"Breeders"

Written by Drew on August 1st, 2006

Residents of Provincetown, Massachusetts, have a term for heterosexual couples who come to their overwhelmingly-gay resort town. They call them “breeders.”

The derogatory term was “bred” (excuse the pun) out of the dispute over Massachusetts’ becoming the first and only state to legalize gay marriage. Provincetown’s population is almost entirely homosexual. So when a list of petitioners who were against the new act was made public on the internet, persecution ensued.

Forty-three of the 5,000 names listed on the petition were residents of Provincetown. And in a town of only 3,500, the minority is easy to find. There was a shouting match at a local grocery store, where a gay man called one of the signers of the petition a “bigot.” One woman claimed that same-sex marriage supporters put dog feces next to her car. Another found the list of petitioners on her windshield.

But I want to focus on the name “breeder.” We normally use it when speaking of animals–two fine-looking cocker spaniels, or a couple of thoroughbreds. When the term is used pejoratively of married couples, it is meant to disparage them into feeling they are less refined than the homosexuals. It should be no surprise to us that homosexuals view themselves as the elite. For decades, America’s art, literature, music and film–the pistons driving our culture–have been carefully crafted to cast homosexuality in a more positive light.

Years back, gays and lesbians were the ones accused of animalistic behavior. Homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The majority of the American population viewed it as unnatural and deviant behavior. But times have changed. Today we are being asked to accept what God abhors as something that is wholesome and natural.

The deadening effect on our society has been swift and effective. More persecution awaits those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle. Are Christians convicted enough to face it?

God has already spoken. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this deviant behavior (Gen. 19). It is called an “abomination” In Leviticus 18:22. Paul described homosexuality as “dishonorable,” “contrary to nature,” “shameless” and “error” (Rom. 1:26-27). It was “contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8-11). In another place he listed the sin among those things that will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Homosexuals can label their opponents as “breeders” if they want. But the word betrays the weakness of their position. Even in the absence of the Bible, God’s intentions regarding the sexes are plain. Homosexuals cannot reproduce because God made human beings male and female. Therefore, He has given us two witnesses through special and general revelation. Where the Bible has been ignored, let procreation instruct the deviant mind.

 

9 Comments so far ↓

  1. Sarah says:

    Hi there, I agree with you … You might want to read Mike Cope’s blog on how Christians should handle this issue: http://www.preachermike.com/index.php?s=gay

  2. Kevin W. Rhodes says:

    Mike Cope’s treatment of this subject, as with many other subejcts, is just plain wrong. I agree that sin is sin, but Mike glossed over the root problems and issues associated with homosexuality sociologically, politically, and biblically.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Shouldn’t we love the sinner but hate the sin? We’ll never bring others to Christ if we are filled with so much hatred toward other sinners.

  4. Anonymous says:

    God hates at least some sinners. “…a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers” (Proverbs 6:19).

  5. Drew Kizer says:

    I didn’t address the sinner in my article, although there is a place for that. I hope to talk about influencing the homosexual person for Christ soon.

    I spoke of the sin of homosexuality, and in accordance with the old addage, it is something we should “hate.”

    No, we will never bring a sinner to Christ by hating him. Neither will he be won by downplaying the seriousness of his iniquity. Many atrocities are committed in the name of love today, the worst being turning a blind eye to sin so that sinners will not be made to feel uncomfortable.

  6. The Berean Examiner says:

    At last, Something that we agree on.

  7. Kevin Rhodes says:

    I find it amazing that some equate confronting the sin with hatred of the sinner. This simply is not the case at all–or at least it is not with me and those I know.

    However, when we bow to the excuses of worldliness we have retreated from truth so that we are no longer in a position by which we can actually help the sinner out of sin.

    My point about Mike Cope’s treatment of this subject is that he essentially accepted the biological interpretation of homosexuality instead of addressing it as a completely moral issue. To act as if God made us preprogrammed for certain sins (as opposed to certain temptations requiring more will power than others) is counterfactual and unbiblical (Jas. 1:13; 1 Cor. 10:13).

  8. Anonymous says:

    I wonder what would happen if the church treated those who struggle with worry, gluttony, lust, and greed the same way we treat people who struggle with homosexuality? Homosexuality is a sin and should not be tolerated at all…… BUT unfortunately, we, as Christians behave in a behavior that demonstrates hostility and hatred for them, NOT compassion and help. Confronting the sin is not saying that you hate the person. However many Christians confront it with hateful comments and behavior.

  9. Kevin Rhodes says:

    I am saddened that this has been your experience with the way Christians behave.

Leave a Comment