Some thoughts on the homosexual debate.

[olger]

Some thoughts regarding the current homosexual debate:

Make no mistake, affirmation and acceptance is the goal—not tolerance.

SB 777 (in CA) requires a mandatory celebration of homosexuality. Section 220 — administrators and teachers are required to support the promotion of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.

California’s SB 48, sponsored by homosexual state senator Mark Leno, would require all students in social studies class to admire ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender’ as role models. These initiatives are a direct frontal attack on male/female distinctions, and ultimately an attack on the Creator (Genesis 1:27-29). The world's best mommy is not a daddy, and vice versa. Incidentally, Muslims are happy that same sex marriage is passing because polygamy is next. But that’s another story…

Here's the question -- how do we live together with these different views? If we're going to say this is wrong, we have to help people walk this out. I believe that the time has come to pull all Christians out of the public school system (teachers and students alike). Let them fall. The distinction between God’s people and Pharoah’s people will become very sharp, and they will eventually come to us for advice and help. Let the world send their kids to our schools for education instead of us sending our kids to Babylon. What do you think?

`oG

[Gibs]

The human race is far more immoral than the animals. This thing is about as low and filthy as Satan can get people to get.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[olger]

According to the New York Times, the next big thing is Polyamory.

[bonnie]

According to the New York Times, the next big thing is Polyamory.

If the definition of marriage is changed and the same arguments are used for plural marriage,what is wrong with Polyamory?

Don't all have the right to marry those they love?

What impact would either have on my marriage?

If we can not "discriminate" gays,why should we be able to discriminate against those that love more than one man/woman?

[olger]

OLGER

well when you open to the door to any thing goes then

of course Polygamy would be next

dgrimm60

With progressive ism there is no logical stopping point . It can and always will get worse.

[ClubV12]

I noticed a comment in a news story about those who supported civil unions have now largely accepted full blown marriage.

One step leads to the next... A prime example of why we need to be sure of what we believe and not waver. Not shroud something simple in mystery.

[o2bwise]

I see the issue of gay marriage differently.

A license, by definition, is permission to do that which is otherwise illegal. At one time, miscegenation was illegal (inter-racial marriage) and so it required application for a license. No other marriages required a license (of course, I refer to a man and a woman here.)

The problem to me is not gays crying for the privilege to get married, it is Christians NOT demanding the RIGHT to be married without government intrusion. By the way, Montana does not require a marriage license.

When one gets married with a license, one has actually contracted with the state and one has acknowledged not having a God-given right.

May as well bow down to Nebuchednezzar. In principle, what's the difference?

Tony

[Ted Oplinger]

First, it was homosexuality. Observers of the times marked that should this behavior be "normalized and accepted", then polygamy would be next. These people were laughed at, ridiculed for being extreme - there was absolutely NO SLIPPERY SLOPE, because gay marriage was NOT analagous to polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, or any of the other sexual practices.

We have heard this kind of scorn for nearly two decades.

Well, here we are, with the SCOTUS set to wade into the debate...and polygamy is indeed being discussed as the next alternative lifestyle.

Are People Naturally Polygamous?

The link is but two years old, but highlights the point that polygamy is being framed in just the same words as the homosexual issue 20 years ago - that people are "naturally predisposed" to being polygamous, and consenting adults should be free to make the choices they want to.

Regardless of what one thinks of the argument posed in the article, it is the fact the cause is being taken up by academics and professionals that gives this the air of legitimacy.

Hence, it is only a matter of time before "Sister Wives" is less a reality show, and more a reality in American society...

Indeed, people used to think it just an odd Mormon thing...but advocates for immigrants from African and Muslim cultures are beginning to increasingly demand the practice of polygamy be open, where now they are forced to practice behind closed doors now. Does this terminology also strike one as familiar?

For those who scorned the "slippery slope" as a "logical fallacy"...the evidence is becoming clear that this is no logical fallacy.

"The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us tear their fetters apart, and cast away their cords from us!"

Psalms 2:2,3 reads just like a headline out of today's pop culture rags...

Blessings,

[ClubV12]

"Hyper sexuality", the real aspect of an LGBT lifestyle.

Two gay or lesbian people wanting to share they're lives together in mutual love, is very rare on a percentage basis among those who practice the typical LGBT lifestyle. Hyper sexuality is the rule, by far. But it's not a popular position so it gets swept under the rug and largely dimissed.

How many LGBT loving couples building a nice home for they're children are depicated in the descriptions of Sodom?

[olger]

According to the New York Times, polyamory is the next big thing.

[bonnie]

I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage

by Doug Mainwaring

March 27, 2013 (thePublicDiscourse.com) - In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.

By the way, I am gay.

A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.

The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.

Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.

In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.

The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.

The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made.

In developing their goals for policy and law, politicians often look no further than the next election cycle. They’re concerned about votes. Supporting same-sex marriage now looks like a winner for them.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

It also looks like a winner for media outlets, concerned about revenues and readership, and for large corporations, eager to polish their images and create goodwill. Few of these outlets are interested in playing chess because a quick win at checkers is more important to them.

The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.

Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.

As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.

Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.

Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.

This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.

Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.

Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.

Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?

The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.

For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.

[bonnie]

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. Genesis2:21 ESV

Ribs – Except for this passage (side of man) and 2 Samuel 16:13 (side of hill), this word (sela’) is usually about an architectural component. In other words, it describes building materials or building components like chambers or boards or doors. “Ribs” is probably a completely inadequate translation. What the text suggests is that God took the construction material for woman from man.

Why do we need to have this detail? Why didn’t God just make a woman like he made the man? The fact that God used material from the man to make the woman has some enormous relationship implications. First, this action tells us that man and woman are inextricably linked. The full picture of human being includes both and neither is complete without the other. This, of course, does not mean that every individual man or woman must have a partner in order to be God’s representative in the world. Rather it means that the total picture of what being human means is both male and female, and on this level there is no hierarchical difference between the two. Both are formed by God. Both have equal status before Him. Both are linked to each other.

Secondly, this word shows us that the Man must give up something of himself in order for Woman to be. Adam expresses this wonderful mystery when he says, “This is flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone.” Giving up something of himself produces precisely what he was missing. The paradox is plain. In order to be all that I am I must give away part of what I am. The illusion that I am complete within myself is revealed as a false assessment of being in the world. I am complete only when I give away myself. Now we see that the Man is not just the nexus of all his relationships. He is also the extension of himself in the life of another. He is because he gives.

In the end, marriage is about ribs. Marriage is about giving away my side so that I might let God close the place with flesh. Marriage is about recognizing that I am who this other is. Marriage is about living with myself in the body and soul of my partner. And that’s why it takes a lifetime to be married. I must learn to give away all the ribs until we become one again.

Male and female were summoned by their creator to act in unison in order to act successfully. Yet they were not charged with the task of existing in unison, in order to cleanse, redeem, and hallow their existence. That must come from the gift.

Written by my son...Richard Odenthal

[Guest]

Looks like you did a good job raising that boy. Named him well too. )

[olger]

THUMB

UP

g

[bonnie]

Looks like you did a good job raising that boy. Named him well too. )

His name LOL. He is my son that was not given any chance for survival. We had decided to name him Scott Richard but the Dr kept calling him the little boy with the heart of a lion. After a couple of days Richard for Richard the Lion Hearted seemed more fitting.

Thankful he didn't follow the same steps.

[Ron Amnsn]

The problem to me is not gays crying for the privilege to get married, it is Christians NOT demanding the RIGHT to be married without government intrusion.

I agree.

Christians should have taken a stand at the point when government started requiring people to get permission (a license) to do something for which God already has given permission.

Let the non-religious apply to their god (the government) for permission to marry. The Bible believers who have the permission of God and the blessings of their parents and community don't need further permission.

Now government is ready to give permission for something that God has stated should not be done.