A serious person will not try to overturn civilization’s morals, manners, and mores of thousands of years without very thoughtful consideration.

Evidently, Pete cannot be trusted to make decisions since he chose a degrading, dangerous, even deadly lifestyle. Such a person should not be in charge of the national budget, foreign policy, or have his finger on the button.

People who are soft on perversion don’t know the difference between right and wrong, up and down, black and white, good and bad, or normal and abnormal. The Hebrew prophet Amos commanded us to “Hate the evil and love the good.” (We are commanded to hate evil but never persons.) However, most people relegate Amos to the ash heap and suggest that what is evil for one person may be good for another. Afraid not. While there can be some honest disagreement about some things, when God speaks about an issue, that settles it. God has spoken clearly about perversion. And that settles it!

Most homosexuals, rather than deal with our objections and criticisms, resort to the embarrassing and humiliating ploy of screaming, “hate,” “bigotry,” and “intolerance.” That is much easier than speaking to the real issue. Even if some “traditional marriage” proponents are haters, that does not mean homosexuality is right and good for society.

Pete has aggressively gone after Vice President Pence because Pence believes in “traditional marriage.” I wonder how he would respond if Pence said, “I believe in the biblical truth that homosexuality is perversion and is an abomination to God and man.” You see, that is exactly what Pence and others are really saying when they speak of “traditional marriage” and that is more pleasant to hear.

Pete, rather than accepting responsibility of willingly living a homosexual lifestyle, tried to blame his sexual choice on God. He said to Pence, “Your quarrel is with my Creator.” No, it is not the Creator’s fault because Christ said in Matthew 19:4-5, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

Obviously, Pete chose not to obey his Creator’s command and plan for the human race. The mayor has that legal right but it is folly for him to suggest that his lifestyle choice is moral or to suggest it is wrong for decent people to question his wisdom or to even bring up the issue.

Just because the mayor has desires for his “husband” does not mean he was created homosexual and because Pete reacts to that desire does not make him a homosexual. It only means he is a stupid sinner, like all of us. Practicing homosexuals are people who were born heterosexual and are rebelling against the God-ordained plan for his or her life. Homosexual is simply a term given to heterosexuals who rebel against God’s plan for mankind.

Absent accidental birth defects, a person is born with male or female equipment and the use of such equipment is normal, obvious, and desirable under circumstances planned by a gracious God. To use that “equipment” wrongly (which is abnormal) is detrimental to the individuals involved and a threat to God’s plan for society. However, sin-cursed mankind always seeks to get out of life what God never intended to be in it. Disobedient men take the good and make it bad.

One does not have to react to every desire. One may be naturally lazy but he still gets up each day and goes to work. One has a natural and driving desire for chocolate but he doesn’t eat a dozen Snickers each day. Even if an alcohol gene were found, it would not justify a person becoming a drunk. Nothing and no one forces a man to slip between the sheets with another man and to do so is abnormal, aberrant, and abominable.

People change all the time so the counselors should not tell people they cannot change their sexual desires and practices. Of course, they can change. I know former practicing homosexuals who have changed and are living normal, happy, productive lives—with a houseful of children. If homosexuals cannot change then there is no hope for the pedophile. Moreover, if the pedophile is “born that way” and cannot change his behavior then how can prison be justified?

A black sports figure, Chris Broussard, announcer for ESPN, expressed a politically incorrect opinion for which he was symbolically drawn and quartered by the “tolerant” left. Chris said, “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin … that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”

All informed and honest Christians will agree with his incredibly courageous statement; however, those on the left who make decisions based on their “feelings” frothed at the mouth for Chris’ courage, commitment, and convictions. He was reprimanded by the channel and is no longer with them. I wonder why. After all, doesn’t everyone want diversity; doesn’t tolerance extend to Christian conservatives? I suppose not.

The fact that ESPN apologized for its announcer is positive proof that the main stream media are master hypocrites when they speak of diversity, fairness, and equality. When a man like Chris expresses historic, sensible, and biblical views, his employer should proudly say, “See, we really believe in diversity. We believe everyone has a right to express his views even if some people are offended. We are proud him for having the courage to express his views so eloquently.”

Yea, sure.

Pete and other homosexuals who came out of the closet are called “a hero,” “brave,” and “courageous” but that might be a little hyperbolic. It used to be that a hero was someone who risked his life dragging a fellow soldier out of danger at the risk of life or a firefighter who carries a child from a burning building. Not only is the world changing, it seems words are also changing.

The fact is homosexuals don’t exist but there are heterosexuals who choose a life of perversion and rebellion against God. Let me make it clear: homosexuals, as a group, do not exist but homosexuality does exist as it is a choice made by weak, warped, willful, and wicked people.

Growing Up Straight, a book recommended by the National Institute of Mental Health, reveals, “Scientific consensus holds that homosexuality is very largely conditioned by the environment and childhood and most particularly by parental influence in the home.” No gay gene, no excuse.

Two researchers Bearman and Bruckner in the March, 2002 American Journal of Sociology concluded, “[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” The Yale/Columbia professors are saying that DNA does not determine same sex preferences. It is life experience that shapes sexual preferences. No one is born gay. No one.

Bryan Fischer quoted ScienceDaily as saying, “[N]o major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.” No one is born gay.

Dr. Lisa Diamond, a lesbian feminist psychologist who is also a highly respected member of the American Psychological Association, has spent years refuting the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable. As stated by clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes, through her publications, Diamond is declaring that, “The battle to disprove ‘Born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.”

Whenever some Tom, Dick, or Pete comes out of the closet, everyone speaks of “celebrating diversity” and promoting toleration; however, no one celebrates me for being a white, pro-gun, conservative, young earth creationist, straight Christian. What am I? Chopped liver? Are we to be tolerant of leftist loonies but critical of those who lean toward right?

Some naive Americans think Pete has a chance to become President of the United States, but they also believe Taiwan will retake Red China; Pepsi will sell for a nickel again and any day they’ll find Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Parker and Amelia Earhart playing checkers in a Mexican bar with Elvis Presley.

Don’t bet the farm on it.

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years. Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHaters, Twitter, and visit his blog.

I am weary, even embarrassed at public figures who say something then apologize for it when criticism chases them down. Today, I suppose I will offend everyone and I will not apologize for it. After all, I will state what I believe and would prove to be a hypocrite if I apologized. I like being independent as a hog on ice.

I am tired of hearing about Don Sterling, the old dude in Los Angeles who seems to hate or at least dislike Blacks. Now, I don’t want him as a friend or neighbor but he has a right to be whatever he is as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Blacks and wannabe Blacks should recognize his foolishness as well as the illegal taping of his private thoughts and move on. As to forcing him to apologize and sell his basketball team, that is undemocratic, unreasonable, and unAmerican. Those sensitive souls who were offended should refuse to support his team. There, that will take care of that.

As to Sterling’s opinion of Magic Johnson as a role model for children, of course he is right. Johnson may have been a great athlete but he is a failure as a human. He is a testimony to others that one can sleep around and still be rich, renowned, even respected. Of course, he is an unfit role model for children.

As to the league’s 2.5 million dollar fine and trying to force Sterling out of the league, I wouldn’t agree with either without a fight. Frankly, I don’t care what he does. He is obviously a corrupt individual who doesn’t know whether he is pitching or catching; but even fools, failures, and fanatics have First Amendment rights. At least they used to.

Then there are the Hispanic fanatics who want to shut down all-you-can-eat taco bars because they are offensive! No, all the nuts are not on trees or in California. It seems various sorority chapters host taco bar fundraisers on college campuses but a few Latino students are offended at such audacity! The offendees were at Stanford and Dartmouth. Very delicate souls, you know. Even though I don’t like Mexican food (now that will offend some) I would like to participate in one of those all-you-can eat fundraisers wearing (among other items) a big Texas belt buckle and a massive sombrero. As someone said, those militant Latino students on campuses “have a machete to grind.” And grind they do and fools cheer them on.

Paula Deen was harassed and intimated by the thought police because she used the word nigger many years earlier! Rather than satisfying the fascists with her fake apology she should have laughed at them and gone home and baked a cake. Her cooking show was cancelled, a publisher canceled a book contract, and she lost major endorsements. Of course, it is acceptable for blacks to use the word for themselves and others, but not Whites! Jesse Jackson called New York City “Hymie-town” and was not castigated for it. Wonder why? The reason is that liberals are the biggest hypocrites in America (and the biggest whiners).

Nigger is only offensive when it is used to deliberately insult someone; however, in our super sensitive day when the thought police roam the streets daily almost everyone has become super silly. Even when the word is used in a non-offensive way such as my discussion here, I am expected to say “the N word” not nigger. Even the courts and media have bought into such inane actions. Blacks tell us that they can use the word but Whites cannot; however, that dog won’t hunt.

Because of the mindless political correctness I can understand how media people would be fearful to use the term and other terms even in a non-offensive way. Recently, I was unthoughtful in using nigger in an inoffensive way on a national talk show of a friend. I did not think what affect it might have on him and his producer. While I don’t care about people who disagree with me, I should have played the “N-word” game since there were other people involved. I don’t have a business to destroy and can live with unpleasant repercussions; however, talk show people have many considerations I don’t have. Maybe someday we will have a return to sanity where people will not be so sensitive and manipulative. But don’t hold your breath unless blue is your favorite color.

But it gets worse. Two families from Atlanta area visiting Savannah’s river walk were jumped by a group of black thugs and beaten for being white. The two men were punched in the face and a six year old daughter was punched in the stomach and one of the wives was dragged by her hair by a black thug! When the police arrived the attackers had fled, after all they may have been hoodlums but they weren’t stupid.

The police report and the television news report did not mention that the thugs were black! The complete description by the television commentator was: “One male was wearing a yellow shirt, the other a red shirt and later took it off and was wearing a white tank top. A younger female was wearing a white skirt or shorts and a beige or yellow top. The elder male was wearing all white and a white hat.” Isn’t that interesting and revealing? No mention of the race, skin color, stature or hair. THAT is racism. It is also cowardly.

The refusal to reveal the race of a felon is now in vogue; after all, we must not make anyone feel uncomfortable.

I have discovered that many words I thought were acceptable in their proper use are now forbidden. Such words as Eskimo, black, colored (oops, someone tell the NAACP that), Indian, mulatto, native, negress, negro (meaning black in some languages), nigger, city-slicker, hillbilly, white trash, oriental, savage, peon, yank, Yankee, WASP (“a word for people who are white and have money, power, and opportunities that other people do not have”), gyp is from Gypsies who have a bad reputation, dyke (a word that “is a lot like” the “N” word) and is acceptable for a lesbian to say it, but no one else. Bossy, illegal immigrant, and man up are all forbidden.

Non-white is used for describing people who are not considered to be members of the race of people who have pale skin. This word is usually considered offensive because “it suggests that the white section of the population of the world is more important than any other.” Well, in God’s eyes, all people are equally important, loved, and need to trust Christ. However, obviously the people who control most of the wealth, power, academia, etc., in the world are the “most important” in that they influence for good or ill people of all races. That happens to be the white population. However, in stating an obvious fact, I will be accused of bigotry or at least being insensitive. Oh, me.

The leftist crowd is basically dishonest right up to where the buck is supposed to stop. How can they pretend to be consistent, honest people when they are intolerant of what they see as my (or anyone’s) intolerance? Moreover, they don’t understand an important concept: principled people can and must be tolerant of others without compromising their own principles.

I’m sure glad I don’t have a boss, contract, or sponsor who could control what I say; but at least I’m an equal opportunity offender. I like being as independent as a hog on ice. It also irritates my critics and I like that.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

First of all, there is no way to support the silly possibility that the bones are the remains of Peter. That is simply wishful thinking by the Catholic hierarchy as they add to their dubious list of relics. The Church has thousands of bogus relics that help prop up its weak, wavering, wondering, wandering, and wobbly adherents.

The chest in which the bones were cased is more interesting than the bone fragments. The bones rested on an ivory bed in a bronze chest. The chest was decorated with a carving of Peter “who was a fisherman before becoming the Church’s first pope, casting his nets into the sea.” But then no one on earth knows what Peter looked like and, for sure, he was not the first pope, or second pope. He may have been executed in Rome but there is no proof for that. The church in Rome existed before Peter or Paul got there so neither was the church founder. The Catholic Church is built upon a shaky, sandy, spurious foundation and is held together by wishful thinking.

The affable Pope has recently confused many people with some public statements dealing with homosexuality and atheists going to Heaven. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has insisted very strongly for hundreds of years that only Catholics were going to Heaven! So Francis is rocking the church-boat. It may be that the Pope does not know what he believes. Anyway, his handlers must be in panic about what he may say next.

Honest historians, even Catholic historians, admit that Peter was not the first pope. Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea about 314 A.D. and suggests in his classic and ground-breaking Church History that Paul and Peter were founders of the church in Rome. However, a footnote corrects the record: “Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman Church in the strict sense for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.” The possibility of Peter founding the church in Rome and serving as its pastor is a fiction, fib, fable, falsehood, and fraud.

Rome would rather discuss whether Peter was a founder (with Paul) of the church in Rome instead of supporting their assertion that he was the first pope exercising central control of all churches. No one was the pope for hundreds of years although each succeeding Bishop of Rome gradually grabbed power for his office. During those hundreds of years all priests in small villages were called, “papa” or pope.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter’s successors to the papacy were Linus (A.D. 67 to 79), Cletus (A.D. 79 to 91) and Clement I (from A.D. 91 to 100), all three of whom were bishop of Rome during the time that the Apostle John was still alive. In other words, each of the three pastors at Rome would have had a higher pecking order than the Apostle John who was still alive! Does anyone, not blinded by fanatical religion, believe that is possible?

When the Apostle Paul wrote his church epistles giving the offices and duties and qualifications for various church offices, he never mentions a pope! Not one New Testament author refers to the Pope or one-man rule or papal succession. Paul greeted 26 people in his epistle to the Romans without mentioning the alleged top honcho, Peter! Paul wrote four letters from his Roman prison without mentioning that Peter came by to visit him. In fact, Paul said that he was “alone.” If Peter was in Rome, he had cowardly abandoned his friend and Apostle who was Nero’s prisoner! I believe Christ said something about visiting those in prison.

It seems that the first definite report that Peter and Paul founded the Roman Church was made by Dionysius of Corinth about 170 A.D. Historians Shotwell and Loomis declared, “That is a long way from contemporary evidence. We have no lists of the early bishops of Rome until about the same period, and those we have do not quite agree.”

Gibbon clearly disposed of the Roman Catholic’s position as to the founders of the Roman Church: “It is quite clear that, strictly speaking, the Church of Rome was not founded by either of these apostles. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans proves undeniably the flourishing state of the Church before his visit to the city; and many Roman Catholic writers have given up the impracticable task of reconciling with chronology any visit of St. Peter to Rome before the end of the reign of Claudius or the beginning of that of Nero.” Peter was definitely in Israel during the time Catholics teach that he was in Rome. Even Peter couldn’t be in two places at the same time no matter how much “holy” water he had.

Knowing of the prestige of Peter, some people in Rome began giving him credit for being the first bishop at Rome and others picked up on that and continued to circulate that fabrication until the fable became a fact. Since then, Roman Catholics have taught the fiction rather than the fact since it plays better in Peoria and Pisa.

No bones about it: Peter’s bones have not been found and he was not the first pope. My critics will no doubt smell anti-Catholic bigotry as they read this, but facts are the facts: the Pope is wrong. Peter was not the first Pope and it was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away from the Church that Christ built.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Eight minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Does a Christian business person have the right to choose whom he will serve? Most sane people will agree that no one has absolute rights. In this matter, both the owner and customer have rights, but which right is superior? If we eliminate the possibility of the owner using tax dollars to start the business, it becomes a little less confusing, less contentious as well as less conflicting. It is also to be understood that a customer has the opportunity to do business elsewhere since there are similar businesses available. And it isn’t a life and death matter.

The business owner takes a huge risk putting his own money into the business, working long hours, often without salary and the customer risks nothing. No one will argue that there are some legitimate restrictions: a bar does not have to serve a customer already drunk; nor will a store have to sell a butcher knife to a five-year-old who wanders in with a twenty-dollar bill. Alright, there are exceptions but what about homosexuals who want a Christian photographer to take pictures of their “wedding” or want a baker to make a cake for their wedding reception? That is a sticky wicket! There are similar cases on file of these conflicts; the most famous is the Christian couple in Oregon who got in legal trouble because they refused to bake a cake for two lesbians.

Customers discriminate (make choices) all the time so why not a business owner? The bakery sells to adulterers, homosexuals, tax cheats, etc., but will not bake a cake for a “gay” wedding. Obviously, they don’t hate gays since they sell them birthday cakes but not wedding cakes. The bakery owners do not support same-sex “marriage.” That is their right and responsibility as Christians. What if a pedophile group wants a cake for their annual bash promoting sex with kids? Motto: “Sex by eight or it’s too late.” This is not about a cake but forcing a perverted agenda on others just as the Supreme Court did. I would bake homosexuals a birthday cake but not a wedding cake. I would sell a cake to an abortionist but not to celebrate his 10th anniversary as an abortionist.

What about a Jewish baker refusing to make a cake for a meeting of holocaust deniers? How about a black baker who refuses to bake a cake for the KKK? Can a Muslim business refuse to serve a Jew, or a Muslim caterer refuse to provide pork for a Christian organization? How about a gun-hating baker refusing to bake a cake for a gun manufacturer’s annual party? What about a “gay” architect refusing to draw plans for a pro-family group? What about a radical leftist printing firm refusing to print material for an outspoken conservative cause?

My religious views do not end when they conflict with another person’s religious views. Of course, mine have priority! I can be flexible in some things but unbending in others. Only I can decide the difference. As an American, I can start a business and serve only people with red hair. Dumb but not wrong. Illegal but not immoral.

Homosexuals yell the loudest about freedom, tolerance, respect of others, yet they are the epitome of intolerance and hate when someone opposes them. The homosexual mafia, the attack dog of the LGBT lobby, demands tolerance and practices tyranny so how do you spell hypocrites: H o m o s e x u a l! A Christian couple refused to bake a cake because of religious beliefs and now they are picketed, persecuted, and could be prosecuted for their decision.

This comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required a businessman to serve burgers to anyone. Any businessman whose business was started with any tax dollars is morally obligated to serve anyone; however, absent the tax support, a man could morally (but not legally) start a business and refuse to serve Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, and only serve bald dwarfs from Lithuania. He would not be in business long but that should be his right. The U.S. Congress overreached with the Civil Rights Act rightly giving legal rights to Blacks while wrongly removing basic business rights from Whites (maybe even bigoted, hateful, unreasonable rights). That part of the Act was troublesome, tragic and tyrannical.

I don’t support businesses that actively support “gay” rights such as Penny’s and Starbucks. When I think about buying a shirt at Penny’s or stopping at Starbucks, I take a deep breath, count to 10, and then have a sandwich at Chick-fil-A.

That is not bigotry but Bible! Not prejudice but principle! And if the Supreme Justices don’t like it, they can go jump in the lake.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.