Feb 2014 | Response to Marvin Olasky

Dr. Marvin Olasky has responded here to our critique of his column in World Magazine regarding Uganda’s legislative efforts to curb homosexuality. While we respect Dr. Olasky’s analysis and commentary in many areas, we disagree with his thinking in this instance. In fact, on its face, Olasky’s position (similar to that of many Evangelical leaders/commentators) leads to a troubling disregard of the importance of law in curbing and containing sexual sin, as well as a glossing over of the destructive consequences of homosexual behavior. As with our original critique, we excerpt Dr. Olasky’s post and provide our response below:


I’ve written often that homosexuality, like heterosexual adultery, is sinful, but the question is: What legal penalty should there be for such actions? All adultery has consequences and should be penalized (our no-fault divorce laws have contributed to family destruction and should be repealed), but should we imprison adulterers for life? Unless we favor life sentences for heterosexual sin I don’t think we should for homosexual sin. (emphasis added)

FRI’s Response

Under orthodox Christian belief, all sin separates us as human beings from God. In that spiritual sense, all sin – whether heterosexual, homosexual, lying, cheating, rape, murder, whatever – opens the same chasm between us and God that can only be bridged by Jesus Christ. However, we impose legal penalties for certain kinds of sin in recognition that the temporal effects of sin differ, often greatly. Raping your neighbor’s daughter or saying an unkind word to your neighbor may equally keep you from God, but we clearly understand the need to legally punish the first in order to serve several purposes:

  1. administer justice to the wrong-doer;
  2. deter other would-be rapists;
  3. educate our society about the seriousness of rape as a destructive behavior.

In human society, the ramifications and effects of different sins are not equal. Neither is homosexual behavior equal to heterosexual sin in seriousness or impact. Heterosexual relations – even sinful ones – can create children for the future; homosexual relations contribute nothing. Indeed, homosexual behavior increases all kinds of costs to society and tends to spread disease far more than heterosexual sin.


I agree with the statement from a missionary in Uganda that churches should show godly love toward active homosexuals, as God has shown godly love toward us…. Godly love means focusing on Christ and following Him by fighting against sin – starting with the sin in our own lives. Showing God’s love includes persuading sinners about the wrongfulness and consequences of sin, and the glory of God’s grace.

FRI’s Response

Are Christians to abandon the public square and the responsibility of making law in favor of a ‘one-on-one’ attempt to persuade “sinners about the wrongfulness and consequences of sin, and the glory of God’s grace”? Hardly. While we have an obligation to witness to others, we also have an obligation to protect ourselves, our neighbors, and – especially – our children from those who act on homosexual desires. Abandoning our responsibilities to influence public policy is not only silly, it means we relinquish lawmaking to non-Christians.


The greatness of God’s love means that Christians should never suffer from “homophobia.” Some non-Christians may fear homosexuals and homosexuality, but Christians should have no fear in the same way that we should have no fear of adulterers, thieves, and liars. God is in charge of their lives and our lives, and we should fear only Him.

FRI’s Response

Once again, Dr. Olasky uses an ambiguous propaganda term coined by the gay movement. ‘Homophobic’ is applied to anyone who finds homosexual activity wrong, disgusting, or dangerous and/or to anyone who seeks to avoid those who practice homosexuality and to protect oneself, others, and especially children from such a person. It is used to conger up the same reaction as ‘racist’ or ‘bigot.’ A pre-loaded term like this has no place in Christian discourse.

While God is ultimately in control of human affairs, Scripture warns us time and again to be prudent and careful in our dealings with others, especially those actively engaged in sin. As Galatians 6:1 says, “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.” Or Jude 23b: “to others show mercy, mixed with fear – hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” While we need not have an overriding spirit of fear, knowing that God has conquered death and sin, it is quite right to fear dangerous situations or destructive or corrupting individuals, so that we may prudently avoid them (“Do not be misled: ‘bad company corrupts good character’” 1 Cor 15:33). And there are many examples where one might legitimately fear the effects of homosexual behavior, to wit:

  1. Over 3,000 American have died from HIV-contaminated blood donated by those who acted on their homosexual desires;
  2. In the last 10 months of U.S. news reports, about half the children who were molested and/or raped, were molested by those with homosexual interests.


God is able to turn homosexuals away from their sinful practices as He has turned us away from ours.

FRI’s Response

In a sense, there are no ‘homosexuals.’ The Apostle Paul condemns ‘males who have sex with males,’ which is both more precise and less deceptive than labeling as ‘homosexuals’ those who act upon their homosexual desires. Gay activists and the psychiatric professions have reason to use the term “homosexuals” – the former to ‘be a people’ and the latter to bill for a ‘condition.’ But those who so strongly prefer Kraft Macaroni and Cheese that they will eat almost nothing else are no more ‘Krafts’ than those are ‘homosexuals’ who so strongly prefer homosexual sex that they will seldom have heterosexual sex.

The reality is that the vast majority of males who have sex with males have also had sex with females, and almost all females who have had sex with females have had sex with males! ‘Gays’ and ‘lesbians’ may currently prefer sex with others of their sex, but they will, and do, have sex with the opposite sex depending on the situation. Indeed, a large minority of gays and a majority of lesbians report having “been in love with” a member of the opposite sex. We agree with Alfred Kinsey that homosexual interests are a ‘preference.’ The use of the weird term ‘orientation’ is largely to obfuscate the fact that who you have sex with is a choice and not at all necessary to survive, unlike, say, breathing or eating.


The question again is: What should be the man-imposed penalty for sin? Do we imprison for life idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, or slanderers? Should we imprison for life homosexuals? Is that the best way to impress upon sinners the wondrous joy of having a share in God’s kingdom?

FRI’s Response

Not all sin warrants public laws against it. But many sins do, including many sexual sins. In the past, the Christian Church saw fit to lobby for public legal sanctions against fornication, rape, adultery, divorce, bestiality, incest, child molestation, etc. Some of those sanctions are still on the books and enforced, with little complaint (e.g., rape, child molestation). Until quite recently, homosexual activity also was illegal everywhere in the United States – in direct line with Christian influence – along with almost every other country.

But now under pressure from gay activists and the apathy of a modern Church which is frankly ignorant of the destructive consequences of homosexual behavior and eager to regard homosexuality as a kind of ‘victimless crime’ even if perhaps still sinful (similar to fornication, adultery, or divorce), American legal sanctions against homosexuality have been expunged and the race begun toward full gay marriage rights.

We believe it is a profound mistake for Christians to ignore these changes in public policy and law, and to instead adopt the position that the only way forward is personal evangelism to homosexuals or, worse, accepting ‘co-existence’ with homosexuality with the rationale that ‘nothing else can be done,’ ‘it’s only fair,’ ‘I can’t impose my personal beliefs on others,’ or ‘I know some homosexuals; it can’t really be all that bad now, can it?’

The historic Christian Church lobbied for laws against homosexual behavior, deeming it a personal and societal threat. Today, we should do no less. Depending on the severity of the homosexual offense, a fine, prison time or even capital punishment is warranted. The most important thing is to make it illegal, and thus keep those who fancy it (or seem addicted to it), off the streets, out of schools, with no ‘right’ to proselytize or advertise their preferences. (Current Russian law tries to do this without making the activity illegal; in most of the West, it must be made illegal first.)

Historically, the Church believed that legitimizing homosexuality would corrupt all of society into partaking and/or protecting it, and would endanger children especially. Consider a relevant case taking place today. Larry Brinkin, 67, is the gay lawyer credited with bringing ‘gay marriage’ into law in California. For his achievement, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors proclaimed the week of Feb. 1, 2010, “Larry Brinkin Week,” for his “dedication to advance the civil rights of all people has never stopped.”

While the king of Uganda killed those he wanted to sodomize for non-compliance, Larry helped sentence tiny little boys to violent sexual abuse. From court documents it appears Larry was a viewer/participant in the sodomizing of toddlers, got caught in June 2012, was prosecuted, and just this past month (1/21/14) pled guilty. So far, Larry has spent one night in jail, but remains free as we write.

Was this prominent homosexual an innocent – trapped by some diabolical prosecutorial scheme? His emails contained lots of imagery that showed children “as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men.” Did someone else put them there? No, consider what he wrote about one scene

I loved especially the nig##r 2 year old getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond bi#ch is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White D#ck Rules!

Another email contained an image of

an approximately 2–3 year old child [white boy]… Underneath… is an adult male [Black man], using his right hand to hold the child and his left hand to insert his erect p#n#s into the an#s of the child.

Underneath, Brinkin wrote

damn, what a sight seeing huge d##k in tiny hole, tearing it open. That nig##r must be in coon heaven stuffin it in the tiny white hole!

Though Larry Brinkin is but one example, he is not an isolated, extreme, or ‘fringe’ case. He was in fact celebrated as one of the leading gay activists and a key architect of the gay marriage movement. Why would someone supposedly on the ‘right side of history’ in correcting the ‘moral injustice’ of ‘oppression’ against homosexuality act in such a way? Could it be a confirmation of the historic Christian belief that legitimizing and legalizing homosexuality will lead to societal corruption and child endangerment? We believe so in Larry’s case for at least three reasons:

  • The media falsely portrayed what Larry did. Here’s how Vivian Ho of the main-stream San Francisco Chronicle reported it (1/21/14):

Authorities said e-mail attachments were found… that contained images of toddlers engaged in sex acts with men.

There’s porn and then there’s utterly horrible porn. What Larry said about this gut-wrenching porn has been all over the internet since his arrest in 2012, yet Ho relates it as “toddlers engaged in sex acts with men.” Ho’s account is as ‘sensitive’ to gay feelings as possible. We can just imagine the cheerful little guys toddling around, ‘having fun with the men they love.’ If the tikes were voluntarily participating as her description implies, how deep their corruption. But even if they were, it would still be incredibly brutal rape – re-read Brinkin’s approving commentary. The journalists and editors of this newspaper, as with almost all of the main-stream media, have severely corrupted themselves.

  • Justice was subverted. Being tried in San Francisco, with its ‘discrimination in favor of homosexuals,’ got Larry Brinkin an unusually light sentence. Prosecutors originally charged him with six felony counts of possessing and distributing child pornography, but dropped all but one felony count of possession as part of a plea bargain. Larry was emailing somebody about the images, i.e., he was distributing. But being gay and important, Brinkin is assured of no more than six months in county jail, six months of home detention, five years of probation, lifetime registration as a sex offender, undergoing “sex offender therapy,” and being

banned from working with kids, contacting a juvenile without parental consent, and living with someone responsible for a child without disclosing his offender status.

Notice the last phrase? Brinkin is ‘married’ to a ‘husband’ and was allowed to adopt a boy, so he will soon have to confine his interests to that young fellow. Oh, and Larry remains free – as he has been since June of 2012. He stays free until he is sentenced on March 5. All in all, for such utter depravity, a slap. What do you want to bet Brinkin will find a way to stay on the prowl and avoid jail entirely?

  • All taxpayers will still pay for Larry Brinkin. The City of San Francisco will pay his retirement “since he did not commit ‘moral turpitude’”! According to reporter Ho,

Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits.

You can just hear the relief from many libertarians. Larry didn’t steal money, so he’s OK, the treasury is OK, his privacy is protected, and the world is saved.

What punishment does this monster deserve? He has had a hand in ruining the lives of at least two future citizens – undoubtedly many more – in one of the most terrible ways imaginable. Not only are these two little boys’ lives almost certainly ruined (if they are still alive), but we will all pay for these little guys as they grow up. Likely some of our sons and a daughter or two will pay for being near them at the wrong time. (A search of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza’s computer uncovered computer files on the rights of pedophiles, a movie about man/boy love, and instant messages concerning homosexual fantasies.)

Once it is legalized, homosexuality seeks to grow. Many of those ‘sold out’ to homosexual desires (e.g., ‘gays’) seek boys (and sometimes girls) to corrupt into their image. Since a quarter of gays admit to molesting/raping children or teens, and about one of every 7 gay priests has been caught molesting/raping children or teens, it is quite possible that at least a third of men with homosexual interests have done the same.

Because homosexuality is accepted in Pakistan and Afghanistan, 15–30% of boys there are at risk of quasi-socially sanctioned rape (just Google “the dancing boys of Afghanistan”). In light of the reporting and sentencing of Larry Brinkin in our gay-friendly city of San Francisco, our boys may be ‘on the way’ to a similar fate.

When homosexual behavior is made legal, it influences how our society views homosexual practitioners and their activities. News accounts (and perceptions) change from “rape of children is terrible” to “sex with kids is one of those things.” When homosexuals get sufficient influence, they attempt to corrupt all of society (witness Pakistan and Afghanistan) into the service of homosexual desires. And even as the rape of boys in Pakistan is something a large minority of citizens finds a matter of pride and part of their culture, so now a large minority of U.S. citizens (including our President) regards protection of those who act on their homosexual interests a matter to celebrate.

So what punishment ought Brinkin, who ‘only’ egged on the rapes, deserve? Honorable Christians can disagree. But in a society largely influenced by the Christian Church, we suspect a harsh punishment would be imposed. Certainly never to walk free again, perhaps even death. Instead, because Larry is in San Francisco – a locale corrupted from top to bottom by his and his mates’ presence and acceptance – he has only spent one night in jail. Look again at the few remarks we know he made. At the very least he should not be walking around, enjoying life, and doing his best to reach other boys before bars restrain him.

Could Larry repent, accept Christ, and end up in heaven? Yes. But Larry is quite a smart fellow. He knows ‘the Christian drill,’ and he has fought to smash it. No wise church will invite him to fellowship no matter how taken it is with the theologically-dubious “godly love and kindness towards active homosexuals.”

Indeed, if Uganda is to learn anything from us, it is to be harsh with those who choose to act on homosexual desires. Uganda, especially its boys, will suffer otherwise.