Democrat Senator Cory Booker became unhinged during his questioning of Mike Pompeo who was nominated by Pres. Trump for the Secretary of State position.
Sen. Booker wanted Pompeo to know if Pompeo believes “gay sex is a perversion.”
Do you believe gay sex is a perversion, yes or no? Yes or no, sir? Do you believe that gay sex is a perversion, because that’s what you said here in one of your speeches. Yes or no, do you believe gay sex is a perversion?
While Mr. Pompeo did not answer the question directly, he did say that he did not believe in same-sex marriage but would treat all subordinates equally.
Let’s not forget that when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were running for President in 2008, neither supported same-sex marriage. I don’t know of anyone in the Democrat Party who asked them if they thought same-sex marriage was a perversion.
Do you think a Muslim would be questioned in the same way? I don’t think so, and yet it’s homosexuals in Muslim nations that are being thrown off high buildings to their death.
Dr. Robert P. George, who serves as the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, had this to say on the irrational and fascist antics of Democrat Senator Cory Booker:
Cory Booker is a bigot. No other conclusion can be drawn from his appalling hounding of, and effort publicly to humiliate, Mike Pompeo for Pompeo’s fidelity to historic Christian teaching on sexual morality and marriage. By Booker’s ideological standard, no faithful Catholic, Orthodox Jew, Bible-believing Protestant, Qa’ran believing Muslim, or other individual who holds to traditional norms of sexual ethics should be permitted to serve in public office. We must not become accustomed to tolerating bigotry of the sort Booker has flagrantly put on display in this case. It needs to be called out and condemned by all reasonable people of goodwill.
Since Mr. Pompeo did not answer Booker’s question directly, I’ll answer it for him.
If there is no God, there is no perversion. Anything goes. And by anything, I mean anything from racism and rape to cannibalism and bestiality and everything in between. My first question to Sen. Booker would have been, “What moral standard are you using to ascertain an answer to your question?”
If he believes in God, then it’s God’s moral law he must obey. The Supreme Court is not a fixed or absolute moral standard. Neither is Congress. If Booker does not believe in God, then we are back to square one. As the Cole Porter song says, “Anything Goes”:
Times have changed
And we’ve often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
Any shock they should try to stem
‘Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.
Why, nobody will oppose.
When ev’ry night the set that’s smart is in-
Truding in nudist parties in Studios.
God says same-sex sexuality is a perversion given the moral standard of God-defined sexual relationships that include prohibitions against rape, adultery, bestiality, and various forms of fornication. Consensuality is not justification for all actions. Because two people consensually engage in a sexual act does not make that act morally justified. A man agreed to be killed and eaten. Did his consent mean that murder and cannibalism are morally justified in their case? In an “Anything Goes” world, yes.
Sen. Booker might respond by saying that religion and politics don’t mix, you can’t impose your morality on other people, and there’s a separation of Church and State. (See my book Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths: How Misreading the Bible Neutralizes Christians.) On the religion and politics argument, I suggest that he rummage through the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. A good place to begin is with Andy Rau’s article “The Bible Passages Behind Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Message.” One of his most often quoted lines is taken from the Bible:
But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (Amos 5:24).
He might appeal to reason unshackled from religion as the basis for accepting same-sexuality as legitimate. Even here there is no support. The Enlightenment did not give us a better word or even a rational one:
For Kant, reason is universal, infallible and a priori—meaning independent of experience. As far as reason is concerned, there is one eternally valid, unassailably correct answer to every question in science, morality and politics. Man is rational only to the extent that he recognizes this and spends his time trying to arrive at that one correct answer.
This astonishing arrogance is based on a powerful idea: that mathematics can produce universal truths by beginning with self-evident premises—or, as Rene Descartes had put it, “clear and distinct ideas”—and then proceeding by means of infallible deductions to what Kant called “apodictic certainty.” Since this method worked in mathematics, Descartes had insisted, it could be applied to all other disciplines. The idea was subsequently taken up and refined by Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as well as Kant.
This view of “reason”—and of its power, freed from the shackles of history, tradition and experience—is what Kant called “Enlightenment.” It is completely wrong. Human reason is incapable of reaching universally valid, unassailably correct answers to the problems of science, morality and politics by applying the methods of mathematics.
The Enlightenment also propagated the myth that people’s only moral obligations are those they freely choose by reasoning. That theory has devastated the family, an institution built on moral obligations that many people, it turns out, won’t choose unless guided by tradition.1
Why is it that only liberals can impose their morality on other people and use churches to support Democrat candidates? As to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Mr. Pompeo was not advocating for merging church and state (something the First Amendment does not address), but Sen. Booker was prohibiting Mr. Pompeo’s free exercise of religion.
Marriage cannot be accounted for in a matter-only evolutionary worldview. Homosexuals have pushed the courts to justify by law same-sex marriage. But marriage is a creation ordinance decreed by the Creator from whom our rights are an endowment, as the Declaration of Independence states. Animals don’t marry. They do rape and often eat their young, but they don’t marry.
On the one hand, many homosexuals reject a biblical ethic related to marriage and sexual relationships while on the other hand demanding that they received all the benefits of biblical marriage.
Democrats claim to be the “Party of Science.” When it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism, they throw science, logic, and common sense out the window. People who practice same-sex sexuality cannot reproduce even though they have the biological equipment to do so. They only way they can produce is by heterosexual means.
The genital anatomy of males and females are prime indicators that heterosexuality is the proscribed sexual relationship. The reproduction of the species is possible only by heterosexuality.
Yes, homosexuality is a perversion since it perverts the God-ordained, biologically created, anatomically designed male and female relationship whose sexual equipment “fit” in such a way that only they can “fill the earth” (Gen. 1:27-28).