Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Gay’


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!

 

Advertisements

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’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 »

Status Check


I know I address spiritual and sexual issues here a lot–usually one in terms of the other.  So here’s another perspective:  I was talking to my youngest daughter the other day and she noticed that I had names written on a whiteboard.  After the names was the word “lost”.  I should probably mention at this point that the whiteboard contains a list of prayer concerns for me and my wife to focus on.

Anyway, my daughter, all of 17 years old, asked what “lost” meant.

I had to pause.

I thought about the profundity of that question.

After a few seconds, I answered her, explaining that “lost” in this context means “unsaved” or “not having accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior”.

It was then that it hit me:  Young people today spend more time talking about (and focusing on) their sexuality than their spirituality.  And they spend more time worried about each other’s sexuality.  It’s amazing how sexually focused young people are—almost as if THEY discovered sex!  You’d think they would wise up and realize that THEY wouldn’t be here if WE hadn’t discovered IT first!

Then again, their age-old response (as I probably said under my breath to my dad) is that things are different nowadays!

How wrong I was—and how wrong they are as well.  Human biology works the same way today that it did when God first created man and woman in the Garden.

OK–so now, thanks to the marvels of science and medicine, two men can have a child, two women can have a child, and with a pill or a procedure, no-one can have a child!  How smart man is!  But he is still limited to only taking what God already created and manipulating it.  Man has yet to create or invent anything out of nothing.  And in that, we have the real Status Check!

Read Full Post »


My wife commented to me this morning about an upcoming show she saw advertised—“The New Normal”.  It’s part of the fall line-up on NBC and comes from the same minds that gave us “Glee”.  (For the record, I haven’t watched one episode of Glee nor do I intend to any time this side of eternity!)  Here’s the plot line from Wikipedia:

“Bryan (Andrew Rannells) and David (Justin Bartha) are a happy Los Angeles couple, with successful careers. The only thing missing in their relationship is a baby. They meet Goldie (Georgia King), a single mother and waitress from the Midwest, who has moved to L.A. with her eight-year-old daughter Shania (Bebe Wood). Jane (Ellen Barkin), Goldie’s grandmother, follows her family to the city against her grandaughter’s wishes. Goldie decides to become Bryan and David’s surrogate, and naturally, her family gets involved.”

Sounds like the guys in “Modern Family” with a twist.  The advertisement on NBC’s site even says “Move Over, Modern Family”.  Clearly, this is an attempt at taking what was succesful in one show and trying to replicate it on another network.  Good Luck!

For one thing, “Modern Family” was (while I used to watch it) the absolute funniest show on TV!  It had some star power with Ed O’Neill, and good-looking female leads in Julie Bowen and Sofia Vergara.  Ty Burrell is hilarious on his own.  Now, add two gay guys (one real, one not) and have them adopt a child and—well, there were some funny moments but they were funnier before Lily appeared.  Yes!  The show was funny!

But enough already!

Two gay guys adopting a child from another country or having a surrogate produce one for them is NOT the new normal!  The only normal thing about it is that the networks think it’s a formula for success!

Cut to the afternoon online news:  Rupert Everett is under fire for sharing HIS opinion.  Seems he thinks being raised by two gay men (or “dads”) is not something he’d want to have been subjected to.  He said, in part, “can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads… Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That’s just my opinion.”

If you didn’t know, Rupert is openly gay!  And keep in mind he’s British, not American.  But he has come under attack for his comments by Americans who claim to live by the law of free speech!

Turns out, to the gay community, Free Speech seems to mean that you can say anything you want as long as it supports their mindset and lifestyle. 

It really doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay, a CEO or an actor—if you have an opinion that goes against the LGBT viewpoint, you’re expected to keep it to yourself.

I’ll tell you what is becoming “The New Normal”… the New Normal is intolerant bigotry and hypocrisy from the LGBT community.  While they may claim that those who oppose them are the intolerant bigots, the truer statement is that intolerance and bigotry are human traits.  The truer statement is that gays and lesbians have not transcended either trait.  The New Normal is that they have learned how to be just as bigoted and intolerant as they accuse many of us of being.

MORE:

http://www.nbc.com/the-new-normal/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Normal_(TV_series)

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

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

RELATED:

https://trebord.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/shut-up-unless-you-agree-with-me/

Read Full Post »


In 2009, a chief executive sat down on his first day on the job.  He was well-known and quite popular.  He is in a traditional marriage and has two children.  And very publicly, it was disclosed that he did not support same-sex marriage.  For the next 3 1/2 years, he would maintain his stance.  There were no protests in front of his office, no hate email, no hate campaigns against this man.

Contrast Dan Cathy, chief executive of Chick-fil-A, who recently shared his view publicly.  His view too opposes same-sex marriage.  However, his words have sparked a vitriolic attack against him, his company, and employees.  The company has been pilloried in the media despite the outpouring of support for the company.  There was modest coverage of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Wednesday, August 1st, but the media seemed to fixate still on the protests against the company.

I would think that the news here is the overwhelming attitude of Americans who came out on Wednesday in support!  However, the media would have us believe that those opposed to same-sex marriage are in the minority.  Skewed news!

Back to the first man:  President Barack Obama opposed same-sex marriage.  At least, until June of this year.  Convenient timing as he approaches an election cycle.  His statement seems to be one that attempted to pander to the LGBT community.  With any luck, it’s too little too late.  Besides, those who celebrated his “outing” fail to acknowledge two very important facts:

1.  The President openly opposed same-sex marriage (apparently) his entire life and only weeks prior to turning 51, changed his mind.

2.  The personal opinion of the President changes nothing.  No laws or policies have changed with regard to same-sex marriage since June 2012.

If his personal opinion changes nothing for the country, why do same-sex marriage advocates so hate the personal opinion of a CEO of a privately held business?

The disparity here underscores the agenda of the community to scare, shame, or bully  into silence those who stand for morality.

MORE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQGMTPab9GQ

2004 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhaThnPWB0A&feature=player_embedded “One man and one woman”

2008 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U  “Sacred Union…”

2010 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gX8g_cA_Jg&feature=related  “Struggle with…”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »