Is Homosexuality That Big of a Sin?
From the way that this issue is painted, Homosexuality is the worst sin to befall mankind. I made the argument in a discussion of the McDonald’s boycott that there are many sins that God hates, and that we should make sure that we major on what God considers sin.
So, what about this sin?
Let’s Look at Romans
Perry believes that God exaggerates the importance of this sin based on Romans 1:27. What’s interesting about this passage is that it is a progression.
Read the rest of this page »
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Holiness, Love, and McDonalds
Perry over at Life In a Shoe has addressed my post on the McDonald’s boycott, so I thought that it would be only fitting to address some of his concerns in a related post.
I think many of the difference between the two of us remains a difference of definitions. Because of my background I’m both strangely precise and guarded at the same time.
So, when I made the statement regarding being in the “holiness” camp over the “love” camp, I was not making a reference to who I think God is, but rather how Christians have chosen to align themselves.
To explain this, I need a short digression.
Read the rest of this page »
California, New York, and Same Sex Marriage
The past few weeks has seen a flurry of activity in the area of same-sex marriage. Specifically, the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples should have equal protection rights under the California Constitution to marry, and have instructed the state to do so starting in the middle of June.
Read the rest of this page »
An Omen of Things to Come
I’ve always wondered how Sodom and Gomorrah could possibly have gotten as bad as they did. Perhaps it’s because of the culture that I’ve been raised in, I cannot personally fathom the whole episode with the angels coming to Lot, the homosexual men outside wanting them to come out so they could sexually assault them, and then Lot offering his daughters to the men outside. It’s just morally repugnant.
As the homosexual movement in America continues to claim more rights, they are definitely far away from this account, but they are moving in that direction.
Read the rest of this page »
Whose House is it Anyway?
Margo and I have different opinions when it comes to people, their homes, their values, and what people do or don’t have. Take, for instance, this question and reply:
DEAR MARGO: My husband and I have been together for 19 years. We have had normal problems over the years, but now there’s one we can’t seem to work through. He is a self-employed contractor. One of his employees is gay. I do not approve of this lifestyle. I have told my husband I would prefer he not bring this man to our home because the man makes very inappropriate remarks directed toward me and our children. He also talks openly about his relationship with his partner while our children are present. The kids have made comments that this bothers them. I questioned my husband about why he allows this behavior from an employee, and the conversation became quite heated. He says I am wrong in demanding that this man not be allowed in our home just because of his lifestyle. It is not just his lifestyle; it is the disrespectful manner in which he conducts himself around me and our children. I have learned over the years to choose my battles very carefully, and this is one battle I am not backing down from. Am I wrong to take such an unyielding stance on this issue?
— OLD IRONSIDES
Read the rest of this page »
What Can a School Shooting Teach us about Homosexuality?
Every time someone’s life is taken by the use of a gun, there are a familiar set of refrains that get sung from the gun control hymn book. First is the one that talks about how the violence was perpetrated by the gun. Next comes the call for less access to firearms– since they believe that if there were less access to lethal weapons we would be safer (they say). Following that is an inquiry into the shooter’s mind– what was he thinking, how did this happen, what could have been done to prevent it.
In an article written by Newsweek entitled The Anatomy of Violence, there’s an interesting discussion that pertains to the part that genetics play in creating a killer.
The “violence gene” theory soon found itself on shaky ground, however. In 2002, scientists who had followed 442 New Zealand men since their birth found that the MAOA link was not nearly as straightforward as the Dutch study suggested. Yes, men with the low-activity form of the MAOA gene were more likely to engage in persistent fighting, bullying, cruelty and violent crime than were men with the high-activity version. But that was so only if they had been neglected or abused as children. If they had not been mistreated, men with the low-activity MAOA gene were not much likelier to be violent. The gene alone was not sufficient. It was not strictly deterministic in the sense of always causing someone to become violent, but merely “permissive”: if two boys are severely abused, the one with the low-activity gene is more likely to grow up to commit violent crimes, and even then only if society provides fertile ground for this weed to grow. [emphasis mine]
It wasn’t enough for these people to have a gene that pre-disposes them to violence. Their environment had to be a factor– the environment in which they grew up and the environment of which they were now a part. One in irritation and building of anger, and the other in not seeing the problem and stepping in to help.
How does this relate to homosexuality, you ask? Good question!
You see, this current culture is one in which homosexuality is being forced into the mainstream. The current environment is being fashioned as to encourage and promote it as a valid lifestyle.
And then there’s the search for the gay gene. You see, we’re being told that it’s not something that people can help– they are born that way. We can’t judge them because they have no choice.
But if you read and understand what the article about violence is saying– a gene was not enough to make these people killers. It was a choice. It was something fed them by their environment. And most important of all– just because there may be a gene part of the equation that doesn’t make it right.
Sexual Sins Plague San Fransisco Mayor
The first I had heard of Mayor Gavin Newsom was a few years ago. He was the “daring” mayor who decided that he was above the laws of his state of California and began issuing marriage licenses to any who came to his court house. I believe Rosie O’Donnell was one of the ones that came to celebrate the first time in the U.S. that “gays could marry.”
The California Court System put an end to these shenanigans, but it was not until now that we see just how much sexual perversion had taken over this man.
Mr. Newsom was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, a Fox News correspondent. For whatever reason, their marriage did not work (a sign of problems to come right there) and they were in the middle of a divorce when Newsom decided to seek sexual pleasure for a different source, his appointment secretary Ruby Rippey-Tourk.
The only problem is that Mrs. Rippey-Tourk (as her name implies) is a married woman. And to make matters worse, her husband, Alex, was Newsom’s deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager for re-election.
For what it’s worth, Newsom has publicly admitted to the affair, and accepted the resignation of his campaign manager “with much sadness.” Obviously not enough sadness to prohibit him from violating someone else’s wife, but the formal kind of sadness.
To me, all of these things tie together. This man championed the right for homosexuals to have a moral right to a perverted sexual lifestyle, and he himself broke two marriage relationships. While I don’t hold out much hope that he won’t be re-elected as mayor because of the district, one could hope that someone who ruins three people’s lives of those closest to him, was proven not to honor vows (either his own or those of others), and shows disregard for the rule of law would not be considered to care for many thousand other people’s lives.
Marriage in the News
Lots of marriage related stories in the news. Let’s take a quick look at some of the things making headlines.
‘I do’ becomes ‘we don’t’ as Britons shun marriage
The number of couples getting married in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest since records began in 1862 according to official records released Wednesday.
Across Britain as a whole, the numbers of those tying the note fell by 10 percent compared with the previous year.
The article blames some of it on “sham marriages” for immigration, but it also points out the average ages of people getting married have gone up. What does this say? That people are delaying marriage or choosing not to get married, and one wonders (logically) why not, since you can have all of the benefits of marriage (companionship, sex, joint bank accounts, health benefits, etc.) without the vows and the official relationship.
Mass. Lawmakers Propel Gay Marriage Ban
Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, on Tuesday voted to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a critical step toward putting the measure the 2008 ballot.
The proposed amendment, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman but ban future gay marriages, still needs approval of the next legislative session before it can go onto the ballot.
While New Jersey passed into law its court mandated civil unions law this past week, Massachusetts is still in line for a show down between the legislature and judiciary. The judiciary created Same Sex Marriage in Mass., but the people are trying to get an amendment put into their Constitution to stop it. This will be one to watch, especially with their former governor, Mitt Romney, running for the Republican Presidential nomination.
The Mass. system is more complicated, with its requirement to have two different sitting legislatures approve the bill before being presented to the people, but it’s on its way.
Comments from MInTheGap
