Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Sexuality’ Category


A Facebook friend of mine responded to something I posted with the following:

” If my bible is correct, God made us all the same and loves us all. So with that in mind, regardless of being gay, straight, cross eyed or whatever, God loves us all. God made us all. We are all perfect in his eyes because he does not make mistakes.”

Let’s get to the point:  This is total nonsense and not supported by the Bible.

The best lie has a seed of truth and there is a seed of truth here—maybe more than one.  Yes, God made all of us and yes, God loves us all.  No, God does not make mistakes.  However, we are NOT all perfect in his eyes.  If we were all perfect in his eyes, then Jesus, as a perfect being, is no more or less than we are.  And if we were all perfect, then we would have no need for Jesus, perfect or not.

The writer was suggesting this argument with regard to homosexuality.  I still insist she is mistaken.

As a heterosexual male and as a Christian, I am not free to sin sexually.  That doesn’t mean I haven’t–doesn’t mean I won’t.  What it does mean is that I choose to live my life to the best of my ability in accordance with a book and a teaching that says certain things are wrong.  I don’t get to vote on it or to change the text to suit my inclinations.  However, I do have the right to ignore that book and do what I choose.  That’s called sin.  Homosexuals don’t get a pass either.  Sexual sin is sexual sin.

So let me go down a dangerous path:  Is autism perfect?  Is spina bifida perfect?  Is cleft palate or hemophilia perfect?  I don’t know anyone who would say yes, yet millions have been born with these conditions.  Science and medicine have worked to identify the conditions, study them, and research in search of cures.  If these conditions were “perfect”, then no need to cure anyone with them.  Yet one would contend that we were “made that way” by God if we were talking about homosexuality.  You can’t have it both ways.

Homosexuality is NOT normal and is not a standard God created in nature.  You may argue that there are homosexual examples in nature.  Show me two dogs with homosexual tendencies and I’ll ask you to show me the pedigree of that dog.  I’ll guarantee that you cannot prove mans’ intervention over millennium in creating the breed even if it’s a mutt.  Show me two wild animals exhibiting homosexual tendencies and I’ll show you the same species licking its own rectum—and then I’ll ask you how their behavior relates to humans!

We are not mere animals, relegated to base instincts.

We are God’s creations, made male and female for the propagation of the species.  Sometimes that special privilege of creating offspring doesn’t work.  That’s because we’re NOT perfect.  We live in a broken and sinful world and have broken and sinful bodies.  The same God that so many hate, despise, and reject allows us to choose our own paths.  From time to time, those paths are evil.  Occasionally, they’re hurtful to others.  And there are times that what we do impacts others beyond what we can comprehend.  But don’t blame God!

 

Read Full Post »


Look! Homosexuality is not the pet sin of the day or of the year. It’s been around for a long time and opposition to it has been too. If you’re tired of hearing the opposing view, consider that those of us who oppose it are tired of having it thrown in our face everywhere we turn!

We’re tired of the notion that those in favor have more right or reason to express themselves than we do!

Sexual sin, hetero or homo, is a sin! Call it what it is… I didn’t make the rules! Be glad about that! BUT I have broken them too! No-one of us in opposition is saying we’re perfect. What we don’t do, hopefully, is flaunt OUR sin and expect you to wink and nod and accept it–so don’t expect us to do that for you either.

The culture of the day accepting something doesn’t make it OK.

You have a belief system that teaches a point of view. You also don’t get to pick and choose which points are right and which are wrong–God didn’t make a mistake on making MAN AND WOMAN in HIS OWN IMAGE to be together and to form a union. (Phil Robertson is right on that point as well!)

A faith that has us cowering in a corner out of fear is what Peter had. I get that. But it’s time to stand up boldly and stand firm on our faith. Otherwise, it’s time to abandon the faith and just go off and try to be nice people–Humanists!

I’m not judging anyone here except myself. I’m admitting I’ve sinned sexually.

If I’m judging anyone or anything else, it’s God and the Bible. I’m judging them to mean what they say and not be open to revision by cultures that want to do whatever.

If I murder someone or steal, both called out as sins in the Bible, is someone judging me if they then say “murder is a sin” or “stealing is a sin”? Can you imagine a society where BOTH are OK and you are called a hater for saying some sinned by killing a person or by stealing?

Things are a bit crazy when good is called evil and evil is called good!

Isaiah 5:20

New International Version – UK (NIVUK)

20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

Read Full Post »


A thought occurred to me the other day as I spoke with one of my children about same-sex marriage:  The Church is late coming to the party.

I would guess that the institution of marriage in America traces back to colonial times, and that, even further back to England.  It’s a guess as well that marriage didn’t change much as far as who sanctioned the union.  In England, church and state were one, headed by the monarch.  The new nation on this shore separated those ties but failed—if it intended to do otherwise—to hand over the solemnizing of marriages to the Church.  The civil government retained that responsibility while allowing clergy to officiate.  Even then, officiating by clergy was optional.

This is why I say the Church is late coming to the party.  If the Church wanted to dictate the definition and parameters for marriage, the time to do so was then.  But to cede (by action or inaction) the power to control marriage to civil authorities all those hundreds of years ago, the Church also ceded its right to come back now in an attempt to define marriage for ALL people including those outside its doors.

Have I changed my position?  No.

I do see the negative waste of time and energy it is though to fight a losing battle.  The Church is late to the party and needs to move on.  But it should hold its ground for Holy Matrimony which is NOT governed by the state, for there is nothing Holy about any state or civil authority.

A message to the Church:

Do not stress over people joining in “marriage” under civil definitions and guidelines—even with civil sanction.  It does not change the nature of what those in the Church do or have in the eyes of God.  It’s a semantics battle not to be fought.  You do not tell Italian restaurants (et al) that they cannot serve bread and wine lest it take away from the true meaning of Communion.  But even if the local restaurant wants to call it “Communion”, what is that to you?  It does nothing to detract from those who have and hold true to Biblical Communion.

Better to worry about what we do in the eyes of God than what the lost do in the eyes of men.

Look to Paul for guidance:

1 Corinthians 5:12-13

New International Version (NIV)

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Read Full Post »


It seems that as an NPR listener (but not supporter), I’m barraged on a regular basis with stories about same-sex couples and their plights as they seek one thing or another on a road to parity with traditional, non-same-sex couples.  The coverage has gotten me to sit down and reason through the arguments for and against same-sex marriage.  What I am NOT going to do here is to trot through the religious arguments, or even the “nature” arguments on the topic.  Not relevant here is a discussion on the basis for homosexuality either, or its history in civilization.  What is relevant is what I see as the coming legal response to the issue based on the US Constitution.

Disclaimer 1:  I am not a Constitutional expert.  Then again, I doubt that you are either if you are reading this.

Disclaimer 2:  I do not support same-sex anything.  But that’s not the point here.  It is important for you to keep in mind though as you read on.

Same-Sex Marriage has to become the law of the land!

Federal courts must find in favor of plaintiffs that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

(Remember the disclaimers)

The very nature of this Republic and its Constitution necessitate such an outcome.  Here’s why:

1.  Freedom of Religion:  The leading reason people who are opposed to same-sex marriage will give is that “God created marriage as an institution between one man and one woman”.  The basis for this comes from Genesis (which has no mention of the recent mythological Lilith) in which God created Adam and Eve.  Despite the numerous accounts of men having multiple wives—which didn’t mean God endorsed that, only that men did it—the Bible maintains a one man-one woman ratio as the normal pattern for marriage.  Exceptions can be found under Jewish law for taking the widow of a family member as a wife, but this was a matter of social welfare within the society.

Clearly, this view on marriage is a Judeo-Christian view or more simply put, a religious view. For the courts to consider this position, an argument would have to be presented on religious grounds.  A finding in favor of this argument is tantamount to Congress making “a law respecting an establishment of religion”.  It would be an unconstitutional finding.

And more so, Jews and Christians do not want marriage defined for them by Muslims, Hindus, or for that matter, certain sects of Mormons.  Marriage cannot be defined by a church or a religion and simultaneously be Constitutional.

2.  Biology:  A biological argument—that is, arguing that a species consists of male and female for the purpose of procreation—asserts that the only reason for marriage is for just that:  Procreation.  Yet there are many who marry, even heterosexual couples, who cannot have children.  And there are those who do not want children.  If procreation was the only reason for marriage, there would be a lot fewer marriages.

At the heart of this argument are three points:

a.  God told Adam and Eve to multiply

b.  The Catholic church taught that sex was only for procreation

c.  God created the sexes and designed the male and female biology in such a way as to show us how the two are designed to be together and function as one.  This cannot be replicated on a physical or spiritual level in same-sex couples.

Each point rests on a religious base, taking us back to the first argument about the Constitutional nature of bans on same—let’s call it what it is—homosexual marriage.  (If we say “hetero”, we say “homo”.  If we say “same”, we say “non-same”.  Let’s stick to similar descriptors from here out!)  Bans cannot be based on a religious argument and simultaneously be Constitutional.

3.  Civil Precedence:  Marriage in the United States has been a civil matter longer than anyone alive today can remember and I doubt that there is much available, if anything, that would show it to have ever been just a religious matter.

Marriages today are licensed by civil authorities.  A clergyman who officiates over a wedding even says “by the power vested in me by the State…”.  Without such power, that officiant has no authority to join anyone in matrimony, Holy or not.  The couple as well must must present their proof of civil licensure to be married.

Face it:  In the United States, our laws dictate that marriages begin as a civil matter and if divorce occurs, end as a civil matter.  Indeed!  Many marriages are entered into outside of any church or religious setting and church officials have no role in the divorce proceeding.

Conclusion:  In a quick review of marriage and a layman’s view on the Constitution and the law, I would have to conclude that marriage in the United States is a civil matter, defined by laws that must not lean towards the establishment of any religion.

On the other hand, Holy Matrimony is that special institution created and endorsed by God, the Creator, and it cannot be replicated by homosexual couples no matter how many laws are written to give them civil rights.  One must not confuse the authority of the so-called greatest nation on earth with the overwhelming authority of God!

Yet, it seems as though many in denial or rebellion against God’s authority seek approval and justification through man-made authorities.  They will get what they seek.  America is on a permissive path that will only widen over time.

Prediction:  Once marriage is no longer defined as being between one man and one woman, the next minority seeking parity will come to the fore.  It may be those seeking plural marriage, or maybe a group seeking some other variation.  Let’s consider plurals for a moment.  If marriage is not defined as being between one man and one woman, what is that definition?  Who gets to decide?  Is it one man, one man?  One man, two men?  One man, two women?

Someone will have to answer these questions and will not be able to lean on religion or religious opinions in doing so.  That’s what has already gotten us same-sex marriage bans and we see those being knocked down.

It was unfathomable just 50 years ago that we’d be here, yet we are.  So before you dismiss the “slippery slope” argument about a permissive view on the nature of marriage, we should consider how ridiculous this would have seemed had I made a prediction in 1963 that same-sex marriages would be legal in any state in 2013—fifty years hence.

Read Full Post »


In a recent online article, conservative TV and radio host Glenn Beck is quoted as saying “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage?”

He was involved in an interview with atheist, liberal and outspoken Penn Gillette, half of the famous illusion team, Penn & Teller.  Glenn’s response shows the multiple layers of complexity the so-called marriage equality question has.  He is not addressing morality, whether Bible-based or other.  He is not addressing “nature” and “natural”.  What he is touching on, in his opinion, is the Constitution.  Looking at the Constitution as NOT touching on marriage, he comes to the thought that the government has no business in the marriage business.  His quoting of Thomas Jefferson, “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?” is indicative of his position as well.  Allowing gay people to marry is of no concern to the government.

So back to his question.  I get his logic—really, I do.  I just don’t get his ignorance.

Why is the government involved in our marriage?  Because without a governing body to define the institution of marriage, the rights, privileges, and benefits afforded to those in that institution cannot be fairly administered to those who justly deserve them.  In short, no government in marriage takes us back to the days of Common Law Marriage or worse.  Anyone could claim to be “married” without a standard for proving such a bond exists.   

With no government in marriage, marriage licenses would be obsolete.  (Why should we need a license anyway?  It’s not like driving where a license implies training and skill is present.)

No government going in, why have government coming out?  An amicable divorce could be just as easily effected as the casual “wanna get married” event between any two consenting individuals, given age laws.

Perhaps Glenn’s question about government being involved in marriage was not serious.  It certainly wasn’t well-thought-out or worthy of plastering on gay-news-friendly sites!

http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-beck-defends-gay-marriage-video-2012-12

Read Full Post »


In my previous post, I talked about same-sex marriage with regards to rights.  The question of rights is usually tracked back to the Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court case in which laws against mixed-race marriages were struck down.  In the decision, Supreme Court Justice Warren wrote “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

I would infer that “survival” is a nod toward procreation.  And since same-sex couples don’t procreate, I doubt the opinion would have extended to them even if such were an issue of the day.

But in keeping with the title of the post, I thought I’d share a list of issues faced by same-sex couples that are not faced as a matter of routine.  I won’t go into details—you can research on your own.  These issues are not endemic to heterosexual couples, whether same race or mixed race.  So much for equating same-sex marriage to interracial marriage:

Same -Sex Health Issues (Male)

  • Men who have sex with men are at increased risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections, including gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis. 

Source:  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/health-issues-for-gay-men/my00738

Sorry!  If you don’t like this, complain to the Mayo Clinic—not me!  I’m just sharing the information.

The next list is a bit more insidius and more graphic.

  • Anal Cancer
  • Chlamydia trachomatis
  • Cryptosporidium
  • Giardia lamblia
  • Herpes simplex virus
  • Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
  • Human papilloma virus (HPV)
  • Isospora belli
  • Microsporidia
  • Gonorrhea
  • Viral hepatitis types B & C
  • Syphilis
  • Hemorrhoids
  • Anal fissures
  • Anorectal trauma
  • Retained foreign bodies

Source:  http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosexual-behavior/

OK, some of these issues can occur in heterosexual couples—no argument.  But the prevalence in the homosexual community is by far over-represented in the population.

It shows that it’s true:  That you hurt the one you love.

Read Full Post »


It’s what we call faulty comparison:  Mixed-Race Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage.

Those who liken one to another are likely focusing on the struggle to attain legitimacy for the union of the two parties in what is legally accepted as marriage.  But the comparison ends there.

Rights:  There are many things we claim to be a right, whether they are or not.  For instance, many people mistakenly saying that driving is a right.  It is not.  It is a privilege.  When I speak of rights, I’m talking about the widely recognized rights of American citizens laid out in the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution) and or in other Constitutional amendments.  Nothing else.

Voting is a right.  Albeit an artificial right, it is indeed a right endowed by a government.  For instance, in a monarchy, typically there would be no need for voting and no right to do so.  The US being different, we have a government that only survives because of voting.  But there was a time in this country when it was not legal for women or Blacks to vote.  Each group struggled for that right to be granted to them.  Giving women the right to vote, and later allowing Blacks to vote, was truly a matter of equality under the Constitution.

But marriage is not a Constitutional right.  The 14th Amendment was used to strike down laws against mixed-race marriages for reasons of equal protection under the law.  Here is what the Amendment says regarding equal protection:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The effect of this Amendment is to restrict states from making such laws.  It in no way made inter-racial marriage legal, nor did it define marriage.  It does not directly address marriage at all.  But is was the basis for overturning the convictions of the Lovings and as was stated in the Supreme Court decision:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Some will argue (and have already) that the same applies to same-sex marriage.  It’s an interesting point because under equal protection, there should be no law prohibiting anyone to marry. 

But not having a prohibition is not the same as allowing it.  I don’t know of any law that prohibits me from marrying a cartoon or video game character.  Jessica Rabbit and Lara Croft would be top of the list!  But just because there is no law prohibiting me from doing so, that doesn’t mean that I can legally do so.  It is faulty logic to say that absent a law, it’s legal.

To avoid this mess, and to set the record straight, what we need is a Constitutional Amendment that once and for all defines marriage.  It will be the law of the land and no state would be able to say otherwise.  But for all those calling for such a definition, they (we) must be equally ready to accept that the definition that wins may not be our preferred definition.

MORE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »