Who are the Nazis Today?
| September 14, 2010 | Posted by Joseph Keysor under Blog |
In the 1920s, a new social and political movement emerged in Germany. Its members were passionately devoted to their cause, and sought with unwavering zeal to impose their vision on the whole of society. In a short time they succeeded in gaining political power and implementing their “philosophy,” first on Germany, then on much of Europe. In so doing they achieved only destruction and misery.
Some people in America are fearful lest a phenomenon like Naziism will repeat itself here. They anxiously scan the horizon, looking for the next party of fanatic extremists to appear. They are especially concerned about the “religious right” (as opposed to the “anti-religious left”) because they mistakenly think Hitler came from there. Their paranoid fears of people like Jerry Falwell proved, not surprisingly, to be totally misguided.
I agree that we need to try and learn from the past. I agree that we need to be on the lookout for extremist movements that will destroy our democracy and bring catastrophe on our nation. I also agree that there is a real, present and growing danger, one that needs to be mightily opposed. Since my identification of that group will arouse disbelief in some and contempt or anger in others, I beg for a careful consideration of my reasoning. The group that I identify as a new Nazi-like movement that will, if successful, destroy (or help to destroy) American democracy is the homosexual rights movement.
Recognizing that there are other more easily identifiable threats – uncontrolled illegal immigration; Islamic extremism; Red China; the U.S. governments financial policies and its ever-expanding power – let us examine some significant similarities between the homosexual rights activists and the Nazis.
1. Both relied / rely on a Darwinian understanding of human origins to justify their beliefs.
To the Nazis, people were animals in a pitiless struggle for survival that rendered traditional ethics meaningless. To the gay rights activists, people are animals in a pursuit of gratification for which traditional ethics are meaningless. They are driven not to extremes of violence, but to extremes of indulging sexual appetites without reason or restraint. Like the Nazis, they point to animal behavior as justification for human behavior. If animals do it, then is “natural,” so we can do it too – and why not, if, as Darwin taught, we are only animals?
2. Both relied / rely on legal chicanery to frustrate the will of the majority and impose their views on others.
The Nazis never won a majority in a national election, but benefited from sympathetic courts in their years of struggle, and won the chancellorship by behind the scenes wheeling and dealing. Similarly, the gay rights activists know they stand no chance whatever of achieving their far-reaching goals by democratic means, so they seek to dishonestly force their will on the majority by trickery and legal manipulations. Like the Nazis, they have contempt for democracy and resent the very existence of people who contradict them.
3. Both groups accused / accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.
The Nazis accused the Jews of being cruel, evil, aspiring to domination, stirring up wars, and destroying society, when it was the Nazis themselves who were guilty of those very things (needless to say, the Jews were innocent of such bizarre and fantastic accusations). Similarly, the gay rights people depict those who reject their agenda as being motivated by hate, fear, and ignorance, and of trying to deny people their rights, when in fact it is the opposite. It is the gays with their bitter and angry denunciations who are motivated by hatred, fear, and ignorance. I mean, hatred of normal people, hatred of ethics, and hatred of decency and morality; fear of truth, and of any light that would expose their false and miserable condition; and ignorance of healthy, normal, and decent living. And, they want to deny rights to people who do not want to conform to and cannot agree to the homosexual lifestyle.
4. Both groups relied / rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence to silence and demonize the opposition.
Nazi violence and intimidation (even before Hitler came to power in 1933) do not need to be documented – and it is now well-known that those who oppose the homosexual agenda too publicly are vulnerable to both verbal assault, damage to property, and disruption of meetings. Gay violence is still in its beginning phases, and we can confidently expect it to increase. “Tolerance” is for them only a weapon they use to disarm the opposition – not something they extend to those who are different from them
5. Both groups aspired / aspire to total domination.
Hitler aimed at complete control over everyone, and would tolerate no opposition. “Today Germany and tomorrow the world” was his goal and he worked tirelessly to achieve it. Similarly, the gay rights activists aspire to a complete and total domination of society, in which dissent, criticism, or unwillingness to conform will not be allowed. Their goal is a queer society and even “a queer planet,”[1] in which all gender barriers and traditional understandings of masculinity and femininity, home, marriage, and family, will be eliminated.
6. Both movements were / are socially destructive.
Just as a nation built on contempt for traditional ethics and relying only on force, power, lies, and violence brought ruin and misery in the end, so also a society based on contempt for traditional ethics and seeking only the uncontrolled gratification of sexual lusts will fall apart, as ours has already begun to do.
7. Both Hitler and the homosexual activists (with their sisters and natural allies the radical feminists) recognized / recognize the importance of indoctrinating the children with their values.
Hence the public schools became / become a means not of educating children, but of indoctrinating and transforming them. The rights and wished of the parents were / are disregarded, and children became / become wards of the state, raised up in a false value system that is inimical to human happiness and societal health.
8. Both movements engaged / engage in bizarre theorizing that is totally void of any connection with reality.
“Heteronormativity . . . institutionalization of the patriarchy . . . the state is male, in that objectivity is its norm . . . androcentric bias . . . the liberation of all by abolishing existing social institutions”[2] – such stuff has as much intellectual validity as the pontifications of Nazi race theorists.
9. Both movements sought / seek to radically transform the human race, and introduce new values in a manner unheard of in all of human history.
A society in which all gender distinctions are eliminated holds as much promise and hope for humanity as a society in which the blond, blue-eyed Aryans are the masters.
10. Both movements played / play the victim card to win sympathy, disarm the opposition, and justify their own extremism.
Hitler liked to harp on the injustices Germany suffered as a result of the Versailles Treaty, and the “gays” like to present themselves as the victims of “oppression.” In fact, they can do whatever they like, and people in other parts of the world who really are oppressed would be delighted if they had all the freedoms now enjoyed by the homosexuals. The “oppression” that really bothers them is the awareness that many people see their activities as morally wrong. This disturbs their guilty consciences. In their hearts they know they are not healthy and not normal. Their solution to this problem is to stifle all reminders of opposing points of view.
11. Both movements pursued / are pursuing their false philosophies to the farthest possible extremes.
We are all familiar with the bizarre extent to which the Nazis lived out their perverted delusions – and the same tendency is now increasingly evident by those who do not know what masculinity and femininity are, and in fact hate and fear such distinctions. Women having their breasts cut off? Sex change operations? Unisex bathrooms? Gay bathhouses, where extremes of sexual experience are proclaimed as a legitimate “culture” or “lifestyle”? Demands that everyone be required to submit to the gay agenda? Glorification of even the sexual abuse of children as essential to freedom? All of this is only the beginning of a mad rush to chaos and destruction that will only end in the nation’s ruin (if other threats don’t get us first).
12. Both ideologies were / are hostile to traditional Christianity.
Once in power, Hitler used every available means to keep expressions of Christian belief out of society and confined to the sanctuaries. No expressions of belief that contradicted his sick ideology were allowed. The homosexuals have the same agenda. They know perfectly well that the teachings of the bible hinder their progress and they are now seeking to stifle the free expression of beliefs contrary to their own personal values. They don’t even know what “democracy” means – unless it be Chairman Mao’s “internal democracy,” democracy for those within the party only.
13. In spite of the fact that both Naziism and the gay rights movement were / are contrary to many plain biblical teachings, both found / are finding Christians, including pastors, “theologians,” and ecclesiastical dignitaries to support them.
There were “Christians” who claimed that National Socialism was compatible with their faith (after they had scrapped all of the Old Testament and almost all of the New); and in an identical fashion there are those today who argue that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. There are now gay churches and gay pastors, just as there were Germanic churches and Germanic pastors who believed that it was their duty to follow Hitler faithfully.
None of these 13 points are invalidated by the response that “The Nazis persecuted gays!” The Nazis persecuted Communists as well, yet the many profound similarities between Hitler and Stalin, Naziism and Communism, have been commonly noted. Parenthetically, until Ernst Roehm became a political threat, Hitler had no trouble cooperating with him, in spite of the Roehm’s well-known and open homosexuality.
Much more could be said on these subjects. How have we reached a point where what was shameful a mere fifty years ago is now rapidly moving toward cultural dominance? What should our response be, if we are Christians who believe in the bible and want to base our lives upon it? As this entry is already quite long, perhaps I can address those questions separately at another time.
[1] David Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future (New York 1998), p. 157. Chapter 5 (“A Radical Holocaust”) is a masterful essay that should be read by anyone who has an interest in this topic (Horowitz’ perspective is very different from mine, and he does not make the Nazi-gay connection).
[2] Ibid., various pages.
This is the default footer layout. You can easily add or remove columns in the footer.
5) and 11) are fairly redundant statements. There is no need for you to reiterate yourself.
“we need to be on the lookout for extremist movements that will destroy our democracy and bring catastrophe on our nation. I also agree that there is a real, present and growing danger, one that needs to be mightily opposed.”
[[citation needed]]
In my personal opinion, mentioning this pretty much assure that you’re preaching to the choir. This statement is not a prophetic as you think it is. Like a horoscope, anyone can successfully predict danger and destruction from any source, provided they never mention dates, times, and places.
“relied / rely on a Darwinian understanding of human origins to justify their beliefs.”
The National Socialist’s assertion of the superiority of blond/blue eyed German nationals, and the inferiority of Jews and other groups, had little to do with Darwinian evoltion. The NAZI’s co-opted a few or Darwin’s ideas to make superficial rationalizations of their social philosophies. National Socialism was a “Eugenics” movement, and suffers the same fallacies. A full understanding of the evolutionary theory would easily show how fallacious ideas of eugenic were.
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is biological, not psychological. I.e. it is not a “disease” or a “psychosis” and does not need to be “cured.” You can use the theory of evolution to back up this claim, and unlike eugenics, use it sucessfully, though it is not necessary.
I fail to see the similarity between the murderous eugenics of the National Socialists, and the simple concept that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon not a disease.
You would do well to address the latter argument in specific terms, not make the hasty and presumptuous generalization that gay rights and and national socialism were “both Darwinian.” This is a comparison that quickly breaks down when you examine the positions of each groups in real detail.
“rely on legal chicanery to frustrate the will of the majority and impose their views on others. ”
So has every other political movement in history. This paragraph conceals both appeals to authority, and appeals to popularity. Just because something is legal or illegal, does not make it morally right or wrong. Likewise, just because a political view is popular and shared by the majority, does not make it correct. The US is a Republic and not a Democracy, and there are very good reasons why we do not and should not put the basic rights of a small minority up to a popular vote.
“accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”
“…….Rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence to silence and demonize the opposition.
The fact that a person behaves in a hypocritical, or otherwise objectionable manner, does not have any effect on the “truth value” of their position.
A murderer on death row is still capable of arguing against murder. Whereas the best behaved, most unselfish people can still be wrong.
National socialist policies were incorrect, destructive, and immoral……..because they were incorrect, destructive, and immoral, not because of individual actions. Truth is rarely defined by the actions of those who claim to believe in it.
“………seek to radically transform the human race, and introduce new values in a manner unheard of in all of human history.”
But what, exactly, is a “historical” value? Christianity hasn’t existed forever, neither has it always had the same beliefs and values, nor has it ever existed as anything close to a homogeneous group. You seem to imply all Christians everywhere have always valued, and will always value the same things. In any case, isn’t this exactly the same kind of thing Christianity seeks to accomplish, to “radically transform” he human race? I.e. save them from their “sins?” If you’re accusing homosexuals and Nazis of being overly ambitious, join the club…
Civilization isn’t static, new values and beliefs are constantly being introduced, and older ones abandoned or forgotten. All values, including Christian values, were “unheard of in history” at one time. This was true in Christ’s time, it was true in the middle ages, and it’s just as true today. Social change is constant and inevitable. you can either adapt to it, or not.
Appealing to tradition doesn’t tell you whether or not a value or belief is actually useful or relevant to society. For example in many countries in the middle east there’s a traditional belief that sex is always painful for women.
But, if the antiquity of a belief is no indication, then how can we determine if a belief/value is actually beneficial or useful? What other criteria are there?
“…..Recognize the importance of indoctrinating the children with their values.”
This accusation holds very little water.
If by “indoctrination,” you mean, teaching kids against intolerance, bullying, and harassment of gay classmates, then that would be strangely Christian of them.
If by “indoctrination” you mean preventing kids from being taught “traditional christian values” then they are morally right to do so. It is not the purpose of a public school in a nation ruled by law, to teach ANYONE’S values! Their purpose is to teach objectivity, not religious opinions which only hold for particular members of that religion.
It is my own personal opinion, that the fact that many people do not comprehend the difference between religious dogma/theology, and evidenced fact, is a reflection of just how much christian indoctrination exists in the public school system at present.
“Both movements played / play the victim card to win sympathy, disarm the opposition, and justify their own extremism.”
“Both groups accused / accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”
I find such “ad hominem” character assignations to be a sign of profound weakness in a someone’s thesis.
In fact THIS ENTIRE PIECE is one long ad hominem character assassination. Gays = NAZI’s…… therefore they cannot be trusted and their arguments do not require consideration.
Thanks for the challenging comments in response to one of my blogs . I should have replied earlier but will try to do better next time, if there is a next time that is.
5) and 11) are fairly redundant statements. There is no need for you to reiterate yourself.
Point 5 (“Both groups aspired / aspire to total domination”) and point 11 (“Both movements pursued / are pursuing their false philosophies to the farthest possible extremes.”) are not completely redundant. Pt. 5 refers to society as a whole (political domination) whereas pt. 11 refers to that, yes, but also to personal practices, where in their private lives people will go to the farthest extremes in search of new thrills and new lows of degredation and self abasement.
“we need to be on the lookout for extremist movements that will destroy our democracy and bring catastrophe on our nation. I also agree that there is a real, present and growing danger, one that needs to be mightily opposed.”
[[citation needed]]
I don’t think a citation is needed here, I am expressing my own feeling in a blog.
In my personal opinion, mentioning this pretty much assure that you’re preaching to the choir. This statement is not a prophetic as you think it is. Like a horoscope, anyone can successfully predict danger and destruction from any source, provided they never mention dates, times, and places.
In the brief space of a blog, I am stating my own views without going into a lot of argumentation and documentation. Some of my few readers may agree with me, some may not. Also, dates, times, and places are not necessary. If a young person is starting out overeating, smoking heavily, and not exercising, I can tell them that if they keep on that path they are headed for trouble without specifying date, time, or place. Also, such a warning is no sign of brilliant prophetic insight, but it is valid nevertheless. I point to what I think are obvious trends without thinking this qualifies me as a prophet.
“relied / rely on a Darwinian understanding of human origins to justify their beliefs.” The National Socialist’s assertion of the superiority of blond/blue eyed German nationals, and the inferiority of Jews and other groups, had little to do with Darwinian evoltion. The NAZI’s co-opted a few or Darwin’s ideas to make superficial rationalizations of their social philosophies. National Socialism was a “Eugenics” movement, and suffers the same fallacies. A full understanding of the evolutionary theory would easily show how fallacious ideas of eugenic were.
The Nazis did not need to go into or agree with all of the details of Darwinism to claim that people were essentially animals and nothing more, and that because we were animals examples from nature (the strong preying on the weak) were therefore justifications for and even bases for human behaviour. “The anaimals do it, we are animals, so it is right for us to do it too.” The Nazis used this logic to justify violence, the gays (and not only the gays) use it to justify sexual freedom without restraint.
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is biological, not psychological. I.e. it is not a “disease” or a “psychosis” and does not need to be “cured.” You can use the theory of evolution to back up this claim, and unlike eugenics, use it sucessfully, though it is not necessary.
I fail to see the similarity between the murderous eugenics of the National Socialists, and the simple concept that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon not a disease.
My points did not deal with the origins of homosexuality. I did not draw a connection between Nazi eugenics and the belief that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. My point was only that both point to the animal origins of man to justify their acts.
You would do well to address the latter argument in specific terms, not make the hasty and presumptuous generalization that gay rights and and national socialism were “both Darwinian.” This is a comparison that quickly breaks down when you examine the positions of each groups in real detail.
I didn’t say gay rights was Darwinian (see above about using our animal origins as justification for actions). Also, in my book I have a lot of information about the NON-DARWINIAN origins of National Socialism as well – but the animal origins and nature of man was central to their theory, and to gay rights arguments that “Homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it is right for us.” Weikart’s book Hitler’s Ethic has some usfeul information here, but it is very limited in scope.
“rely on legal chicanery to frustrate the will of the majority and impose their views on others. ”
So has every other political movement in history. This paragraph conceals both appeals to authority, and appeals to popularity. Just because something is legal or illegal, does not make it morally right or wrong. Likewise, just because a political view is popular and shared by the majority, does not make it correct. The US is a Republic and not a Democracy, and there are very good reasons why we do not and should not put the basic rights of a small minority up to a popular vote.
If EVERY (?) other group has done this, that doesn’t make it right. I don’t see my point as an appeal to authority (which authority?) or to popularity. To me it is a simple statement of fact. True, if something is legal or illegal does not make it inherently right or wrong, and a majority view is not always correct. I don’t say the majority of voters in California were for Proposition 8 that therefore it was right. I am saying that the Nazis and the gay activists both used legal and political and chicanery to impose their views by force on others. A judge’s arbitrary overturning of the popular will was defiance of democratic procedure.
But, you say “The US is a Republic and not a Democracy, and there are very good reasons why we do not and should not put the basic rights of a small minority up to a popular vote.” True, we are a republic, but the republoic does include some democratic principles and procedures (such as voting). Also, who says gay “marriage” is a “right”? I and many others say it is not a right. Is this “right” of your written in the stars? Or given to you in some holy book? How is it that this “right” of gay “marriage” is unheard of in the entire history of theworld?
“accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”
“…….Rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence to silence and demonize the opposition.”
The fact that a person behaves in a hypocritical, or otherwise objectionable manner, does not have any effect on the “truth value” of their position.
That’s true, but when they accuse others of what they do themselves, and rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence, as did the Nazis, and as do they gay activists, that does reveal something. And, this is not the case of a single hypocrite making statements that are still true in spite of his faults. It is much more than that, a consistent policy followed by many who want to silence opposition and take power for themselves.
A murderer on death row is still capable of arguing against murder. Whereas the best behaved, most unselfish people can still be wrong.
I agree with that – but devious, corrupt, violent, and dishonest people have less chance of being right, especially when it comes to broad social policies over time, than do people who are well behaved (meaning considerate of others among other things) and unselfish.
National socialist policies were incorrect, destructive, and immoral……..because they were incorrect, destructive, and immoral, not because of individual actions. Truth is rarely defined by the actions of those who claim to believe in it.
Bu Jesus said, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” Actions do not exactly define truth, but they do say a lot about those who want rights for themselves even as they want to silence others.
“………seek to radically transform the human race, and introduce new values in a manner unheard of in all of human history.”
But what, exactly, is a “historical” value? Christianity hasn’t existed forever, neither has it always had the same beliefs and values, nor has it ever existed as anything close to a homogeneous group. You seem to imply all Christians everywhere have always valued, and will always value the same things.
The idea that homosexuality is not only normal but to be glorified and established as a basic part of society is new in the history of the world. True, Christianity was at one time also new. So, “newness” does not automatically equal wrongness or badness – but homosexuality claims to be normal, natural, healthy, based on nature. History does not show that in any society at any time. Christianity, on the other hand, claims to be a new revelation of previously unknown mysteries – very different.
In any case, isn’t this exactly the same kind of thing Christianity seeks to accomplish, to “radically transform” he human race? I.e. save them from their “sins?”
This is supposed to be done on an individual basis, voluntarily, without coercion by the courts or by the government, and certainly not by silencing people who want to think differently. Historical instances of “Christian” oppression were completely against the teachings of Christ and never sought or practiced by many Christians.
If you’re accusing homosexuals and Nazis of being overly ambitious, join the club…
I am stating my opinions in a blog, I expect the world to become worse and worse as the bible says, and I expect the gays to become more and more powerful, even to the point of persecuting Christians. I have no vision of a Christian takeover of society. I see the church as too weak for that and getting weaker all of the time.
Civilization isn’t static, new values and beliefs are constantly being introduced, and older ones abandoned or forgotten. All values, including Christian values, were “unheard of in history” at one time. This was true in Christ’s time, it was true in the middle ages, and it’s just as true today. Social change is constant and inevitable. you can either adapt to it, or not.
I agree, change is inevitable, but it ends at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, with an eternity in heaven or hell. And the bible teaches that unclean and sexually immoral people, whether hetero- or homosexual, will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Also, I am not trying to prevent change. I am trying to point to some changes as being wrong, harmful, and destructive.
Appealing to tradition doesn’t tell you whether or not a value or belief is actually useful or relevant to society. For example in many countries in the middle east there’s a traditional belief that sex is always painful for women.
True. But if we rely on the bible for our values and beliefs, then we have a sure and reliable guide. And, is homosexuality USEFUL for society? Beneficial? If so, how?
But, if the antiquity of a belief is no indication, then how can we determine if a belief/value is actually beneficial or useful? What other criteria are there?
The criteria are those provided by the bible. That is my belief and I am glad to discuss it. Do I have the right to express it freely? Or do I have to keep it to myself because it makes some people “uncomfortable,” while your side expresses your views loudly and freely?
“…..Recognize the importance of indoctrinating the children with their values.”
This accusation holds very little water.
Does it hold little water? Both the Nazis and the gays want to indoctrinate children with their values – irrespective of and contrary to the will of the parents. Do you think parents have the right to decide how their children should be raised? No, you don’t, and neither did Hitler. If some parents want to teach their children that being homsoexual is normal, natural, and healthy I know of no Christian that would try to prevent them fromso doing.
If by “indoctrination,” you mean, teaching kids against intolerance, bullying, and harassment of gay classmates, then that would be strangely Christian of them.
We all know the homosexual indoctrination program goes far beyond that. Disguising your goals to appeal moderate is one of your tricks, and Hitler’s too.
If by “indoctrination” you mean preventing kids from being taught “traditional christian values” then they are morally right to do so. It is not the purpose of a public school in a nation ruled by law, to teach ANYONE’S values! Their purpose is to teach objectivity, not religious opinions which only hold for particular members of that religion.
It is not the purpose ofa public school to teach ANYONE’S values – except yours. You argue for neutrality only to nullify the opposition, then you are free to teach your values and silence those who disagreewith you. More and more people are starting to see through such tricks. And you talk about objectivity! “Homosexuality is normal” is “objective” and “homosexuality is abnormal” “subjective.”
It is my own personal opinion, that the fact that many people do not comprehend the difference between religious dogma/theology, and evidenced fact, is a reflection of just how much christian indoctrination exists in the public school system at present.
If people see that homosexuality is morally wrong, and reject the “fact” that homosexuality is normal, we can be thankful for this healthy and constructive influence and be sorry it is disappearing so rapidly.
You speak of religious dogma – what about secular dogma? That there is noGod; that we came from animals; that there is no heaven or hell, no final accountability after death – all secular dogma, totally void of empirical foundation.
“Both movements played / play the victim card to win sympathy, disarm the opposition, and justify their own extremism.”
“Both groups accused / accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”I find such “ad hominem” character assignations to be a sign of profound weakness in a someone’s thesis.
I agree that ad hominem attacks are a sign of weakness, but statements of fact are not ad hominem attacks. Hitler harped on the injustices of the Versailles Treaty to win sympathy and justify his actions. The gay rights activists point to their grievances as justification for theirextreme agenda. Hitler accused the Jews of being evil and cruel and wanting to rule the world when that described himself perfectly. The gays accuse others of being full of hate and wanting to oppress otherswhen it is they who are full of hate, hatred of God and of his truth and of people who disagree with them and it is they who want to oppress others and take away their rights.
In fact THIS ENTIRE PIECE is one long ad hominem character assassination. Gays = NAZI’s…… therefore they cannot be trusted and their arguments do not require consideration.
I don’t think the piece is character assassination at all. I showed specific, exact, and definite parallels between the Nazis and thegay rights activists (recognizing of course that there are differences, no one says they are identical). And, I predict that our national mincing down the gay road will contribute, with other factors, to America’s declineand fall.
As to their arguments not requiring consideration, I have considered your arguments and responded to them carefully. I notice you did not respond to all of my points – for example, that both Naziism and homosexual activism are hostile to Christianity, and have many values contrary to the bible. Also, I have a book manuscript of some length – not a short blog – in which I present in detail arguments claiming that homosexuality is compatible with being a Christian, and do my best to refute them.