Liberals Avoid Debate by Charging ‘Homophobia’

Writers who have written for years, or even decades, without ever mentioning homosexuals have been denounced for “homophobia” because they began to write about the subject after the AIDS epidemic appeared—and did not take the “politically correct “ position on the issues.  How can someone have a “phobia” about something he has scarcely noticed?  Many people never knew or cared what homosexuals were doing, until it became a danger to them as a result of the AIDS epidemic.  Whether those people’s reactions were right or wrong is something that can be debated.  But attributing their position to a “phobia” is circular reasoning, when there is no evidence of any such phobia other than the position itself.  Like so much in the vocabulary of the anointed, it is a way of avoiding substantive debate.

Among the writers who took non-“politically correct” positions on AIDS was the late Randy Shilts, whose best-selling book And the Band Played On is a chilling exploration of the political irresponsibility, based on fears of offending the organized gay lobby, that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths before the most elementary public health measures were taken to reduce the spread of AIDS.  No doubt he too would have been called “homophobic” if he were not himself an avowed homosexual who later died of AIDS.

Thomas Sowell, "The Vision of the Anointed," pg.216-217

Are We Men Or Animals?

Sesame Street and psychiatric journals tell us that the definition of family has been changed to include almost anything.  The traditional view says that God created a world where humans will be happiest and feel most fulfilled when one mother and one father unite in marriage and raise their children together.  Our modern culture tells us that the traditional family is at best one option, and at worst an antiquated, repressive phenomenon. …

If there is one complex machine for which the manufacturer’s instruction manual is certainly needed, it is the wondrous machine we call marriage.

The marriage model designed by the world’s greatest matchmaker is based on fundamental differences between animals and humans.  At best, a male animal views its female as a commodity.  In some species she is nothing more than an asset to help him respond to one of nature’s more insistent calls.  To the chimpanzee, for instance, females are to be fought over and then impregnated.  Frighteningly, the same behavior is already starting to appear among young American males who have been deprived of a religious heritage.  But then, why should that surprise us?  Without God, we are animals; it follows that we will begin to resemble them.  Perhaps the question is not “Did apes become humans?” as much as it ought to be “Are humans becoming apes?”  As marriage becomes less relevant to those Americans on the Left end of the rope, our resemblance to the wild kingdom becomes more evident.  Without marriage, weaker humans become more dependent on government.  In the animal world, weaker animals depend on the zoo keeper to maintain their health and security.  Without marriage, men can tend to become predators and rogues.  This again is reminiscent of the jungle, barnyard, or zoo.  Marriage is almost more important for the preservation of society than it is to the individual male.

Of course a human male can find physical satisfaction without marriage.  In all ages, this has been possible for a fee or by using force; in our own enlightened times it’s willingly offered for free by foolish women to almost any man.  For an animal, this is sufficient.  It can find physical release and propagate its gene pool.  Yet mankind, which can achieve these goals without marrying, still seeks to marry.  Men guided by a biblical blueprint are unique in desiring and appreciating women for spiritual reasons.  Wives not only provide companionship, love, and sex, but they also help men transcend their lower natures to become true men as God designed them to be.

The lesson of Genesis is that men have only two choices.  They can aspire to be real men, or they can emulate animals.  Which they choose will be revealed best by how they treat women and their children.  If they dedicate their lives to one woman, supporting her, nurturing her and growing into a giver through her, they are men, not animals.  If each of their children is regarded as precious jewels to be gradually exposed to a wondrous world, they are men, not animals.  Men who use women merely for selfish gratification live by the secular, animalistic worldview.  Without the loving, loyal commitment of marriage as God designed it, such men may have spawn but never children.

Which of these two paths any society follows depends on whether the Bible is considered a blueprint or a relic.  If you doubt this assertion, just visit locations in America that stand as tribute to each of those incompatible views.  Visit communities where people follow God’s ways seriously and yo will find, for the most part, stable homes, loving parents, and children on their way to becoming model citizens.  Compare these beacons of home life with parts of some American cities regarded as crowning achievements of government-sponsored secular fundamentalism [Detroit, Chicago, et al] —and notice the profound difference.  Which path, really, is best for present-and-future America?

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "America's Real War," pg.177-179

Abortion Kills a Human

In our [Christian] case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being drives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance.  To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth.  That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.

Tertullian (ca. 150-220 A.D.), Apology, Chapter 9

"Codependency" Is A Fraud

The literature on codependency is based on assertions, generalizations, and anecdotes. … To start without the slightest shred of scientific evidence and casually label large groups as diseased may be helpful to a few, but it is potentially harmful and exploitive as well.  If as the best sellers claim, “all society is an addict,” and 96% of us are codependents, that leaves precious few of us outside the rehab centers — but at that point the claims become ludicrous at best.

“Codependency,” University of California Berkeley, Wellness Letter, October 1990, pg.7, cited by Gary E. Gilley and M. Kurt Goedelman, “Twelve Steps in the Wrong Direction: A Biblical Critique of Codependency and Alcoholics Anonymous,” The [PFO] Quarterly Journal, January-March 2016, pg.15

Test Of A Man's Character

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character give him power.

Abraham Lincoln, cited by Bob Kelly in, "Worth Repeating: More Than 5,000 Classic and Contemporary Quotes," pg.41. Referenced by J.Greg Sheryl, "Lording It Over the Flock," PFO's "The Quarterly Journal," January-March 2016.

Real Tolerance vs New "Tolerance"

Many people are confused about what tolerance is.  According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, tolerance means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.

Tolerance, then, involves permitting or allowing a conduct or point of view you think is wrong while respecting the person in the process.

Notice that we can’t tolerate others unless we disagree with them.  We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views.  Instead tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept.  Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant.

This presents us with a curious problem.  Judging someone as wrong makes one intolerant, yet one must first think another is wrong in order to be tolerant.  It’s a catch-22.  According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that tolerance could apply to persons, behaviors, or ideas.

The classical definition of tolerance, what might be called “civic tolerance,” can be equated with the word respect.  We respect people who hold beliefs different than our own; we treat them courteously and allow their views in the public discourse, even though we may strongly disagree with them and vigorously contend against their ideas in the public square.

Note that respect is accorded to the person here.  Whether his or her behaviors should be tolerated, however, is a different issue.  This is the second sense of tolerance.  Our laws demonstrate that people may believe what they like--and they usually have the liberty to express those beliefs--but they may not behave as they like.  Some behavior is immoral and a threat to the common good and so is not tolerated but restricted by law.

Tolerating people should also be distinguished from tolerating ideas.  Civic tolerance says that all views should get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.  The view that no person’s ideas are any better or truer than those of another is irrational and absurd.  To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.

These three categories are frequently conflated by muddled thinkers.  If we reject another’s idea or behavior, we’re automatically accused of rejecting the person and of being disrespectful. To say we’re intolerant of the person because we disagree with her idea is confused.  On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.

Historically, our culture has usually emphasized tolerance of all persons but not tolerance of all behavior.  This is a critical distinction because, in the current rhetoric of relativism, the concept of tolerance is most frequently advocated for behavior--premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and so on.

Ironically, though, there is little tolerance for the expression of contrary ideas on issues of morality and religion.  Differing views are soundly censured.  The tolerance issue has thus gone topsy-turvy:  Tolerate most behavior, but don’t tolerate opposing beliefs about those behaviors.  Contrary moral opinions are labeled as “imposing your view on others.”

Instead of hearing, “I respect your view,” those who differ in certain ways are deemed bigoted, narrow-minded, and intolerant.

Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all but actually intellectual cowardice.  Those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent engagement and don’t engage or even consider contrary opinions.  It’s easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it.

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air,” pg.149-150

To Liberals, Being Blessed is Unfair

What is it about the family that stands in the way of the socialist project? My wife was born to an old English family. It has a long history and has been in the same part of England forever and ever. Compared to that I am a mongrel. I was raised in a small town in Arkansas, and my family was not wealthy. But on the other hand, my dad went to college, and he loved to read books. He became a schoolteacher. My mother was proud that she was valedictorian of her class—dad was only salutatorian—and she too loved books. So there was always someone around to read to me and encourage me to read. And there were always books around to read. That is a blessing, but it is not a blessing that everybody enjoys—and that is perceived as unfair. The president of France has proposed in that country that homework be outlawed, because it is unfair that some parents but not others help their kids with it. Along the same lines, the U.S. Secretary of Education recently said that there are so many broken homes in the inner city—broken families that are subsidized of course by government policy—that we are going to have to think about building dormitories in which to raise the children. Think what this means for the liberal state, if it commits itself to an engineering project to take over childrearing and make everything equal—to remake society on a scientific basis.

Larry P. Arnn, President, Hillsdale College, “Property Rights and Religious Liberty.”  Imprimi, December 2015.

Desiring Psychological Diagnosis

In promoting [a] fantasy of normality, the Psychology Industry forces people to consider themselves psychologically disabled.  When once people were ashamed of being diagnosed, many are now eager and willing, provided that the label (1) explains and justifies their problems and behaviors, leaving them with little or no sense of guilt or responsibility, and (2) is socially acceptable, making them feel special and understood without feeling stigmatized.

Dr. Tana Dineen in, “Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People,” pg.162

Same-Sex Unions and Illegitimacy

When illegitimacy rises, not only do children suffer, but the rest of us are forced to pay high social costs because of the resulting increases in crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending.  (Recall…that children from broken homes, particularly fatherless homes, are responsible for a majority of violent crimes and youth problems.)

Are these just the hysterical warnings of an alarmist?  No.  We can look at results in other countries for confirmation.  For example, in Norway, a country that has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties, illegitimacy is exploding.  In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, were they fly gay “rainbow” flags over their churches, illegitimacy has soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time do so out of wedlock, and nearly 70 percent of all children are born our of wedlock.  Across the entire country of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage. … 

But it’s not just Norway.  [David] Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries.  International surveys show a mutually re-enforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy.  Natural marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

Frank Turek, “Correct, NOT Politically Correct,” pg. 48, 49

"Gay Marriage" Will NEVER Equal Real Marriage

A marriage culture, which is essential to a healthy society, is nourished when we are faithful to and honor its time-tested definition, which is simply not elastic.

… Research from a major British medical journal on male same-sex relationships in the Netherlands—arguably one of the most gay-friendly cultures in the world (and where same-sex marriage is legal)—indicates gay men have a very difficult time living by the values of marriage.  This study found that, on average, steady homosexual relationships in the city of Amsterdam lasted only 1.5 years.  The study also found that gay men in steady relationships there have an average of eight partners a year outside of their current relationships.  And remember the attitude of the first couple in line on May 17, 2004, to get a same-sex marriage license in Provincetown, Massachusetts.  They admitted to having an open marriage.

Contrast that with the fact that 67 percent o first marriages in the United States last ten years, and more than three-quarters of heterosexual married couples report being faithful to their wedding vows.

Some same-sex marriage apologists explain that if homosexuals had the social pull of marriage to keep them monogamous like heterosexuals do, then they would be more monogamous like heterosexuals.  But data like that from Amsterdam exposes this as wishful thinking. . . .

No, opening marriage to people who simply want the legal benefits it provides and little else does not strengthen marriage.

Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier, “Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting,” pg.43-44

Sex Is For Marriage

Only in marriage is it possible for the sexual relationship to reaffirm the dignity and uniqueness of each partner.  Sex strengthens the marriage bond.  It brings pleasure to one’s spouse.  It can create a new life that is welcome in the family.  It brings personal pleasure.  It displays patience, maturity and understanding.  Sex, as God intended it to be, makes you want to give to your mate, not take.

Josh McDowell and Dick Day, "Why Wait?" pg.202

A Man With A Ring On His Finger

One of the nice things about being in a domestic relationship has nothing to do with the bedroom.  It has to do with the bathroom...and the kitchen and vacuum cleaners.  You have someone to share the chores of keeping a house clean.  Contrary to stereotypes, married men are more likely to help out with a variety of household chores than men who are just living with their girlfriend.  A man with a ring on his finger will spend up to eight more hours a week washing dishes and cleaning clothes, floors, and bathrooms than his shacking-up peer.  Ladies, do you hear that?

A man's educational status also increases his likelihood of helping around the house--but not as much as marriage does.  And to make all this better, the man with the ringed finger is less likely to object to doing these extra chores as his un-ringed peers.


Glenn T. Stanton, The Ring Makes All the Difference, pg.49-50

Same-Sex Fake Marriage Is Destructive to the Culture

Every country which has legalized same sex marriage has experienced a significant decline in traditional marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family.  During the past decade [1997-2007], same sex marriage has become law in Denmark, France, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and, most recently, Canada.  Each country has seen a sharp increase in cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless children, poverty and drug use.  

The claim that a homosexual’s “marriage” doesn’t “hurt” anybody is based of false logic.  The same assertion cold be made about other modes of behavior such as pedophilia, child pornography, bigamy, incest or sex with animals.  As long as there is mutual consent and none of these behaviors are unlawful, shouldn’t everyone be able to enjoy all the same legal protections traditional marriages enjoy?  After all, “how does a threesome or person wanting to marry his animal affect the married couple across town?” the cynic might ask.

Anytime we as a society condone specify models of behavior, we tacitly acknowledge it as acceptable.  Just because we may never come into direct contact with a pedophile doesn’t mean we must condone such behavior by granting it legal approval.  Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior.  I need not live next door to a polyamorous couple to oppose the legality of this type of family configuration.

Gregg Jackson, “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,” p.243-244

Marriage vs Pornography

Consider these two pictures.  The first picture is of a man who has set himself toward a commitment to sexual purity and is living in sexual integrity with his wife.  In order to fulfill his wife’s rightful expectations and to maximize their mutual pleasure in the marriage bed, he is careful to live, talk, lead, and love in such a way that his wife finds her fulfillment in giving herself to him in love.  The sex act then becomes a fulfillment of their entire relationship, not an isolated physical act that is merely incidental to their love for each other.  Neither uses sex as a means of manipulation, neither is inordinately focused merely on self-centered personal pleasure, and both give themselves to each other in unapologetic and unhindered sexual passion.  In this picture there is no shame.  Before God, this man can be confident that he is fulfilling his responsibilities both as a male and as a man.  He is directing his sexuality, his sex drive, and his physical embodiment toward the one-flesh relationship that is the perfect paradigm of God’s intention in creation.  

By contrast, consider another man.  This man lives alone, or at least in a context other than holy marriage.  Directed inwardly rather than outwardly, his sex-drive has become an engine for lust and self-gratification.  Pornography is the essence of his sexual interest and arousal.  Rather than taking satisfaction in a wife, he looks at dirty pictures in order to be rewarded with sexual arousal that comes without responsibility, expectation, or demand.  Arrayed before him are a seemingly endless variety of naked women, sexual images of explicit carnality, and a cornucopia of perversions intended to seduce the imagination and corrupt the soul.  This man need not be concerned with his physical appearance, his personal hygiene, or his moral character in the eyes of a wife.  Without this structure and accountability, he is free to take his sexual pleasure without regard for his unshaved face, his slothfulness, his halitosis, his body odor, or his physical appearance.  He faces no requirement of personal respect, and no eyes gaze upon him in order to evaluate the seriousness and worthiness of his sexual desire.  Instead, his eyes roam across images of unblinking faces, leering at women who make no demands upon him, who never speak back, and who can never say no.  There is no exchange of respect, no exchange of love, and nothing more than the using of women as sex objects for his individual and inverted sexual pleasure.

These two pictures of male sexuality are deliberately intended to drive home the point that every man must decide who he will be, whom he will serve, and how he will love.  In the end, a man’s decision about pornography is a decision about his soul, a decision about his marriage, a decision about his wife, and a decision about his God.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Desire and Deceit: The Real Cost of Sexual Tolerance,” pg.39-41

God Has the Right To Do Anything

If God exists as the Bible describes him, he is the giver of life and has complete authority to take it when and as he wills.  He could destroy the world by a flood or eliminate Sodom and Gomorrah by fire in a way that no human has the right or the power to do.  If in the judgment of God the Jews were to be placed in a certain land so that they might prepare the way for the Messiah, he had the right to give them that land, as the earth is his.  If the original inhabitants had to be removed, both as punishment for their wickedness and to ensure that the Jews would be permanently established in the land, God had the right to make that judgment.

Joseph Keysor, “Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible,” pg.45

We Have Become A Culture of Wimps

Our ancestors lived through wars and privations unimaginable to us--without resorting to an overdose of labels and an overuse of pills.

Allen Frances, M.D, "Saving Normal," pg.105

Government As Parents Is the Goal

A mother and father are the first and most primal gift any child has. They desperately need that bond to be reinforced, not attenuated. But statists rightly see family bonds as an obstacle to their control of society. They understand there are basically two ways to manage children. One is for parents to be the primary caretakers and decisionmakers. The other is for the state to be the primary caretaker and decisionmaker. This division is as old as ancient Sparta, which took children from parents at an early age (and dissuaded adults from younger marriage) because the leaders there considered all children property of the state whose upbringing had to be directed to the state’s service. Plato advocated even wackier parent-child separation to serve his centralized state.

Right now, our society is choosing which of these two kinds of family arrangements we uphold. We may not think we are deciding, but we are. Public policy either strengthens families, or it strengthens the state. Culture either strengthens families, or it strengthens the state. Myriad little niggling annoyances and regulations that attenuate family life also strengthen government power.

Joy Pullmann, Parents, It’s Time To Realize Big Government Is Your Enemy 

Freudianism and Irresponsibility

A second major liability of Freud’s theory has been its promotion of irresponsibility.  This evolved logically from the belief that individuals are governed by powerful unconscious forces, arising from early childhood experiences, which thereby usurp their freedom of action.  It has led, in the words of one writer, to the “golden age of exoneration. . . . Almost nobody can really be held accountable. . . .  Bonnie and Clyde came along too soon.  Nowadays they could settle for a year at the Betty Ford Clinic as victims of compulsive bank-robbing addiction.”

It is the areas of child rearing and criminal behavior in which Freudian theory has had the most profound effect and in  which traditional concepts of responsibility have been challenged.   In the Freudian scheme, men and women are seen increasingly as puppets of their psyches governed primarily by the edicts of their egos.  The corollary of “don’t blame me” is “blame my parents,” expressed clearly from the earliest days of the Freudian movement, as in this 1926 rendition:

Mental hygienist are stressing one great point, namely, that in most cases of nervousness, in many cases of delinquency, in some cases of insanity, and almost all cases of child behavior or conduct disorders, the trail leads inevitably and directly back to the home and the parents. [Emphasis in the original.]

In the Freudian schema, mother, father, family, social circumstances, and culture become the causal agents for whatever is wrong.  The ripple of personal irresponsibility spreads slowly outward to cover ever-greater areas until the very terms “good” and “bad” seem to no longer have meaning.

E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., "Freudian Fraud: the Malignant Effect of Freud's Theory on American Thought and Culture," p.249

Evolutionism and "Races"

Evolutionists talk about the different races of people in the world today.  The term “races” can be used in various ways depending upon the definition you accept.  Sadly, evolutionists have used the term in the sense that some groups of humans have not evolved as far as others.  When they use the word “races” they are really talking about different levels of human beings dependent upon the point to which they have evolved.  Due to evolutionary teaching through the educational system and the media, many in the general public tend to think of the term “races” as applied to the human race in an evolutionary sense.  Because of this situation, it is probably better for Christians to talk about one race in regard to humans, not different races.

Ken Ham, “The Lie,” pg.17-19

The Anointed Don’t Believe In Personal Responsibility

The vision of the anointed is one in which such ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from “society,” rather than from individual choices and behavior.  To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by “society.”  Since no society has ever treated everyone fairly, there will always be real examples of what the anointed envision.  The fatal step is to make those examples universal explanations of social ills—and to remain oblivious to evidence to the contrary.

Thomas Sowell, "The Vision of the Anointed," pg.203

An Anti-God Culture Is Full of Problems

Today knowledge of God is one of the most conspicuous Berlin Walls dividing our cultural landscape.  In religious schools and universities, in traditional synagogues and churches, and in the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans, knowledge of God is considered crucial to proper education.  On the other end of the tug-of-war rope is found the educational bureaucracy that expects the state to accommodate every possible bizarre cultural mutation and lifestyle, but finds prayer at graduation an intolerable and fatal compromise of state neutrality toward religion. . . .

The problems we encounter invariably result from the switch in policy over the past three decades from pro-God to secular.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "America's Real War," pg.160, 161

They Want Us to Pay for Their Sin

Why do gays push for special legislation in their favor when it comes to employment benefits?  (Remember that for the most part any "family policy discrimination" applies to heterosexual singles and couples as well as to gays.)  The only answer can be to press for the legitimacy of their lifestyle--fully subsidized by the rest of society.

"Not only do we want to live in sin," gays are telling us, "but we want you to pay for it!"

F. LaGard Smith, Sodom's Second Coming, pg.203

Hoisted On Their Own Petards

For several decades now our once-vaunted establishments of higher learning have been run by liberal academics who loathe everything that made America great. They preach America's sins without extolling her virtues, and they infect students with the idea that America is an evil, imperialistic nation founded by rich, slaveholders for their own enrichment. They teach these young, impressionable minds that they are either victims of oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, or they're guilty of perpetuating those sins. The problem for the Dr. Frankenstein's of liberal academia is that they can no longer control the monster they created. It was all fine and good when their weak-minded little whelps were turned loose on the world of business and politics, where they would be good little warriors for liberal causes. It is another thing entirely when their perpetually offended little howling hobglobins of heresy turn on them and find offense in every innocuous word, look or gesture. Once that Pandora's Box of liberal victimhood lunacy is opened, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to close.

Louis DeBroux, Racists, Tigers and Chickens Come Home to Roost — Oh My!

Keep Subjective Preference Out of Law

The side that supports same-sex marriage asserts that the state ought to prefer a view of human nature in which human institutions are artificial social constructions ruled by personal subjective preference.  The side that supports traditional marriage asserts that the state ought to prefer the view of human nature in which certain human institutions are natural and good and ought to be proffered and encouraged by the state over personal subjective preference.

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air,” pg.128

Keep Psychology Out Of the Courtroom!

When the law welcomes the astrologer into the courtroom as possessing the same status as the astronomer; when the court listens to the priest with the same critical judgement it applies to the testimony of the physicist, then and only then will the testimony of clinical psychologists about the formation and functioning of the human mind in general or in particular individuals make sense as expert testimony.  When the concept of expertise itself is debased to nothing more than personal opinion, then the clinicians should take the stand along with the rest of the opinionated.  Why not?  Until then, throw them out of the courts.

Margaret A. Hagen (Boston University Psychologist), Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, p.301.  Cited by Dr. Tana Dineen in, Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People, pg.156

Degradation of Marriage

If we allow any other sexual relationship to have the same status as natural marriage -- be it man-man, woman-woman, man-daughter (incest), man-woman-man, or whatever-whatever -- we will degrade marriage itself (just like we degrade the MVP award by giving it to everyone).  When we degrade marriage, we will get less of it.  When we get less of it, we will further weaken our civilization.  Children will be hurt the most.

Frank Turek, Correct, NOT Politically Correct, pg. 45

Speak Against Homosexuality and Go to Prison

Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing  public statements that could be deemed “hateful” to homosexuals, punishable by up to two years in prison!  Say the wrong thing; go to jail.  Churches in Canada cannot speak against homosexuality without fear of punishment.  The same could happen here.

Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier, “Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting,” pg.42

True Love vs Counterfeit Love

Just as true love displays love for the whole person, counterfeit love in the form of premarital sex is detrimental to the whole person (perhaps to a greater degree than anything else).  Sexual immorality harms the emotions.  It clouds both the intellect and our ability to make godly decisions.  It causes social uneasiness.  It wreaks spiritual havoc.  It can have permanent damaging repercussions physically.  Nothing is safe from the damage it can do.

Josh McDowell and Dick Day, "Why Wait?" pg.199

Make Them Think

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you: but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis, cited by Ravi Zacharias in "The Real Face of Atheism," pg.159

Why Pay For Indoctrination Centers?

Why do parents pay big money, often at a considerable sacrifice, to send their children to places where small groups of other students can disrupt their education and poison the whole atmosphere with obligatory conformity to political correctness?

Why do donors continue to contribute millions of dollars to institutions that have become indoctrination centers, tearing down America, stifling dissent and turning group against group?

There is no compelling reason for either parents or donors to keep shelling out money to colleges and universities where intolerant professors and student activists impose their ideology on academic institutions. Too often these are campuses with virtually no diversity of viewpoints, despite however much they may be obsessed with demographic diversity.

Thomas Sowell, “A Resurgence of Intolerance,” Townhall, 12/1/15

Wealth and Poverty: Marriage vs Cohabitation

Married people typically earn and save more than their unmarried counterparts--cohabiting or single. ...

Research from Purdue University finds that wealth accumulation in cohabiting situations is far below what is typical in marriage, with cohabitors -- again -- more closely resembling the earnings and savings rates of singles.  The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6 percent, it jumps to 31 percent for children with a cohabiting mother and father--much closer to the 45 percent rate for children in single parent families.

And while there might be the possibility of two earners in a cohabiting relationship, these informal partners experience less sharing and pooling of resources than married couples.  This can reduce the very real "two can live as cheaply as one" factor when the two are living more as a set of distinct ones.

Cohabitors act financially more like roommates than a team, as married couples do.  In fact, very recent research shows that among low- and moderate-income people, married couples were more likely to be able to buy a home -- and do so faster -- than cohabiting couples.  The researchers found the "stability and commitment" of marriage is what boosted a couple's increased ability to purchase a home.

Glenn T. Stanton, The Ring Makes All the Difference, pg.48, 49