Limbaugh Gives Judgmental, Intolerant “Progressives” the Fake-Vapors–Again

Written by Laurie Higgins

I have a lot to say about presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and hope to say it soon, but first I have to address the kerfuffle generated by Rush Limbaugh who speculated last Wednesday that Democratic operatives must be asking themselves if the country is ready for a man-kissing man-president:

They’re looking at Mayor Pete, 37-year-old gay guy, mayor of South Bend, loves to kiss his husband on the debate stage. And they’re saying, ‘OK, how’s this going to look, 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage next to Mr. Man Donald Trump? What’s going to happen there?’ And they got to be looking at that, and they’ve got to be saying, that despite all the great progress and despite all the great wokeness, and despite all the great ground that’s been covered, America’s still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president. They have to be saying this, don’t they?

Of course, Democratic strategists are saying that behind the scenes where they live and move and have their being, concealing their nefarious plans, vulgarities, and un-PC feelings from the people they seek to manipulate. Anyone who thinks Democratic operatives aren’t discussing whether America is ready for a president who publicly celebrates homoeroticism really did just fall off the turnip truck. Democrats are not only discussing this question, they’re discussing it frantically—like with sweat spurting off their brows into their locally sourced, sustainable, vegan, gluten-free glasses of sparkling water.

Buttigieg sanctimoniously defended his homoeroticism—a defense made even more offensive by his claim to be a Christ-follower:

I’m proud of my marriage. And I’m proud of my husband. … And I am saddened for what the Republican Party has become if they embrace that kind of homophobic rhetoric.

What does self-identified Christ-follower Buttigieg think about the creator of the universe’s destruction of  Sodom and Gomorrah in large part due to rampant homosexuality:

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

Is the self-identified Christian Buttigieg “saddened” by St. Paul’s “homophobic rhetoric” in Romans 1:26-28:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Regressives, like Buttigieg, trot out the epithet “homophobe” because, well, it’s so darn effective. No matter if it’s a lie. No matter if theologically orthodox Christians don’t hate or fear homosexuals. No matter if throughout the entire history of the church up until the latter half of the latter half of the 20th Century when the sexual revolution had taken root did a single scholar ever believe that God approved of homoeroticism. Just point those judgmental fingers at every theologically orthodox Christian in America and hurl “homophobe” at them. Ad hominem attacks and demagoguery obviate the need to make an actual argument. With nary a squeak in defense of biblical truth, rubbery-spined Christian after rubbery-spined Christian wobbles off to his or her leper colony. And the Intolerant rub their grimy fingers in glee.

CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza warned portentously that “Limbaugh is trying to paint what he hopes is an unsavory picture to many Americans.” Word to Cillizza, homoeroticism and same-sex faux-marriage are unsavory and worse, which Buttigieg would know if he hadn’t reinterpreted Scripture through the lens of his own unholy desires:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Some months ago, Buttigieg said this indirectly to Vice President Mike Pence:

If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade. … If you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.

Now that’s sacrilegious talk—attributing his sin to God.

Clearly, Buttigieg doesn’t understand even the most fundamental tenets of Christian faith. God doesn’t create our powerful, persistent, seemingly intractable sinful desires. Nor does God compel us to act on them. As fallen creatures we don’t choose our desires, but we do, indeed, choose how to respond to them.

It’s curiouser and curiouser that when Buttigieg repeatedly cites Scripture to defend his political views, regressives never shriek “separation of church and state!” at him like they do at conservatives when they cite Scripture to defend their political views.

Maybe America is ready for a man-kissing man-president. If so, that would be an unfortunate day—a day that reveals just how spiritually lost we are. When the culture becomes even more hostile to Christianity, even more rebellious against God, we will be ready for a woman president in a consensual non-monogamous relationship with another woman and three men. When we plunge ever deeper into spiritual darkness, we will welcome a president in a homoerotic relationship with his brother. Then, after we’ve lowered the age of consent, we’ll cheer like a Hunger Games audience for a president and his 13-year-old paramour. And finally, one day, we’ll look with eyes dulled by sin at the love of a president for his goat.

The umbrage regressives express if anyone includes pederasty, incest, or zoophilia in discussions of homoeroticism points to their own pederastophobia, incestophobia, zoophobia, speciesism, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance—does it not? Haven’t they seen Edward Albee’s play The Goat, or Who is Sylvia? Who are they to judge anyway? Remember, love is love. Just curious, what  is the source of their moral disapproval of pederasty, consensual adult incest, and zoophilia?

Sharing the faux-outrage of faux-tolerant leftists, presidential hopeful Joe Biden, who identifies as a Catholic—a “Catholic” who believes human slaughter should remain legal and believes homoeroticism is something to be celebrated—said this:

I mean, my God. … Pete and I are competitors, but this guy has honor, he has courage.

Really? Buttigieg—who claims to love Christ, chooses to be in a type of relationship that God abhors, and mocks marriage as defined by Jesus Christ as the union of one man and one woman— “has honor”?

Buttigieg also huffed sanctimoniously,

I love my husband. I’m faithful to my husband. …  and I’m not going take lectures on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall Limbaugh or anyone else celebrating serial divorce and remarriage or suggesting that serial divorce and remarriage reflect “family values.” In contrast, Buttigieg extols homoerotic unions as embodying “family values.”

Buttigieg’s fidelity does not transform his intrinsically God-dishonoring relationship into an honorable one. If a widower entered into a consensual romantic and sexual relationship with his adult daughter would fidelity make it less dishonorable?

Several months ago, Buttigieg criticized Vice President Pence for being “the cheerleader of the porn star presidency.” Being a “cheerleader” for the good work of a man who has engaged in serious sin is wholly different from being a cheerleader for serious sin. There is a moral difference between engaging in serious sin and calling serious sin righteousness. Buttigieg not only engages in serious sin, but also cheerleads for sin.

If the beliefs of biblical scholars throughout history and still today are true that God detests homoerotic acts even as he loves those who in their fallenness choose to engage in them; if the beliefs of such scholars are true that absent repentance, those who celebrate homoerotic relationships will not see the kingdom of heaven, can it be hateful to say so?

Those who extol Buttigieg’s polyglot skills, academic successes, and military career should remember that voluntarily engaging in homoerotic acts is a character flaw—a serious character flaw. And unlike the character flaws of President Trump or Rush Limbaugh—which neither they nor anyone else views as virtues—Buttigieg’s character flaw is viewed by him and other regressives as a virtue worthy of celebration.

If homosexuality is God’s judgment on those “who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth,” what would the election of a homosexuality-celebrating president in a foul union that mocks marriage—which is a picture of Christ and his bride, the church—signify about America?

Any Republican who identifies as a Christ-follower and criticizes Rush Limbaugh for his comments is either a fool, a coward, or a heretic. If such Republicans running for office “decline to comment” when asked about his comments, they are cowards. Christians who put their career aspirations ahead of fidelity to truth about homosexuality don’t deserve their offices.

Remember that there is no greater threat to First Amendment speech, religious free exercise, and assembly protections or to parental rights than that posed by the toxic “LGBTQ”  movement—none.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

Our Weekly Podcast!
Have you given the IFA weekly podcast a listen yet? Illinois Family Spotlight highlights cultural and political issues of particular interest and relevance to Christian conservatives in Illinois. You can find Spotlight on podcast applications like Google Play Music, iTunes, SoundCloud, Pocket Casts, and Stitcher.  You can also listen to our podcasts HERE on our website.