Have you wondered why there is growing support for homosexuality, euphemistically identified as “being gay” to hide what homosexuality is really all about (same-sex sex)? Modern-day Hollywood has been leading the charge, but it has made its way into the general culture. And why not, since casual and pre-marital sexual encounters, revolving marriages, multiple partners, short-term hookups, live-in relationships, and out-of-wedlock births seem to be the norm. It would be hypocritical of these sexual relativists to condemn homosexuality and homosexual marriage while practicing a smorgasbord of sexual choices. By defining sexual deviancy down, they can better justify their own sexual immorality. If it’s OK to engage in homosexuality, and we know how irrational and immoral people thought it used to be, then how can other less deviant and at one time immoral sexual behaviors be condemned? Once homosexuality is no longer considered to be immoral, then no sexual behavior can be.

It’s not just traditional liberals who are pushing the homosexual agenda. Ron Paul, the darling of libertarians, voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Then there is the co-opting of the American Conservative Union and its annual conference the Conservative Political Advocate Committee (CPAC) by the pro-homosexual group GOProud. Supposed conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart castigated those who wanted to exclude GOProud and even held a “gay”-themed party at CPAC to celebrate the “pride” of homosexuality and later joined GOProud’s advisory board. (I’m not quite sure what homosexuals are proud of. It seems to me that having “pride” in getting one’s anatomy wrong is misplaced.) Here’s how one blogger reported on the event:

The party staged by Andrew Breitbart for GOProud — the gay Republican and conservative group — was as close to a game changer as things get and the most interesting event at CPAC by far, at least to this point — and that’s meant as no insult to CPAC. With sexy Sophie B. Hawkins singing to a boisterous, supportive crowd, the party almost obliterated in one night the conception that Republicans are anti-gay and gave the impression that young libertarians — and some not so young — are taking over the GOP. Pretty soon it may be cool to be a Republican and square to be a Democrat.

In 1993, Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-N.Y.) published “Defining Deviancy Down.” Moynihan started from Emile Durkheim’s proposition that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can “‘afford to recognize’ and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of ‘old’ standards, and accounts for much of the present ‘cultural war. . . .’” As the amount of deviancy increases, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought deviant is no longer considered so. What seems like a trivial accommodation today devolves over time into extravagant ways generationally.

An extreme version of Moynihan’s thesis was seen on a February 2, 2007 segment of ABC’s “20/20” broadcast of the sex-cult “The Family of Love,” known today simply as “The Family.” Prior to its new designation, it was known as “The Children of God” (COG), a cult founded by David (Moses David) Berg, who used sex as an intoxicant to keep the cult together. Berg once said: “I practice what I preach! And I preach sex, boys and girls.” Homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, and group sex were all legitimized by the COG cult. Berg’s daughter, Deborah (Linda Berg) Davis writes in The Children of God: The Inside Story (1984) how her father justified his perverted view of sex because he first perverted Scripture. He promoted “Flirty Fishing,” using sex to entice young people into the cult, a way to “win souls to Christ.” The Bible was used to support this immoral practice: “Just as Jesus laid down His life, so you must lay down your life (or wife) for these men.” As time went on, the question of lesbianism arose. “There is nothing in Scripture that forbids it,” Berg maintained. If it’s done “in love, it’s okay.” Where have we heard this mantra before, and where are we hearing now?

Homosexuality was approved. “There was such an outbreak of homosexuality that Berg later had to counter his approval with a reprimand. Then came group sex. Communion services were followed by group sex, with the involvement of children. Berg eventually revealed the incestuous relationship he was having with his daughter Faithy. The directive followed that families should practice incest with their children.” Deborah’s insight in the sexual devolution within the cult has a bearing on the rise of today’s homosexual movement:

Is there a limit? One can see from this progression, occurring in less than a decade in a closed society, that immorality just doesn’t stand still. Nor does it satisfy or bring lasting pleasure. It grows and steadily becomes more perverse and wicked. Sex most certainly contains within it a moral code and a self-destruct principle. What form of sensual pleasure lies beyond what the COG are now doing? What form of perversion lies beyond incest, sodomy, and child abuse? I do not care to put that answer in print.

An ex-disciple of the COG cult believes that the children growing up in this sexually charged environment “will become the real Frankenstein monsters.” They “will have nothing to fall back on, having never known any other morality. They’ll grow up believing you can do anything in the name of Jesus!,” or in the case of GOProud and its supporters, anything in the name of conservatism and libertarianism. Homosexuals who claim to be Christians believe they can practice homo-sex “in the name of Jesus,” and the same logic persists among the burgeoning libertarian set. The arguments that Berg was using to justify his view of sex are identical to those used by advocates of homosexuality and the present-day libertarian movement. Given the notion of sexual moral relativism that pervades our culture, what did David Berg do wrong?

The argument will be that the children were underage. Who says it’s wrong to have sex with minors? Who says it’s wrong to have sex with your own children? At the present time, these remain sexual taboos. But it wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was a sexual taboo. There’s nothing to stop the train once it leaves the station. It’s a sexual runaway train. Sexual libertarianism does not have a built-in moral brake. Libertarians maintain that as long as two people consent to a behavior, and what they do together does not harm other people, there shouldn’t be a moral or legal prohibition against it. If a libertarian is an atheist, then there is no accounting for such a freedom. Nature is red in tooth and claw, neighbors eating neighbors. Rape is considered “natural.” In their book A Natural History of Rape, authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, described rape as “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage…” akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.” Of course, these college professors go on to tell us that “that by categorizing a behavior as ‘natural’ and ‘biological’ we do not in any way mean to imply that the behavior is justified or even inevitable.” In fact, they can’t tell us why rape is not justified.

Of course, there are libertarians who are not atheists. They do believe in God. So what is their justification for homosexuality? While many pro-homosexual advocates appeal to the Bible, their appeal is misplaced. There is no way to read the Bible as a pro-homosexual primer. Male and female . . . husband and wife . . . specific prohibitions against homosexuality. It’s all there with no equivocation or apology. Then there’s the biology. A rational person can see that homosexuality makes no sense. But, of course, rational people do all sorts of irrational things.

A steady diet of sexual themes has resulted in sexual saturation where many in the general culture are beyond the point of absorbing a contrary opinion. To give up homosexuality would mean giving up life itself. Homosexuals expound the “All Things” doctrine, like David Berg, perverting the words of the apostle Paul: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Cor. 6:12). Homosexuals often use Scripture to normalize what the Bible describes as an “abomination.” The very activity which Paul describes as “impurity,” “degrading passions,” “unnatural function,” “indecent acts” (Rom. 1:20-32), homosexuals embrace with indignant vigor. They go out of their way to debauch the testimony of the Bible and its clear condemnation of homosexuality and other sexual sins that seemingly don’t harm other people.

In an address to the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a former student at Bob Jones University maintained that David and Jonathan, son of King Saul, had a homosexual relationship that was blessed by God. He went further by claiming that David and Jonathan “were married.” Like David Berg and the COG, here is a man desperate to legitimize what the Bible most certainly condemns. In a special report for CNN, Jennifer Wright Knust, author of Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire (2011) offers her version of the David-Jonathan story:

Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament’s David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.

Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s “woman,” Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend.

Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.

Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).

Kunst assumes that when two men express love for one another their relationship has to be sexual. Does love always imply a sexual relationship? If a father loves his son, must it entail a sexual encounter? If sex is part of a relationship, the Bible says so (e.g., Gen. 4:25; 16:2, 4; 19:30–38; Matt. 1:25). For example, is there any doubt that David’s relationship with Bathsheba was sexual? Not in the least. “And David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. And the woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, ‘I am pregnant’” (2 Sam. 11:4–5).

Even if—and it’s a big if—the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual, this would not legitimize homosexuality. It would only prove once again that David was a sinner. David also committed adultery and was an accomplice to murder in the death of Uriah the Hittite. So we add to these the sin of sodomy. Are homosexuals ready to acknowledge that adultery and murder are also normative behavior for Christians? Just because a Bible character—even one as great as David—does something, this does not mean the behavior is morally justified.

Scripture is clear: Homosexuality is denounced as a horrible sin, an abomination that has cultural consequences. An entire civilization—Sodom—was destroyed because evil had mounted, finally showing itself in the degrading passions of homosexuality. Could the Bible be any clearer in its denouncement of those who traffic in “strange flesh”? (Jude 1:7)

Homosexuals have created a fantasy world where only their perverse presuppositions have meaning. Their goal is to bring the rest of America with them into their fabricated universe of sexual up-side-downism.