could quote -unquote fix it.

And so they're caught between a rock and a hard place. They want to say, well, this is who I am, but they also want to have the freedom to be who

I am. And it's not just something like a disease to be treated or something along those lines. We'll talk with Michael Brown next week about the fact that he very, very carefully in a chapter talks about, well, folks, the terminology, the language that I learned in reading this book was amazing.

Most of this did not exist when I wrote my book. But you know that there are many, many people who promote intergenerational affection.

That's called pederasty. Those are pedophiles. But see, that's not the word you want to use. It's intergenerational love.

And there are many people writing in defense of this, primarily outside the United States for obvious reasons, but they're writing in defense of this.

And you can take their arguments, simply take their terminology out, put homosexuality in, they are the exact same arguments without question.

Question. And the homosexual has absolutely no way of differentiating.

Well, there's every single excuse they come up with can be shot down by the intergenerational lovers.

And the list goes on and on as to other behaviors of people making the same arguments that homosexuals make.

Well, it's innate, it's who I am. How dare you say what I am is wrong?

Polyamory. We used to call that adultery and fornication, but polyamory is the big thing now. And there are just people that, that's just the way

I am, that's innate. Mainly amongst men for some odd reason, but it's just innate, it's just the way it is.

See, that's where he's going with this. But I guess I might as well let him get there. I take a page from what

I heard last Friday in the Senate testimony. There was a member of the clergy, forgive me, I can't remember his name.

And he said, you know what? Sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from God.

And I think that's true. And I think the scientific evidence shows more and more every day that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate.

Now that's, that is just, again, that's rhetoric. That is not the case.

That is totally against, there's just all sorts of reasons to reject it. But again, in our society today, as long as you repeat something, and especially if you can get big stars to repeat it, then it must be true.

Why anyone in our society thinks someone who pretends to be other people for a living has any kind of meaningful moral guidance status or ability to speak to these issues,

I don't even begin to understand. But it's something that people are born with. And I would ask everyone on this committee, not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not even this year, but at a moment when you can be alone with your own thoughts to ask yourself if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that mean to the moral force of your argument?

Now, here's what I want you to hear. To the moral force of your argument, listen to what he's, this is the big thing.

This is on all the gay blogs and Yahoo's pushing it and Google's pushing it.

Because remember, especially when it comes to this stuff, corporate America has sold out.

They are all slaves of the Human Rights Commission, HRC, which is a gay organization.

Why it's called HRC, I have no earthly idea. But it's called the

Human Rights Commission. There are certain corporations that will give as much as $500 ,000 at a shot to this organization.

They have to, if you want to be at the top tier, you have to have a 100 % rating from these people.

And so they are absolutely under the thumb of the homosexuals. And Dr.

Brown gives a list of all the corporations that get 100 % ratings from the HRC. And you could not do business in the

United States of America without dealing with these corporations. Almost every major bank, the airlines, almost every major airline, retailers,

Starbucks, US Airways, the whole nine yards, all 100 % ratings with HRC.

It is corporate blackmail because Target in Minnesota made a small donation to a

Republican who stood for traditional marriage. And these people came down on them like a ton of bricks.

The amount of political clout that 3 % of our society wields is far out of proportion from the number of people that actually represent this kind of sexual lifestyle.

It is absolutely, positively amazing. And here's where I was worried about.

I hit play and it doesn't play. So I'm going to have to back it up a little bit. Of your argument. There we go. Just ask yourself, not now in the glare of the

Capitol and caucuses and interest groups, but ask yourself if it's true that sexual orientation is innate,

God -given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument? And I guess to put it in the vernacular, what

I would ask is, how many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not

God actually wants them around? There it is. How many gay people does

God have to create before we ask ourselves, does God really want them around? And there's applause.

And that line is all over blogs. And this video is all over blogs. How many pedophiles does

God have to create before we ask ourselves the question, does God want pedophiles around? How many mass murderers does

God have to create before we ask ourselves the question, does God want mass murderers around? How many petty dictators does

God have to create before we ask ourselves the question, does God want petty dictators around? How many thieves does

God have to create before we ask ourselves the question, does God want thieves around? What kind of moral thinking is this?

Oh, but it's just innate. So God created them this way. It's exactly what the pedophile says.

It's exactly what the polygamist says. That's exactly what the person engages in bestiality or wants to marry his cocker spaniel says.

You know what? I had never heard of this before. But this morning I learned about, at least so far, they still call this a psychological disorder.

And it was a fascinating section in Dr. Brown's book about the politics that were brought to bear that brought the psychologists to drop homosexuality as a mental disease back in 1973.

It was due to protests and people showing up in drag and all the rest of the stuff. But anyway, there is a psychological disorder.

Did you know that there are people? I don't catch this kind of news. And that's, again, one of the reasons

I want to thank Dr. Brown for doing such an awesome job in collecting all the material in this book. But did you know the news broke in England a while back about a doctor who would remove limbs, perfectly normal functioning limbs from people who have a particular disorder where they are absolutely convinced that they're not supposed to have it.

There are people who are tortured by the fact that they have two legs or two arms.

There are people, warning, this be offensive. There are people who are sexually aroused by looking at severed limbs and a doctor to help treat them because they're absolutely convinced they could not be happy as long as they had two legs actually amputated a leg for them.

There are people who absolutely will tell you they will look in your eye and say, this is not how

I am supposed to be. They're absolutely convinced of it.

Just their people are absolutely convinced that they're not actually women. They're supposed to be men or they're men.

They're supposed to be women. And now the pressure is on every major corporation to in their insurance coverage of their employees, provide for not sex change operations, but transitioning, transitioning.

And once someone transitions, which might mean the surgical removal of perfectly functional organs, not sure the difference between that and taking someone's leg off is, but hey, when they come back, the company must provide gender appropriate training for the other people in the organization and gender appropriate bathrooms.

Yeah, that's where we are, folks. That's where we are. Most of us don't even want to think about this stuff.

So we hide from it. We stick our heads in the sand. This couldn't happen here. Oh yeah, it really can.

And, and it does. And please keep applause to yourselves.

How many gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives, the way they wish, as long as they don't harm others, is a godly and holy and happy and glorious thing.

Godly, holy, happy and glorious thing. How do you define any of those things?

Evidently, according to Steve Simon, homosexuality can be that. Why, Representative Simon, would not pedophilia be like that?

How about bestiality? There are people who absolutely are turned on by corpses.

Necrophilia is what it's called. Why not? If it doesn't hurt anybody else, can't hurt the corpse.

Why is that wrong? Oh, that's disgusting. Get past the disgusting part. Because homosexuality disgusts me.

And you don't care about that. So morally, what's the foundation?

Well, right now we don't like it. 10 years from now, we might. All it takes is just one positive presentation on HBO.

One comedy star comes out. One superstar comes out and says, I like it. And all of a sudden, the younger generation goes, well, it must be

OK. And when they become the predominant factor, does that mean it's OK? What's your foundation?

Western society. Godly, glorious, amazing.

I've answered that for myself. I don't think everyone's answered that for themselves, necessarily, in this room. But I'm comfortable with a society and a tradition that bends towards justice and fairness and wholeness and openness and compassion.

And I do think, as others have said before me more eloquently, that that's where the arc of history is bending as well.

And I truly believe. The arc of history. The arc of history.

That's high sounding, high sounding vocabulary and language, isn't it? The arc of history.

The arc of history will tell you, Mr. Simon, that homosexuality became prevalent in many nations before ours.

And was always a part of the degradation of those nations and the eventual ruin of those nations.

Ask the Greeks, ask the Romans. We still see the, well, the shells of the buildings they left behind and the great society they built.

But that turned in upon itself and collapsed upon itself. And that's what's happening to Western society today, too, isn't it?

So the arc of history. Well, Mr. Simon, I remind you of the shape of the

St. Louis Arch. I go to St. Louis every December. And when we're landing,

I try to look out the window. And if I'm on the right side of the plane, I'll get to see the St. Louis Arch. And we used to drive along I -70 to go visit my grandma every summer.

And we'd get to see that off in the distance. And never been up it, but, you know, get to St. Louis Arch.

You know what? If you start up on one side, one side of that arch, guess where you're going to end up?

Right back down the ground on the other side. That's the arc of history of every nation that has ever embraced the soul destroying.

And I mean the soul of the society. A society is based upon doing what's right for mankind.

And mankind was created in the image of God. We were to have a husband and a wife and children.

And guess who taught that? Read Matthew chapter 19. His name was Jesus the Messiah. He taught that.

And he taught it with clarity. I believe that in a generation, maybe not even generation, but certainly many generations from now, if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our

Constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly. History will judge us all very, very harshly.

I would like to suggest that the judgment of history is dependent upon the godliness of those making the judgment in generations to come.

And if the Lord tarries, and if there is yet much history to be written, the question really will be if God is merciful to this nation and brings some kind of repentance so that we don't end up in the lifetime of my children and their children's children, a third -rate nation, and that is fully possible, folks, never, ever think that it's not.

Your standard of living could be half of what it is three years from now. It really could be.

But if God brings some type of repentance, if there is some means by which

Western society turns from its self -loathing and self -destructive behavior, then history will ask,

Grandma, Grandpa, what did you do back when they were profaning marriage?

You see, it all depends on what history's going to be filled with. People who have a moral foundation are those who live by the whims of the times.

That's why I didn't find the end of this to be overly compelling. And I think that the people who vote for this today and in the future although their children and grandchildren can and should be very proud of them for their service to the state of Minnesota, will on this issue not be so proud.

And there may even be some justifiable shame there as well. And I think that's something that we all have to think about and justify in our own consciousness.

So I strongly urge a no vote. We have to be— Shame. Shame. I've started to notice that word used a lot by those who oppose a godly definition of marriage, by those who promote homosexuality.

Remember that incredible video back during the Proposition 8 stuff where the crowd of homosexuals knocked the cross out of this little woman's hand and were jumping up and down on it and screaming at her, shame, shame, shame.

I am absolutely convinced that the only explanation for the utilization of that terminology, given that the worldview of the other side has no grounding for shame anyways, given the worldview of the other side produces the gay pride festivals and parades that we see that are a celebration of shame, the only thing that explains it is that these folks face shame in their own souls so much every day that the only relief they can get is to try to project it on other people.

That's the only thing I can understand that would explain the consistency of that kind of behavior.

But folks, think with me now for a moment. This video's gone viral.

Remember the last, well, no, it wasn't the last, but remember back in, again, the dates are in Dr.

Brown's book, but remember the West Wing episode, the

Dr. Laura letter? That someone had written to Dr. Laura and it had gone viral where, you know,

I want to, my daughter's a freshman at such and such a place. I want to sell her into slavery. What do you think would be a fair price? And should

I kill my neighbor for working on the Sabbath? And in other words, he went through the holiness code of Leviticus 18 through 20 and pointed out the quote unquote hypocrisy of Christians because they don't follow all these laws as if the proscription of homosexuality was the same, has the same kind of biblical grounding in the sense of a moral law as not trimming the corners of your beard or not mixing threads in your garments.

One of the reasons that these folks can get away with this kind of stuff, there's a lot of reasons.

We don't want to talk about this stuff. It's all their life. It's not our life at all. We don't want to think about it. So it's just like when the

Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door, they spent five hours a week preparing to debate you. You don't even want to think about them. And so they generally best you because anyone who's spending five hours a week preparing to do something is probably better than somebody who hasn't been spending any time at all.

That's one reason. Another reason is we don't think about God's law. I've made comments for years now trying to make some suggestions as to some serious thought that we have to give to how we're to understand the holiness code and make differentiation between ceremonial law, which is fulfilled in Israel and specific laws that set

Israel as a theocracy apart over against moral laws that transcend that specific time period and application continue to have application today.

There's a lot more work to be done there. I don't claim to be the be all and end all in that area at all, but I certainly have had to give it a lot of thought over the years.

But most of us are not comfortable with that. And folks, did you hear the reasonableness of the language?

How could I be so mean as to disagree with him? That's how people think, that it's actually mean to disagree.

And so simply saying, yeah, well, it says Leviticus 18, that that's an abomination before God. That's not enough anymore in our society.

In fact, that doesn't really help anything anymore in our society. Unless you've done some serious thinking, about what the context around Leviticus chapter 18 is.

And in fact, I would suggest to you, if you've never read the book of Leviticus, don't quote Leviticus 18 to anybody. These folks are not stupid.

And if you actually haven't read Leviticus and maybe Numbers and Deuteronomy and Genesis and Exodus and the rest of it, don't put yourself in a position of bringing disrepute upon your position by being refuted by these folks.

We've got to do a lot more thinking so that we can think clearly, but this kind of thing, you're going to run into it.

You dare open your mouth on the subject and someone's going to say to you, well, how many gays does

God have to create for you to get the idea that you want some around? And how are you going to respond to that?

You've got to be able to expose the foundations of that kind of thinking. Oh, so the prevalence of a behavior indicates

God's approbation of that. So how many idolaters does

God have to create before we get the idea that God wants them around? And fornicators and adulterers and everything else, excuse me, but we have to be prepared for that.

We have to be thinking about that. Now, in light of that, I listened to, and I don't see any phone calls, but that's okay.

I've only got like 17 minutes left or 15 minutes left anyways. Another thing

I listened to, I was out of town last two days, did a lot of riding up in Flagstaff, Arizona, beautiful, beautiful place, 7 ,000 feet above sea level.

And so I got a lot of listening in. And one of the things

I listened to was a debate that took place, again, between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr.

Smaw, S -M -A -W. In a university setting just recently. It's on YouTube if you want to look it up.

I had to do some serious thought as to whether this was the most slam dunk debate

I'd ever heard over against the 1993 Sola Scriptura debate in Denver, where Keating and Madrid just massacred those two fundamentalists.

Because that was probably the worst drubbing I've ever heard anyone take in a debate. Notice I've left any of mine out because everybody would accuse me of this or the other thing if I named any particular debate.

And I think this one comes in at least second in that list of things,

I would say. It's that bad. And when I say bad,

I don't mean that in the sense that Dr. Brown did anything bad. When you have a debate that's just incredibly lopsided, it takes two things.

It takes one side doing real well and the other side doing really badly.

I mean, if one side just sort of does nyeh -nyeh -nyeh -nyeh and the other one does really badly, you really can't see the contrast. But one side does really well and then the other side does really, really badly.

Then that's when it gets really, really lopsided. That's what this was. I was amazed that Dr.

Smaw is a professor of law. I just,

I truly was taken aback. I want to play some sections of this. And I want to play

Michael Brown's rebuttal period. Because you won't understand Smaw if you don't hear what

Michael just said. And so I go ahead and play it. And then we'll listen to Smaw's response.

And hopefully recognize, not only hopefully will you be encouraged by Michael's presentation, but just to hear the straw men and the kind of response.

Very, very instructive. So this was from just recently. Here's Michael Brown's rebuttal period.

I think it's about five minutes. And then we'll look at Dr. Smaw's comments. First, just to set the record straight.

Well, I was surprised that the open comments contained a rebuttal. And then I also said that there was no answer to my position.

I was not looking for a rebuttal. I was simply looking for an answer as to why SAMHSA expired should be legal.

And I personally never heard that. And it didn't deal with the substance of my argument. The fact that Dr.

Smaw made an agreement with others unbeknownst to me or the other organizers that he would not bring in certain subjects is really unfortunate.

Because they must be brought up. And let's forget about Canada. Let's forget about Germany. As I recall,

I quoted from Time Magazine here in America, 2007, should incest be legal. As I recall, I quoted from Newsweek magazine here in 2009.

What about polyamory, the next revolution? Sexual revolution. Traditionalists better get used to it.

I will say it once more. You look someone else in the face that is arguing in the courts in America today for rights to incest, for rights to polygamous relations, polyamorous, arguing that children's textbooks should be teaching about multiple parents,

Sally and her husband and her boyfriend, and tell them it's equality for us, but not for you.

What we have to realize is that this is not just a matter of the government recognizing. By the way, the comments about, when you modify a class from one year to the next, we're going to modify marriage every year.

Maybe we need 30 or 40 or 80 or 400 different types of marriage because everybody's so different.

Because no two kids are the same and no two parents are the same. Is that what we want? This completely malleable thing that can just change like clay and you shift it, move it around?

You're talking about what kids will be educated by. You're talking about the examples that will be set for them.

Okay. My bad. New program here. And for some reason, it skipped all the way down to there for some reason, and I'm not sure why.

That was a nice closing statement, but that was the closing statement. And it would be best to actually play the right portion.

Between myself and Dr. Brown, move on. Thank you. That was Dr. Small. My apologies.

I'd like to thank Dr. Small for his opening remarks and now reintroduce Mr. Brown for his response.

Okay, I do very much appreciate the demeanor and spirit of Dr. Small and what he brings in terms of logic and philosophy and law.

I was a bit surprised that the opening comments became somewhat of a rebuttal. I thought that's totally contrary to debating procedure.

But in any event, what it meant was that we never really got to hear why same -sex marriage should be legal because I didn't give a history lesson.

I talked about what marriage is. I didn't go through. If I gave a history lesson, I'd still be giving it for about another thousand years because this is the only history

I've ever had is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman together for the purpose of responsible procreation. So check this out.

ABC is not math. Two plus two is not spelling. Male plus male, female plus female is not marriage.

So we haven't had that addressed at all. So everything that I said about that remains 100 % intact, untouched.

The fact that gays participate in society, of course, the fact that marriage of two men or two women is not marriage doesn't change that fact.

And let me just say one other thing. As a heterosexual married for 35 years, I didn't get married for tax benefits and I could care less if I have to pay triple to be married and I could care less if I get inheritance rights.

I married out of a lifelong commitment to my wife. And if the government recognizes that's their benefit. And if they don't, that's their loss.

Just to say that. OK. To say this is not about civil rights, it has nothing to do with civil rights.

For example, if I want to do something that only a woman can do, it's not a civil rights issue. If I want to have a baby, notwithstanding the so -called pregnant man nonsense, but if I want to have a baby,

I can't do that because I am a male. So two men cannot marry because it's not marriage.

Again, there is a gender matters. There is a difference between male and female.

The two coming together are different than two men or two women. Those are just facts. And again,

I have to ask the question, since we've had same -sex attraction, same -sex relations throughout history, how come it didn't dawn on people to redefine marriage through those centuries?

The idea about gay being the new black, by the way, is not original with me. That was the front cover of Advocate, the most influential gay publication in America.

Asking that question a few years ago, it comes up constantly that this is the new civil rights issue. I like these comments from gay journalist

Charles Weinkauf. Newsflash. Blacks in America didn't start out as hip -hop fashion designers.

They were slaves. There's a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same -sex partner of your choice and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a restroom because you don't have the right skin color.

Let's take this further. Aside from the fact that we've emphasized the government has no reason and no obligation to sanction every romantic relationship to give it its blessing.

The fact of the matter is you must ask about these other relationships. In point of fact,

Dr. Small, there are people in Germany, there are people in America that are now arguing based on same -sex marriage being legalized, laws being passed.

They are now shouting, wonderful, so I can marry my sister. Wonderful, so I can marry my daughter. We have to ask.

You don't just open up the dam and let the flood come without asking about the consequences. We must ask these other questions.

Otherwise, because these things are presently in the courts. Do we not have the foresight to address them in advance?

If we're talking about sexual orientation in any way being conspired to skin color or a civil right, then that would presuppose that sexual orientation is innate and immutable.

Neither of which are true. For example, John D 'Amelio, well -known gay activist, professor of history and gender and women's studies at the

University of Illinois, said this, born gay is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise.

It's an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

What's most amazing to me, this is a gay activist speaking, about the born gay phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed.

Yet it doesn't matter. It's an idea with such social utility that one doesn't need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.

Lesbian author Camille Paglia said this in her book Vamps and Tramps, no one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.

The reason researchers are still looking for a gay gene or looking for some evidence, biological, genetic, that can explain the origins of homosexuality is because it hasn't been found yet.

So it is not innate. In fact, I can go around this room and identify every person of color.

That's easy to do. I can't identify who's gay, who's lesbian simply by who's sitting here and outward appearance.

We don't know that unless it's identified. So again, the comparison breaks down completely. Let's take this further.

I believe your stories. Some of you hear when you tell me that you were in some ex -gay program and you didn't change, that you were tormented, that you were suicidal and you didn't change.

I believe you. I want you to believe the stories of friends of mine, of my late brother -in -law, of others who say they did change.

Lisa Diamond, a sex researcher, wrote a book, Sexual Fluidity, about the fluidity of sexual desires in some women.

That they can be heterosexual all their lives and then suddenly there's a shift of some kind. Or it can shift back the other way.

One of the women said something that others have quoted, I don't fall in love with a gender, but with a person. So skin color is innate and immutable, the late

Michael Jackson notwithstanding. It cannot be changed. And yet sexual orientation with many is fluid.

So we are now going to redefine marriage, open up the possibilities of all new definitions of marriage, which again are presently being fought for.

We cannot argue with them. The secular media is even saying this is the next revolution. You've got the HBO shows,

Big Love and all this. It's everywhere. You can't get away from these realities. Either we hold to marriage for its purpose.

I'm not even saying God ordained, although that's what I believe as a follower of Jesus. But its purpose in society, either we hold to that or you're going to have to open up marriage equality to all kinds of equations that you never planned on.

A few more comments. We're not talking here about American history, slavery, oppression of women, segregation.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about the only thing known to the entire human race through history.

We're talking about something without which ultimately male, female unions, none of us would be here.

We're talking about guaranteeing, guaranteeing that a child will either have no mother or no father, guaranteeing that a child will be separated from father or mother for the rest of their lives.

Are we thinking about the child? Are we thinking about ourselves when we do that? And if marriage does not have in mind the next generation, we're missing something very profound.

Ask yourself who you're fighting for in this equation. Not only so, but when we talk about, when we talk about freedoms, equality,

I have never in my entire life run into such extraordinary intolerance, bigotry, hatred.

The moment I simply say, you know, I believe a man's designed for a woman and a woman for a man.

And I don't support same sex marriage. I have been branded Hitler as a Jew. I'm a Jewish follower of Jesus. So as a

Jew, it's kind of unique to be branded Hitler. I've been called Hitler, jihadist. I can show you, you know, the online clips where people talk in detail about the physical things they want to do to hurt and attack me just because I say, you know,

I think it's best that we recognize gender and recognize there's a role for men, role for women. I'm not mad at these people.

This is gonna give me some persecution complex. They're probably just thinking I'm threatening them. But the hatred, the intolerance that comes our way is mind boggling.

And the fact that there was a bit of a furor even to discuss this on campus as if it was too volatile.

What will happen? Tell me what will happen to religious rights and freedoms. What will happen if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land?

And people say, well, we don't recognize that. We have an issue with that. They will now be looked at the exact same way people are looked at that oppose interracial marriage in the past.

I didn't realize it was this long, but that'll be the background. I want to continue on with this next week because it'd be a good lead in to the discussion on Thursday with Dr.

Brown on the subject of homosexuality, the profanation of marriage.

It's the only way I can put it is a profaning of marriage and all those related issues. So make sure again a week from today we will be having

Dr. Michael Brown as our guest on the program. He'll be joining us. He has his own program on Salem now.

It runs for like two hours long or something like that. Different stations carry different elements of it, but he is going to take some of his evening and join with us at that time.

So I hope you will put that on your calendar. Join us live for discussion with Michael Brown. And then sometime down the road, he and I are going to do a program once a book he's contributed to comes out, which should be within hopefully just a few weeks, maybe a month or two on Isaiah 53, the suffering servant text.

We're just going to take it in the Hebrew and walk right through it. And that should be a whole lot of fun,

Dr. Brown and I doing that. So that'll be coming up on the program. We'll see you on Tuesday. Thanks for listening. God bless. Saturday.

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at PO Box 37106,

Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at AOMIN .org.

That's AOMIN .org where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.