“Same-sex marriages” — redefining marriage and fidelity

Via Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret – NYTimes.com.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

Of course not!  That is the dirty little secret of the gay world: They will have literally hundreds of sex partners over the course of their lives, often anonymous.  How soul-crushing is that?  It does explain why gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men  .  Meditate on that for a moment.  How evil and vile do you have to be to knowingly risk infecting others with a deadly disease, just because you don’t want to wear a condom when having sex?  That is one of the most profoundly selfish acts imaginable, yet the mainstream media and “comprehensive sex education” classes never tell you about these things.

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

Yep.  You wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of the agenda.  Just go watch some more episodes of Modern Family, people.  Nothing to see here.  Whatever you do, don’t apply critical thinking skills or the Bible.

According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules.

That is how it works for Chris and James. Over drinks upstairs at the venerable Twin Peaks Tavern in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, they beamed as they recalled the day in June 2008 that they donned black suits and wed at City Hall, stunned by the outpouring of affection from complete strangers. “Even homeless people and bike messengers were congratulating us,” said Chris, 42.

A couple since 2002, they opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.

Oh, well if you have some rules and check in with each other before having sex with other people that’s fine.

Seriously, the NY Times title was ironic enough, calling relationships with built-in infidelity “successful.”   I guess if you are redefining marriage you can redefine whatever you like.

And the fact that the “pro-gay Christians” ignore this rampant infidelity while advocating for “same-sex marriage” because the unions are allegedly “loving” is just more proof of their being false teachers.

An atheist found one absolute moral law. Guess which politically correct one it is?

Atheists often have in-house debates over morality.  Some try to pretend that there really could be objective morality under atheism (e.g., Christopher Hitchens, for all his poor reasoning, was anti-abortion).  Others are more consistent with their worldview — well, they try to be until someone does something bad to them — and insist that there are no universal morals.  They are pure moral relativists, acknowledging that we’ve (allegedly) evolved to “think” there are morals, but that these are really just personal preferences.

One of the latter group has had a change of heart.  Sort of.  Via Professor Larry Moran squares the circle:

Professor Larry Moran has recently created something which he has previously declared to be impossible: a moral absolute. Readers might be wondering: what is Professor Moran’s moral absolute all about? Is it about the inherent wrongfulness of killing the innocent, or taking away people’s freedom, or oppressing the poor, or violating a commitment one has given? Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong! Here’s Professor Moran’s new moral absolute, in all its resplendent glory:

“It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences… There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry.”

The reason why I was surprised to read this statement on Professor Moran’s blog is that he has previously denied the existence of moral absolutes. Here are a few examples of statements he has made on the subject of morality, and on how we can know that something is true . . .

How fitting that he picked our society’s most politically protected sins to declare off-limits for criticism! He is a Romans 1 poster boy. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness by denying that God exists, then “gives approval to those who practice” exhibit A in God’s list of sins that suppression of truth leads to.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

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.

You can’t make up things like this.  2,000 years ago the Holy Spirit inspired Romans 1, and here it perfectly describes this atheist.  He suppresses the truth by saying there is no God and no moral laws, then he makes up one moral law that goes against God’s first example of where suppression of the truth leads.

Atheists simply can’t live consistently with their worldview.  I hope God makes Moran and others spiritually alive so they can repent and believe.  There is a better way to live than by using the talents God gave you to shake your fist at him 24×7.

Heterosexual supporters of “same-sex marriage” are going to get mugged by reality

Here’s why: Their support for these “marriages” will also justify support for polygamy, polyamory, bi-sexual multiple marriages and more — and their spouses will have the option to participate in those without their consent.  The woman who supports “same-sex marriage” today may regret it when her husband brings home another woman — or another man — to legally share her home and finances.

Please read this post carefully so you’ll be able to show people how the pro-gay movement can have deep and personal impacts on them.  This is not a “slippery slope” fallacy, it is a logical slippery slope (or, as I like to call it, a cliff argument), where the arguments for one position automatically support another position as well.  And don’t say, “That can’t happen!,” because it is already getting mainstreamed.  

The consequences are huge and have already manifested themselves in many places.  Their agenda has and will continue to cost people their personal liberties, religious freedom and parental rights — and those are design features, not bugs.

There is a simple reason that the gay lobby focuses mostly on the “LG” (lesbian and gay) part of the LGBTQX alphabet soup: The reasoning of the rest of the acronym is harder to sell because of the logical consequences.  But if they can get the first part affirmed and codified then it will be too late to backtrack to prevent the rest from taking place.  Case in point: Have you noticed how they never talk about bisexuals and their “civil rights” to be able to marry at least one person of each sex?  After all, all the same arguments for gays and lesbians should apply to them.

We have such obvious and sound arguments on our side.  By nature and design, one man / one woman relationships produce the next generation and only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.  Therefore, the government has an interest in those unions, because they form the foundation of society.  We don’t even have to use religious arguments, though of course God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages and homosexual behavior is a sin.  The Bible could not be more clear.

But our arguments have often been ineffective.  Why?  Because the foundational lie of the gay lobby works so well.  They combine a lie (“Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others”) with the truth (“We will relentlessly harm you if you disagree”) and that is too much for many people to withstand.  They have made it very easy for people to switch sides and repeat false sound bites (they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about it, it prevents bullying, it doesn’t hurt you, they love each other, we shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage, etc.).  People are really good at rationalizing lies to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

So I encourage you to try this reasoning: Ask the other person if they’d mind if their spouse (current or future) decided to maintain their relationship and marry someone else of the opposite sex — or the same sex.  Would that bother them?  If so, why aren’t they living consistently — even just hypothetically! — with their own worldview?  If they claim it wouldn’t bother them, ask if you can use your home polygraph test on them.  The other person may lie to you and pretend that they wouldn’t care, but you will have given them something to think about.  Later in the post I’ll show what that conversation could look like.

The argument takes the pro-gay reasoning to its logical conclusions and shows how most people will not like the possibilities.  That should help them re-think their entire argument.

It starts by demonstrating the truth that marriage is something we describe, not define.  As Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has noted, marriage has always described something that existed: A union of a man and a woman.  But if people think marriage is something we get to define, then anything goes.  Sure, they pretend that they just want to define it as any two adults who love each other, etc.  But why pull up the drawbridge there?  If you choose to define it rather than describe it, then why can’t others define it their way?

Then it points out the logical conclusions: If marriage isn’t just a union of a man and a woman, then why can’t it involve three people?  Why can’t it be polygamous?  Why can’t a man have a wife and a husband in two separate but simultaneous marriages?  Why can’t you marry your dog?  As Koukl notes, when the other person says those are silly examples, you get to agree with them!  Yes, they are silly — but they are your arguments, not mine.  If your position is that we can define marriage how we like, these possibilities are open for others who are more “open minded” than you are.

Here’s how that conversation might look.  Remember to be nice!  This doesn’t have to be combative.  You aren’t trying to grind them into a fine powder, you want them to see where their worldview is taking them.  Oh, and you want to work the Gospel in wherever you can.

Christian: So what do you think of this “same-sex marriage” and adoptions by gay people?

Pro-gay person: I’m all for it.  Hey, they love each other and that’s what it is all about.  You have a civil right to marry who you like.  It doesn’t hurt me or my marriage.  And the Bible never said it is wrong.

And gay people adopting is fine. Kids need love from anyone.  It doesn’t have to be a male and a female.

C: Actually, the Bible couldn’t be more clear, and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people agree that it considers homosexual behavior sinful.  We can come back to that if you like.

So do you think marriage is something you define or describe?  I mean, is marriage a thing that exists and then we describe it, or is it just a word that we can change the definition of?

P: I think we can redefine it.  It used to be that interracial marriage was forbidden.

C: But the definition was the same: A union of a man and a woman.  So if you can redefine it, I assume you are OK with polygamy, polyamory (group marriage), polyandry (multiple husbands), one or more spouse of each sex, marriages to animals, etc.?

P: Oh, don’t be silly.

C: I agree that those are silly, but they are your arguments, not mine.  If marriage is something you define, then who are you to say others can’t define it their way?  All the same things apply: It is the same love, they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about them, etc.

P: But those things won’t happen.

C: They can and they will.  The polygamy and pedophilia movements are already latching onto the gay agenda gains and using the same reasoning. ABC just ran a fluff piece on polygamy and The Atlantic is advocating for polyamory.  This is how they change the culture to accept what used to be unthinkable.  Who would have predicted 10-15 years ago where we’d be now with “same-sex marriage?”  Who would have thought that Christian bakers could lose their businesses for not baking cakes for same-sex “weddings?”

So why are you pulling up the drawbridge on these other people who want to live out the way they were born?  How do their loving relationships hurt you?  If a bisexual was born that way, how can you deny him the fulfillment of marrying a man and a woman?

And who says that you can only love one person?  Why can’t a man or a woman have two or more spouses of any gender?

Real feminists should hate where this is headed.  Women will devote their youth to raising kids, only to have their husband be able to bring another partner into the household.

P: Well, I guess . . .

C: You are married with kids, right?

P: Yes, I’ve been married to my husband for 12 years and we have 2 kids.

C: OK, so consider this: Your husband comes home and tells you he loves you and wants to stay married to you, but he has always been attracted to men as well.  And there is a man he really loves.  So for him to be complete he is also going to marry him.  His “husband” will live in your house with you and your kids and they will have sex together.    

P: That’s ridiculous.

C: But it could happen, right?  Lots of men have abandoned families for gay lovers and women have left for lesbian relationships.  Episcopalian “Bishop” Gene Robinson is a Leftist hero for leaving his wife and kids for his gay lover.  Why shouldn’t these guys stay married and just add on?

Again, I’m using your born that way / same love / etc. logic.

So what would you do in that situation?

P: But our vows were to “forsake all others.”

C: Uh, sorry, but are you not familiar with no-fault divorce?  Wedding vows used to be like a real contract where you couldn’t unilaterally abandon your obligation.  But with no-fault divorce either party can leave for any reason.  So with the political clout LGBTQ people have things like this are inevitable.

P: Well, my husband would never do that.

C: Probably not, but if he had wanted to he probably wouldn’t have told you until society and your Left-leaning church decided that “same-sex marriage” was a civil right.

Again, what would you do?  It is just a hypothetical based on taking your views to their logical conclusions, so please don’t be offended.

P: Well, I’d divorce him.  Or I’d marry another husband!

C: And what makes you think another guy would want to be involved in that?!  “Yeah, my husband married a guy that shares our bed now, so I want a second husband.”

Wouldn’t you want your husband to be happy and fulfilled and to be who he really is?

P: Not at my expense!

C: Indeed.  So if you divorced him, do you realize that some Leftist judge would probably give him parental rights? 

P: No way!

C: Way.  Think about it: You and society have decided that it is illegal for adoption agencies to “discriminate” against gay couples.  So they are “obviously” just as fit to parent your kids as a heterosexual couple.  And there would be two of them — your husband and his lover — versus just one of you.  And given how politically incorrect it would be to give custody to you, the judge would almost certainly side with them.  

So the logical conclusion of your worldview would be you — or someone else — either living with your spouse and his new spouse (man or woman) and you would have no legal control over it.

P: I still don’t think that would happen.

C: It will, because the logic is already in place once you grant civil rights to sexual preferences — whether allegedly inborn or not.  

Let’s try another example: Regular polygamy.  I picked the “bisexual polygamy” first because, oddly enough, they are ahead of the regular polygamists in getting civil rights for their sexual preferences.  But how can you argue against polygamy at all?  At least those relationships fit the original definition of marriage — that is, one man and one woman.  By nature and design they could produce children and provide a mother and a father to them.  They “just” involved more than one of those relationships.  

P: But polygamy is wrong! [Note: The Leftists may not even think it is wrong, but I assumed so in this case to make it harder to convince them.]

C: We agree, but you’ve already made the case for them: They love each other (“same love!”), they were born that way, etc.  They can even claim that there are more parents around to love the kids.  So your support of government recognition of same-sex unions unwittingly made the case for polygamy.

So here’s another hypothetical: What if your husband decides he’d like a younger wife but doesn’t want the costly divorce?  He’ll be able to marry someone whether you like it or not and bring her into your house.  She would share in all you have built up over the years and actually live with you.  Think of the guys who dump their spouses for “trophy wives.”  Polygamy may be much simpler and cheaper for them.

P: My husband would never do that!

C: But if society tells him it is OK, he might change his mind.  Remember how much people are influenced by the “if it is legal then it must be moral” line of thinking.  Even Planned Parenthood said this about abortion in a 1964 advertisement: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”  Just years later half the population thought that abortion was an inalienable right and a completely moral solution.  So give it a decade or two and it may seem natural for your husband to consider a younger model.

And even though the Bible clearly teaches that God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages for life, it is a thousand times easier to twist the Bible to support polygamy than it is to support “same-sex marriage.”

And even if your husband wouldn’t do that, what about all the other women and children impacted by it?

Now don’t feel like you have to answer me now, or at all, but I encourage you to think carefully about these things and see if perhaps you should reconsider your views.  If you think I’ve stated something incorrectly or illogically, please let me know.  But I firmly believe that those are all logical consequences of assigning civil rights to sexual preferences. Even if gays were born that way, there are no good reasons for the government to get involved in their relationships and there are many bad things that will inevitably happen — if not to you, then to others.

And please remember what the word of God says about this:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

God created this world and knows exactly how it works.  Living in denial of that reality is always a recipe for pain.  The Good News is that all sins can be forgiven through repenting and trusting in Jesus.

—–

Conclusion: I encourage you to try this reasoning with people who hold pro-LGBTQ views.  I think it is a provocative way to get them to quit spouting fallacious sound bites and to think more carefully about the logical conclusions of their views.  Yes, it is an emotional argument, but one grounded in facts and logic.  The Left falsely uses emotional arguments, but there is nothing wrong with use using them properly.

——

By the way, if you a conservative using this on a Left-leaning spouse, be sure to tell them these are hypothetical situations!  You don’t want them to freak out too badly.

“But I prayed for God do take the desire away and He didn’t, therefore it isn’t a sin”

The title is a synopsis of the sad and illogical argument used by many in the “Christian” LGBTQ community to rationalize their sins.  And the theological Left supports them in this charade because they love the world and themselves more than they love God and their neighbors.

Here’s an example from a recent comment on the Heterosexual questionnaire, aka Best. Homework assignment. Ever. post.

I’ve dealt specifically with scriptures in regards to homosexuality for many years. I struggled with accepting myself and had prayed every night for many months for God to “change” me, which according to my sister was not long enough. However, I was changed: I finally accepted that I was attracted to men and not women. I moved on. And I became much happier and closer to God. And I found the love of my life who I will marry as soon as my state clears the legal path for me to do so.

So he prayed to God to change his sexual desires and God didn’t answer that request.  Instead, God allegedly changed him to accept those desires, even though that goes against the clear teachings of the Bible and 2,000 years of church history.

Those making that claim have the burden to show Bible verses that teach this:

- If you pray for God to remove a temptation, he will do it 100% of the time.
– Therefore, if he doesn’t remove the temptation, it isn’t a sin.

That is transparently false. I could pray that God would eliminate every possible sin from my life. He could solve that by striking me dead, of course, but if He didn’t take away the desires then it wouldn’t be an excuse for me to sin.

If you have given yourself over to homosexual behavior then it isn’t God you’ve moved closer to.

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.

We are all sinners in need of a Savior.  The solution isn’t to pretend that our sins aren’t sins.  The solution is Jesus, who can forgive our sins and give us the Holy Spirit to transform us and to give us power over sin.  Yes, we will still sin, as Romans 7 and other passages teach, but our lives will be transformed now and forever.

If you love your neighbors you won’t encourage them to sear their consciences by pretending that sins aren’t sins — whether the sins are homosexual desires, inappropriate heterosexual desires, lust, anger, greed, jealousy, etc.

Really, people, just say something like, “Yes, homosexual behavior is a sin.  The word of God is clear.  But I’m not going to grandstand on that sin just because it isn’t a temptation for me and I’m not going to try and stop you from sinning before I share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with you.  Even if homosexual behavior wasn’t sinful you’d still be a sinner in need of a Savior because of countless other sins.”

Yes, you are likely to be unpopular with the world if you say that.  But if that is your aim then Christianity may not be for you.

——–

Here is the full comment and my response from that post:

Hi Matt,

Thanks for visiting and commenting. I have a couple thoughts to share aside from the survey topic.

You are entitled to your opinion like anyone else. I would just strongly encourage anyone, liberal or conservative, gay or straight, to drop this strong ‘us vs them’ mentality. I would like Christians to adhere to their beliefs and continue to be strong devotees to Christ while simultaneously acknowledging that homosexuality is not an immoral behavior/lifestyle/affliction in and of itself (although who cares what I would like).

While I don’t think the “us vs. them” has to be hostile — even though the LGBTQ lobby certainly is hostile and not interested in any sort of compromise, such as leaving religious liberties intact — what you proposed is completely illogical. What you have said is basically, “Be devoted to Christ but disagree with him on what He says about sexuality.” That is impossible. He is King and Lord of all, so to be devoted to him is to agree with him. And He was very clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

Any sex outside of marriage is prohibited, for good reason: that’s a given. But, if you are going to take the INTERPRETATION that certain Greek and Hebrew words were referring to LGBT people and strongly admonish people for identifying as such, then please be consistent. I would assume you also wear clothes of only one material (Deuteronomy 22:11). Indeed, I would expect all Christians who speak out about the destructive nature of homosexuality and back it up with biblical reasoning, to follow most of the hundreds of prohibitions and commandments found throughout the Bible. I should not assume that you do not.

That is a sadly common argument, but one that is false. The literalists who assume that to be consistent with Christ’s teachings on homosexuality (and adultery, etc.) means we must follow every civil and ceremonial law given to the Israelites make two errors. One is that they ignore the distinctions of what God commanded a specific group of people at a point in time relative to his broader commandments to all people. The second is that even if their argument was true it would prove too much, as it implies that unless you wear clothes of the same material then you are inconsistent to argue against any sin, including bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, gay-bashing, etc. That is ridiculous, of course.

Those type of “inconsistency” allegations are full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address six serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument. http://tinyurl.com/shellfishflaws

But just as you would probably assume that I as a gay man have lots of anonymous sex and use drugs

I wouldn’t have assumed that, though now that you brought it up the statistics say that it is more likely. Whether you have one partner or 100 it is a sin. And you would be 40+ times more likely to get HIV/Syphilis and if you had HIV there is a 62% chance that you would have deliberate unprotected sex.

I’ve dealt specifically with scriptures in regards to homosexuality for many years. I struggled with accepting myself and had prayed every night for many months for God to “change” me, which according to my sister was not long enough. However, I was changed: I finally accepted that I was attracted to men and not women. I moved on. And I became much happier and closer to God. And I found the love of my life who I will marry as soon as my state clears the legal path for me to do so.

Please show me the Bible verses that teach this:
– If you pray for God to remove a temptation, he will do it 100% of the time.
– Therefore, if he doesn’t remove the temptation, it isn’t a sin.

That is false. I could pray that God would eliminate every possible sin from my life. He could solve that by striking me dead ;-), of course, but if He didn’t answer it then it wouldn’t be an excuse for me to sin.

If you have given yourself over to homosexual behavior then it isn’t God you’ve moved closer to. 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.

The Bible clearly states that certain men are “born eunuchs” (Matthew 19:12) as in they were not meant to marry women and procreate. In the historical context, eunuchs were simply the men entrusted to serve & protect aristocratic women. Some were already disinterested in bedding the women, which was a prerequisite, while others had to be castrated. If Jesus accepts us as such, then maybe you should, too.

You twisted Jesus’ words to imply that eunuchs = homosexuals, while you ignore the rest of Jesus’ words (i.e., the entire Bible, including his design and ideal for marriage: one man and one woman. Using your reasoning, castration would be a more logical solution than “marrying” someone of the same sex.

The most important thing to remember is that we are all in this society together. I don’t want to live in a crumbling empire spiraling into debauchery and decadence any more than any of you do. Constant partying, promiscuity, and drug use are all recipes for disaster. They are fun for a time I guess, but ultimately lead to misery and isolation. Anyone (gay, bi , straight, trans, etc) can fall into this trap. One of the main reasons there is a ‘gay partying subculture’ is because same-sex couples were excluded from the stabilizing affects of social expectation and pressure to settle down in a permanent monogamous relationship. Marriage fosters strong bonds and rock-solid family foundations which strengthens social cohesion. That’s why I support marriage as much as I do critical thought and compassioned reason.

I agree that less sin is better than more sin. But if I really care about you and your eternal soul then I can’t affirm your homosexual behavior as not being sinful. I hope you study the Bible more carefully and reconsider your views.

All the best to you!

Also see:

Problems with pro-gay theology http://tinyurl.com/5sgoqvv

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/respondingtoprogaytheologypartip344.php

Responding to same-sex marriage arguments http://wp.me/p1wGU-48E

The New Jersey issue is bigger than the Duck Dynasty issue

The Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson topic has received tons of attention, and deservedly so.  But the bigger issue is how the pro-LGBTQ groups aren’t satisfied with merely redefining marriage in an anti-biblical way, but how they won’t rest until they have completely stamped out religious freedom and forced churches to affirm their activities.  The A&E issue is a sad commentary on our society, but the New Jersey issue is about the power of Big Government to suppress religious freedom.

Via Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality:

Earlier this week state Senate Democrats in New Jersey pulled from consideration a bill that would write gay marriage, already legal in New Jersey by court order, into the law books. The reason: the bill contained religious exemptions.  Loretta Weinberg, the Senate Majority Leader, said she pulled the bill after pressure from an LGBTQ legal group, Lambda Legal.

“They don’t want any kind of religious exemption, so out of respect for that, I will (pull the bill),” Weinberg said.

Re-read that carefully: They don’t want any kind of religious exemption.  None.  It isn’t about their freedom to do what they want.  They’ve had that for years.  No one is preventing their relationships and/or promiscuous sex, or even doing anything to stop 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive who have unprotected sex with men.  This is about silencing Christians and forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

“There’s a disparate group of people and it’s hard to follow what they want, so I’m following Lambda Legal.”

The decision by New Jersey Democrats and A&E are similar. When pressured by LGBTQ groups, organizations and politicians will choose to silence Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Many Christians have assumed that they would be allowed reasonable exemptions and accommodations based on religious liberty. But LGBTQ activists have made it clear (and have said so from the beginning) that unconditional acceptance of homosexuality is the only option. Normalization and public support, rather than mere legal recognition, is the end goal.

Religious believers who think they can avoid the issue are deluding themselves. While we may not have a hit reality show that we can get fired from, we will be pressured in numerous ways to make it clear that we will not speak or act publicly in a way that supports the biblical view of homosexuality. The objective of the activists is to marginalize Christian views on sexual norms until they can be outlawed in the public square. Many Christians have already and will continue to gleefully work to ensure this becomes a reality. But for faithful Christians, allowing our biblical witness to be silenced is not an option. Like Phil Robertson we must all say, “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

Make no mistake: Satan won’t rest until he has silenced Christians.  That will never happen completely, of course, but there is a rocky road coming up.  Many of us have warned of these logical consequences for years, but too many Christians thought they could sit on the fence.  There is no fence.

But be encouraged!  God always wins in the end.  Don’t be afraid to stand up for the truth.

A&E shocked to find out that Phil Robertson, a Christian, believes the word of God.

Breaking news: ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks.

I think they picked on the wrong guy.  This should be interesting.  I’m pretty sure that the Duck Dynasty fans won’t take kindly to Phil Robertson being shelved for speaking his mind about what God says about human sexuality and sin.  I’m reminded of Esther 4:14 For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

My guess is that Phil won’t be back without an apology from A&E.  He already threatened to cancel the show for making it look like they were swearing with fake bleeps and for cutting out the prayers and mentions of Jesus.

The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine. He’ll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

Their problem is with God, not Phil Robertson.  Homosexual behavior and bestiality were condemned by God in subsequent verses in Leviticus 18: 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.  

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.  100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.  100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children). 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine.

And he’s right.  That is part of the pathology.  Gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men.  How twisted is that to deliberately have sex with people knowing you could be giving them a deadly disease?  Why isn’t that front page news?

“That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

 

During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Yep.  Note how he also included sleeping with lots of women as a sin.  Will the fornicators call him a hater as well?

GLAAD on Wednesday condemned his remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.”

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson WilsonCruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.

Uh, sure, because GLAAD is the go-to source for authentic Christian beliefs!  And note how they refer to allegedly popular opinion and not what the Bible says.

Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Robertson released his own statement in response: “I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

So Phil admits he was a sinner who needed a Savior, and now he wants to tell other sinners about that Savior.  Oh, the humanity!

Duck Dynasty has become a breakout hit for A&E, regularly luring 9 million-plus viewers.

A&E milks Duck Dynasty.  I started watching it last Summer.  Based on how quickly they fill up my Tivo, they seem to do daily DD marathons.  I hope that the rest of the cast backs Phil up and that A&E loses millions over this.

. . .

The Human Rights Campaign also slammed Robertson for his remarks.

For starters, remember that the Human Rights Campaign people are pro-abortion extremists, which is rather odd considering that the ultimate human right should involve protection against being crushed and dismembered because you are unwanted.

“Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations,” president Chad Griffin said in a statement. “We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful.

Those are lies.  The HRC knows about as much about the Bible as GLAAD, and the science is clear: People are not “born that way.”  Lots of people move in and out of those preferences.  Things change.

Yes, the show is corny and stiff at times and obviously staged.  But it is so refreshing to see positive family situations where dads are leaders in the house and not buffoons, and where people openly talk of faith and live it out.   It shows how far this society has fallen that someone could make such simple, biblical statements and have people go into full freak-out mode over it.

I’m cautiously optimistic that Phil won’t be the kind of guy to back down over this and that the media and entertainment elites won’t know what to do about it.  Hopefully it will inspire other people to stand up for the truth.  One day all believers will face God.  You’ll have all of eternity to remember whether you had the guts to call a sin a sin.  As Erick Erickson says, Ultimately There Will Be No Option for Silence or the Sidelines. You Will Be Made To Care.  If you can’t affirm the truth of God’s word then you should get out now.

Having said that, remember that we’re all sinners in need of a Savior.  You don’t have to “fix” LGBTQ people before sharing the Good News with them.  Here’s an example of how I handle situations like that.

——–

Further reading:

Roundup

What would you do if you knew you would die at midnight tomorrow?  Compare it to John Wesley’s answer.  Hat tip: Ray Comfort

John Wesley (the famous preacher) was asked what he would do with his life if he knew that he would die at midnight the next day. His answer was something like this: “I would just carry on with what I am doing. I will arise at 5:00 a.m. for prayer, then take a house meeting at 6.00 a.m. At 12 noon, I will be preaching at an open-air. At 3:00 p.m. I have another meeting in another town. At 6:00 p.m. I have a house meeting; at 10:00 p.m. I have a prayer meeting and at 12:00 midnight, I would go to be with my Lord.”
If we knew we were to die at 12 o’clock tomorrow night, would we have to step up our evangelistic efforts, or could we in all good conscience carry on just as we are?

Praise: The Consummation of Joy — Some people mistakenly think that it is morally wrong for God to want us to praise him. But think of how praising great things in other aspects of life is appropriate and how it completes our joy.

So, Lewis is telling us that God’s pursuit of our praise of him is not weak self-seeking but the epitome of self-giving love! If our satisfaction in God is incomplete until expressed in praise of him for satisfying us with himself (note well, with himself, not his gifts), then God’s effort to elicit my worship (what Lewis before thought was inexcusable selfishness) is both the most loving thing he could possibly do for me and the most glorifying thing he could possibly do for himself.

Home schoolers are leaner than those in public school — someone please let Michelle Obama know. — The Raw Essence of the Welfare State — This sounded like a hoax when I read it but the audio is pretty compelling.  Her plan is to stay on welfare her entire life.  She isn’t even sure if she wants her kids to work or not.

“While workers out there or people like you that are preaching morality at people like me living on welfare, can you really blame us? “I mean, I get to sit home. I get to go visit my friends all day. I even get to smoke weed. Me and my friends, people that I know that are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we still gonna get paid. Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month, and it’s gonna be on time, and we get subsidized housing. We even get presents delivered for our kids on Christmas. Why should I work? “So, you know what? “Y’all get the benefit of saying, ‘Oh, look at me, I’m a better person’ … because y’all go to go work. We’re the ones getting paid. So can you really blame us?”

60 ex-homosexual video testimonies — Wait, that can’t be right — those people don’t exist!  Seriously, there is hope, and if you really love people you won’t encourage them to stay in a lifestyle that is physically, emotionally and spiritually destructive.  It isn’t love when you value your popularity over the well-being of others.

Also see Domestic violence rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples.

Also see Accused Gay Teen Sex Offender Worried Scandal Would Cost Him White House Job — Note that the victim is suicidal.  While it should be well known that bullying doesn’t increase suicides, note how this suicidal situation appears to be driven from the abuse, not the alleged nature of the victim.

5 Reasons Not to Give Up on the Marriage Debate — Lots of good reasons, especially this one (oh, and that it is never wise to give up fighting for what God proclaims as true).

2. The fickle factor. When you think about how quickly public opinion has swung in favor of gay marriage, it’s clear that the new conclusion has not been reached because of deep, ethical reflection. There was a tipping point—it likely coincided with President Obama’s “evolution”—where opposing gay marriage became a public liability.  Large swaths of the American people are now for gay marriage because it seems too costly—culturally, socially, politically—not to. But what happens when posting that equal sign on Facebook feels so 2013? What happens if the cool crowd gets bored with the new status quo? I suppose many of them will push into darker sexual waters, but what if some push back? What if five years from now we have a Juno-style movie that humorously, and yet provocatively, questions whether our sexual orthodoxies are all they’re cracked up to be? If supporters of marriage don’t cave in, those who swung one way may swing back when it no longer looks like they are “on the wrong side of history.”

Unspeakable Evil: Planned Parenthood Obstructs Child Rape Investigation — Why would anyone be surprised?  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video hiding rape, incest and sex trafficking.  People who kill babies for a living are capable of anything!

When mass shootings don’t matter… to the media — If your media of choice didn’t tell you about this mass shooting in Detroit, you need to expand your horizons.

The best ice-breaker of all time.  One of my nephews told me about this one. Use this at the next party you attend.

“What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts” should be required viewing . . .

. . . for all those who have been saturated by the Leftist education, media and entertainment industries and who have been repeating the falsehood that it won’t impact other people.  Seriously, this is less than 30 minutes.  That seems like a small investment to counter the hundreds of hours of propaganda that you’ve been subjected to.

People who say that “same-sex marriage” won’t harm you or others are deceived or deceivers.

People who claim the name of Christ and support “same-sex marriage” or say that homosexual behavior isn’t a sin violate the two greatest commandments.

  • By disagreeing with the clear word of God they show that they aren’t loving him.
  • By putting their popularity over the welfare of their neighbors with LGBTQ temptations they don’t love their neighbors.

Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).planned
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

Here’s a direct link to the video — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZX55HUPFSU .  Please bookmark it and share it with those who say this won’t harm others.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

The Episcopals’ interesting strategy: Hire non-Christians as leaders

Diversity, not Jesus, saves says Presiding Bishop.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has denounced the Apostle Paul as mean-spirited and bigoted for having released a slave girl from demonic bondage as reported in Acts 16:16-34 .

In her sermon delivered at All Saints Church in Curaçao in the diocese of Venezuela, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori condemned those who did not share her views as enemies of the Holy Spirit.

. . . She continued stating: “Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil.  That kind of blindness is what leads to oppression, slavery, and often, war.  Yet there remains a holier impulse in human life toward freedom, dignity, and the full flourishing of those who have been kept apart or on the margins of human communities.”

That’s an odd thing for a pro-abort like Schori to say.  She denies the humanity of the unborn to rationalize their legal and taxpayer-funded destruction.

Just as the forces of historical inevitability led to the ending of industrial slavery, so too would the march of progress lead to a change in attitude towards homosexuality, she argued.

“We live with the continuing tension between holier impulses that encourage us to see the image of God in all human beings and the reality that some of us choose not to see that glimpse of the divine, and instead use other people as means to an end.  We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong.  For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.”

Anything Schori says that agrees with God is purely coincidental.  The Bible teaches the value of each human being made in God’s image.  It also teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin.

And, uh, isn’t she offended by those who disagree with her?  Seems kinda hypocritical.

To illustrate her point presiding bishop turned to the book of Acts, noting “There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it.  Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God.  She is quite right.  She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said, referencing the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

“But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness.

The poor girl was demon possessed.

Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it.  It gets him thrown in prison.  That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!,” the presiding bishop said.

She was demon possessed, and Schori puts her on par — or above — the Apostle Paul?!

The New Testament passage goes on to say that Paul and Silas were imprisoned for freeing the girl of her demonic possession. Presiding Bishop noted “an earthquake opens the doors and sets them free, and now Paul and his friends most definitely discern the presence of God.  The jailer doesn’t – he thinks his end is at hand.”

However, Paul now repents of his mistake in casting out the spirit of divination, she argues.  “

This time, Paul remembers who he is and that all his neighbors are reflections of God, and he reaches out to his frightened captor.  This time Paul acts with compassion rather than annoyance, and as a result the company of Jesus’ friends expands to include a whole new household.  It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.”

It is fascinating how she makes it up as she goes along.  It was an evil spirit in the slave girl, not the spirit of God.

And note that the text specifically says she was a slave.  Schori wished she would have stayed that way!  It is fascinating how wolves in sheep’s clothing can’t even get the simplest passages right.

In support her argument for radical inclusion and diversity over doctrine Bishop Jefferts Schori adds that the day’s reading “from Revelation pushes us in the same direction, outward and away from our own self-righteousness, inviting us to look harder for God’s gift and presence all around us.  Jesus says he’s looking for everybody, anyone who’s looking for good news, anybody who is thirsty.  There are no obstacles or barriers – just come.  God is at work everywhere, even if we can’t or won’t see it immediately.”

Yes, just come, but on his terms: Repent and believe.

. . .

Responses posted on the Episcopal Church’s website to the Presiding Bishop’s sermon have been uniformly harsh, noting her interpretation was at odds with traditional Christian teaching, grammar, and logic. “This is quite possibly some if the most delusional exegesis I’ve ever read in my life,” one critic charged. “I’m sorry, but this sermon is not a Christian sermon.”

The reception by bloggers has been equally unkind. The Rev Timothy Fountain observed the presiding bishop had up ended the plain meaning of the text. “Instead of liberation” in freeing the slave girl from exploitation, presiding bishop finds “confinement.  Instead of Christ’s glory, there’s just squalor.”

The Rev. Bryan Owen argued “What’s happening here is the exploitation of a biblical text in service to a theopolitical agenda.  Given what she says in the first paragraph I’ve quoted from her sermon, the Presiding Bishop suggests that anyone who doesn’t buy into that agenda – anyone who holds to the traditional, orthodox understanding of such matters – is likewise afflicted with the same narrow-minded bigotry as Paul, and thus in need of enlightenment.”

That’s good news!  There is some hope for people there.

Roundup

Happy Independence Day!

Anyone who thinks this will stop at mere gov’t recognition of “same-sex marriage” is naive or part of the problem. The next step will be to force military chaplains to officiate these unions or to quit. Obama & Co. win all around: Force people to violate their religious convictions, chase Bible-believers from the chaplaincy and make less believers want to enlist.

This article summed it up well — Religious freedom’s drip by drip death.The end point of liberalism is a coercive secular state in which the religious have no meaningful rights. American church leaders are kidding themselves if they think the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to stop at civil marriage. It won’t. It will quickly travel past court houses to churches, demanding that all religions bless gay marriages.Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. “I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” said Manu Sareen, Denmark’s minister for gender equality. Reluctant bishops have to supply ministers to satisfy the right whether they like it or not.

CONFESSION FROM A FORMER HOMOSEXUAL –A former homosexual speaks out about homosexuality and the politics of dishonesty — Yes, they do recruit. Yes, they do lie. Not all of them, but the movement as a whole. If you love people you’ll want to protect them from this.

Canada repeals Section 13 law that criminalized politically incorrect speech — That’s good news for those who like free speech!

Book: Pope John Paul II self-flagellated to get closer to Jesus — another example of lousy theology. If you want to fast, donate money, etc. that is fine. But there is no call in the Bible to physically hurt yourself to get closer to Jesus. That’s just creepy.

Pope John Paul II used to beat himself with a belt and sleep on a bare floor to bring himself closer to Christ, a book published Wednesday says.

The late pope had a particular belt for self-flagellation and brought it with him to his summer residence, according to the book, “Why he is a Saint: The True story of John Paul II.”

“As some members of his own entourage were able to hear with their own ears, both in Poland and in the Vatican, Karol Wojtyla flagellated himself,” the book says, using the name the pope was given at birth.

“In the closet, among the cloaks, a particular pant-belt hung from a hook, which he utilized as a whip and one which he always had brought to Castel Gandolfo,” the book says.

Catholic Advocate Michael Voris Video on Vatican ‘Gay Lobby’ — Yes, lots of actively gay priests that infiltrated the Catholic hierarchy. And yes, most of the sexual abuse of young people was by homosexual priests. The media forgot to tell you that. To state the obvious, these priests are unfaithful to their religion. And so are the heterosexuals who knowingly let them stay in their positions. This is one good thing about the Interwebs: It helps uncover things that would be otherwise hidden.

Study explains why college women abandon courtship for hook-ups — tried to find one thing to quote but it is all good. Go read it.

The Face of Cowardice: Theresa May

Meet the hideous creature who banned Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from England: British Home Secretary Theresa May, a disgrace to her office, to her nation and to every British citizen who ever lived. On June 25, this deplorable stain on the reputation of a once honorable people “personally directed that [Geller] should be excluded from the United Kingdom” because it is believed that Geller would “foment or justify terrorist violence . . . provoke others to terrorist acts . . . foster hatred,” etc. Robert Spencer writes of the ban:

We had planned to lay a wreath at a memorial to British soldier Lee Rigby, who was beheaded by Islamic jihadists on a Woolwich street on May 22. But it is not conducive to the public good in Britain to oppose jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

British schoolgirls are being systematically gang-raped by Muslims andBritish soldiers are being hacked to death in the street by Muslims and yet this despicable gutless appeaser, Theresa May, thinks the way to solve the problem is to ban critics of Islam?

Neville Chamberlain was a heroic statesman by comparison.

EXPOSING THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD, THE NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION AND MEN WHO SEXUALLY ABUSE UNDERAGE GIRLS — It is very well documented. Planned Parenthood aggressively and systematically hides crimes of rape, incest and sex trafficking — and all with your generous tax dollar. It is the real war on women.

Oh, and United Way plays their part: United Way in Wisconsin Refers Raped Teens to Planned Parenthood

America’s 50 worst charities rake in nearly $1 billion for corporate fundraisers — Please, everyone, use discernment when giving!

Police and social workers ignored sex-trafficking, rape and abuse by Muslims — It is staggering what they get away with. They’ve learned how effective terrorism is. This is from the UK but should be here soon.

Must-read: comprehensive survey of all the research on gay marriage — The surveys saying it is benign or helpful were poorly done.

Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings — Of course they do. Like I’ve said all along, it wasn’t a slippery slope, it was a cliff. Once the government says that marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, it becomes whatever someone wants it to be.

“The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” one polygamist cheers.

Roundup

The Mess of the Message: Denying Christ On The Printed Page — I’ve written before about serious problems with The Message, but this post added a host of new and serious issues.  Also note how it removes a reference to homosexuality and inserts a “green” passage.  Friendly reminder: It isn’t a Bible.  In many places it is the opposite of the Bible.

People have lost their minds.  Remember that these are educators coming up with these things.

Boy Suspended Just for SAYING the Word Gun

Campus bans guns, tells people to nod at attackers

The Affordable Care Act — and by affordable, we mean more expensive — They were caught lying.  Again.  Although we didn’t have to wait until now to know it.

COULD A CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REFUSED TO MAKE WEDDING CAKE FOR A GAY COUPLE REALLY GO TO JAIL? — Why don’t they try this with Muslim bakers?

This is bizarre “tolerance” of Liberals:

  1. It is bad to judge. [What they claim Conservatives do and what they themselves do non-stop.]
  2. It is good to judge others for judging. [What Liberals do.]
  3. It is very bad to judge others for their hypocrisy of judging others for judging.  [What Liberals don't like for us to point out.]

While Denying Tea Party, IRS Grants Tax-Exempt Status to Radical Leftists and Terrorists

Ergun Caner Cover-Up — This is such a sad case.  The guy was caught lying over and over and too many Christian leaders, churches and schools looked the other way or helped him cover his tracks.  The documentation is very thorough, even though he is working hard to cover it up.  If the guy had repented it would be different, but he shows no remorse.

Profiles in Countermoonbattery: Ondray Harris — here’s a great guy who quit when he was told not to hire any conservatives or whites.  We need more courage like that.  Oh, and he’s black.

The Contempt of PZ Myers — He really, really opposes schools that teach critical thinking.

None of the above keeps PZ from frothing at the mouth that: “There is no controversy!” Evolution happened…get over it. Really, PZ, “no controversy”? Guess PZ’s been too busy ranting and raving about ID and “Creationism” to keep up with what is actually happening in his own field of biology. Let’s see, can anyone name one aspect of evolution and its supposed mechanisms that isn’t hotly debated and controversial even among evolutionary biologists? Pick one – common descent, natural selection, gene transfer, phylogentics, gene duplication, genetic drift, mutation, etc etc – not one single supposed driving engine of evolution is uncontroversial within evolutionary biology itself. It continually amazes me that every single aspect of Darwinian evolution is hotly debated and controversial, yet the Darwinian faithful, like PZ pound their fists on their desks yelling “evolution is a fact, Fact, FACT!” What is telling, is how rabidly PZ and others of his ilk want to keep students in public schools from ever knowing about or even hearing about such controversies.

Master Sergeant Punished for Serving Chick-fil-A at Party

DOMA is the law of the land, but the rogue Obama Regime refuses to enforce it.

A year later, the Master Sergeant is still bogged down in a legal battle. The lesson is passed down from Obama through the military as clearly as it is through the IRS: do not say, do, or even think anything that a liberal might not like, or you will suffer consequences.

A few more examples:

One service member received a severe reprimand for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.

A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.

And a chaplain who asked senior military officers whether religious liberty would be protected in the wake of the repeal of the law against open homosexual behavior in the military was told to “get in line” or resign.

The world has seen other governments that forcibly repressed Christianity. But not even the Soviet Union attempted to impose reverence for sexual perversion. It wasn’t sufficiently morally depraved.

Roundup

Two good iPhone apps recommended by my 83 yr. old father — Appygraph (send cards via text, with your pictures pasted in) and Heart Rate (you put your finger on the camera lens and it takes your pulse).  Apparently he’s the go-to guy for high tech.  And my 78 yr. old mom had him text a picture of something to her in a store.  Glad to see they are up on the latest things!

‘Revealing Heaven:’ Episcopal Pastor Details Hundreds of Near-Death Experiences, Backs Rob Bell — I know the author and have done prison ministry with him. I’m very disappointed at the direction he has taken. Rob Bell?! Ugh. I can’t see how he missed the obvious, namely that these things are demonic. Who would want to reassure people that everything is swell and they are definitely going to Heaven and don’t need to repent and believe?

The Post Resurrection Behavior of Jesus Eliminates the Possibility of an Imposter — a good refutation of a false theory about the resurrection.

The Atlanta Public School cheating scandal was immense in its breadth and duration, not to mention its recklessness.  This shouldn’t be a surprise, though.  Unionized bureaucrats and teachers rarely have the interests of the children at heart.  It is one more reason the “No Child Left Behind” and all other Federal initiatives are doomed to cause more problems than they solve.  Education funding and incentives should be as local as possible.  Federal initiatives are a waste that just lead to more corruption like this.

Fulton County prosecutors announced that a grand jury had indicted the Atlanta Public Schools’ ex-superintendent and nearly three dozen other former administrators, teachers, principals and other educators of charges arising from a standardized test cheating scandal that rocked the system.

Former Superintendent Beverly Hall faces charges including conspiracy, making false statements and theft because prosecutors said some of the bonuses she received were tied to falsified scores. Hall retired just days before the findings of a state probe were released in mid-2011. A nationally known educator who was named Superintendent of the Year in 2009, Hall has long denied knowing about the cheating or ordering it.

During a news conference Friday, Howard highlighted the case of Juwanna and another student, saying they demonstrated “the plight of many children” in the Atlanta school system.

Their stories were among many that investigators heard in hundreds of interviews with school administrators, staff, parents and students during a 21-month-long investigation.

Hmm. Turns out Karl Marx was just as smelly and personally useless as his modern-day acolytes!  The NY Times is honest about what Marx is like but doesn’t seem to get the current correlation:

The Karl Marx depicted in Jonathan Sperber’s absorbing, meticulously researched biography will be unnervingly familiar to anyone who has had even the most fleeting acquaintance with radical politics. Here is a man never more passionate than when attacking his own side, saddled with perennial money problems and still reliant on his parents for cash, constantly plotting new, world-changing ventures yet having trouble with both deadlines and personal hygiene, living in rooms that some might call bohemian, others plain “slummy,” and who can be maddeningly inconsistent when not lapsing into elaborate flights of theory and unintelligible abstraction.

Still, it comes as a shock to realize that the ultimate leftist, the father of Communism itself, fits a recognizable pattern.

Global warming: Still a hoax.  And the notion that it was man-caused was a bigger hoax.

Socialized Medicine: Money for Fake Boobs as Patients Starve — The title says it all, but it left out the part about gender-reassignment surgery (i.e., self-mutilation) being covered as well:

Why are capitalist countries wealthy and socialist countries poor? Because the free market allocates resources more wisely than bureaucrats. This is how healthcare resources are allocated under Britain’s regime of socialized medicine:

Britain’s National Health Service, the NHS, recently spent £4,800 — about $7,200 — on enormous breast implants for an aspiring model while nearly 1,200 patients starved to death in hospitals over the past four years. Critics say the deaths were caused by neglect due to understaffing.

The NHS provided Josie Cunningham with 36DD implants in January after she told her doctor that being flat-chested was causing emotional distress.

It gets worse:

In addition to the breast implants, the NHS has also spent £25,000 — about $37,000 — on a sex-change operation for a 19-year-old male diagnosed with “gender identity disorder.”

Wow, check out the anti-gay hate speech from all of these . . . Democrats?!?!  Not shocking at all, really.  And not hate speech, of course.  They just said whatever would optimize their votes, just like most Republicans do.  But their words at the were true, even if they didn’t believe them.  They have no substantive reasons for their change other than public opinion.

Child’s complaints of sexual abuse by gay couple were ignored by social workers — political correctness yields many victims.

University Compares Pro-Life Students to White Supremacists — But of course!  Abortions kill blacks at a rate 3 times that of whites, and the taxpayer-funded abortion portion of the Democrats’ platform will increase that, so of course the pro-choicers are like white supremacists or worse.  Oh, wait, what’s that? They said the pro-lifers were like the supremacists?!?!  Wow.

Abortion kills unwanted innocent but human beings.  It is a scientific fact and basic common sense that a new human being is created at fertilization.  So if someone calls you anti-abortion, don’t get defensive.  Embrace it!  Would you apologize for being anti-slavery?

On boycotts . . .

I love the free market and our ability to choose where to shop.  If we get bad service or don’t like the worldview of the seller, we don’t have to give them any money.  Or we can steer our spending to companies with great service and similar beliefs.

I’m not aggressively into boycotts, but when companies are in your face with their dogma and I can conveniently go somewhere else, I will.  But I have to concede that even though the pro-“same-sex marriage” people are hopelessly on the wrong side of the issue, part of their point here is valid:

It should be no surprise that many companies would succumb to political correctness for profit, just as many people will say the opposite of the truth to be more popular. I used to work for HP and they gave into to the “gaystapo” lobby and their boycott threats along with the pressures of some LGBT people in the company.

But you really will need to live in a cave if you think you can survive by only shopping where people completely agree with your worldview.  Feel free to go where you like, but most of the time you’ll just be going where someone hates your worldview and you just don’t know it (yet).

Obviously, their “wrong side of history” bit is wrong, especially considering that 99% of people with that view are also pro-abortion.

I just choose to remind people that if you are going to use an equal sign, then the things on each side need to actually be equal. In this case, they are not. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.

But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman. That doesn’t mean marriages have to produce children, just that they are only produced by one male and one female, and that the government is interested in those relationships because of that possibility.

2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages.  No one is preventing gays from associating with each other (the government won’t even shut down bath houses!).

The Sola Sisters make some good points as well in To Starbucks or Not to Starbucks, That Is The Question.

And yet, at the risk of inflaming many of my Christian friends who often exercise their American right to choose to boycott a company that makes this or that anti-Christian statement, here is just some food for thought:

Should we as Christians expect lost people to act in any other way than lost people generally do?

That is to say, should we expect lost people to not have animosity toward Christians? Can we look at history, perhaps, to help us get our bearings on this? The fact is that the world in which the very first Christians found themselves was a world that was incredibly hostile to biblical Christianity, and filled with wickedness and depravity, including rampant homosexuality. And yet, I feel certain that the Christians of that time interacted in the business world. And I do not see Scriptures exhorting Christians to not buy from this or that leather craftsman or olive purveyor, based on that person’s presumably anti-Christian views.

And also, lest we forget, the Bible makes it clear that the world will have animosity toward both us and God’s Word:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing….” (1 Corinthians 1:18a)

“You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

Uh, thanks but no thanks

In an obvious sp*m email to random bloggers, a man named Joseph invited me to link to a list of the top 100 “marriage equality” blogs on his gay dating site.  Here is my response.  It also goes out to the people on Facebook with the red equal sign pictures and anyone else who abuses words like equality.  Remember, the warnings in Romans 1 aren’t just for those who commit the sins listed there, but for those that give approval to those who practice them.

And remember to point out that even if their lobby wasn’t wrong on both “marriage equality” and adoption by homosexuals, they can’t put forth both arguments.  If gender is absolutely paramount for sexual relationships, how can it be completely irrelevant for parenting?

And here’s a list of things to mention to people who insist that “same-sex marriage” won’t hurt you.

—–

Joseph,

I’ll be glad to link to your site if you’ll make my blog (www.4simpsons.wordpress.com) one of your top 100 blogs. But I don’t think you’ll want to do that, because I respectfully disagree with your premise.

I know many gays and lesbians and am friendly and kind to them all. I would never condone harm to LGBTQ people. I am against bullying of all kinds. And if you have issues such as hospital visitation or estate planning I would support separate solutions for those (i.e., you should be able to have anyone you like visit you in the hospital, and estate taxes are ghoulish — the government should never profit from your death).

Having said all that, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron (“the same-sex union of a man and a woman”).

That isn’t unkind or hateful to say, it is the truth. Words mean things. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.

But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman.

2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages.

I realize the underlying desire of LGBTQ to feel affirmed and to silence any criticism of their lifestyles, but that is not a mature reaction.

Again, you are welcome to your relationships. You can get “married” in all sorts of false-teaching, anti-biblical “churches.” You can set up house together. I will never bother to get in the way of your lives.

But there is simply no reason for the government to get involved in your relationships. And government recognition of same-sex unions inevitably — and by design — leads to a loss of free speech and religious freedom and results in young children being taught things that are wrong.

You probably noted that the response above was free of religious views, which was by design. We don’t need religious arguments to explain why the government need not sanction same-sex unions. But out of kindness I should point out that there is a God who clearly and thoroughly revealed himself in the Bible. He is sovereign over all. He designed marriage and the ideal is one man and one woman, for life. Yes, heterosexuals break those rules too, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon all the rules. Everyone has rebelled against God and his created order but they can be forgiven if they repent and trust in Jesus. I highly encourage you to consider that. You don’t want to spend an eternity in Hell regretting that you spent this life in active rebellion against your creator. There is a better way.

This is what “following your heart” gets you

Via GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out.

A prominent conservative senator said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from the Columbus Dispatch and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.

Well isn’t that special?  I can see how the pro-gay people would see people like Portman as unprincipled opportunists.

And it isn’t just the gay issue.  I see this a lot, including people who claim the name of Christ and not only don’t warn against pre-marital sex but actually let them sleep together under their roof!  I think they are afraid that if these were “really” sins (and of course they are) that it would reflect badly on them.  Or they feel guilty because, whether accurate or not, they think they were part of the reason their kids are sinning.  So they put themselves in the place of God and decide what isn’t a sin.  It’s just that easy!  What could go wrong when we try to usurp God’s authority?

“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have—to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.

No, if his son has gay relationships they can never be like the one he and his wife have, because they can never produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to a child.  Words mean things.

He also implies that if the government doesn’t promote his son’s relationships that they are preventing him from having those relationships.  That is false.

In an interview with CNN, Portman said his son, then a freshman at Yale University, told him “that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it’s just part of who he is, and that he’d been that way for as long as he could remember.”

I’ve been a sinner as long as I can remember, too, but I don’t use that as an excuse to celebrate my sins.

. . . He also told CNN that he sought guidance from former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is openly gay.

Portman said Cheney’s advice to him was simple: “Follow your heart.”

That is terrible, worldly advice.  As Jeremiah 17:9 notes, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”  Think about that carefully.  Deceitful above all things.  That’s pretty deceitful.  Desperately sick.  That’s pretty sick.  Who can understand it?  No one.  So don’t follow it.

If you really love people, you’ll put their long-term best interests first.  You won’t lie to them to prop up your popularity.

Facebook memes

A friend linked to a “Liberal and proud of it” Facebook page and I read some of their, uh, arguments.  I should note that many Conservative memes are pointless.  I think it is always worth asking if the joke would work on the other side if you just changed the names.  If so, I don’t click “like” or share it.  Just saying, “Obama is stupid,” or attacking his wife’s appearance is about as productive as the Left’s obsession with Sarah Palin.  We have endless facts about his record and beliefs to point to. Why dilute the message with pettiness?

But when the Liberal pages try to make a logical point it is typically loaded with fallacies.  A few samples I saw plus the comments I left:

It is only charity when you donate your money and time. Forcing others to “give” at the point of a gun doesn’t qualify. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B. Coveting is still a sin.   Even if his definition of giving matched the dictionary he would still be wrong on two counts. First, he pretends that we aren’t already “giving” vast amounts to the poor. Worse yet, he assumes that more of this “giving” will actually help the country.

This assumes that oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is a civil right, but you haven’t proved that. You have about as much right to that as you do a square circle.

It also assumes that gays and lesbians can’t be “married” today in fake churches and live together as they like. They can do that all-day, every day and we won’t complain. There is simply no need for the government to get involved in their relationships, because by nature and design they do produce the next generation.

Like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, that ignores the body of the innocent human being destroyed in the abortion.The scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq) is that a new human being is created at fertilization.

Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions is pro-abortion.  They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.  The Democratic platform is officially pro-abortion.

If it isn’t a political issue, why do the Democrats want to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions?

Yep, we oppose gender-selection abortions — nearly all of which destroy unwanted females — and the Left fights for them. Tell me again who hates women?

Oh, and abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites. And who are the racists who want to increase that rate with taxpayer-funded abortions?

Other commenter: Please quote your source for taxpayer-funded abortion. Fox News? Bzzzz. They definitely don’t happen at Planned Parenthood. Please come back when you can argue without using strawman arguments or false equivilencies.

Hi — would the 2012 Democratic Platform be an acceptable source for you? “Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”  http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Thanks for making the day of this conservative. I hope you reconsider your views once you realize you were just shouting from Stereotype-Land (I don’t watch Fox News — not that there is anything wrong with that).

The Democratic platform called for taxpayer-funded abortions. That would increase the rate of black abortions beyond the current rate, which is three times that of whites.

Democratic policies keep blacks dead or dependent. Coincidence?