Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Savage Is as Savage Does

(Updated below.)

In September of 1493, Columbus again departed Spain for the New World. This time there were 17 ships and 1200 colonists. They landed in the Indies on November 3, 1493. In his first voyage, on Christmas eve, 1492, the Santa Maria ran aground and the ship had to be abandoned. Columbus left 40 men in a settlement named La Navidad on the island of Haiti. Upon returning to the settlement in late November of 1493, Columbus' worst fears were realized. All 40 men had been killed. They were victims of the Caribs (of the Caribbean).

The Caribs were particularly savage in that, among other sadistic things, they practiced cannibalism. ("Carib" is the origin of the English word "cannibal.")

Accompanying Columbus on his second voyage to the New World was the young Italian nobleman Michele de Cuneo. A 1495 letter penned by de Cuneo gives further evidence for the savagery of the Caribs:

In that island [St. Maria de Guadalupe] we took twelve very beautiful and very fat women from 15 to 16 years old, together with two boys of the same age. These had the genital organ cut to the belly; and this we thought had been done in order to prevent them from meddling with their wives or maybe to fatten them up and later eat them. These boys and girls had been taken by the above mentioned Caribs; and we sent them to Spain to the King, as a sample...

The Caribs whenever they catch these Indians eat them as we would eat kids [goats] and they say that a boy's flesh tastes better than that of a woman. Of this human flesh they are very greedy, so that to eat of that flesh they stay out of their country for six, eight, or even ten years before they repatriate; and they stay so long, whenever they go, that they depopulate the islands...

We went to the temple of those Caribs, in which we found two wooden statues, arranged so that they look like a Pieta. We were told that whenever someone's father is sick, the son goes to the temple and tells the idol that his father is ill and the idol says whether he should live or not; and he stays there until the idol answers yes or no. If he says no, the son goes home, cuts his father's head off and then cooks it; I don't believe they eat it but truly when it is white they place it in the above-mentioned temple; this they do only to the lords. That idol is called Seyti...

According to what we have seen in all the islands where we have been, both the Indians and the Caribs are largely sodomites [emphasis mine], not knowing (I believe) whether they are acting right or wrong. We have judged that this accursed vice [emphasis mine] may have come to the Indians from those Caribs; because these, as I said before, are wilder men and when conquering and eating those Indians, for spite they may have also committed that extreme offence [emphasis mine], which proceeding thence may have been transmitted from one to the other. 

Note that the young nobleman reserved his harshest adjectives, not for the act of cannibalism, or the worship of heathen idols, but for sodomy. Remember, as same-sex marriage continues to make inroads in our culture, the real goal of the homosexual agenda: full (legally and culturally--whether you like it or not) acceptance of homosexuality in all its perverse forms: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and so on.

Update: It has come to my attention that the young Italian “nobleman” that penned the letter from which the excerpt above was taken was himself quite the “savage.” My source for the letter contained only the excerpt above. Here is the full text. His letter also contains this:

While I was in the boat I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me, and with whom, having taken her into my cabin, she being naked according to their custom, I conceived desire to take pleasure. I wanted to put my desire into execution but she did not want it and treated me with her finger nails in such a manner that I wished I had never begun. But seeing that (to tell you the end of it all), I took a rope and thrashed her well, for which she raised such unheard of screams that you would not have believed your ears. Finally we came to an agreement in such manner that I can tell you that she seemed to have been brought up in a school of harlots.
Obviously it escaped de Cuneo that fornication and rape are as detestable and undesirable (an “extreme offence”) as sodomy.  (It is interesting to note that, in 1493, de Cuneo, being Catholic, perhaps thought that he could “buy”—in the form of indulgences—his way out of his sin.) Of course, in our culture we do not (yet) debate the wickedness of rape (fornication has, sadly, long been accepted) or cannibalism, but homosexuality is another matter.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Conviction Friction

Striking down Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman noted, “Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”

It is stunning that these federal judges continue to parrot the “equal protection under the law” nonsense when it comes to homosexuality. For nearly 200 years, and without any Constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal.

Each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment—containing the “Equal Protection” clause—being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. Even as recently as 1961, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

In other words, many federal judges today are discovering “rights” favoring homosexuals (especially concerning marriage) that went heretofore unnoticed in the U.S. for over two centuries. And yes, just like tens-of-millions of Americans across the U.S., many Michigan residents’ views on marriage stem from strong religious “convictions.” In fact, similar “convictions” led to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and thus, the very forming of the United States.

Every law that exists is rooted in some “conviction” concerning what is right and what is wrong. The supporters of same-sex marriage, and the courts favoring them, are also operating from certain “convictions.” All that needs to be decided is whose “convictions” are going to form the basis for U.S. law: those rooted in absolute truth or those rooted in the “wisdom” of mankind.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Friday, March 21, 2014

"Moral Monday" Morons

For liberals, attempting to claim the moral high-ground is like a community organizer winning the Nobel Peace Prize: it only happens with willful suspension of reason and facts—which means it happens a lot in liberal circles. The most recent case in point is the “Moral Monday” movement that has popped up in a handful of states across the south.

For evidence of the corrupt morality that exists in this movement, you need to know nothing more than Moral Mondays were started by the NAACP. First in North Carolina, later in South Carolina, and now in Georgia, Moral Mondays are a sad attempt to sway politicians and voters in states that are generally dominated by conservatives. These attempts are usually through acts of civil dimwittedness—I mean disobedience—involving such things as protesting at state Capitols, disrupting legislative sessions, and staging sit-ins.

Because the moral demands of liberalism are few and malleable, any movement born of liberalism will have a corrupt morality. For further evidence of this, witness the Moral Monday protesters as they declare that it is “morally repugnant” that people are dying because “they don’t have access to health care,” while also calling for tax-payer funded (“free” in the fantasy land of liberalism) “health care” that will allow them to kill their unborn children.

In other words, it wouldn't be too surprising to hear some tattooed, belly-pierced, pot-smoking, bra-less skank of a libtard scream: “My mother died because she had no health care! Now give me my free healthcare so I can go to the clinic and kill my daughter!” Liberals refer to such genocide as “Reproductive Justice.”

In addition to much other nonsense, Georgia’s Moral Monday website decries the state “promoted bigotry [directed] towards the LGBTQ community.” No evidence is offered. We can only assume that such “bigotry” is the result of Georgia legally defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Only a liberal can take an institution that has existed across cultures for thousands of years (from “the beginning” according to a Christian worldview) and deem it “bigoted.”

The most tragic aspect of this moronic "moral" movement is that many so-called “pastors” are at the forefront. The (Ir) Reverend Raphael Warnock, pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church where Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pastor, has been a large part of the Moral Monday protests in Georgia. The (Ir) Reverend William Barber II is the leader of Moral Mondays in North Carolina. (He’s also—surprise!—president of North Carolina’s chapter of the NAACP.)

How sad is it that such supposed “men of God” have aligned themselves with a political party that boos the inclusion of God in its platform, and has devoted itself to support the killing of children in the womb, removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena, as well as promoting sexual immorality and the redefinition of marriage?

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Monday, March 17, 2014

A Message to Millennials

While much is being made of the political ramifications of a recent report on Millennials from the Pew Research Center, instead of conservatives wringing our hands about what to do with these young “Spicolis,” in order to straighten them out, we need more conversation about how we have gotten here. Also, Millennials need a clear understanding of the political choices that they face.

There is much to address with the generation that, more than any other, is responsible for electing Barack Obama leader of the free world—twice. Sadly, this is the case for Millennials who call themselves conservatives as well as their uber-liberal counterparts.

First of all, they’ve all been lied to—a great deal, particularly about sex. Such deception is nothing new. It has been going on for millennia. As J.R.R. Tolkien put it nearly three-quarters of a century ago, “The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been ‘going to the bad’ all down the ages… [T]he ‘hard spirit of concupiscence’ has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell.”

However, growing up in the age of technology that we all enjoy, Millennials have been saturated with sexual propaganda like no other generation. This is significant in that so much of what we debate in the moral realm of our culture centers on sex.

Abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, divorce, pornography, contraception, and the like are ultimately all about sex. For decades now, these issues have been hotly debated everywhere from the dinner table to the Supreme Court of the United States. Far too many Millennials have voted for politicians based solely on where they stand on these matters. Thus, they certainly need and deserve the truth when it comes to these moral issues.

Second, the oft-repeated protest that goes something like, “We need to stop legislating morality!” is a tired, foolish, and ignorant complaint. Likewise, and just as foolish and ignorant, is the idea that conservatives can besocially conservative in their private activities without trying to impose their views on other people.” Why aren’t liberals implored (especially by conservative Millennials) to be socially liberal in their private activities without trying to impose their views on other people?

Conservatives did not ask for these battles. We are not the aggressors in the moral wars. For example, after the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling (which overturned the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the U.S.) by the U.S. Supreme Court, most conservatives would have been content with the “live and let live approach.” However, having government “out of the bedrooms” was not good enough for liberals. Thus, the assault on marriage began.

Make no mistake about it; someone’s morality is going to rule us. Before shunning the Christian morality (upon which this country was founded), that teaches among many other wonderful things that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that marriage is a union of one man and one woman for life, Millennials would do well to examine the evidence.

Many of them need to look no further than their own upbringing. Millennials are more likely than any other generation in American history to have been brought up in homes that suffered divorce or no marriage at all. The consequences that children endure as a result of their parents divorcing or as a result of growing up in a single-parent home (almost always without a father) or with same-sex parents are tragic and well documented.

Children of divorce are more likely to be poor, have behavior problems, and use illegal drugs. They are also more likely to struggle academically, suffer with depression, and commit suicide. Children born out of wedlock suffer even worse. They are significantly more likely to be poor; they have more health problems; and they have much slower cognitive and social development. Children born out of wedlock achieve significantly less academically as well as occupationally.

These consequences are devastating not only for individuals and families, but for the nation at large. Even liberals realize this, although their solutions, of course, involve bigger government. A case in point is the recent column by DeWayne Wickham on how President Obama “seeks to fix what ails minority males.”

A great many of these minority males were brought up in homes without fathers. Do you think Obama, Wickham, and the like will urge these men not to perpetuate this crisis by fathering children out of wedlock? Do you think traditional marriage—where mothers and fathers are together in the home and both invested in their children—will be part of their solution?

Of course not. Wickham wants another “War on Poverty.” (Because the first one worked so well—evidenced by the record number of Americans on food stamps.) Obama advisor Valarie Jarrett is “pumped up…to have the federal government do all it can to support this effort.” Whenever liberals say “federal support,” it’s time to hide your wallet. Whenever liberals say that they are “pumped up” about “federal support,” it’s time to visit banks in the Caymans.

Even more disturbing are the proposed solutions to “fix” our economy offered up recently by Millennial Jesse Myerson. (The fact that Rolling Stone saw fit to print his drivel is also quite disturbing.) In what almost seems like satire meant to deride liberals, Myerson presents a socialist smorgasbord that every Millennial “should be fighting for.”

As a solution to unemployment, he proposes government-guaranteed “work for everybody.” Such work would, of course, pay a “living wage,” that, of course, would be determined by the government. “But let’s think even bigger,” Myerson declares as he next suggests Social Security payments for everyone; “universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month.” Thus, Myerson amazingly concludes (giving us even more reason to stereotype young liberals as lazy), participation in the labor force would become “truly voluntary, thereby enabling people to get a life.”

The third proposal is to “take back the land.” Myerson then goes into a rant about landlords who “don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve.”

Did you catch that? Myerson’s stupidity and hypocrisy are stunning. Just a few sentences after he lauds the idea of a nation where work is optional, Myerson criticizes property owners for not having to work—while patting himself on the back as someone “who actually work[s]!”

After Jonah Goldberg took Myerson to task, Emmett Rensin of the L.A. Times ran to Myerson’s defense. Rensin concluded that “Young leftists like Myerson and myself share a moral outlook that fundamentally differs from conservatives like Goldberg: Freedom, in the most prosperous nation on Earth, must entail the freedom to act without the constant specter of homelessness, hunger and preventable illness.”

In other words, Rensin and his comrades want to live by the pagan “do as thou wilt” philosophy and not have to suffer any consequences for their choices. Or, to paraphrase George Costanza, such “leftists” would prefer to live in the fantasy world of Cosmo Kramer: do nothing, make money without working, mooch food (and health care, etc.) off their neighbors, and have all the sex they want without any of the costs.

All of this begs a question of Millennials—especially those calling themselves conservatives. What do you prefer: to be guided by, and have a government that reflects, principles that place “moral chains” upon our appetites (as Edmund Burke instructs us) in order to help us prevent social and economic crises; or expensive Big Government programs to “fix” them? (Immorality is expensive—in more ways than one!) You’re going to have to live with one or the other.

It is folly to pursue politics that take a conservative approach to economic issues and a liberal approach to the moral ones. There is no going halfway here. It’s time for Millennials who want to be conservatives to be big boys and girls and swallow the whole pill. Conservatives cannot leave our morality at the door when it comes to issues involving sex. The moral arguments in favor of sound fiscal policy (“It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.”) are rooted in the same morality that teaches us that marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that killing a child in the womb is wrong.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Liberals Prefer the Land of Make Believe

Life is much easier for a liberal. This is certainly the case when it comes to politics, since (as I noted recently) for liberalism, the moral demands are few. Thus, governing becomes a matter of seeking and even manufacturing what is popular, not what is right.

When you operate in the realm of fantasy, it is much easier not only to ignore the truth, but also to manufacture crises and perpetuate false injustices so as to paint oneself as the savior for what needs (or will need) fixing. Thus, “never let a crisis go to waste” is a frequent means by which political power is obtained and kept. Many people are willing to cast their votes for those who promise to “protect” them—from the climate, from the corporations, from the Christians, from the employers, and even from the consequences of their own bad decisions. “Pajama Boy” is the poster child here.

When manufacturing crises, the media—both news and entertainment—are necessary and effective tools. Whether racism, climate change, reproductive “rights,” marriage “rights,” gender “rights,” (How can so much wrong come from so many “rights?”) economic justice, and so on, today’s mainstream media has partnered with the Democratic Party to ensure that the myths live on and liberals continue to get elected.

A case in point is the recent revelation that for several years now, ABC and CBS have completely ignored scientific views that contradict the liberal meme on climate change. Thus, not only do we get the repeated doom-and-gloom forecasts of the warmists, but we are also (directly or indirectly) told that the debate is over. In the State of the Union, no less, President Obama declared, “[T]he debate is over. Climate Change is a fact.”

Along with ABC and CBS, other media outlets got the memo from Obama and the democrats. Late last year, the L.A. Times announced that it no longer would publish letters to the editor from man-made global warming skeptics. The popular website Reddit later made a similar decision. Such is the verdict when useful myths must be protected.

This would be only alarming instead of tragic if billions (perhaps trillions) of dollars were not at stake, and if the U.S. Secretary of State (along with the Pentagon) did not think that climate change was an increasing threat to our national security. Battling the make-believe crisis of climate change is much preferable to a real menace such as Vladimir Putin and a nuclear-armed Russia.

When it comes to dealing with Putin and Russia, as Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard remarks, the Obama administration’s foreign policy is an amazingly “transparent case of pretending the world is what we wish it to be, rather than seeing it as it is.” It’s a lot easier to win battles that are fought in the arena of public opinion than those that employ planes, tanks, and aircraft carriers.

However, it is possible that we will shame the Russians into submission. After all, for a nation stuck using 19th century tactics, it is very doubtful that the Russians, unlike American liberals, are committed to using women on the front lines. An Obama speech on the matter should rile up enough world outrage that the Russians will tuck tail and pull out of Crimea.

If this doesn’t work, the media will still have Obama’s back. If not, phone calls will be made, as they were to the left-wing think tank, Center for American Progress (CAP). It turns out that when CAP bloggers became critical of the Obama administration’s military actions in Afghanistan, senior officials at CAP were contacted by the White House. The bloggers were called on the carpet and “berated for opposing the Afghan war and creating daylight between us and Obama.” Again, no debate will be tolerated.

Adding to the real crisis, the U.S., led by Obama, is basing everything from crippling emissions standards of the EPA to rejection of the job-creating and energy-building Keystone pipeline on the myth of man-made global warming. After all, if elections are to be won based on myth, then sometimes real policy, no matter how devastating, must be pursued.

Also, low, or at least easily lowered, moral standards combined with powerful propaganda weapons make deception much less complicated. This has proven successful since Satan uttered, “Did God really say…” along with “You will not surely die…and you will be like God.”

Without the burden of absolute truth, liberals have been able to convince tens-of-millions of Americans that killing a child in the womb is not only permissible under virtually every circumstance, but a “God-given right.” Such deceit is still common today, even though with modern ultrasound technology and the like, the march of science has revealed what common sense and decent morality already told us: abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

In the fantasy world put forth by liberalism, abortion isn’t the taking of a human life but merely the choice of a woman to do with her body as she pleases. In addition, this makes it easier to promote promiscuity onto young minds and bodies that are eagerly looking for justification to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and as often as they want sexually.

Such sexual “freedom” has also turned marriage into a farce. Thus, in the liberal land of fantasy, marriage can be defined to be whatever a culture wants it to be, as long as the definition is politically popular. Any attempt to limit marriage to a union of one man and one woman can then be labeled as “discrimination,” because liberals prefer the fantasy world of no “discrimination” to the real world where such things must be defined based on some real moral standard.

A world without such “discrimination” also means that we are not to differentiate stereotypically between humans born with a y-chromosome and those born without one. In other words, to require boys to look, act, and behave as boys (and likewise with girls) is “discrimination.” Young boys, then, who want to dress as girls, play girl sports, and use girl restrooms and locker rooms are expected to receive the full support of every institution and person they encounter.

There is no need for real victims of such “discrimination.” They can be manufactured as well. Anyone who has had his same-sex “wedding” ceremony shunned by businesses that don’t want to participate in something they deem sinful can claim “discrimination.” If enough “victims” to sell the myth can’t be found, they can just be completely made up.

“Hate-crime” hoaxes abound with liberals. Whether Matthew Shepherd, the latest campus racial incident, or the new “victims” of transphobia (in the fantasy world occupied by liberals, along with made-up crimes and victims, you need made-up words to help with the preferred narrative), the left can’t seem to help itself as they try to convince us just how corrupt traditional American values are.

Again, if only we could just shake our heads and get on our knees in prayer. However, laws are being passed and lawsuits are being filed. This isn’t about live and let live. This is black and white, right and wrong, myth and reality. Americans need to decide in which world they want to live.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Monday, March 3, 2014

So You Know a Gay Person

Jonah Goldberg, a supporter of same-sex “marriage,” recently (and correctly) noted that historians will be “flummoxed” at how quickly in Western culture “homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated—or else.” Indeed, it goes to show how quickly a culture can turn when led astray by liberalism. This is not surprising though, as a culture is much more easily deceived by media and political propaganda campaigns when the moral demands are few.

This is why conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, have a much more difficult time in the political arena, especially with what I prefer to call the “moral issues.” Of course, such issues, as we saw in Arizona, inflame passions and grab headlines. As I recently noted in a conversation with a U.S. congressman, liberals have a much easier time “playing politics” because their moral bar is so low and easily adjusted to whatever is politically popular. Politics is much more difficult when you are answerable to absolute truths.

Our politics is only a reflection of our culture at large. Thus, Americans in general who find homosexual behavior, abortion, marriage perversions (whether same-sex or otherwise), and the like, morally repulsive are increasingly finding themselves at odds with a culture that is all too willing to compromise. This is especially the case with so-called “Millennials.” (What did we expect to be born out of the “Me” generation?)

These Millennials tell us that the biggest reason that so many of them have turned from the teachings of their faith or families and embraced same-sex marriage and homosexuality is that they “really got to know a gay person.” Also, because of a lack of sound teaching and equipping, and because of the willingness to compromise with other sins (especially divorce and out-of-wedlock sexual activity), even those who were raised in evangelical homes and churches have been willing to accept same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

Christians, and others who know better, should no more accept homosexuality based on getting to know a homosexual who seems a rather likable chap, than we are to accept abortion because we know a friendly Planned Parenthood worker. “Hate the sin and love the sinner” is much more than a well-worn platitude of Christianity. It is exactly how Christ taught us to win those who have turned from the truth.

In addition, those of us warring (in the spiritual realm) against the rampant compromise with sin in our culture need well reasoned and articulate answers when faced with the inevitable opposition that we will encounter. This goes for the politician and the pastor, as well as the banker and the baker, the policeman and the painter, and the waitress and the window washer. We all better be ready to give a good defense for what we believe.

In spite of what is often portrayed in the media, many who have gone their own way sexually are deeply hurting and looking for the truth. This is inevitable, as any sin, but especially sexual sin, has dire consequences with many hard lessons looming. Pornography, prostitution, abortion, fornication, homosexuality, stripping, and the like, are all sexual sins from which millions are seeking escape.

Make no mistake though; we will not win everyone over. We probably won’t even win most. And we certainly may not find ourselves on the winning side in elections. In fact, things may get worse. If through the courts same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land in the U.S., public schools will then be compelled to teach, not only the acceptance of same-sex marriage, but that of homosexuality, transgenderism (California is showing the way here), and any other similar sexual perversions.

Then tens-of-millions more Americans will “get to know” a gay person. Also, in this scenario, homosexual “parents” will be portrayed as normal and healthy in every way. The law will force compliance on, not only small businesses such as bakers, photographers, florists, but churches and para-church organizations (think Focus on the Family, Answers in Genesis, and the like) as well. Gays adopting will become the norm in every state (as we see now in several states).

However, it is possible to avoid such a moral collapse. Along with teaching and preaching the truth, just as with abortion, and somewhat with man-made global warming, eventually science and information will catch up with the liberal lies on marriage and homosexuality. (It is already there to some extent, but many are afraid to speak out.)

Ultrasound technology and other advancements have shed light on the lie that abortion involves only one human being. Of course, this hasn’t stopped abortions in the U.S., but it has made the deception much more difficult. There are far more people in America that have experienced an abortion (mothers and fathers) than have participated in homosexuality. This has not changed the truth when it comes to abortion, and neither should it with marriage and homosexuality.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World