Transcripts Mike Church Show- Review of 2016 Al Smith Dinner That Invited Killary Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – "Abortion, and even contraception, even in the prevention of pregnancy, is verboten in church teaching. This goes all the way back prior – this is taken directly from the gospels, directly from the Old Testament, and then passed on traditionally." Check out today’s transcript […] todaySeptember 25, 2024 18
insert_link Transcripts Michael F. Holt Book: Why the South HAD to Secede and Why Today is Even Worse todayApril 25, 2024 49
James P. on June 3, 2013 I think that Mike brought up a lot of very interesting points that aren’t normally raised in any kind of public discussion of this issue, such as the caller’s assertion that the troubled men he comes into contact with are predisposed to confusion about their sexuality because of their very limited contact with females as one would find elsewhere. His argument evolves like a slippery ad hoc hypothesis from lack of female interaction, to lack of a normal upbringing in a normal family and normal school, finally to a lack of “structure,” without really explaining what it is exactly about “structure” that inures one to such ambiguity about their own sexuality. I do not think Mike’s claim that a homosexual can’t help but flaunt their sexual behavior in a way equal to his demanding that his own sexual positions define who he is and gain acceptance is really sensible. I know that a homosexual man sleeps with a man, and I know that a heterosexual man sleeps with a woman. It has nothing to do with the way in which they choose to do this. I won’t get started on the idea that the idea that society would not exist without heterosexual procreation is at all a reason to oppose the legitimacy of anything, since there has been and always will be enough people of both sexualities to continue the human race. I won’t even get into recounting the pre-Christian (in the West, anyway) spectrum of sexuality that existed prior to the polarization imposed by designations such as straight, gay, or bi. One concern I have always had with people who condemn or question the legitimacy of the actions of someone else is that some aspects of human behavior in which we all engage can be said to bear upon the good of society one way or another. Furthermore, not all of us would have our every action and behavior weighed against the metric, which is incredibly difficult to quantify in a reliable or consistent way, either qualitatively or quantitatively, nor would we want to justify our every action with an elaborate argument proving that our behavior is good for society. Liberty is what is good for society, and whether a community or organization decides to tolerate behavior of a certain group should be left to those individuals concerned. I am not suggesting that anyone here is making the argument that it ought to be decided elsewhere. I am merely saying that let’s not get carried away arguing about whether a behavior is good for society or not should be the metric by which we judge whether a private organization should tolerate it or not. Leave it up to them! I personally find my own reaction to the homosexual rights issues discussed so often these days colored by my abhorrence of the obnoxiously confrontational and lewd public behavior of many of its proponents. Though I myself have never been confused about my sexuality, I have friends and a handful of family members that run the gamut from asexual (I don’t know how or why) to very actively hetero-, bi-, or homosexual. People who as Mike implied keep their proclivities to themselves never irk me the way that “we’re here, we’re doing incredibly inappropriate and childish things, get used to it” gays and lesbians. Despite my best efforts, it is sometimes a struggle to suppress my knee-jerk revulsion, so as not to paint with a broad brush, and remember that a quietly homosexual boy who behaves with the kind of decency and dignity lost in the way people behave in public these days is not the same as the ostentatiously feminine homosexual demanding acceptance of their superficial and vapid behavior, etc., and that the relative “moral or societal consequences” of the behavior of these two individuals could be expected to lie on opposites ends of the spectrum. I wonder if every homosexual comported themselves with dignity in public if there would be such a backlash against the “gay rights” movement, even among Christians who feel it is an issue of sin. I tend to doubt it, based on my own experiences with my own reaction and those of others near me. Log in to Reply
Jimmy on June 1, 2013 Well stated Mike. I’ve made a similar argument before to those who support homosexuality as a valid lifestyle with no moral or societal consequences. Where they vehemently disagree with and dismiss Christian claims about truth, morality, etc., they usually aren’t as clear in their rebuttal when the argument is presented this way. Ultimately the secular side of this argument points back to the fact that objective truth outside of our plane of earthly existence is in fact real and must be dealt with by being accepted or rejected. Log in to Reply
insert_link Mike Church Presents The Red Pill Diaries Podcasts Listener Calls Crusade Channel “Rolex Quality” – The Mike Church Show todayFebruary 27, 2018 1655
The CRUSADE Channel & Mike Church Show Achieve Milestone of Episode 2,000! Celebrate “Y2K-D” With Us!
The Constitution Hour Episode 13-Why Trump IS A Natural Born Citizen & Cruz Is Not-Why The Founders Chose republicanism Over Monarchy