new

TGC recently published a fascinating interview with Becket Cook, a former Hollywood set designer in the fashion industry who was living an openly gay life. Cook left all that behind when he met Jesus — or, rather, Jesus met him — and now he is in Christian ministry as a recent graduate of Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. This summer he published the story of his conversion, A Change of Affection: A Gay Man’s Incredible Story of Redemption.

As with every Christian (cf. Rom 6:11; Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 2 Cor 5:17), the issue of identity stands at the center of Cook’s testimony. When asked in the TGC interview about “gay Christianity” and whether he thought it was possible to reconcile following Jesus and having a “gay identity,” Cook answered emphatically:

"They are irreconcilable. It’s strange to me to see these attempts. I had such a clean break from it, and it was entirely God’s grace upon me to see that it was necessary. Would you call yourself a greedy Christian? Would you call yourself a tax-collector Christian? It seems strange to identify yourself with sin. It’s a square circle. Defining yourself as a “gay Christian,” even if you are celibate and not active in a homosexual relationship, is wildly misleading. And it’s almost like you’re stewing in your old sin, hanging onto your old self in a weird way. It’s not helpful to have that moniker over you and to continually identify as such. Why would you identify with your old self that has been crucified with Christ? So I flee from that term as far as I can. It’s not who I am at all. If people ask me how I identify, I’m just like, “I don’t identify by my sexuality. I’m a follower of Christ who has a lot of struggles, including same-sex attraction.”

These attempts at reconciling gay identity and following Jesus which Cook refers to are being made by those who call themselves Side B “gay Christians.” While they confess the incompatibility of homosexual sexual desire and so-called “gay marriage” with historic, orthodox Christianity, they still identity as “gay.”

One of the reasons Side B “gay Christians” give as to why they continue to identify as “gay” or as “gay Christians” is because the word “gay” uniquely describes their experiences in this world, their particular struggles with temptation and sin, as well as their outlook on the world that grows out of these realities. Since these experiences are unique in the lives of same-sex attracted Christians, how else can they relate their testimony of God’s grace in their lives? They believe the Bible is true and right when it forbids same-sex sexual relationships. But shouldn’t they identity in a way that is true to their particular struggles?

I can sympathize with this line of reasoning, and I know how powerful it can be when believers share the work God has done and continues to do in their lives, particularly where they have struggled, where they continue to struggle, and how God’s grace is sustaining them even in the midst of these struggles.

In other words, I can imagine a possible world where the words “gay” and “Christian” may find themselves in proximity to one another in a believer’s testimony. But when such a testimony is shared, I think something that is not always clear among Side B “gay Christians” needs to be made crystal clear, as Cook does above. The modifier “gay,” is it describing the old man or the new man?
Paul teaches in a number of places that there are two “I’s” or “selves” in the believer this side of glory. For instance, in Ephesians 4:17–24 Paul writes about the “old self” and the “new self”:

17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

While those who do not know God have hard hearts that are marked by sensuality, greed, and every kind of impurity, this is the opposite of what marks those who are in Christ.

But notice what Paul does in verse 22 above. He says that the old self of the believer must be associated in the mind and life of the Christian with their former manner of life that had more to do with the ungodly Gentiles than Christ. In place of the old self, the new self must be actively put on, actively associated with and owned as an identity that is, as Paul says, “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

In other words, hostility toward the old self and hospitality toward the new self should characterize the Christian. Why? Because the old self is no longer the true self, the authentic self. The old self has been crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6) and therefore we are called to mortify it and its desires (Col 3:5–10). The new self is who we are.

Which brings us to the concern for how Side B uses “gay Christian.” When they use and embrace this identity, what — or who — do they map the modifier “gay” onto? For this person, is the old self “gay,” or the new self “gay”? Unless this question is answered unequivocally with the former, I believe Side B “gay Christianity” will continue to be suspect and inconsistent not only with the teaching about mortification of the old self and sin in the New Testament, but also with God’s purposes in creation and redemption. If Side B uses “gay” to describe an aspect of the new self in Christ, as many in the movement have insinuated, then we are no longer dealing with how the orthodox have everywhere and always spoken about temptation and indwelling sin.

I am thankful for Becket Cook’s clarity on Christian identity. It is a faithful application of Scripture to who we are in Christ as redeemed sinners. I hope many more will follow his lead.

Many White Nationalists are Pagans or Atheists and believe gays should have rights. You don't have to be a Christian or anti-gay to be against multiculturalism.
The number of gay people is too small to affect the birth rate. Whites are declining because heterosexuals are not having enough children. Don't blame this on the gay minority.

The gay lifestyle is that of sexual indulgence and impulsive, animalistic behavior. A being that acts primarily in accordance with its insatiable lust and desire is akin to an animal; not a human being, which is imbued with the ability to discern and control oneself. Their entire lifestyle and LGBTQWXYZ+ movement is centered around a perverse fetish and nothing more. "Love is love" cannot and must not be applied to these creatures. The defamation of objective Love has been popularized by morally decaying liberal insects; lust has gained the upper hand. Lust and fetishism are the guiding ideologies of the LGBT community, which aims to unite the degenerated masses around its rainbow flag. LGBT apologists pretend not to notice the obvious: they defend a culture that has developed around parties, bars, clubs, and other venues that emanate promiscuity. The movement requires hypersexuality to exist, as that is its defining feature. They parade the streets sporting sex toys, dressed in revealing clothes, fishnet stockings, pink tutus, heavy makeup, wigs, high heels, flashy colors, etc. etc. Men cease to be men. They no longer talk, walk, act, or dress like men. Lesbians tend to remain more-or-less feminine. Unless they're butch, they tend to keep their hair long, they typically continue to dress like women, and they do not alter their voices to sound deep. Gays, on the other hand, adopt an entirely different persona and actually try to resemble male-female hybrid prostitutes. They adopt the worst traits that generally only manifest in women.

We have all seen them and to deny the sexualized nature of this subculture is idiotic and insincere. They appear on stations like NPR for "Pride month" and introduce themselves as former male prostitutes advertising their "trailblazing" new TV show appropriately titled "Hoes." They refer to themselves as hoes; black slang for whores. They are male whores, they actively advertise themselves as such, and yet naive whites try to present gays in a "positive light," explaining how family-oriented they are and how they "just want to marry and love." Whores are the last people for whom marriage remains a sacrament. Whores have sex for money or pleasure and indulge in it incessantly; to consider whores fit for fidelity and loyalty is laughable and ridiculous. There is a reason gays tend to be associated with HIV; in 2010, they were a whopping 200x more likely to have it than anyone else. Furthermore, they account for over 60% of syphilis cases in America while they only make up 1.6% of the US population. And it makes sense, as they have sex with literally hundreds of men, nearly 80% of whom are strangers. I can't think of anything worse for gays than marriage, as it would only limit their extraordinary desire for anal rupture.

Male sexuality, whether oriented toward females or other males, craves variety. But whereas almost all heterosexual men, perhaps after “sowing wild oats,” settle down with one woman, homosexual men do not settle down. Ever. A classic, large-scale study by Bell and Weinberg conducted during the 1970s and published by the Kinsey Institute found that forty-three percent (43%) of white male homosexuals had had sex with 500 or more partners, and twenty-eight percent (28%) had had sex with 1,000 or more partners. Seventy-nine percent (79%) said that more than half of their sexual partners had been strangers. In 1985, Pollack found that gay men averaged “several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity.”[ii] In their 1997 study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven, et al., found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[iii]
Taken from:
The myth of male homosexual monogamy — ADvindicate

If you are unhappy with the religious overtones of the site, the materials that the author draws information from are books, articles, and academic sources you can find in the citations.

Gays are not associated with classical music, they are not associated with religion, nor a structured, traditional lifestyle. They are associated with disorder, drugs, and loud, flashy, repetitive electronic beeps and boops with abrupt, meaningless lyrics and convulsive movements that obstruct one's mental state, dull one's aching conscience, and force one's mind into a trance-like state in a futile attempt to escape the thought of future consequences. They are mentally ill escapists seeking to alleviate their troubled consciences through parties, sex, and mind-altering substances. Their hedonism ends prematurely with HIV, suicide, or overdose. It's not surprising that they're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol (meth 12x, heroin 10x, alcohol 2-3x more likely than straight men).

They have a high suicide rate because they are mentally ill and experience childhood trauma. I do not think that a sexual orientation that typically results from rape or molestation is worthy of being mainstreamed and normalized. If it is a "fad," then it is a very dangerous one that begins with a broken childhood, continues into adolescence accompanied by sex and drugs, and finally ends at young adulthood with a stupid, tragic death. Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in the 1930's. It has been the norm for almost 90 years, and these weak, drug-addled individuals still uphold a suicide rate three times higher than that of the general populace.

Their subculture is nothing but a tragedy.