It's GAYLA Week at Wartburg!

Wartburg College, in Waverly, Iowa, is holding its 2nd Annual Gayla Week. Wartburg is afflliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), a liberal denomination that is becoming even more liberal, abandoning God's word in the process. A spokesman from Wartburg once told me that Wartburg is not a Lutheran college, but a college operated by the Lutheran Church. Huh? In any case, I think Martin Luther would grieve that such a college is being operated by a denomination that was founded based on his teachings.

What concerns me perhaps more than the "Drag In The City Cabaret Show" is how the Waterloo Courier reports on one of the celebration's speakers. Story here. Notice how the word "homophobia" is used without quotes and without identifying it as the opinion of the author (neither the author being reported on nor the author of the Courier piece). In other words, the Courier's objectivity (and that of most other media) is out the window on this issue.

I have known for quite some time that the media, in general, is helping to advance the homosexual agenda but, for some reason, when I read that article it really sank in. When you see it happening in your local paper, it really hits home.

They just throw the word out there like any normal and rational person would accept that 1) there is a condition called "homophobia", 2) it is a widespread problem in this country, and 3) anyone identified as a "homophobe" should be punished and/or sent for "sensitivity" training. You might think that "homophobia" would mean "fear of homosexuals" or "fear of homosexuality", but you would be wrong. The way that homosexual activists and their allies define a "homophobe" is anyone who doesn't accept that homosexuality is normal and morally equal to the sexual relationship between a married man and woman.

I know it seems that I focus on this subject a lot, but I consider it to be the greatest threat to our religious freedom that we face. Not only that, but the children in the public schools will be indoctrinated (ARE being indocrinated) with pro-homosexual beliefs This means that, within a generation, we could live in a culture where the vast majority of people consider homosexual behavior to be normal, natural, moral, and equivalent (if not superior) to heterosexual relations. And anyone who dares to say homosexual acts are sinful will not only be called names like "homophobe", religious fanatic, hateful, and bigoted. They will also be considered ignorant throwbacks to an era when people were unenlightened on this matter. They will be seen not only as intolerant, but dangerous.

To be honest, I think we have lost the battle to prevent the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality, unless God miraculously intervenes. But that doesn't mean that we have to go quietly! I pray that God will raise up a legion of pastors, as well as Christian leaders and laymen, who have the boldness to stand for His word. We should show love and compassion toward all, but we should not stand by silently while sin--any sin--is being written into law by giving a protected class status to those who practice it.

Am I my brother's....wife?!

Here is more vindication for those of us who warned that considering homosexual behavior to be a civil right would be a slippery slope that would lead to calls for legal recognition of other aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., sexual relations other than between one man and one woman in marriage). Critics accused us of using fear tactics when we asked what would prevent polygamists from making the case that their civil rights were being violated. Homosexual activists dismissed those claims as the rantings of "homophobes". However, we are now seeing polygamists pushing for their "civil rights" based on the gains made by homosexuals.

Now comes something even more insidious that I have also been warning people about. Once we normalize homosexuality, where do you draw the line? Homosexual acitivists who try to shoot down arguments against same-sex "marriage" will say that the line should be drawn by limiting it to two people who are in love and want to share their lives together. OK, let's run with that. But now we have a case of a incestuous relationship. A brother and sister are living in a sexual relationship and have borne children. Chuck Colson reports on this case in his column today, entitled Saw This One Coming.

When the German government found 0ut about the relationship, they took away three of the couple's four children, and jailed the father/brother/husband for incest. Now, the couple is challenging the law in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. Some of the arguments the couple is making sound eerily familiar:

"this law is out of date, and it breaches the couple's civil rights"

"couple [is] not harming anyone"

the ban "is discrimination"

"Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children? (this in response to the argument that incest produces children at a higher risk to be born with a disability)

Do you recognize any of those arguments? They have all been made in the push for same-sex "marriage" in this country. The homosexual equivalent to the last argument is how they respond when it is held that one reason for marriage being only between one man and one woman is because that union can produce children, while same-sex "marriage" will not. They will ask, "If that is the case, then why are opposite-sex couples allowed to marry who, for whatever reason, will never be able to have kids?"

How will the homosexual activists respond to a couple who says it is their civil right to have an incestuous relationship? How can they say incest (or polygamy, or anything else for that matter) is wrong? Will they affirm family members being married to one another, or will they further try to refine the definition of marriage, but not so narrowly that it excludes them?

This is happening in Germany now, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it won't eventually come to our shores, especially when the US Supreme Court relies on laws and decisions in foreign countries to arrive at their decision.

This is just one more reason why you should contact your legislator and ask them to vote against adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Iowa's civil rights code.