Jul

19

2012

Voddie Baucham|10:00 PM CT

Gay Is Not the New Black

It's hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex "marriage" is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual "marriage" and civil rights is Michael Gross's article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, "Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable."2

Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by GQ magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, replied:

Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."3

Even the California Supreme Court bought in to this line of reasoning. In a February 2008 decision they reasoned:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation---like a person's race or gender---does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.4 (emphasis added)

The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

Unidentifiable Minority

The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation.5

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!" is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment.6

Hence, it seems same-sex attraction alone isn't enough to identify a person as a homosexual. And what about LUGSin college, or same-sex relationships in prison? Are these people homosexual? How about men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11)? In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn't a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn't Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?

But this isn't the only problem with the civil rights angle.

Unalterable Definition

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."

Unsustainable Precedent

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point). However, the further legal implications of court decisions about same-sex marriage are inevitable. Nowhere is this clearer than in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy cited his 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.12

I have no legal training, and I recognize the limits of my ability to fully evaluate the implications of such a decision. However, I do take notice when Justice Scalia responds to this assertion by stating:

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is the passage that ate the rule of law.13 (emphasis added)

Inescapable Confrontation

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. While the design of the family promotes human thriving (Gen 1:27-28), the testimony points people to their only hope in this life and the next. As a result, silence on this issue is not an option.

Unfortunately (and quite ironically), many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.


1 Michael Joseph Gross, "Gay is the New Black," The Advocate, November 16, 2008 (available online at http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp).

2 Ertha Melzer, "NAACP chair says 'gay rights are civil rights,'" Washington Blade, April 8, 2005. It should also be noted that the NAACP recently endorsed same-sex marriage (http://graftedthemovie.blogspot.com/p/watch-grafted.html)---significant since the organization exists for the "Advancement of 'Colored' People."

3 Michael Steele interview in "The Reconstructionist," by Lisa Paulo, GQ (March 2009), available at http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2009/03/-the-reconstructionist-michael-steele.html.

5 Even if brain studies, twin studies, etc., provided conclusive links (which they do not), one would still be left with the fact that while blackness and maleness are attributes one cannot deny, homosexual behavior is not. Thus, even if there were a genetic connection, it would be insufficient to propel sexual orientation into the same category as race or sex.

7 The term "Lesbian Until Graduation" refers to young women who participate in lesbian relationships only during the duration of their college life.

8 It is important to note that this is a categorical distinction, and not a determination based on fertility. Otherwise, the same could be said about men and women beyond child-bearing years, or those with defects preventing conception.

9 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pocahontas-marries-john-rolfe. Though it is commonly thought that Pocahontas married John Smith, it was actually English tobacco farmer John Rolfe whom she married on April 5, 1614, in Jamestown, Virginia.

10 See Elizabeth Emens's February 2003 Chicago Law School White paper, MONOGAMY'S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE, available at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/58-monogamy.pdf.

11 North American Man/Boy Love Association. Their motto is "Eight is Too Late." http://www.nambla.org

12 Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, "John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas " in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003).

13 Antonin Scalia Dissenting Opinion, "John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas " in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003).

Voddie Baucham is the pastor of preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas, and a Council member for The Gospel Coalition.

  • Sam

    Loved the article. Great ways of thinking about the short failings in the push for the change in the definition of marriage.

    However, (generally) from the worlds point of view, two consenting adults in a relationship should have a relationship with the same rights as everyone else, regardless of the gender that make up the couple.

    Sure these arguments make sense. But when it is considered essentially a hate crime to be against this, how much effort do we put into fighting their flawed push for rights as opposed to trying to win people through relationship with them?

    Sure if these rights made wining people impossible then we shuold fight them. But if they don't, why can't we just state our view on the topic and then go on loving the people, not fighting against it all?

    • Peter Stokes

      Christians are not supposed to 'think' from the 'worlds' point of view, Sam, We are to renew our minds according to God's point of view. After all HE is the creator of the universe, the maker of all things.
      Either same-sex relationships are OK, OR they are sin (wrong choices) - if they are OK why did God condemn them - if they are ‘Sin’ they are not good for anyone.
      This ‘s-s marriage’ debate is not about marriage, but about 'equality'; about making what is wrong 'good'. Doing that will damage all human relationships, for everyone, not just those who are same sex attracted.
      As Aristotle stated a long time ago, "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal".

      • Brady Cone

        Peter,

        You are so right when you say that we are not supposed to think like the world! We are supposed to be set apart, and live in a way that is in accordance to His will.

        But, let me say this: When people aren't Christians, we can't expect them to live by Christian values. In fact living by Christian values will still send them to hell if they don't know Christ.

        So...keeping two gay people from getting married is the wrong battle. The true battle is for their soul! If we don't want them to get married, lets show them Christ's love, share with them His truth, and let God change their hearts. That is success. Just keeping two gay people from getting married is not.

        Thanks for your comment!

        • Will

          I am extremely atheist, and I couldn't be more opposed to the concept of religion (your comment about expecting non-Christians to not like morally set my teeth on edge)... But I completely agree with your idea about gays. Your Jesus would not have hated and cursed at and oppressed gays, he would have tried to save them. Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian

        • Peter Stokes

          Yes, of course we should share Christs love with them. By the way, have you done that lately? I certainly have but that should not stop us opposing something that will have enormously bad consequences for them and the whole of society.
          We must also realize that the push for s-s marriage is NOT about marriage, but 'equality'. An attempt to normalize that which God calls sin. The evidence is clear, when s-s marriage or other legal recognition is made available, only a very small percentage of those who identify as same-sex attracted have taken that step. What has been pushed vigorously pursued, though, is to teach our children that gay is normal!!!

    • tom

      Bravo. A friend of mine posted this article http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/ on facebook the other night, with the caption, an interesting perspective on gay marriage. And he was absolutely cut down by the 'all-tolerant' post-modern people of our generation. Thank you for a voice of reason!

  • Frank Turk

    I Thank God for you, Voddie.

    • Carl

      Frank, you may be thankful for Voddie, but he actually doesn't make a very good argument. He uses the Bible to disallow same sex marriage, claiming that there is no connection to the rights of African Americans. Nonsense. If he truly believed the Bible, he would realize that Leviticus 20:16 condmemned any woman who had sex with those of the black race, and that Yahweh himself made a distinction between the African Egyptians and his chosen race (Exodus 11:7), making Yahweh a racist. In 19th Century America, the Southern Baptist church was founded on this particular exegesis of scripture, and Voddie claims to be a Baptist. Voddie may like to deny what the Bible clearly teaches, but the fact is: homosexuals are making the same stand that Blacks made in the 1960's, and the Bible condemns both homosexuality and race mixing. According to the Bible, Voddie has no more right to marry a white woman than the homosexual has to marry his partner. The Bible condemns both! I support both Voddie's right and the homosexual to marry whomever they wish to marry. It's time to get rid of Bronze Age scriptures written down by savage priests of the ancient world. Christianity needs to go. It is nothing more than vicious hate-mongering and bigotry.

      • Pres

        Excuse me friend but I read Lev. 20:16 and it says any woman who has relations with an animal not the black race and Exodus 11:7 does not talk about sexual relations with a dark race. I respect your right to your opinion but [lease check your bible before you speak .

        • Will

          Here are some good bible verses for you then:
          Deuteronomy 22:28-29
          Raped women must marry their rapists, and the rapist must pay her father. Not the best punishment for disrespecting one of God's creatures, I imagine.
          Numbers 31:1-19
          Focus on the last 3 passages (the rest is context). Kill all the women and men, but save the virgin girls for yourselves. Pretty solid marriage is you ask me.

          Carl, I completely agree. Religion will one day hurt humans... Oh wait. It already has. Thousands of years of religious wars and killings. In seven countries being atheist is punishable by death. In many countries Christians are actively hunted. Christian extremists kill and hate, just like Muslims.
          Bottom line, most religious people are probably alright. But the fact is that there is that side of religion that will hate and kill and maim and bomb and murder and rape.

          All it takes is one religious nut hoping for Armageddon to kill thousands. Why does everyone think it is okay to be associated with groups connected to pedophilia and rewarding murder with heaven?

          • Anonymous

            For Deuteronomy 22:28-29 So if you raped a woman, you are saying you wouldn't find it punishment to be forced to pay the family and marry the woman you raped? You think the rapist wouldn't be treated horribly by the family? The family would be pissed because they'd have to give their daughter away, and it's safe to say the rapist would not want to marry the girl. If you actually put some logical thought into it, that would actually be a pretty sever punishment, it also makes sense if you consider how law was handled at that time.

            As for Numbers 31:1-19 different time, different mindset. The Jews also completely wiped out entire races, that was completely normal, but we look back and say it's a horrible thing to do. But in that time period that was how war was done. War laws is something that man created, I'm not aware of any Biblical laws that dictate what is right or wrong in war. We look at lots of things in the Bible like that and say how, the Bible is so messed up and how it's actually evil and all this crap, but the only real issue is we are looking at it from our modern perspective and not from the historical and cultural context and look at it from the perspective of someone from that time period. I mean if you think what the Jews did in wars was bad, don't research into what the Romans did in wars.

            Also, don't get the beliefs of different religions mixed up it just makes you look ignorant, there are drastic differences between Muslims, Catholics, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and so on. Don't try to lump all religions into one big pot and act they are all the same.

            • Anonymous

              Wow, what a terrible rationalization for the passage from Deutoronomy. Appropriate punishment for the rapist? What about the poor girl being forced to marry the man who raped her!?! This is punishing for the girl/victim! One of the bibles fatal flaws is that it was written by men.

              I do not wish to debate all of the points made in this article, or the comments posted; however, I will simply state that the logic applied to many of these points rest upon far too many assumptions. Much of it is specious at best. But, this is of course a Christian publication, which is why I am merely going point out that the logic applied is not absolute, rather than to use up my time trying to debate or convince everyone otherwise.

              I do support gay rights and hope that gays and lesbians, whether you can prove they are gay or not, are afforded the same civil rights as heterosexuals. Obviously they have faced similar discrimination as other "minority" groups throughout history. Remember to judge others by their character/behavior, rather than by a single trait. There are good and bad homosexuals, just as there are good and bad heterosexuals. Also, there are pedophiles of both sexual orientations, and I highly doubt that either orientation wants to be associated with pedophilia. Why this parallel was drawn to homosexuals (other than that Christian consider both to be immoral) is beyond me. Okay, so I did comment on a few of the points discussed here. Thanks for allowing me to comment!

            • anon

              "the poor girl" You are reading into the text, you are imagining a scenario in todays day in age, with todays mindset and plugging it into the text. Marriage then and the concept of love then, is not what we view today. You are applying todays concepts of romance to those times. We can't do that. Arranged marriages were normal then, today they are not. It's impossible for us to fully understand that. That is why the text is not elaborating on anything. It's just saying that the rapist would have to pay the womans family. He is being held responsible for his actions. At that time there wasn't a concept of two people going onto e harmony and finding their soulmate. People weren't that shallow and dependent on sexual relations then as we are now. Don't plug your mindset into a different time, that's how we read out of context.

            • DYLAN

              @ anon -- Well said...I keep wondering why it is so difficult for people to understand that we can't read our current understandings of marriage into documents originating in the Ancient Near East. The only conclusion to me is that people willfully choose to do it anyway because they think it gives them a reason to disregard God. It's unfortunate that the internet provides an efficient means for people to spread their lies and blatantly irrational conclusions.

      • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

        I guess its not hate-mongering to say that Christianity(and in effect Christians) need to go or be done with. That's not bigotry?

        • Kim Duffy

          I'm so happy that you turned to God and He is healing you! Blessings!

          • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

            Thank you for your blessing

          • Sarah Lewis

            Kim, you do realize that every person is guilty of sin so people who are gay can still be saved by the blood of Jesus. Everyone struggles with something, and no one is perfect. Not all gay people are evil and not all straight people are kind/considerate. If we choose to accept Jesus then we are saved by grace not just because we are heterosexual but because we love Jesus.

            • Sarasa

              Sarah, beautifully said. I am a Buddhist (not religious, leaning on philosophical studies), so actually I have nothing against homosexuality. But your statement made my day.

            • ttpog

              Sarah, What makes you think Kim did not realize that every person is guilty of sin? Nothing in her comment stated such. She was simply wishing 'ex' well, yet you seem to have read much more into her blessing than was actually there. However, your comment did merit the approval of a Buddhist.

            • Jorge Manuel

              If the sinners will stop doing the sin otherwise all return to zero point.Salvation is not open bank book to commit sins but the start of a new way of life with God.

            • JO

              Every person is guilty of sin, correct.. but the way to salvation (per the bible) is to repent of those sins. To feel in one's heard that they are doing something wrong and work to take that sin our of their life. Someone can be 100% and a good Christian, if they do not act upon their desires. Everyone has their demons to battle, whether it be attraction to the same sex, attraction to children, or just attraction to the opposite sex outside of marriage. All of these are wrong, but the desire, versus making the choice to act on the desire are two different things.

              I have a friend that is about as gay as they come... you would never be fooled into thinking this guy was straight.. but he is happily married (to a woman) with a couple of kids. He made a choice.. was it his perfect desire? Probably not.. but is he going thru life with his best friend and a wonderful family while knowing he is staying true to his beliefs? Absolutely!

      • Will
        • Peter Stokes

          Don't be fooled, Will, or perhaps get your hopes up, the word "MAY" comes before "have discovered the source of homosexuality", and before, "'MAY' lie in epigenetics or epi-marks"
          Too many so-called scientists have made claims but so far NONE have been proven or even come close.
          Most such claims are made by homosexuals looking for scientific 'self justification'. Just as the statements from the APA, and other similar bodies, are now made by 'same-sex advisory groups' - made up of homosexuals and lesbians!!!

        • Habs

          Anyone with a basic understanding of science, genetics and epigenetics would see how ridiculously flawed the argument for a 'gay-gene' is. Simply put, genetic information is passed down from generations through sexual traits. Key term here being, 'sexual traits'. For the thousands of years humans have been around, it doesn't seem like gay people have been breeding, thus making it impossible for any such trait to be passed down.

          • Peter Stokes

            Actually, Habs they have been breading. Too many babies are now being raised by two mums or dads because they use some donated egg or sperm and a surrogate. This is actually child abuse (as is easy divorce) because every child deserves to know, and be raised by, its biological mother and father.

            • Austin

              Good to point out that they have been, but with your comment about it being child abuse. Is it child abuse if another family adopts a child to save them from the biological parents who are either abusive or drug addicted? Also they have been doing it before then because many would hide and follow what they were told because of fear.

      • Ryan

        He said if a woman lies with an animal, not a human, so your out of context quote holds no weight.You can call God a racist all you want, but its not the truth, there are black jews that are descended from the tribe of Dan, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. They live in Ethiopia, Eritrea and have proven their right to live in Israel as Israelis, black Israelis. Gods not a racist, otherwise he wouldn't have made us all different colors. Homos aren't the new black; they can make the choice to abstain from their sinful practices and live life as celibate if their urges are that bad. Love is not Lust

        • amy

          last two lines: perfectly said!

      • http://Yahoo Ray

        Carl you need to allow yourself to study the new testament as well of the bible.The Bible first of all is the revelation of God revealed to man. We as Gods creation has no right to judge what he meant to be, if man/mankind had kept his word as well as his law. We would not have to have these type of conversations with one another. My point is this, man sin and God reveal the fact and the consequence of that sin through the law. the law deem man and mankind to be guilty of disobeying God. God had no other means as to deal with man and mankind for their sins but to make a provision for their reconcile back to him like nothing never happen. But the fact and point here is that in his plan to do that man could not dictate the solutions for that plan, because God had it all in His plan, thought and dispensation: That is why there is much to be considered on the fact that God said let us make made in our own image. Gen. 1:26-27 He God had preordain man and mankind to be forgiven and to be reunite back unto him (God) through His redemptive plan. That is why if you investigate the New Testament and some of the major prophets manor prophets writings; The Holy Spirit were given to us and still has a place in our lives, even today if we chose to obey the gospel: Matthew, Mark Luke and John. The rest of the books of the new testament and up to revelation will be a fact and the Divine purposes and meaning of Gods plan to same man and mankind. thanks and I don't hate you-I just believe in Gods Holy Word. ray- who is born-again spiritually.

  • http://www.waulkthisway.com Joshua

    This blog post is a gem. Thanks, Voddie.

  • http://osborneministries.com Reggie

    Beautiful, Voddie. Wonderfully done!

  • Aaron

    I agree with all of these points. As a Christian, obviously I hold to what the Biblical definition of marriage is. If you look at the issue from purely a constitutional perspective, I think that if they want to get "married" in a strictly legal sense, that they should allow it. I would love to see marriage removed from the political arena all together. Let churches have marriage in the traditional sense and let that be purely in that arena. Whatever civil union/legal rights/etc the government wants to dole out for "two people in a committed relationship" blah blah legal jargon let them have it. We as Christians know that God's definition of marriage cannot be changed by man however they want to call it, we can still hold to the tenets of our faith. Ultimately we dont live in a Theocracy so we cannot expect to hold people who don't have the same worldview as we do to those same beliefs.

    • jake

      I agree with u completely Aaron, when will Christians start walking in the reality that we are not of this world, we are pilgrims and sojourners here. Our mission is to preach Christ crucified in the spirit of love and not engage the world in all these fruitless debates that we will never win.

    • antoine williams

      You two make a good point, but I think its slightly short sighted. The "gay movement" doesn't want to be able to marry, they want to "REDEFINE" marriage. Feel me? They want most to have their orientation to be acknowledged as normal. This is why they fight against people who disagree with their views regardless of the fact the no one is keeping them from having their "meaningful relationships". Its simply the sinfulness of sin... sin that wants desperately to not be called sin.

      • Ramonica Caldwell

        Great point Antoine

      • Lawrence

        I disagree, Antoine. They do not wish to "redefine marriage"; they wish to destroy it.

        • Peter Stokes

          Your absolutely right, Lawrence. The same anti-Christian, political left people who brought in 'easy divorce', so as to destroy marriage, are the ones now campaigning along side the homosexuals to enact same-sex marriage. Because they know it will then lead to multi-person marriage and thus totally destroy marriage and the natural family.
          Until we wake up to this farce, and talk boldly about the damage same-sex acts and relationships do to individuals and society - because they are unhealthy and unnatural - we will continue to loose ground.

    • Cody

      And you will find that very quickly you have corrupted yet another perfectly acceptable word with all the meaning along with it! What word do you propose those who already owned it use once they let it go?
      Giving over the term is not an option.

      • NL

        The word has already been redefined. Marriage according to the Bible is a union between Man, Woman, and God. When God is taken out of the equation it is not Biblical Marriage. Britney Spears getting drunk, married, and divorced all in 48 hours is not "Marriage" as the Bible defines it. I'm with Aaron. Let the government have whatever contract they want for legal reasons, but leave Marriage in the churches.

        • Paul N

          People abusing marriage does not make it not marriage. The Children of Israel were told by God not to MARRY women from other people's.

    • http://www.rightwingnutsandbolts.wordpress.com PRB

      While it is true that we are not a Theocracy, we are still citizens of this country with rights and responsibilities. All indications of history are that any attempts to diverge from the traditional family unit, with it specifically defined roles, destroys society. Constantly we are hearing of new studies that confirm this. Even if we could throw out the Biblical understanding of this topic, we would still have to fight against it as committed citizens. However, since so many "Christians" have followed the worldly view that adultery is neither criminal nor harmful, it is hard for them to take a stand on this issue. As I try to help the mother with three children from three different fathers put her life back together, I become painfully aware of how far our society has been degraded by adultery. While I do not single out homosexuals, I certainly see the danger of tearing down yet another wall of the marriage, the only protection of society.

      • TJ

        What new studies are we constantly hearing about that says gay marriage leads to the destruction of society?

        • Peter Stokes

          TJ - What we are seeing now, from very recent research, is that only a VERY small number of same-sex couples are actually marrying when given the chance to do so, BUT many hetro couples are opting for these new 'marriage lite' arrangements (with less commitment and easy escape) where they are open to heterosexuals.
          Also clear is that same-sex couples who have registered their relationships or 'married' are breaking up at a much higher rate than hetro marriages too.
          That is definitely going to have an adverse effect on society as a whole, because it gives less stability to women and teaches Children, even more than easy divorce has, that relationships are temporary and without the need for true lifelong commitment.

    • Paul N

      I have to disagree with you. If homosexual's are allowed to "marry" then it will be looked upon as a norm in society. It will be forced on us and worse our children. There is enough confusion around.

      Dovorce is harmful and we need to get the mindset you say out of the church. Don't worry, homosexual's love the ability to get divorced also. They have no leg to stand on.

      • Sarah Lewis

        I hate to break it to you but there are a lot of horrible things that your children are exposed to on a daily basis unless you don't have cable and only allow them to listen/watch Christian movies and music. Your children would also be exposed to amoral things at school both public and private so you would have to home school them. We live in a world that glorifies sex, lies, and violence. Many of the homosexual people that I know are in monogamous relationship, they are relatively honest, and they hate violence.
        Many people argue that the point of marriage is pro-creation, but there are plenty of heterosexual couples that cannot have children or they don't want them. I would say that the point of marriage is commitment to the person you love despite his or her flaws. I grew up in a household with an abusive step-mother and I would've preferred two fathers who treated me right rather than what I had.

        • Mac

          You are right in that sheltering one's children from the carnality of this world is difficult to say the least, and potentially impossible! But, what you have also done is to over-correct. You either passive aggressively or unintentionally argued that not only is the homosexual relationship normal or of equal standing, but rather that it is more virtuous than heterosexual relationships. Since, this culture is violent, but homosexual couples are both monogamous and abhor violence in contrast to the blood lust of heterosexual couples.... How does one come to that conclusion?

        • ttpog

          Sarah, we don't have cable and we home educate all of our children. You seem to be quite sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. Maybe you are young, and having been in public schools it would make sense that you are sympathetic. As a Christian, I am sympathetic to the lost soul of the homosexual, but NOT to their agenda. That distinction MUST be made, or you become complicit with their agenda. Just as in abortion - I am sympathetic to those who have aborted their babies, but not sympathetic to the abortion industry. Remember, many people who knew Jerry Sandusky and Jeffrey Dahmer said they were 'nice' people and 'relatively honest'.

          • Leeroy

            You do realize that you can be opposed to their lifestyle on a personal basis and not force YOUR agenda onto them, right?

            Not everyone in America is a Christian, and America is not a country where laws are based on religion.

            I'm a Christian, and I'm opposed to gay marriage on a "me" level, but I shouldn't force my convictions onto those around me. The only thing that sends a person to hell is rejecting God's mercy, and it is by that grace and mercy that we are saved. We are all filthy, depraved, and unworthy of heaven without the grace of Christ.

            • DYLAN

              "You do realize that you can be opposed to their lifestyle on a personal basis and not force YOUR agenda onto them, right?"

              First of all, no one is "forcing" an agenda on them. It's called freedom of speech and the freedom to vote. Second, many people are beginning to realize that there are more than adequate reasons outside the Bible for opposing the same-sex agenda.

              "The only thing that sends a person to hell is rejecting God's mercy..."

              That's well enough said, but don't you realize that choosing a destructive lifestyle over the truth is tantamount to rejecting God's mercy?

              "We are all filthy, depraved, and unworthy of heaven without the grace of Christ."

              All who are in Christ can confidently say "We WERE all filthy, depraved, etc." Only of those who do not receive the grace of Christ can it be said "We ARE all filthy, depraved, etc."

        • DYLAN

          "Many people argue that the point of marriage is pro-creation, but there are plenty of heterosexual couples that cannot have children or they don't want them."

          It is likely that a lot of couples that cannot have children were unaware of this condition when they got married. And some of them eventually do achieve the ability to pro-create. Those that didn't want children in the first place probably should have seriously reconsidered getting married, being that pro-creation is the inevitable conclusion to long-term sexual behavior between a man and a woman. So although appearing to be a legitimate argument against a particular purpose for marriage, your statement actually does more to highlight people's ignorance about the realities of marriage and the concept of responsibility for oneself and others.

          " I would say that the point of marriage is commitment to the person you love despite his or her flaws."

          It is easily argued that this type of commitment should be reflected toward everyone that we have frequent contact with. You may try to clarify then that you were talking about romantic love. But I'm not aware of any tendency for marriage license applications in any state to ask the applicants, “Do you love each other?” Nor am I aware of couples to exchange marriage vows on the condition that both people commit to forever expressing romantic feelings towards the other. If there are those who do so, they will invariably find themselves breaking that commitment many times in just their first year. Call me crazy, but I think these are all clear signs that the marriage commitment was purposed almost entirely for healthy pro-creation. Those who are not interested in pro-creation (same-sex or otherwise) should be completely content to do what is already fully legal for them: long-term cohabitating; common-law partnering; or whatever they want to call that which is already fully available to them. We all are now painfully aware that a "monogamous relationship" based on romantic feelings of love never lasts longer than those romantic feelings. Those who aren't aware of this are basically lying to each other from the start, all the while asking the government to subsidize their lives with extra financial benefits until they get tired of each other.

          • Peter Stokes

            Dylan, don't be fooled by the rhetoric. A lot of couples are totally unaware they are unable to have children when they marry. If they have not tried, and most don't until they marry, how would they know?
            Also, 'romance' is not what keeps couples together (that is Hollywood rhetoric) it is real love and commitment - both go way beyond 'romance' It is simply a straw man argument to suggest that as soon as 'romance' dies couples fall apart. Ask anyone who has been married for more than a few years.

            • DYLAN

              It looks like you either responded to the wrong person, or you totally missed that you and I are saying precisely the same thing LOL. Try reading over my comment again, carefully this time.

              Of course I agree that 'romance' is not what keeps couples together. But when people ignorantly base their hopes for a relationship on romance, or even simply the feeling of connectedness...well, we see the end of that story everyday.

      • Derek

        I absolutely despise when someone says "it will be forced on us". No one is forcing you or anyone you know to marry a gay, to marry gays, to attend gay weddings, etc. What you really mean is "we will be inconvenienced by it because we don't like it and don't want to look at it" like someone who is inconvenienced by screaming children in a restaurant.

    • Sean

      The biggest problem, from what I've learned through this who snafu, is that if gay marriage IS supported by the state/country/whatever, it would be considered a hate crime for a church to deny marrying two gays. THAT is the problem with this. To whomever said "the sinfullness of sin", you nailed it right on the head. Gays don't just want to get married, they want to remove ALL possibilities of guilt... aka, remove any power of the Church. We know that God can NEVER be trumped... but I was also raised not to test my God either... and to call on Him for strength. In this case, the Church needs to be calling on His Strength to snap this gay movement once and for all! I don't want my country to force perversion into my face.

      • Carole

        Okay, here's a correction about Gays wanting to force churches to marry us. WRONG. We don't care if you don't want to perform our marriage ceremonies. Fine. We know where we're not wanted, and we respect your right to your religious beliefs. There are denominations of the Christian church who will be happy to perform a Gay ceremony if the couple just HAS to barge their way up into your religion. To me, a Gay Christian is like a Jewish Nazi, or a Black Klansman. We know your religion despises us, and most of us want nothing to do with it. So, really. Don't worry. We will not advocate for the govt to insist you people marry us in your churches. Any Gay person who does is a blind, deaf fool.

        • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

          Are you 100 percent sure you want to make that claim? So you haven't seen the case of a lesbian couple suing clergy for a refusal to marry them. You haven't seen any cases similar to that? If the answer is no then you are uninformed. If the answer is yes then you have ignored the facts for the sake of argument.

          • Carole

            Ex Bi, if they are doing that, then they're wrong. I would do my best to talk them out of that suit. No one should force a religious organization to do anything against its 'laws'. I personally am against Gays demanding to be married in churches that don't want them. AS I SAID in my above comment, there are plenty of churches who are fine with it, and the couples should go to them, not demand that an uninterested church do it, just to make a point, then sue them if they refuse. That's stupid, and it's a waste of time.

            • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

              At Carole I am glad that you can at least agree with me on that point. My issue is not that gay people exist. My issue is not that gay people marry. My issue is when I am told that I MUST embrace homosexuality as amoral, or I am guilty of commiting a hate crime. Although you say that is not what the agenda is ,Carole, the politically charged left has done much to create a climate conducive to this. When I am told not only that I should tolerate it but embrace it or shut up that is a problem. Since when was my speech and religion only free in my head. I know that that is not the agenda of every individual homosexual or liberal thinker, but it is the extremists on both ends that cause such great polarization. The problem ,as I see it, is that this discussion has been tempered by the extremists on both side. The radical left with their brutal tactics have characterized the right as a bunch of primitive townspeople with torches and spears out to get the "other". The radical right has painted a portrait of twisted perverts who want to turn out your preschooler and have him marching with a rainbow flag. Both views are not true of the larger population of either group, but thats what each side believes of the other, and thats one of the biggest problems facing either group. The moment I don't agree I am labeled hateful, bigoted, and I might as well be tarred and feathered. That shouldnt be.

  • Mark

    "Bauchum on the wing, driving the baseline, takes it strong against the defender, shoots...(whistle called for foul, but the ball goes in)...count the basket, and the foul! Bauchum to the line for one more!"

    Brother, this article is so money on Truth. Will re-read and continue to ponder on how to articulate on my faith on why homosexual marriage issues are not about attacking people, but its an attack on Truth. Count the basket, and the foul.

  • http://www.forumfaith.com/blog Jacob

    I don't think Voddie was trying to attack the homosexual community through this article. It seemed to me more like he was trying to help Christians understand why it's ok not to just follow the culture on this issue. It's not a core tenant of our faith, but the fact that many Christians have exegeted the culture and don't have any issues with the statement that "gay is the new black" is pointing to a weak biblical worldview.

    What would Jesus do? He would love homosexuals yes... but he would not pronounce homosexuality as perfectly normal. When we look at heaven we are reminded that every tribe and nation will be there. A picture of fullness, the way things were meant to be, which does not include sin (all sin! (not just homosexuality))

    This side of heaven, we will all struggle with sin. But the key word is "struggle". Stand strong brothers and sisters.

    • http://evangelistteacherofrighteousness.blogger.fr charles

      He who is born of the seed of God cannot sin because he is sealed in Christ.No matter how sin terrorises people those whose names are written in the book of life ,Satan has no power over them.

  • Pingback: Homosexuality and Gay Marriage: For Your Consideration. « The Strife

    • k

      I couldn't agree anymore. It really irks me when a proponent for gay marriage uses the Civil Rights movement as ammunition for their cause. And it increasingly irks me when they claim to just want the rights when they just want to redefine marriage. I am one of the many Christians bullied into not expressing my opinions. Going to a very "pro gay marriage" school get though at times.

      • K Wendt

        Why would you be "irked" in the first place? How does the love, union, and eventual "marriage" of LGBT citizens affect your life in even the smallest degree????

        • Amill

          Wendt,
          Please don't act like you're the one being picked on; this whole discussion/campaign was started by the LGBT community. Its never been about 'leave us alone in peace', but a demand that this lifestyle is accepted and honored against our will.

          You do realize that the 30+ times it has appeared on a state ballot the voters have chosen to *not* affirm forms of same-sex marriage.

          The voters have decided, but you don't care, and want and demand acceptance and acquiescence by everyone.

          • TJ

            Civil rights of a minority are NEVER something to be voted on. The reason the discussion was started by the LGBT community is because it is being denied basic human rights. You don't accept it? Don't get a gay marriage. Don't tell me I'm not being "picked on" when I can't marry the person I want to because it might go against YOUR religion.

            • Sean

              Has nothing to do solely with religion in my books. It's all about legality. You claim human rights? Suppose that means you're going to want to reproduce, too, as the ability to have children, or, in politico-speak, 'create citizens' to further the prosperity of this great nation, would be considered a human right? Oh, going to adopt instead and help continue this faux marriage? Call it whatever you want, but it will never be true marriage. There is nothing natural about homosexuality other than the self-destructive nature of the lifestyle. And if you have a problem with that logic, take it up with your gay birth parents. Oh, wait....

            • Steveo

              You are talking about civil rights for a particular BEHAVIOR. Should I have special civil rights because I like to hunt or fish? It is something I love so, why not?

              Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. Lies are still lies even if everyone believes it.

          • Carole

            How is it that total strangers have decided that I (and others) will never get married (or have a legal union, if you prefer)? These people don't know me. They wouldn't know me if they fell over me. They know nothing of what's in my heart. They know nothing of my values. They look at one word--homosexual--and define a million people by the myths associated with one word. For any individual here, including the author, who has ever been wholly defined by total strangers via myths associated with a single word or label---sound familiar??

            • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

              Kind of the same way you look at the word Christian and make a judgement call about 2.1 billion people. Sound familiar?

        • Les Moore

          homosexuality DOES and HAS affected many people and businesses already. they are suing and trying to put people out of business who do not agree with their lifestyle. "so, you don't wish to photograph my gay wedding? I'll show you."
          Story after story are emerging just like this one.

  • Jon

    Very well written sir!

  • Alex

    Keep in mind that while this talk of "the bride of Christ" and religious symbolism makes sense to YOU, the rest of the world doesn't have a clue what you're talking about. And so the question becomes "Should the state honor biblical symbolism in it's laws and legal decisions" to which any reasonable observer of the constitution should respond "No, it should not."

    The simplest solution is to allow the state to recognize gay marriage. Nobody is asking you to stop believing in your religious definition of marriage.

    And while this article provides a decent case against gay marriage, all you're really saying is that certain people shouldn't be able to find happy, fulfilling relationships like others already have. Is it worth being on the wrong side of history over this?

    • Bret

      Actually Alex....

      1) Should the Constitution honor Biblical mandates? Yes, it should...but it doesn't and that's been clear since it was written. If Biblical mandate IS God's Law, then Biblical mandate is higher than man's law. However, since the United States was not established as a theocracy, man's law prevails.
      Man, of course, is influenced by any number of outside forces, including theology and philosophy; therefore, man's laws are influenced by man's theology and philosophy, etc.

      2) The author (and the Law) doesn't deny ANYBODY the right to "happy, fulfilling relationships".

      As Mr. Baucham stated in the article: "For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

      You are choosing to identify a "happy, fulfilling relationship" with the concept of marriage, that has never existed (until recently) as a concept for same-sex couples.

      • Bryan

        So many things.
        1.) Religion, yes, does influence people's political stances; namely, the side AGAINST gay marriage. If you take religion out of the scenario, as the constitution's separation of church and state dictates, then there is no reason why two loving consensual adults should be barred from marriage, other than you religious types having been raised to believe it as wrong, never having a meaningful friendship with a gay person, and the fact that you find two men kissing "icky." BTW, elderly straight couples can get married after menopause, so don't give me any "you can't reproduce" crap.

        2.) Your military/pacifist analogy is incredibly, unbelievably misguided. The military is a choice that I fully respect, but it is nothing like marriage. Society sometimes encourages certain young people to join the military, but it practically demands matrimony. 1% or so of the country is in the military, whereas (according to ChaCha) 80% of Americans marry in their lifetime. To deny gays from marrying is to deny them something that America expects and finds normal- you're pushing them outside of normal because you perceive them as abnormal.

        3.) There are benefits to marriage. Even if gay couples received all the same economic and civil rights given to straight married couples (do the research, there are ENORMOUS amounts of tax-cuts and protections that you are denying gay couples, saying "lifepartner" instead of "husband" or "wife" is demeaning. Again, it's ab-normalizing something for no other reason than a lack of knowledge of gay people.

    • Candice

      I truly despise the phrase "right/wrong side of history" as a way to guilt the intellect of People opposed to homosexual marriage. As a Christian, I could care less what this world's "history" promotes as truth. I'd much rather be on the side of a timeless Christ than history. His truth is the only truth that will surpass history anyway.

      • Frances

        Amen.

      • Carole

        Candice, then go start your own country, because this one is not a theocracy. It is made up of a whole lot of NON-Christians as well as Christians, be them Muslim, Hindu, Sykh, Jewish, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, or what have you. Your religion is not the only one on earth. You have to share space with all the others and you cannot impose your religious beliefs on whomever you wish, at least not in this country. I am not Christian, and I could care less what the reigion says about Gay marriage. I'll wait to see what the ACTUAL law will decide. If it falls on our side, then I guess you folks will just have to move into communes, or quaint little farming villages like the Amish. At least the Amish mind their own business and keep their religion to themselves. Take some cues.

        • Niki

          I really don't understand why you would tell someone to start their own country with laws identical to the ones we have here. Marriage is already accepted as one man one woman here. If we were to follow your logic, should it not be those who desire to marry someone of the same gender who starts a country where that is already the law, instead of trying to force the majority to follow the minority here?
          Please do not misconstrue what I am saying. I am in no way actually suggesting that homosexuals leave the country. I am merely following your logic on this one.

        • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

          Carole you really don't see your hypocrisy do you? Christians are accused of imposing their views on the rest of the nation and forcing conformoity. Your answer to combat this is to impose your views on the rest of the nation and force conformity. Kettle says, "Hello Pot." Pot says,"You're black."

          • Carole

            Ex Bi, you don't seem to realize that the Constitution allows you the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit but that it ALSO allows others NOT to practice one at all. You say we're forcing conformity. We say you are. So, who wins this?? Where's the compromise?? Is there ANY compromise to speak of?? How do Christians get to have their religious beliefs recognized and respected while non-Christian Gays/Lesbians (and Christian ones, for that matter) live their lives with all the same rights and benefits? We get marriage rights--you guys feel disregarded. We don't get them--we feel like second-class citizens. It is a stalemate where neither side gets what they want, either way. So, what to do? What is your solution? I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess).

            • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

              "...the Constitution allows you the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit but that it ALSO allows others NOT to practice one at all."
              >>> Good point, at least in America :) The #1 reason I support gay marriage is because it would be a start to changing the laws in numerous countries where you will be killed or imprisoned for being gay.

              "You say we're forcing conformity. We say you are. So, who wins this?? Where's the compromise?? Is there ANY compromise to speak of??"
              >>> This is mind-boggling, to be sure. I have seen both sides of this issue unwilling to compromise, yet when I observe the conversations here, there is more common ground than you might think. One problem is the use of definitions. Maybe someone could come up with a Christian/LGBT truce manifesto? :)

              "How do Christians get to have their religious beliefs recognized and respected while non-Christian Gays/Lesbians (and Christian ones, for that matter) live their lives with all the same rights and benefits?"
              >>> Good points again. Love is the only answer. Love doesn't mean you like or agree fully; but that you accept the person and show kindness and help. And THEN you just might start to like "those people".

              "We get marriage rights--you guys feel disregarded. We don't get them--we feel like second-class citizens. It is a stalemate where neither side gets what they want, either way."
              >>> Yes, there is often a stalemate here. In my observation and participation in these discussions, it seems about 90% of the time it is the Christian conservative camp who needs to "repent" and end the stalemate. Gay marriage is not the end of the world.

              "So, what to do? What is your solution? I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess)."
              >>> Yes, yes, yes. One way to end a stalemate is to begin the discussion about solutions. In the end, I see 3 solutions: marriage, celibacy and promiscuity. Perhaps people could weigh in on the pros/cons of these? Or offer further solutions?

              (Just my 1.5 cents-- a straight, liberal Bible-thumper who lives outside the gate of Christendom :)

            • LaDiDa

              There is no religious liberty at stake here. Asking you not to abridge my rights is not the same as forcing you to accept my immutable characteristics. Allowing civil gay marriage does not force you to "accept" or "condone" gay marriage, any more than allowing obese people the choice to eat at Burger King forces you to "accept" or "condone" obesity (despite the fact that the Bible is pretty clear on treating your body as a temple). It just means that, in the U.S. at least, you're not allowed to use the law as a tool for institutionalizing your religious belief in a way that restricts others' civil rights.

      • Kelly

        Actually, the military does have chaplains (religious leaders), which are not allowed to be armed. They also are required to give religious service and last rites anyone (be them friend or foe). Medics are required to provide life saving techniques to anyone (once again, friend or foe). To assume the military doesn't not provide positions for everyone (including the devoutly religious and pacifists) is just ignorant.

    • http://andrewtlocke.wordpress.com andrewtlocke

      Alex, the rest of the world, by-and-large, since the dawn of marriage as a concept, has understood marriage to be inter-gender, not intra-gender. This is not a specifically Christian phenomenon by any stretch. Over time almost every major civilized culture in recent memory has moved from broader ideas of marriage, such as one man:many wives, to more restricted senses, i.e. one man:one woman.

      Certainly Christianity bears some of the responsibility in taking the concept a step further to solidify it as a commitment between one man and one woman, but even this step has been reflected in all major cultures for at least the last several millennia. You don't have to go to the Bible to find it exclusively portrayed, just look around. "Non-Christian" cultures bear the evidence as well.

      Voddie IS saying that Christians have a unique perspective of marriage as a metaphor of the relationship of Christ to his Church, and that this unique perspective must continue to be our primary basis for opposing so-called "gay marriage" and not because we really value the irenic picture given to us by the Waltons.

      ~a

    • ETS

      SOOO over the 'wrong side of history' phrase - particularly as a black man. If homosexual marriage is ever fully legal in this country, I will not be 'scared' or 'embarrassed' to tell my grandchildren that I maintained a Biblical worldview when it wasn't popular - and will continue to do. History and society are not the definer of absolute truth - God and His word are.

  • Samantha Bellach

    If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?" -- His definition of bi-sexual is a very archaic one! It's not necessarily that a bi-sexual person is polygamous, it's that a bi-sexual person acknowledges the ability to be attracted to a person of either gender (i.e. that he or she has been or could develop monogamous feelings of love towards a person of regardless of their gender). In addition, "Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right," is another glaringly obvious mis-statement. If they have not been deprived of any right, what is the purpose of protecting marriage? From a legal standpoint, long-term monogamous commitments afford all kinds of tax considerations, insurance benefits, and legal power of attorney. These are the rights that homosexuals are pushing for. The use of the classic "12 year olds, someone who has already married, and people who are too close in age," argument alludes to 1) failure to be of legal age/statutory rape clauses in US law, 2) exploiting financial dependency under US law, and 3) genetic mutation risk to an unborn fetus. None of these three situations applies to adult, homosexual/bisexual/whateversexual relationships. Sadly enough in this world, #2--marrying for the financial benefits as opposed to divine, monogamous love--occurs in heterosexual marriage arrangements all of the time. Who are we to make that distinction as to what kind of love a person is able to manifest internally on the order of what genitalia someone is born with? And while I agree with the author's etymological definition of the word 'marriage,' what homosexuals are fighting for is 'civil union.' If there is truly that much confusion over semantics, then I (and many others, a la France) suggest changing the verbiage from a legal standpoint to 'civil union,' so that everyone is on the same page. There is a very interesting push to make that semantics distinction, which allows for separate religious ceremonies to take place in order to consider a couple "married," versus becoming "partners in a civil union." That way the only thing the United States is responsible for arbitrating is who can receive a piece of paper, not entry into Heaven. God determines that, after all

    • Russell Traweek

      Those who have same-sex attraction, regardless of affiliation, do have the same rights to marriage as those who are heterosexual. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex within the same age restrictions and the same genetic conditions regarding familiar cousins. What is being argued for in same-sex unions is an additional right or special privilege based on one's own personal desires and attraction. As argued clearly, this definition is outside of all historical norms in addition to Biblical norms for marriage. It is not a desire that marriage be granted to those of same-sex attraction, but rather to redefine marriage altogether.

      As a Christian and as a pastor, I not only support what Voddie wrote here, but I preach it and teach it regularly. From a Biblical perspective and worldview, we must understand that God created marriage and in doing so, He owns the patent on it. We don't get to vote on it. We don't get to remold it and repackage it and sell it according to how we desire for it to be. When we do, we violate His law, His Word. This is not an article about homosexuality only, but it is showing the fallacies behind the argument the denying homosexuals the right to marriage is not a civil rights issue as with issues of blacks vs. whites in the past. This is a moral issue, not simply a cultural or political issue.

      • Emily

        I agree completely, Max, especially with your point about non-Christians being allowed to be married. I think that what we're really fighting about here is the rights to the legal benefits of marriage, which according to Constitutional law, homosexuals should have along with heterosexuals. The term "marriage" already doesn't mean to the rest of the world what it was originally intended to mean.

    • Max

      Not to be smart or anything but your statement "3) genetic mutation risk to an unborn fetus."
      What if 2 homosexuals are related and want to get married? Would that be okay? Just curious.

      However, I also agree with changing the verbiage from a legal standpoint- in all cases. Don't misunderstand me, I am a Christian and I 100% believe that the Bible declares homosexuality to be a sin, however, that being said when I consider this issue I wonder about heterosexuals who are not Christians being allowed to be "married", i.e. atheists, Buddhists, satanists, etc. Therefore, if those non-believing groups are allowed to be married then why not those who are homosexual? However, once again, change the verbiage. I would assume (and maybe I'm wrong) that if I were say an atheist and I wanted a legal relationship with my partner of the opposite sex that I would prefer to have another term to define it than the "religious" word "marriage". On the other hand I thought it was strange that when I married my spouse why was it not enough that we were married by our pastor but that we also needed a license to make it "legal"?. I wondered what business is it of the government that my spouse and I were married before God. My point is that from my point of view we were married in the eyes of God on one hand and then part 2 we were legally married in the eyes of our government. So if we skipped the 2nd part, we were indeed "married" according to God, but not the government. If there really is a separation of church and state, then this is just another area to part ways and let's be done with this because, quite frankly, I for one am sick of the arguments, neither side is really hearing the other and nothing is ever really going to get resolved like this. If the opponents to gay marriage win, it's not going to stop people from being gay and the arguing is just going to get worse until no one wins, and everyone, both sides, are left feeling more bitterness and hate from the whole thing. This is about semantics. There most certainly is no comparison between this movement and the civil rights movement of the 60's, not even close, and it is an insult to the African Americans in our country to say that it is, and Voddie makes many great points in this blog as to why they are not the same. This is a matter of 2 consenting adults wanting legal rights to each other and that is a governmental matter which has nothing to do with our religious beliefs at all, but the term "marriage" does, therefore, perhaps it is time for "marriage" and "legal union" to get "divorced", they've already been separated for a long time anyway if my getting married in front of my pastor makes me no more legally united to my spouse than a homosexual couple who make a verbal commitment to each other in front of friends- because in both cases no one is legally unified until the government declares it so.

      • Reuben

        Best response Ive seen on this issue yet! Well said Max

    • Matt

      "From a legal standpoint, long-term monogamous commitments afford all kinds of tax considerations, insurance benefits, and legal power of attorney. These are the rights that homosexuals are pushing for."

      and yet you are missing a crucial thing: "long term monogamous commitments" is a seriously lacking definition of marriage; "our deeply felt desires" are not the reason that marriage is protected and limited to certain types of relationships. Marriage is the foundation and beginning of a family, which is the unit that forms and continues a civilization, and even deeper, the continuation of our species.
      Of course a Christian views marriage as coming from God and reflecting Christ and the Church, but history itself has shown us that marriage goes way beyond Christianity. It is a human institution, and I would also challenge Christians to recognize this. Marriage began with Adam, not Abraham or anyone else. This is why we should still encourage those outside of Christ to marry and have families, and protect the definition of marriage which has survived all recorded human history, and will survive this sad time as well.

      • Sarah Lewis

        If I am a heterosexual female, but I do not want children am I going against God, because you are saying "Marriage is the foundation and beginning of a family, which is the unit that forms and continues a civilization, and even deeper, the continuation of our species." What if I discovered that I was infertile? Do I get excluded from any chance of experiencing the chance to get married to the man I love? Marriage isn't always about pro-creation. We aren't animals, because almost all animals only have sex in order to continue their species. We should get married because we are in love and want to commit the rest of our lives with that person.

    • K Wendt

      Samantha: What an incredibly valid and logical point you state (and so vividly and poetically too), your viewpoint will become the norm once natural attrition wipes out the brainwashed thinkers; those who literally have blood on their hands because of how they perceive the LGBT community.

    • RangeResident

      A few months ago I was happy with the idea of civil union. The state I live in (in Australia) recently legalised civil unions, and I thought it would be the end of it. But No! It only made the push for "marriage" even stronger. In Australia, there are absolutely no legal differences between married heterosexuals and defacto homosexuals except the marriage certificate and the divorce requirements if the relationship ends, yet the push is still on for the use of marriage. My conclusion is that their desire to use the term marriage is a direct attack on religion in general, and Christianity specifically. Part of the reason I believe that is because of recent actions in other parts of the world. Denmark has just ruled that churches must perform same-sex marriage. In England there is a strong movement amongst parliamentarians that churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages will lose their ability to perform marriages. If this was about "rights", which the homosexual community claims it is, then they would be happy to have equal rights, which they now have.

      • Brad

        Sorry love but you are wrong, I also live in Australia with my male partner of 10 years am not entitled to his superannuation should he die, nor am I entitled to see him on his death bed in emergency, just to name a few. Also this varies state by state. Get your facts right. Marriage is nothing about religion and all about love and legal standing, especially in Australia where most of the population aren't nut job religious fundies like the author of this article.

        Everyone here is entitled to their religion, entitled to their own form of hatred, me, well I'm just a loving atheist here to preach love.

  • http://reformedzulu.blogspot.com Lelo

    Well thought, well argued, well said, Dr. Baucham!! Now I'll have something intellectual to say!

  • Bradford Neal

    I'm shocked and saddened that in the year 2012 we still have those who can't seem to grasp the difference between pedophiles who prey on vulnerable children vs. loving relationships between consenting adults. Of the many offensive assertions in this article, this is by far the worst and the most dangerous.

    When you equate gays and pedophiles, you encourage people to take the feelings of fear and hatred they hold towards pedophiles, and carry them over to homosexuals who pose no threat to others. Fostering fear and hate is not very Christ-like, and it is certainly not how we as Christians should be treating any marginalized group of people.

    • http://www.forumfaith.com/blog Jacob

      "Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!" is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment"

      He's saying that if the pedophile is a homosexual, you can't call it that without making people mad...

    • Susan

      What if the 12 year old boy consents, Bradford? Is it then right or wrong in your evaluation?

      • Bradford Neal

        Twelve year olds do not have the required mental capacity, emotional maturity OR legal standing to consent in any US state. There is a reason we have age of consent laws.

        • Susan

          Uh-huh, but even that legal line is decided somewhat arbitrarily. It ranges from 15-18...and in some places as low as 13! I guess then that you would say that once a boy is (whatever the legal age of consent is then it's acceptable for a 50 year old mad to have sex with him? I loath the thought of such a man being thus involved with my 15 year old son! We get into a lot of trouble when we make up such arbitrary lines for morality. God has said that any sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that same-sex sex is wrong. We all break God's law, and we are all culpable. God has warned us that there will be a day of judgment. Even if not punished now, it will be someday....UNLESS we realize our guilt before a holy God and repent and seek the forgiveness offered us in Christ Jesus who suffered the punishment of our sin so that we don't have to. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Be ready for judgment day.

          • Jordan

            Susan, your argument has no rationality. The exact same could be said for a heterosexual pedophile. Homosexuality and pedophile are not the same. Period. If you want to start grouping things together, then lets put speaking in tongues and having turrets in the same basket. The sure as hell apear the same to an outsider.

            And for the record, within the same passage that God "says" homosexuality is wrong, he also says wearing cotton and linen at the same time is wrong. You'd better think twice before you dress your husband for any summer parties.

            • Jasmine

              Sorry, Jordan, but there are so many places in the Bible that declare that God finds homosexuality to be wrong and that He hates it (just as He hates all sin). One of those places was mentioned in the article above. When you study the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), you can clearly see God's intent and God's reaction regarding same-sex relationships. Just think about where the word "sodomy" comes from, and then remember what happened its namesake (Sodom) because God could no longer tolerate the actions there.

              God makes the rules about what defines sin, Christians don't. And He doesn't change them to mirror culture. Don't confuse calling a sin a sin with hating a sinner. If that was the case, we would all be reviled! The message of the Bible is that because we sin, we deserve death, but God by His grace has made a way to save us from that sin. And that, according to 1 Corinthians 6 and many other Scriptures (Romans 1, etc.) includes homosexual behavior.

          • Sarah Lewis

            No one is perfect, Susan, that includes you and me. You say to be ready for judgment day, but are you ready? If God can cover up your daily sins with his mercy then he can also choose to forgive homosexual people. Most homosexual people would never harm a child while some heterosexuals are pedophiles. I know people who are Christians as well as homosexual. If you don't think that is possible then maybe you need to reevaluate your beliefs because everyone struggles with something that is why Jesus had to die for our sins. God's grace saves us. If he condemned us for our imperfections then everyone would be in serious trouble.

    • Frank Turk

      I like the idea that homosexuality is really about "loving relationships between consenting adults". For the sake of the advocates of that sentiment, I want it to be true.

      Let's ignore AIDS for a minute. In the best possible case, the homosexual population of the United States is 10% of the population -- about 30 million people. In 2008, the CDC reported that 63% of all syphilis cases in the US are occur in men who have sex with men. If you do the math (stats found here), syphilis occurs 13 times more often per capita in the gay population if we assume that 10% of the population is actually gay.

      I wonder how we work the word "loving" into that statistic. I am totally willing to say that not all heterosexual people are "loving" people, and that not all heterosexual unions are loving -- a lot of them are selfish. But the rate of the behaviors which cause the spread of syphilis in the homosexual population says that there is something other than "loving" relationships going on at a rate the heterosexuals can't match.

      • Sam

        Frank, keep in mind that without a culture of marriage the homosexual community is deprived of a practice that would encourage fidelity and monogamy. Because heterosexuals have had such a practice there is a positive context in which to imagine sexual intimacy. Legalizing homosexual unions would be a step toward correcting the very problems you describe.

        • http://thegospelcoalition.org Collin Hansen

          Marriage cannot encourage fidelity and monogamy if you object to the very definition and purpose of marriage in the first place. If it's nothing more than a contract between two consenting adults, then it's as easily dissolved as any other relationship. The high divorce rates for marriage in an age of no-fault divorce illustrate this problem.

          • Sam

            So here's the rub: marriage reduced to a civil contract, overseen by the state bureaucracy, is ineffectual since it lacks the proper community context and moral vision to give it enduring significance (not to mention theological significance). Yet without a thicker description of marriage and fidelity the homosexual community cannot hope to escape the culture of promiscuity and deviance that contributes to the high rates of STD. My argument is against the characterisation of the gay community as prone to deviance and abuse since to characterise them thus is to ignore the fact that there is no positive cultural context in which to be gay. That's why the movement toward unions and marriage is so culturally important. Think of it this way, we're familiar with the saying, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns"; by not allowing a positive culture of homosexual activity we are perpetuating the deviance we use as an argument against homosexuality. We're keeping homosexuality an "outlaw" behaviour. Please note, this is a sociological/cultural argument and NOT a theological argument. The argument I am responding to is, similarly, a sociological argument. Hope that clarification helps. The positive theological argument, which of course requires exegetical and anthropological clarity, would then move to see the church's positive role in encouraging a practice of marriage that would provide the thick understanding of marriage that only it can provide.

            • http://thegospelcoalition.org Collin Hansen

              Again, we've seen in heterosexuals that the sociological/cultural revolution in marriage over the last half-century has effectively eroded the significance of the institution. Marriage rates have dropped while divorce rates have climbed. There is no reason to think among homosexuals that applying this merely contractual view of marriage, which can be dissolved at any whim, would promote anything but richer divorce lawyers.

            • Sam

              I agree, which is why we need to pay much more careful attention to the actual benefits of marriage and how a very significant benefit is sexual stability and the protection that monogamy affords to a society.

            • http://thenface2face@wordpress.com Karen Butler

              But according to a recent study, monogamy is not a value in at least half of these unions -- and redefining this aspect of marriage is: "According to some experts...boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution." Read more about the study here:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

              Let's not pretend there will be any value of monogamy in these relationships-- and certainly, let's question whether there is any value to society from monogamy at all!

      • Carole

        You hit the nail on the head when you pointed the finger at Hets, too. Actually, the highest rising rate of AIDS/HIV right now is among hetero Black females. It seems to find a new group every so many years. I think the decadance is about equal in both communities, gay and straight. I work with a whole department of het men, two of them married, and NONE of them are monogomous. In fact, the two married ones are shameless adulterors. The others admit freely that they cheat on their girlfriends--a man needs variety, they say. However, me...a lil ol' Lesbian...I've been with my partner for 6 yrs and never once cheated on her, and never will. I find myself having to chastize these het male co-workers for their disrespectful and frivolous attitudes about women/relationships/marriage. I am friends with a lesbian couple who've been together for 17 yrs, and another together for 10 yrs. So, we see things differently in our different realities. In my world, I see shameful, cheatin, lyin, straight men and monogomous, faithful, committed Lesbians. So, go figure.

    • Jose

      Is pedophilia not a sexual orientation? Is bestiality not a sexual orientation? Is necrophilia not a sexual orientation? Is incest not a sexual orientation? What makes homosexuality anymore valid than these forms of sexual and emotional expression? If sexual orientation is inherent than on what basis do you determine these to be less valid sir? Bradford you say that a 12 year old child odes not have the mental capacity, but we have tried many children as adult in this nation. Why? Because they were fully aware, conscious, and capable. As arbitrary as our laws, if the government lowered the age of consent would it then be moral? By your estimation a relationship is valid based upon the ability to consent. If someone consents to having their limbs torn from them as some form of sadism, does that make it moral. Sure that is an extreme and probably not realistic but the question has merit. Is something moral on the basis of capacity to consent. If I solicit someone to assist me in killing myself does that make it moral because I consented the act of murder? No Bradford it doesn't.

      • Elle

        Jose,

        What makes it more valid than incest, bestiality or necrophilia? We're talking about two human beings in an equal, loving, committed relationship. None of those behaviors you described fit that description. The idea that if we allow homosexuals to marry then 'what won't we allow' is not logical at all.

        • Jose

          So incest can consist of two human beings in an equal, loving, committed relationship. Pedophilia can fit into this context as well. If some states regard 13 as the legal age of consent then what is wrong with two human beings in an equal, loving, committed relationship? How dare you push your morals upon necrophiliacs. Who sre you to say that they don't deserve the right to express their inherent desires? Just because it doesn't fit into what you call moral surely that doesnt make it immoral. I mean its not as if an objective source of morality has been presented to you. (Sarcasm)

          • Elle

            No, it can't fit into that definition. Pedophilia is already inherently unequal: the older person is in a position of power. Necrophilia is not equal or loving and there is not way to be in a committed relationship.

      • Brad

        To answer your stupid questions the answer is simple... One of the parties is not consenting, in a gay relationship both parties consent. Got it?

        By the way over 95% of child sexual abuse is committed by straight people.

        • Josh

          To be fair, that's because 97% of people are straight. Some of these studies claiming 10% or more of the population are gay use extremely questionable methodology.

          That said, the point still stands - pedophilia doesn't seem to be MORE common among the gay population, but they're no better than heteros in that department either.

          • G Richardson

            LGBT advocates have been exaggerating their numbers for decades. That 10% number is indeed bogus. That would mean that 1 out of every 10 individuals is homosexual, which is hogwash. 1 out of every 10 people is left-handed; that can be proven with impirical evidence. You can take 10 people at random and an average of 1 will be left-handed.

            The most recent Gallup Poll in October of last year had 3% of the population identified at LGBT. Now, gays will argue that there are millions of people who are afraid to come out of the closet. Yet, the Gallup Poll is a blind survey; there is no public pronouncement. The same could be said of Asians and Blacks who respond. Perhaps some of them would prefer not to identify themselves in a poll. The numbers are exaggerated so people will believe the group is actually larger than it is. Should 3% be able to force the 97% to bow to its will?

    • Gary Simmons

      Respectfully, Bradford: the author of this article did not blindly conflate the two. Rather, homosexual pedophiles are still homosexual. And homosexual rape in prison is still homosexual. Loving, committed exclusive relationships are not the only expression of homosexuality, but they ARE the only face and voice that the LGBT community wants to count as what counts as homosexual for all cultural purposes.

      One cannot simply say "he's a homosexual pedophile, therefore homosexuality is evil". Sure. But neither can one deny that that IS an expression of homosexuality just as much as loving, committed exclusive relationships between two members of the same sex is an expression of homosexuality.

      The difference is that the mainstream LGBT community considers one acceptable and the other unacceptable. And yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the LGBT community's condemnation of those reprehensible acts. But one cannot erase the fact that homosexuals who do such things reflect homosexuality just as much as heterosexuals who do such things reflect heterosexuality.

      This isn't ME taking a double-standard. I never gave an impression that all heterosexuality is loving committed monogamy. I'm not doing PR campaigns for that. I would, however, do a PR campaign saying that's the way it SHOULD be.

      • Tanya

        By your Logic, because there are homosexual pedophiles and rapists all homosexuals should be denied rights

        So should all Heterosexuals be denied rights because there are Heterosexual rapists and pedophiles?

        Of course Homosexuals are against homosexuality and rape! aren't you?

    • http://www.rightwingnutsandbolts.wordpress.com PRB

      At the risk of shocking and saddening you eve more, I am going to tell you that both homosexuality and pedophilia are adulterations of marriage, and therefore both are wrong. Deviance is deviance. In that respect, sex outside of marriage is also deviance. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that all forms of deviance lead toward chaos. Trying to allow one deviance and disallow another is like taking the really rotten apples out of the barrel but leaving the half-rotten ones in. The result to our society is still going to be the same.

      • JAH

        Agreed, PRB.

        Biblically, there is one and only one righteous context for sex (the one for which is was created, by God): within the confines of marriage between one man and one woman. Anything and everything outside of that, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise is wrong, despite what we've led ourselves to believe (e.g., about heterosexual sex outside of marriage, etc.).

        It's not surprise that our culture/society has arrived at this place of confusion with regard to gay marriage. There's nothing new under the sun insofar as sexual deviance or sin is concerned, of course, but the "normalization" and social acceptance of a wide range of sexual behaviors outside marriage over the past 100 years is alarming, and we will no doubt continue to see the fruits of battles "lost" in a variety of culture wars.

        ALL human beings struggle with sexuality as part of our sin nature, be it with not having sex before marriage, practicing monogamy within marriage, controlling lustful thoughts about someone who is not (or is not yet or who can never righteously be) our spouse. Acting on those struggles--and/or adopting those struggles as lifestyle and identity--is the sin part. And while sexual sin is sexual sin regardless of the context or "type," a major distinction between most kinds of sin with heterosexuality and most kinds of sin within homosexuality is that heterosexual sex is a godly thing within the parameters God has set. Homosexual sex is NOT a godly thing, regardless of where, when, and with whom it happens.

        No one has the "right" to marry--not Constitutionally, not Biblically, and not practically. It's a privilege, granted by God and (in America) regulated by the Church and the State. Let's pray that (1) God blesses and strengthens existing and future marriages as He designed and created them, and that (2) somehow, our nation is brought to a place of repentance regarding sexual purity.

    • John S

      What would you say to someone who came to you and said they have strong thoughts and desires to be a pedophile?

      1) Go ahead and act on your sexual orientation, your inborn desires because it's genetically who you are
      2) That behavior is 'wrong' you must not do it.

      I'm assuming you would go with some form of #2(?) If so how can you defend it? To try to change someone's inborn, genetic sexual orientation is intolerant, arrogant and won't work. If you say it will then why not for homosexuality? Is there a genetic difference between a preference for 'consenting adult' homosexuality and every other orientation? If so please explain it. If it's not genetic then it must be moral.

      It's a bait and switch - from genetics to morality - whichever fits your purpose. The homosexual agenda defends their behavior based on genetics. But any other sexual orientation that they don't agree with does not receive the same benefit. It is wrong, it is immoral REGARDLESS of genetics. Whereas homosexuality is right, it is moral BECAUSE of genetics. There are many who say pedophilia does not harm a child, that it is good for them. Why is your 'moral compass' to be accepted over theirs? Is it simply majority rules? Nothing wrong with Nazi Germany, human sacrifices, female mutilation, et al then?

      I am in no way defending pedophiles. Just pointing out a blatant dishonesty and inconsistency in the argument that one sexual prefence (homosexuality) is only to be viewed through a genetic prism, but others (pedophilia, beastiality, incest etc) may only be viewed through a moral prism.

      You are saying that pedophilia is wrong/immoral. If you can make a moral judgment about one sexual preference, why can't I make a moral judment about another without being slandered and called a hate monger? I support your freedom to practice homosexuality but I also think it is unnatural and not normal. Evolution (or God, take your pick) clearly has not selected (or designed, take your pick) men and men to go together sexually. So it is clearly wrong on that basis alone in my view, and is why I don't want to grant homosexuals the blessing and benefits of marriage.

      Again, I am in favorof the right for homosexuals to live with whoever they please and have the right to practice sex as they please - which is the current reality there is no discrimination. Marriage is not a right it is an extra benefit we give to only some because we want to promote it as good for our society. Sorry I cannot agree that something that is clearly against nature is good for society. Which is an argument completely devoid of any evil religious (especially those kill-joy Christians) notions.

      • Niki

        Wow! That was extraordinarily well said. I am one of "those kill-joy Christians," And I have to say that the logical way you were able to communicate your position without the use of religion is something that we should all strive to do. People who don't have the religious convictions that I do will completely write off any argument we throw at them as spiritual nonsense. I applaud you for your completely rational explanation that was at once engaging and informative. I hope that you would not be offended if I were to use these same arguments in a debate.

      • Pam

        Consent consent consent consent consent consent consent. It's a simple two syllable word, but you clearly do not understand it.

  • Pingback: Family Council » Pastor Voddie Baucham: Gay Is Not the New Black

  • Mark

    So where in this post is the love and compassion we're called to provide as Christians?

    No proof that you can't choose to not be gay? Who would ever choose to undergo the persecution that goes with being gay if they could change?

    How would you feel if the person you cared most about wasn't allowed to visit you in the hospital because you weren't legally related? Do we hate each other so much that we feel it is our duty to deprive others of happiness and love?

    Let's focus on loving our neighbors people. I am pretty sure that God has the judgement part under control.

    • Dave

      You're missing the point of the article, Mark. Voddie is pointing out the contrasts between the Civil Rights Movement and gay marriage.

      And I would suggest (based on multiple scriptures) that helping others to see the error of their ways is, in fact, part of loving and showing compassion to our neighbors.

    • Justin

      Lol, bro, you serious? Do you have ANY idea what Jesus taught? Do you think Jesus just went around giving people gift baskets and hugging them?

      What is more loving than teaching someone how to get to heaven through Jesus?

      Would it be "hatred" to call someone out when they're lying? Would it be "hatred" to stop someone from murdering someone? Would it be "hatred" to stop a man from cheating on his wife?

      Why don't you actually read the Bible and stop being such a false teacher? If you actually loved someone, you would tell them the truth. The first and greatest command is to honor God, the second is to love your neighbor. Don't get those two confused.

      Do you hate Charles Manson enough to deprave him of his love and happiness of killing other humans? Why are you so full of evil by stopping this man persue his dreams?

      • Amill

        Justin,

        Wow, I love your first 3 sentances. I'm going to copy your post to a quotes file. Its worth keeping as a great way to respond. With Truth, love, and compassion.

        Thanks.

    • Kate

      I think you are still misunderstanding the point. Of course one should love their neighbors and absolutely love those who practice homosexuality, but that doesn't mean one should declare homosexuality "okay with God" because the Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

      Nowhere was the idea that we should not love our gay friends and family, we should love them with our whole heart, even if we disagree. Most likely, we'll disagree with our loved ones on many points throughout our lives.

    • Scott

      The purpose of Voddie's post was very specific. No blog post can include everything. There are a lot of things that he could have written about, but this was a blog post specifically written to point out that the civil rights movement of the 60s is not a fair comparison to the movement to redefine marriage for same-sex couples. When Paul wrote about homosexuality in Romans, he could have but did not talk about how believers should love them. But what I do not see anywhere in this article is judgmentalism or the supposed hate you are accusing him of.

      We are not really loving people if we are approving of behaviors that are self-destructive. If someone we truly care about is living in rebellion against God and contrary to His creation principles, the loving thing would be to warn them. I would never buy alcohol for my loved ones who struggle with alcoholism. That would not be compassion. Nor do I approve of the self-destructive choices my loved ones, who are gay, are making. Loving people includes helping them to be who God created them to be, not approving the sin that hinders their relationship with God and healthy relationships with other people.

      It is important for us to talk about loving people and showing compassion to those who disagree with us. But it is also important for us to clearly communicate what God has said is wrong, even when His principles are unpopular in contemporary culture.

    • Susan

      God created us, loves us and had told us what is sin. This isn't a matter of not loving. I have friendly relationships with homosexuals and don't feel a bit of hate or 'homophobia' toward them.

      I know homosexuals who will freely admit that they chose homosexuality and were formerly heterosexual. They can even state reasons for their change of desire....an abusive heterosexual marriage...a prison stay etc.. Homosexuality happens when a person mentally feeds a wrong desire to fruition....just as an adulterous affair happens...or fornication.

      This isn't a matter of hatefully depriving others of happiness and love. It's a matter of defining what is right and wrong by God's design. His design is good. Corruption of His design is not where ultimate fulfillment will be found. His desire is for us to be reconciled to Him through Jesus. In that relationship the morality God lays out in His word makes sense, and living within His loving parameters brings peace and satisfaction. And yes, some homosexuals turn completely away from same sex desire after entering this reconciled relationship with God, through faith in Jesus.

      The bottom line is that some wish to reject God's authority in their life and call morality relative. Then it's up to man to debate endlessly where the lines should be drawn. The lines keep changing. This is not progress. This is a departure from the creator.

      • Ernest

        War about all of those other laws from Leviticus and the like that we all seem to violate daily?

        • JB

          There is NO difference between God's Laws that prohibit homosexual relations and the His laws that prohibit lying, stealing, adultery, murder etc.. There IS a difference between a repentant sinner and an unrepentant sinner.

          I was born a sinner, therefore I sin. I inherited sin from my father. The result of this inborn corrupt nature is that I have desires that are contrary to God's Law. Sex isn't dirty, but my boyfriend and I wanting to engage in heavy petting when we were teenagers was a perversion of what sex was created for. When, after I was married, I became friends with a guy online and I started having feelings and desires for him, this was a sin. So, what should I do? Should I have said "Well, I was born this way, so God should change His Laws to suit my inborn desires? After all, my boyfriend and I are consenting, and we love each other." No, I got on my knees and prayed for God to forgive me. I tried to stay out of tempting situations with boyfriends. I ended my friendship with the guy online because I am married. Sin is natural to my flesh, but that doesn't make it right.

          What does the homosexual do? They say "I was born this way, I want the right to do what makes me and my partner feel good. We're consenting and in love. We want you to validate our relationship. No, sorry. God doesn't give HIS consent to homosexuality. These people need to repent, just like I need to repent of my sins.

          Repentance means that you turn away from believing your sinful actions are right, and you turn to God's Law and agree that His ways are right. It means that you are sorry for your sin. It means that you seek forgiveness. And the fruit of this repentance is you desire to avoid this same sin in the future. Repentance does NOT mean you look for a license to turn this sin into a lifestyle or a right.

          It is NOT love to engage in intercourse with a person of the same gender. It is NOT love to sleep with your boyfriend before marriage. It is NOT love to cheat on your husband. It is NOT love to tell people that these things are acceptable behaviors just because everybody sins.

          • Kim Duffy

            I'm happy for you that you did what is right! May the Lord strengthen you even more!

      • anon

        "Homosexuality happens when a person mentally feeds a wrong desire to fruition....just as an adulterous affair happens...or fornication."

        The above feels like a broad generalization to me, just as it's broad to say ALL gay people are gay because they were born that way. Both kinds of statements make definitive claims about why gay people are the way they are. And I tend to be wary of those kinds of statements.

        One of my closest friends has experienced unwanted same sex attraction since childhood. As a child, he wasn't "mentally" feeding "a wrong desire to fruition." It was just...there. Always. He loves Jesus. And has prayed and pray for relief.

        Sexuality is extremely complicated. That doesn't mean God doesn't have specific things to say about it. He does. But I wish more Christians, at the very least, would more often acknowledge the complexity and difficulty of the struggle.

    • Mark

      Call me a false teacher if you like. I believe the Pharisees had similar views of Jesus and I'm not afraid to speak the truth. Nor am I afraid to hear your interpretations of God's word. While Jesus didn't hand out gift baskets, he didn't seem to hold contempt for anyone except those who were using God's law to opress his children.
      I have read my bible and continue to do so. Looking at the OT and NT together paints a pretty clear picture for me. What I see is a commandment to love God and our neighbor (first in the OT and emphasized again by Jesus in the NT). I also see a law that NONE of US can ever live up to (no letter of the law removed by Jesus, he came to fulfill, not abolish). And, most importantly, I see a grace that forgives ALL of US anyway. If that is false teaching then I have surely misunderstood something.

      I understand the point of the article and I pray that all of us spend at least as much time figuring out how to demonstrate compassion for each other as we do trying to find ways to point out each others sin and prove we are justified in doing so. Have you heard the song "Jesus Friend Of Sinners" by Casting Crowns? One line says, "nobody knows what we're for, only what we're against". I am ashamed everytime I hear that because it is true.

      When I face my maker in judgement, I would rather say that I erred in showing love to my brothers and sisters when I should have been reproachful instead of the other way around.

      You don't have to agree with me and I'm thankful that you at least read my point of view as I have read yours. I would expect that most here won't agree. There was a time when I thought this way as well but I reached a point where I felt I had become purely legalistic and had missed the point of the gospel.

      If you're wondering, I am not homosexual. But I have several friends who are, many of whom I have known since childhood. These are intelligent people who are also professing Christians. Some of you may say that you cannot be gay and Christian but if being sinless is the prerequisite, then we are all lost.

      Brothers and sisters, I implore you to think of this issue not as a thing called homosexuality but as people. People who are just like you and me in far more ways than they are different. Be Jesus to them and be amazed at what God can do.

      I applaud Voddie's article for sparking conversation and thought. Even the original twelve disciples din't always agree and neither will we. I love you anyway.

      • Dave

        Mark, and I do appreciate the heart behind what you're saying, but part of being "Jesus" to anyone is speaking the truth no matter how unpopular or how painful the truth may be (in love of course). I think by today's standards Jesus telling the woman at the well, "you have five husbands and the man you are now with isn't even your husband" would be considered highly judgmental. Did that stop Him from saying it? What was His point? He loved her enough to tell her that He was THE living water that would quench her thirst - a thirst, in my opinion, she was trying to quench with all those men.

        The same applies to anyone (homosexuals included) living outside of what scripture clearly says - and the scriptures, including the NT are clear regarding homosexuality (just like it is clear regarding pre-marital sex, drunkenness, idolatry, greed, etc).

        Does that mean homosexuals are not intelligent, not nice, not well meaning people? Of course not. Part of the problem today (and this applies to any sort of sin) once you have relationship with someone it becomes that much more difficult to say the hard thing, and easier to justify their sin because "they have good hearts" or are "good people."

        I don't believe anyone here is advocating not loving, not showing compassion, not reaching out to, etc. But when something that is clearly sinful is now being pushed as being good/acceptable, we must speak up - the wages of sin is death and people's souls are on the line.

        "My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins."

        I would argue THAT is truly loving someone. "Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed." and "Faithful are the wounds of a friend" clearly show this. (Proverbs 27:5-6)

        • Ulysses

          I typically don't respond to the replies because many are so extreme, left or right, but Dave you really hit core on this one as we would say at my Church. Especially your use of scripture "in context" and support of your statement. As Christians it's obviously VERY clear for all of us what the Bible says in regards to homosexuality as a sin.

          Mark you say, "some of you may say that you cannot be gay and Christian but if being sinless is the prerequisite, then we are all lost." - and true we will never reach perfection this side of Heaven, but God DOES call us to live our lives with a higher standard

          " As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:14-17

          and again in 1 Peter 2:11

          "Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul."

          If we are called to be "like" Christ then yes we are called to deny any fleshly desire that is outside of the will of God, it's a high calling, but our God is more than capable to give us the strength through His Holy Spirit to follow Him. Fleshly desires would include not wanting to lovingly challenge, rebuke, or tell someone the truth because we are afraid of hurting their feelings or losing them as friends. If we know the truth about how God views homosexuality or any sin for that matter and choosing to not share it, then we are really not loving that friend!-it's a tough pill to swallow, but something I've had to come to grips with myself.

          Just some thoughts to encourage you Dave and remind us all of what's at stake.

      • anon

        Mark, thank you!

      • TD

        Well said Mark. And there are many Bible-believing, God-loving Christians out there who are with you on this.

        • mel

          Read Revelations again then.

          • Elle

            Why does someone disagreeing with you have to mean that they haven't read the Bible? I know many Biblical scholars who have varying viewpoints, some who support homosexuality and some who don't, but they have all spent time wrestling with the Scriptures.

      • Clara Jimerson

        Mark, I commend you on your gift of peace and love that you nurture deep inside yourself. Please continue to do this. As a heterosexual mother of a Lesbian, I do struggle trying to understand "why" as I continue to love her unconditionally for her attributes and career choices that she has made throughout her life time. God had saved her from a fire in our home when she was around 18 months old. She should have died from the fumes in that room; however, when I entered her bedroom to take her out of her crib, I saw a halo around her head supplying her clean breathable air. Our Lord had big plans for her and He knew then that her Lesbianism would not be of her choosing and she would do most anything to avoid it. That is another "Why" that I can not answer. I seek love and peace within my heart the same as you and I do truly believe that only God, our Lord, can put it there. So many Christians want to live by the LAW and not the love of Christ.

        • EX BISEXUAL

          Clara your sentimentalism and mysticism does not translate into God's approval of your daughter's lifestyle. TRUTH is LOVE.

      • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

        Mark I appreciate the core of your comments and I have placed this comment on my blog. Thank you.

    • ETS

      I'm so glad that Mark is not the authority on 'love and compassion.' Just because harsh words don't sound loving and compassionate to you doesn't mean they don't. Even when Jesus rebuked Pharisees and was giving them hard truths, he did it in love.

  • Justin

    Amen, brotha.

  • http://www.gcmwatch.com gcmwatch

    Excellent, well researched and solid social apologetics about the aberration of homosexual marriage.

    Now, what Im hoping is that more ministers, leaders and church authorities would bring to bear more focus on OVERCOMING homosexuality, living in freedom post homosexuality and dealing with a myriad of issues that affect people who are called out of this sin.

    Unless you strengthen them and prepare them to stand, we will continue to experience more recidivism in this area of struggle.

    Its great and important to knock down the juvenile logic of those advocating homosexual marriage and its attendant fallacies, but I wish that former homosexuals and the needs they have could get more love and attention from those who see that homosexuality is THE predominant social, political AND biblical struggle of this era.

    • Ernest

      How can homosexuality be overcome?
      What is post homosexuality?
      Why is homosexuality THE social, biblical and political struggle of the era as opposed to war or hunger or poverty?

      • Frank Turk

        I think the answer to your question is, "because Homosexuals what it to the the next civil rights movement."

        • Ernest

          What?

          • Andy

            Frank might have mistyped.
            Suggested interpretation of his text isn't that difficult to work out:
            "because homosexuals want it to be the next civil rights movement"

      • http://www.gcmwatch.com gcmwatch

        1. Its overcome by the power of Jesus Christ just like smoking, alcoholism, lying and serial adultery and all other sins.

        2. Its a individual's life after they leave homosexuality

        3. Read a newspaper, watch a news cast, search the internet, read the bible and you'll see why.

        • Ernest

          Thatt's not really an answer to that third question.

      • EX BISEXUAL

        1.Homosexuality like all sin is overcome by the saving grace of Christ.

        2.Life after being born again.

        3.I'd say in post modern America the social uprising of the homosexual community and the propoganda used to mobilize an entire nation to support a set of ideals that are counterproductive makes this topic one of the most prominent in our era.

    • ezam

      Because that works so well with Exodus International, right?

  • Ernest

    Very interesting article. Questions (and please inderstand that i am here to learn and grow and share, not to provoke, insult or argue)
    1) isn't being a Christian a similarly "undefinable" demographic since you can't determine e if one is or is not by looking at them, studying their genes, family tree, etc? Thus if Christian are denied rights (for example in Muslim Theocracies or Totaltarian states) does it not fall under the category of civil rights?
    2) Why is homosexuality such a pressing issue as opposed to other laws from the bible, such as cattle grazing with other types of livestock, clothing with different types of thread, shaving, (yeah, these are mostly Leviticus, Deuterotomy)? Are violations of these laws defined as sin, and will those "tribes of sin" who cut their hair, ate meat on fridays, and let their llamas eat grass next to their sheep not be allowed into the kingdom of heaven?
    3) Why is the WORD marriage so important (this goes for both pro and anti gay marriage views)? Many words have taken on different meanings as they move through history. (this is kind of a stretch, but) for example C.S. Lewis' take on the meaning of the word "gentleman"...I figure someone has to give. Either let the word "marriage" come to define a union between TWO consenting adults, or pick a new, respectable title for a union between TWO consenting adults of the same sex providing all of the same rights to it as to a traditional heterosexual marriage.
    4) If a homosexual man and a homosexual woman decide to conceive a child (despite it being potentially against their nature), would that count as homosexuals inter breeding? If a homosexual conceives a child with a heterosexual, is that not interbreeding?
    5) Do people really believe that an adult marrying a child is in any way the same as two consenting adults of the same sex getting married, or is that just something folks say to try and make a point?
    6) If we are to oppose gay marriage because it does not resemble the marriage between Christ and the church, are we also expected to oppose secular, Islamic, Hindi, etc. marriages?

    Thank you so much for allowing me to be apart of this conversation and learn from you. Thanks.

    • Scott

      Your objections are not very logical.

      1) No one is asking for a redefinition of anything for being a Christian. Christians are not asking for special treatment or status. We are not claiming a new kind of civil rights as in the same-sex marriage movement. So why the analogy? It doesn't fit.

      2) I think you know the answer to this one. This is the argument that people make who have no interest in following something that is clear in the Bible. There is a major difference between God's moral law, restated in the New Testament, and civil and ceremonial instructions for the nation of Israel in the Old Testament alone.

      3) The meanings of words, matter, because they represent concepts. It's the concept of marriage that matters: the unique familial relationship between a man and a woman as the bedrock of family, and thereby civilization (understood this way throughout all human history) afforded special legal and societal privileges for the benefit of building and maintaining society for generations. It's not just about a word. It's about the concept for millenia that has been given many names in multiple languages...kind of like "man" or "woman". We should not redefine marriage (or its other language equivalences) any more than we would redefine the words or concepts, "man" or "woman". The words in any languages for man and woman have always meant the same things and everyone knew their meanings. The same is true for marriage.

      4) You really aren't interested in reasoning, are you? Sorry, this one makes no sense, and there is no point to it.

      5) Yes, those in NAMBLA do, the proponents of which are also proponents of same-sex marriage. And sadly, in many cultures around the world where Biblical principles are rejected, adults marrying children is all too common. Not that long ago, people would have written the same thing sarcastically about the ridiculous nature of same-sex marriage. The thought was really far-fetched less than a generation ago. But now it has become acceptable. Once marriage has been redefined, it opens Pandora's box.

      6) The analogy of Christ and the Church is for those of us who follow Jesus. We do not expect non-Christians to embrace this. But there are plenty of logical and secular reasons to oppose redefining the concept of marriage. Voddie wrote a great piece, but its just a blog post, it's intended to be short and concise, and it was primarily for those who profess to be Christians.

      • Ernest

        1.) I didn't say we were. The article is about comparing homosexual rights to the civil rights movement of the 60's, and negating the comparison because homosexuality is a "choice" not a natural race. I was simply asking if religious belief is in any way similar to sexual orientation as it pertains to any kind of civil rights, anywhere.

        2.) okay, fair enough. What parts of the old testament are worth following then? And are we going against God's will because we haven't given up all of our worldly possessions, married a divorced woman, wear jewelery, as called for in the new testament. How do we distinguish what is and isn't important.

        3.) there have been languages in history that had no pronouns to distinguish between makes and females. And others that accepted and even embraced homosexual relationships.

        4.) the idea that a minority or group of people who cannot breed do not deserve basic civil rights makes no sense, and so came the nonsensical question.

        5.) let's put it this way- how many CHILDREN are vocal and actively fighting for the right to marry and adult?

        6.). What are some examples of logical and secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

    • Susan
    • Erick H

      Ernest,

      O.k. I didn't want to post anything, but I feel this needs to be said. The Torah/Law (first five books of the bible) had three different types of laws of God.

      1) The laws about sinful conduct and things that are an aboration to God.

      2) The law for the nation of Israel and ONLY the nation of Israel.

      and

      3) The laws that were intended for the protection of either Israel or any Gentile.

      God was very clear that there were certain things that man (in general) should not do because they are an abomination to Him and He would punish it at some point. He was also clear on what laws were intended for Israel in order to have an identifyable seperation from the nations around them when they would inhabbit canaan. Some of the laws directed toward Jacob's decendants were:

      Circumcision of all males
      Mixing of certain material for clothing
      Marrying a man or woman from a different clan
      Shaving the head of A NAZARITE (I wish I could underline)
      Allowing the land to rest after 6 years
      and several others.

      Others that were laws because they could be harmful to the health of man are:

      Circumcision before the 8th day (this law doesn't apply today because babies can be given a shot of vitamin K to assist in blood clotting)
      Having intercourse while a woman was during the "flowing" time of her cycle
      Eating certain foods (such as hooved land animals, animals of the sea that didn't have an exterior hard shell, etc. Why? Because all other animals are bottom feeders and carry certain deceases harmful to man. Today, we have ways of fating those infections if eaten in moderation. But even today we know that if we eat pork every day, we will get sick)
      And many more that we still deem as common sense today.

      I'm not going to touch the arguement of homosexuality because I feel that adding to several of the arguements already presented is moot. I believe the bible's stand that homosexuality is immoral and a sin. I feel there have been several arguements presented on this post that are valid and clear that those in favor of or supporting of homosexual realtionships haven't really been able to disprove other than arguing that it is intollerant or unloving, which as some of you have already pointed out that seeing self-destructive behavior and doing nothing about it is the most unloving thing one can do. God bless to all and I pray the Lord's mercy and the recognition of truth for all.

      • Kim Duffy

        You're so right! I think it's a shame that more Christians don't understand the purpose of so many of the laws and that is that they come from the meaning of the word "holy" which is literally "set apart." It's not that eating certain things or wearing certain fabrics is inherently wrong, but God wanted the Jews to stand out as His people "set apart" for His purpose from all the people around them who lived by no laws.

        That's why in the New Testament it's stated that "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify." (1 Cor 10:23)

        God Bless!

  • http://www.thoughtcaptivity.com/2/post/2012/07/rec Justin

    Great Post. Thanks taking the time to write it.

  • Jeff

    There is a way that seems right to a man,
    but its end is the way to death.

  • http://monologuingme.wordpress.com/ David

    My main issues with this article can be self explained by the following statements pulled directly from the article itself

    "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!"
    - indeed! There are far more pedophiles who are heterosexual in their pedophiliac expression, yet we don't label their point of perversion in the heterosexual nature of their crime, but rather in the pedophilic nature of it. Pedophilia is pedophilia, regardless of the hetero/homo aspect of the expression.

    "or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle"
    - Woah! there's a big difference between a homosexual "lifestyle" and a gay orientation. First of all, what is a homosexual lifestyle? I wake up every morning and gay brush my teeth before I gay eat breakfast and gay pray after I gay read my bible and then gay go to work?! I also gay pursue gay celibacy before gay marriage feeling called to the same standard of purity that all of my not-gay Christian brothers and sisters are called to. I'm not gay because of what I do, I'm simply gay in that I'm attracted exclusively to members of the same sex. I could enter into a mixed orientation marriage and my participation in heterosexual sex wouldn't make me not-gay.

    " …disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws … "
    - This is hardly about the ability to breed. I'm pretty sure anti-miscegenation laws of the past would've forbidden two barren individuals of different races from being married and having sexual relations as well.

    "The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." "
    - do your history research. Marriage has been redefined again and again throughout history. At one point in time, women were essentially property to be exchanged for other valuable items … only recently, as in within the past century, have we ever had the understanding of marriage that we have today

    "People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry."
    - and what does this have to do with two consenting adults of the same sex desiring the right to marriage and equal treatment under the law?

    "One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. "
    - Foul! This completely disregards the fact that not all people have straight orientations and callously imposes a heterosexual requirement for all people desiring equal rights. Flip your world and imagine if you could only achieve equal rights and societal recognition through marriage with people of the same sex as yourself. That is essentially what you're demanding of people who are gay to do in order to have the same rights and recognition.

    "what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?"
    - This is laughable and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what it is to be bisexual. For a bisexual person to marry both a man and a woman simultaneously, they would enter into a situation much like polygamy. Bisexual people are only unique in that they can be attracted to either sex and so pursue marriage with either a man or woman. Just because a straight man is attracted to more than one woman doesn't give him the right to marry multiple women simultaneously.

    • Ernest

      Well said.

    • Gil

      *Applauds*

    • Micah Burke

      " There are far more pedophiles who are heterosexual in their pedophiliac expression"
      Unsupported claim and red herring. The fact of the matter is that older adults are often attracted to younger persons, regardless of their sexual orientation. The real issue here is the defining of a 'minority' by their sexual attraction. There is simply no logical reason to allow "rights" to gays that should not be allowed to other sexual minorities.

      "I'm not gay because of what I do, I'm simply gay in that I'm attracted exclusively to members of the same sex."
      Homosexuality is defined by sexual attraction to members of the same sex. If you follow that attraction to its logical outcome it involves sexual contact. Thus, gay is defined by whom you have sex with or desires to have sex with. The purposeful definition of a minority on the basis of their sexual attraction is what is primarily at issue here.

      "Marriage has been redefined again and again throughout history. At one point in time, women were essentially property to be exchanged for other valuable items..."
      Non-sequitur. We're talking marriage, not slavery, not property but marriage. It is certainly true that in other cultures people marry animals, and inanimate objects, but we're not talking specifically about other cultures, plus those examples don't really help your case, do they?

      "and what does this have to do with two consenting adults of the same sex desiring the right to marriage and equal treatment under the law?"
      It has to do with consistency of argumentation. There is no logical basis to provide "right to marriage" to one sexual minority while denying those same rights to any other self-defined sexual minority. It's shameful how the bigoted gays wants rights for itself but deny them to the ephebophiles, polyamorous, zoophiles and others simply to claim slippery slopes.

      "Foul! This completely disregards the fact that not all people have straight orientations and callously imposes a heterosexual requirement for all people desiring equal rights."
      Again, non-sequitur. Just because you want to redefine marriage in an ahisortical manner doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that you HAVE the right to marry anyone of consenting age of the opposite sex that is willing to marry you. The fact that you have the RIGHT to marry is not denied.
      Rather, marriage has always been limited and even you limit it to "consenting adults". But in so doing you're denying all those who "love" teens and younger folks their RIGHT to marry too, and the only logical basis for that is current law and public opinion.

      "Bisexual people are only unique in that they can be attracted to either sex and so pursue marriage with either a man or woman."
      That's your opinion, not fact. There are plenty of polyamorous folks out who want to marry their lovers, who are you to deny their right to do so?

      Who are you to limit marriage between one man and another man (or woman)? Who are you to tell someone they cannot marry the two men, a woman and their dog!?

      "Just because a straight man is attracted to more than one woman doesn't give him the right to marry multiple women simultaneously."
      Why not? What logical basis do you have for EXTENDING marriage to include homosexuals while denying the polyamorous or any other sexual minority?

      Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. - James R. White.

      • Muscat

        An inability to think of a logical argument that would allow for same-sex relationships but not pedophilia, zoophilia, or poly* relationships demonstrates a severe lack of imagination/thought.

        Argument #1: A right to marriage must be based on consent. Children and animals can't give consent. Ergo, no recognition of pedophilic or zoophilic relationships.

        Argument #2: Rights are weighed against the interests of the state. Since marriage is tied to laws about rights of inheritance, power of attorney, etc it is in the interest of the state to limit marriage to two people so that such rights can be straightforwardly executed.

        • Fifthmonarchymn

          Hey Muscat,

          You said,

          Argument #1: A right to marriage must be based on consent. Children and animals can't give consent.

          I say,

          If you want to rely on consent as a firewall against pedophilic marriage you will be quickly disappointed.

          Muslims who defend the Marriage of Muhammad to the 9 year old Aisha will vigorously contend that she consented to the Marriage. So for good chunk of the world children can and do consent to marriage to old men.

          You say,

          Argument #2: Rights are weighed against the interests of the state. Since marriage is tied to laws about rights of inheritance, power of attorney, etc it is in the interest of the state to limit marriage to two people so that such rights can be straightforwardly executed.

          I say,

          What???? Muslim’s (and others) will claim that their nations have functioned quite well since ancient times with polygamous marriage with far less trouble surrounding inheritance and the rights of attorney than the litigious two person marraige west has.

          You have no objective basis for your claims and to the polygamy lobby they would sound exactly like the claims that homosexual marriage is bad for society.

          Come on man use your head.

          Peace

    • Michael

      David, repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!

    • Nancy Noes

      For all the flaunting of the "LGBT" brand, the "B" people cause quite a fracture in the "sexual orientation" basis for same sex marriage. The above deflections when challenged, saying that bi-sexuals are monogamous and, therefore, would only choose to marry one or the other, is laughable. If they're truly oriented to be attracted to both sexes, then there is no evidence at all that suggests the attractions occur in serial form and not parallel. If it's "who they are" -being attracted to both sexes- except for schizophrenia, their "who-they-are-ness" is always in tact ... that is if we're to buy this whole notion of "sexual orientation" as a valid genetic trait and not acquired. Which, btw, I don't. There is not one shred of evidence to support these sexual deviations as genetic. None. Further, homosexual sex acts are unhealthy and easily lead to death. For the life of me, with all the emphasis these days of SCIENCE over FAITH, why this aspect of the discussion doesn't shut down all other arguments is beyond me. The next time you see your doctor for your physical and s/he gives you your health questionnaire to complete, Men, notice that question that asks if you engage in high risk behavior such as IV drug use or having sex with other men! Ask the American Red Cross, or better yet, ask your loved one or even YOURSELF, if you're comfortable receiving a blood transfusion from a man who has exchanged bodily fluids with other men.

      • ezam

        "No genetic evidence" is a red herring. Many immutable traits don't involve genes. Homosexuality itself isn't unhealthy or leads to death, unprotected sex with multiple partners does (and heterosexuals often get STDs).

      • Sarah Lewis

        Your comment regarding bisexual people is ignorant, Nancy. The term to help you understand bisexual people better would be to say that they are gender-blind, which means they aren't necessarily looking for a man or a woman but determine who they will end up with based on compatibility of personality (much like a heterosexual person would hopefully be blind to race). A man is capable of being attracted to multiple women but that doesn't mean he will want to marry all of them; the man would choose the woman that he thought fit best with what he was looking for in a wife.

  • http://cautiouschristian.blogspot.com/2012/04/homo Ugo Strange

    I wrote a blog article similar to this one. EXCELLENT WORK!
    http://cautiouschristian.blogspot.com/2012/04/homosexuality.html

  • Joy Wakefield

    Historical reasons? That's actually a poor (and dangerous/counter-productive) argument - if you go far back enough (like say, to the Corinthians you talk about) we find out history and geography have many different systems which support not only homosexuality but pedophelia. "People used to do this" is just as bad as "well, people do this so we might as well let them".

    I actually think that "bisexuality" is a difficult partner for homosexuality, because it does away with the clean categories - if people could be attracted to anyone and everyone it sort of begs the question, so how should I choose/act. And beyond that, when did sexual desires move beyond the scope of critical analysis? If I feel hungry, does that mean I should eat (even if I REALLY feel hungry and can't change it/was born this way/it's normal or natural/it won't go away)? Well, it depends....but people don't want a framework to judge their behaviour at all, nevermind sexual behaviour. And why should some types of sexuality be criticized or "wrong" but not others? What moral standard are we using to accept homosexuality but not inter-family marriage, pedophilia, polygamy, erotic asphyxiation or necrophilia [isn't it just about consenting people or adults]? And further, if we don't generally define people by changing tastes, why is that true for sexual attraction? I have to say that my attractions have changed constantly over the years, and since people become more or less attracted to certain people or types of people or genders, it seems silly to put a definite and permanent label on it at all. Even if your attractions never change, that still doesn't have to affect the way you act. Why is it that a pedophile should always be prevented from having a passionate and fulfilling relationship with a child? Sounds cruel, except that most people think it's wrong and we don't think children are able to properly consent to that. So we know consent is not an absolute and desire is not an absolute. So then you can't just say that two people who desire each other and consent can do whatever they want - it doesn't follow necessarily.

    I also agree with your points about pedophilia and denying the right to marry, but what's scary is that academics are arguing for polygamy to be decriminalized already. I think it's a terrible idea, but we don't want to step on anybody's "culture" so we don't talk about it or teach our kids about it. And if we do, we just say it's in the Bible without giving them a real framework and analysis of the issues at play.

    We do have bigger problems though, because we're not a theocracy (as mentioned above), so it's difficult to say "we're going to do this because the Bible says it". We also can't easily enforce laws about sexuality (from a practical standpoint). And since we can't justify it historically/traditionally (as I've pointed out), we're left with what exactly? I think the biological argument might be the strongest. In fact, you could even say health reasons in some circumstances.

    At base, it's mostly about money and status. That's what "rights" really mean, or no one would care. So who should get money and status....and why, which is a bigger question than just "gay marriage" really.

    You can make it all about technicalities and labels, or you could look at the realities and make decisions. The thing you have to understand is that the law has both a denotative and connotative affect, meaning that while you may think it's a good idea for the law to describe what society DOES, you have to remember that the law also influences what society thinks SHOULD be done. It's not a simple issue.

    You don't really see the New Testament Christians - or Paul asking them to - take political actions on anti-Christian regimes or value systems (despite being in a society that had a whole lot of crazy ideas). I can't remember a passage where Paul tells people to go out and picket the colisseum or to stand in the streets decrying gay marriage or whatever. God gives definite commands about how to behave, but doesn't go much beyond loving and not judging others...(unless they are within the church). Really, the only political action we are encouraged to take as Christians is fighting for justice, particularly of the poor and oppressed, at least from a Biblical perspective...but please correct me if I'm off. Ultimately we forget that the power of Christianity stems from God's love, not political force.

    Who the government gives benefits to is who the government gives benefits to at the end of the day.

  • http://www.humanismandculture.com/ Joshua Harris

    Perhaps this storyline of "gay rights = civil rights struggle" is more about the philosophical problems of rights language than it is about genetics, legality, etc.

  • PessimiStick

    Hugely bigoted rant from an idiot with an invisible friend? Color me shocked.

    • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

      Lets define bigot.

      Bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

      big·ot (b g t). n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

      So this article is indeed full of bigotry, and so is practically every statement made by homosexuals towards its opponents.

  • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

    I speak as one who has come out of this sinful lifestyle. Dr. Bauchum has made some wonderful points. For those in this comments section who tend to think that homosexuals just need love need to properly define love. God is both love and truth. The two are bound together. The problem is that those who affirm homosexuality are not displaying an eternal love, but rather a temporal love that ultimately bears no eternal merit. So often do we view things in a very shortsighted manner.

    I've been the guy living twisted in unnatural affections and the first thing I wanted was the last thing I needed. I wanted to hear believers tell me that my lifestyle was consistent with scripture. I would have loved at that point to have Christians affirm my lifestyle as valid and consistent with the Christian life. I would have loved to receive affirmation from the pulpit. I would have loved the inclusive gospel that some of the commentators are preaching(intentionally or unintentionally. But by the grace of God , I was affected by truth. I was empowered by truth and not Christian guilt or sentimentalism.

    @Bradford Neal
    Bisexuality may be defined as the capacity to be attracted to members of both genders, but the practice demands not only attraction but action. If you have lived with or been driven by those desires then you would know the insatiable lust that drives it. It is entirely self destructive. I can say this subjectively as well as objectively.

    • http://www.gcmwatch.com gcmwatch

      Hello "exbisexual", thanks for sharing. Im an exhomosexual I was called out of homosexuality 22 years ago. Ignorance about the power of God has taken over much of the contemporary church.

      • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

        DL Foster right? I am very familiar with your ministry and a huge supporter.

    • samh

      There's no such thing as an "exbisexual" or an "exhomosexual". If you feel attracted to your own sex, you are not heterosexual, even if you don't act on those feeling.

      • EX BISEXUAL

        That is an untrue statement. Ex suggests former. I was formerly attracted to individuals of both genders and engaged in unnatural acts.

        by the grace of God those passions are former. So ex bisexual is fitting.

        • samh

          You are lying and we both know it. Sexual attractions don't go away permanently. I know hundreds of people who said the exact same thing as you, only to admit they never actually changed their orientation. Exodus International has said 99.9% of its clients still had same-sex attractions.

          Lying is forbidden by the Ten Commandments. Which do you think is the greater "sin"?

          • Ex-Bisexual

            All sin is sin, first and foremost. So in the grand scheme the liar has a place in the lake of fire just as the fornicator, adulterer, drunkard, homosexual, murderer, idolater, theif, etc.

            Exodus International does not exemplify the entirety of Christians who have dealt with homosexual attractions. Despite what you may believe the Holy Spirit(that you don't believe in) is very capable of empowering an individual to overcome a variety of sinful dispositions.

            I do admit that I never changed my orientation. the Sovereign God did by means of regeneration. I know others who have been freed from the shackles of homosexuality and other sinful forms of behavior. It is not by my might but by God's grace.

            • samh

              You'd think the Holy Spirit and the "Sovereign God" would make sure "ex-gays" never experienced homosexual feelings again and went back to their previous sexuality.

              If you want to prove you're no longer bisexual, gay, or whatever, go to a doctor and get your brain and private parts hooked to a machine that measures arousal; then post your results on the internet. That way you can convince everyone that you can pray away the gay.

      • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

        If a carnivore eats grass does he become an omnivore or herbivore, or does he remain a carnivore?

    • emily

      exbisexual, i'm a little worried about the message you are sending for bisexuals.
      i identify as a bisexual and recently married the love of my life. i have always been in monogamous relationships. i have had relationships with both men and women.
      in your response, you say that bisexuals (like you yourself used to be) are driven by an insatiable lust. i just don't agree. that may be a personal aspect of your bisexuality, but it does not come with the territory of being a bisexual. i feel this may have something to do with the overall repression of sexuality/sensuality that any dogmatic religion has.
      i'm not trying to attack you and say that you are still bisexual, your feelings may have changed, and i am not condemning your belief system. but to claim that your mental anguish is universal for all bisexuals is simply untrue and a frightening thought for people who are finding that they may be attracted to both genders.

  • Jake

    This is a strikingly ignorant and offensive argument. The author makes dramatic, unfounded leaps between science/reality and his own personal conclusions. For example, to argue that - because homosexuality is not genetically traceable in the same way race is – it is therefore certainly a psychological (or chosen) attribute. Moreover, the assumption that sexual preference is as black and white a distinction as race - or homosexual vs. heterosexual marriage – is missing the point. With regards to the marriage debate, sexuality is not the issue. It's sex. And saying that same-sex couples can't wed. If sexuality were the issue, would a man and woman who both identify as homosexuals be able to marry? Yes. Perfectly legally. Because how could their sexuality be assessed? Of course it's unclear. But when we look at the true issue, of same-SEX (not same-sexuality) marriage, the distinction IS dichotomous. And it is safe to say that the majority of same-sex couples choosing to wed ARE in fact homosexual, which is why the distinction is closely tied to their sexuality and IS black and white - which is precisely why the comparisons to the civil rights movements are apt. Though perhaps the women's rights movement would be more apt, as there, we saw discrimination on the basis of sex, like we do with marriage today. Essentially, we're still telling a man that he can't get married (to another man) because he's a man. Discriminating on the basis of his sex alone.

    The question becomes why, then, two men or two women (regardless of sexuality) can't marry. And it becomes not about science, or logic, but culture. And culture is changeable; as it did with regard to race, and sex, it will change with regard to sexuality.

    The assumption that the definition of the word marriage cannot be changed due to historical precedent contradicts a vast history of words whose meanings change as a result of changing beliefs.

    And the continued attempts to correlate (legal) homosexuality with (illegal) sexual crimes like child sexual abuse is simply fear mongering politics, because, in fact, (valid) data clearly show that sexual crimes are no more likely to be perpetrated by homosexuals. Please read this site for clarification: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    In short, the attempt to make a logical or scientific argument against same-sex marriage (which will inevitably be legalized, because that's what happens when societies become progressively more enlightened) is deeply flawed. The best course of action for those who fear same-sex marriage would be to leave your ideological silos and meet a gay person who wishes to marry another gay person. Chances are, you will find their family priorities to be similiar to yours. And chances are they are no more likely to be law-breakers (sexual or otherwise) than any other member of our society. Fear of change is the issue here, and - in same-sex marriage - we have nothing to fear as a society.

    It is always dangerous to write like a scientist when your motivations – and rationale – are emotionally or spiritually driven. I don't intent to argue about whether spiritual beliefs are right or wrong, but please don't conflate fact and fiction. And please don't impose YOUR values on people who have the right to different values.

    • Jake

      AND, as a "homosexual advocate", i WILL answer this question:

      Q. "If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?"

      A. These examples are rights not granted to anyone. I.e., sexuality alone is not being discriminated against here. There ARE myriad reasons why - in our current legal system – marriage of more than 2 people is logistically problematic (and the societal effects are unclear and difficult to assess...) And there ARE hard facts supporting the inability of young children to make decisions of marriage with the same capacity as consenting adults. These are very different conditions from the marriage in which the majority of adult Americans are able to partake, but which a certain group, on the basis of their sexual preference, are discriminated against.

      The foundation of marriage is not being redefined. But the artificial barriers against otherwise equal individuals is being removed.

    • K Wendt

      Brilliant rebuttal, Jake. Kudos on your evolved take on the world.

  • Pingback: A Morning Peacock of Links (7/20) | hobojarpen

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black | Voice of Truth

  • Samantha

    As a Christian, I am appalled by the way that you people try to lump things together. Two consenting adults making a commitment to each other in no way compares to child abuse. I'd like to ask you directly to quote Jesus himself on the issue.

    • Matt

      please quote Jesus directly on the issue of child abuse, or for that matter bestiality.

      The link between the two is the fact that both pedophilia and homosexuality are perversions of God's creation and purpose for sexuality(and the spiritual realities they convey). Of course we could also lump in all those "good Christian" heterosexual couples who just couldn't wait until they were married for sex. They fall into the same broad category: perversion of God's intent with sexuality and marriage.

      Concerning the spiritual reality which is revealed through human sexuality, Homosexuality reflects perfectly a self-centered, pantheistic, authority hating culture as we are and much of the church is. We are at the center, God is here to serve our needs. Thus, our desires are to be respected, and we are free to worship ourselves.

      That is spiritual homosexuality, same being intimate with same, loving same. Loving ourselves, worshipping the creature rather than the creator. I speak as spiritual to spiritual people. We are made to love and become intimate with ONE(not many)who is heterogeneous to us, other than us, different from us, The living God, who makes and keeps His promises(as marriage covenant), and brings forth a NEW BIRTH in us through intimate love(like family).

      • Matt

        are we:
        homodoxological or heterodoxological,
        homospiritual or heterospiritual

        is God inside me only or outside of me?
        is "everything God" or is He the creator and distinct?
        is He my helper only or also my authority?

  • Ben

    Voddie, having read your article I feel that a response is necessary both as a born again Christian and a gay man. Although I'm sure you are well-intentioned, there are numerous holes, omissions, and logical flaws in your argument--not to mention some extremely immoral arguments/viewpoints that you perpetuate. I would like to highlight some of the more erroneous points you make in your article:

    1)You claim that homosexuality should not be conflated with race due to the fact that homosexuality cannot be detected other than by self-identification where race is unquestionably self-evident. Clearly you lack historical and legal insight in making this assertion. The Plessy vs. Ferguson case of 1896 is a case in point. Homer Plessy was 7/8 White and 1/8 Black. By all appearances he was white yet he was denied equal opportunity under the law because of the "one-drop rule." Historically speaking, anyone who was known to have any black ancestor (regardless of how white they appeared) was considered black and denied the basic rights afforded all people. Further, nowhere in any law or legal ruling does racial identification require one's appearance to match any racial criteria (because there is none). So racial identity is as much a matter of self-identification as homosexuality is.

    2) You state: "Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example." First of all, this is an extremely immoral and untenable argument and you should be ashamed for inflaming the argument with vitriolic rhetoric. First, the VAST MAJORITY of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL!!! This has been proven over and over again. If there is an argument to make here, it is that heterosexuals are more of a danger to society than homosexuals are because heterosexuals are FAR MORE LIKELY to abuse children. Further, your immoral attempt at conflating homosexuality with pedophilia (which you are undoubtedly doing) has nothing to do with relationships of consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. To make matters worse, you cite NAMBLA later in your article as part of your "slippery slope" argument with the erroneous assertion that "Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point)." No, Voddie, we do not avoid this question--we answer it repeatedly. The issue of gay marriage is based on the 14th amendment providing ALL AMERICANS "full and equal benefit of all laws." This is about loving and consenting ADULTS desiring the legal benefits of marriage. This has nothing to do with the abuse of children! Marriage is about 2 consenting adults PERIOD!

    3) You seem to take issue with the fact that some have likened the Gay Rights movement to the Civil Rights movement. It should be noted, however, that the Gay Rights movement could also be equated with the Woman's Liberation movement. Why? Because this is about justice and equal rights for all Americans. It is rather ironic that in principle we have the "Separation of Church and State," but in practice there is less separation than we are willing to recognize. The issue of Gay Rights and Gay Marriage is a legal issue. Now, as a Gay Christian I can also say it is a theological issue, but the issue is first and foremost a legal matter--not a religious one. If you doubt this, please read the 1st amendment which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now that we have moved the discussion to the public/legal arena we can see how the Gay Rights movement has the same basis as the Civil Rights and Women's Liberation movement: the 14th Amendment which states that every American has "full and equal benefit of all laws." No amendment has garnered more lawsuits than the 14th amendment. This is also why the Gay Rights movement will ultimately succeed. Neither you or anyone else should deprive me of the same right that is afforded to you and everyone else--whether you disagree with it based on your own personal opinion. The LGBT community continues to suffer injustices not only in America but throughout the whole world. And as Dr. King stated in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." What we are seeking is justice for all.

    4) Further, it is clear that your position is based on how you interpret the bible which in turn leads you to want to impose your interpretation on all Americans. Let me respond by saying there are many, many, many Christians who disagree with you about homosexuality. Further, there are many Christian theologians who have written in defense of the LGBT community (and the vast majority of them are heterosexual!!!). Thus the question is why are you so intent on trying to impose your interpretation on all Americans? As a side note, you mention this powerful "homosexual lobby", but it should be noted that LGBT advocates are grossly outspent and outmatched by the anti-gay lobby. But in spite of this I affirm Dr. King's belief that "the arc of history bends toward justice." I would recommend you read Walter Wink's "Homosexuality and the Bible." I believe the vast majority of Christians haven't really taken the time to think about the issue or to develop a well-thought theological viewpoint on the matter. I would encourage you and your readers to read some of these Christian writers and to listen to the stories of LGBT Christians. The important point is that dialogue is essential, yet your article does more to inflame the argument and incite divisiveness than it does promote healthy dialogue.

    • Samantha

      Ben - So well spoken! Thank you for sharing your perspective!!

    • Tiffany

      Absolutely brilliant article Dr. Baucham!

    • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

      Thanks Ben.

    • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

      Ben I placed your comment on my blog thanks again for your comment.

    • Pam

      Standing ovation

    • Tony

      Born again Christian and gay (homosexual)? That’s an oxymoron. Christian means Christ like; Christ was NOT a homosexual. You may want to read the Bible regarding homosexuality. The first paragraph in your argument reveals your state of mind, which is denial of truth.

      1. Race is based on self identification? My race is listed in my birth certificate, was your sexual orientation listed in yours??

      2. Why identify yourself as “gay” and not “homosexual”? Does the word “homosexual” have a bad connotation?

      3. 14th amendment is vague and is being used by activist Judges as a Trojan horse to normalize homosexuality and it also opens the door to every other sexual depravity.

      4. Bible interpretation is not the issue. It is apparent that you selectively avoid Bible passages that address homosexuality. Don’t need a Christian theologian to explain that sinners are going to hell. Is homosexuality a sin?

  • Pingback: Gay is not the New Black | keachfan

  • Pingback: Links I Like | My World

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.drissel David Drissel

    Of course, gay is not the new black. But same-sex marriage is one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our day. Simple-minded folks and associated religious fanatics (of all colors) in America may think that gay rights supporters are claiming that race and sexual orientation are the same thing. But that's a gross oversimplification. Rather, we are simply saying that the same civil rights laws that protect people from discrimination due to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, age, creed, etc., should also protect people due to their sexual orientation. We are simply saying that the same constitutional precedent (Loving v. Virginia) that struck down bans on interracial marriage in 1967, is applicable to bans on same-sex marriage today. It's a matter of civil rights and civil liberties, as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

    The author of this article fails to note one very telling example of an "unidentifiable minority" - religious minorities. People certainly have a "choice" when it comes to their religious affiliation and sectarian identity. Does that mean that Muslim is the new black? Or that Catholicism or Pentecostalism is the new black? Of course not. But Muslims and Catholics and Pentecostals and Baptists and Methodists are not readily identifiable. Even Muslims come in all colors, despite popular stereotypes to the contrary. But should there be laws banning interfaith marriages? Of course not, though it is true that some religious denominations condemn or set up barriers to such (religious) marriages.

    Besides, the issue of same-sex marriage is not primarily an issue of sexual orientation - at least not under the law. The issue is one of gender (or sex) discrimination. If indeed sex discrimination is illegal, then there must be a compelling reason for allowing such discrimination against marriage license applicants. After all, we are not talking here about religious marriage, but civil marriage and marriage licenses issued by the state. If the state is not legally permitted to deny a marriage license based on religion, race, ethnicity, disability, national origin, creed, etc., then why should it be permitted to deny a marriage license based on gender? The argument that same-sex couples cannot "breed" ignores the fact that marriage licenses are not based on proof of procreative ability. Indeed, marriage licenses are issued all of the time to infertile opposite-sex couples, including senior citizens.

    What is interesting is that the 1967 US Supreme Court case that struck down bans on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia) was not a decision simply based on the race of the defendants. Rather, the case was based on the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. After all, one of the defendants - the husband - was white. It was not simply his race that was the legal basis of the Court's decision, but rather the denial of equal protection under law for him and his (black) wife in Virginia.

    It is interesting that Mildred Loving - the female defendant in the case that overturned bans on interracial marriage nationwide - came out in favor of same sex marriage in 2007, shortly before her death. Here is what she said in her public statement:

    "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

    "I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

    • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

      Thanks David.

    • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

      David I placed your comment on my blog thanks again.

    • http://www.rightwingnutsandbolts.com P

      Would you like to tell us against which gender marriage is discriminating?

      And what difference does it make if Mildred is for gay marriage? Since when is "So and so said so" a part of a logical argument? While Christians know that God said that homosexuality is an abomination, logic suggests that it's pointless to create and PROMOTE a non-procreating family unit. If you can't say "Because God says so" then you can't say "because Mildred says so."

  • http://www.forumfaith.com/blog Jacob

    "In those days Israel had no king, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes"

    • Tommy B

      Indeed.

  • Elmer

    Wow. This just sounds ignorant. Marriage only has anything to do with Christ if the participants are _christian_. What about the 19% of US citizens who are not affiliated with a religion? By all means use the gospel as the guide to your life, but remember that it is not the law of the USA. Also pointing to Jerry Sandusky as an example is ridiculous. He's a self-proclaimed christian (methodist) by the way, but if we have to label him, let's use the term _monster_.

  • Susan

    Elmer, All people are culpable before God for disobeying His revealed commands. Non Christians are storing up wrath for themselves for the final judgment of God. Only those who have recognized their sin before a holy God and believed in His one provision (Jesus) for our forgiveness will escape the eternal punishment in store.

    While you think it's ignorant to point to Christ as having something to do with marriage you should probably remember that this is a seminary president writing an article to post on a Christian blog site.

    As for Sandusky, anyone can say they are a Christian, but God is the one who knows who is truly His and who isn't. The fruit of a person's life bears witness to the reality of what a person's true spiritual condition is. A Christian by definition is one who is indwelt by God's Spirit. God's Spirit enables us to obey Him. A non-believer doesn't have God's Spirit working within them....and that includes everyone who professes to be a believer but isn't truly indwelt by God's Spirit.

  • http://atdcross.blogspot.com/ Nelson Banuchi

    "At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, 'Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable'."

    Assume Bond is correct, what of the pediophile or the zoophiliac who says, "I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. My sexuality is unchangeable."

    How can the homosexual argue against that? On what basis can he disagree? Or would he rather not argue and agree that the pediophilic and the zoophiliac is to be accepted and permit him to have the same equal rights to marry a child or a beast? Will the homosexual admit civil rights to the pediophile and the zoophiliac?I mean, how far do we take the homosexual's argument?

    How far will the homosexual take his own argument?

    • Sophia

      If you can not see the fundamental differences between two consenting adults and an abusive relationship between an adult and child/animal you are being intentionally and massively ignorant, blinding yourself from the side of the argument you don't want to see, childish behaviour really. I don't understand how people expect this argument to hold up, it's ridiculous.

  • Elmer

    Way to cherry-pick it Susan. But the facts aren't in your favor. Christian leadership is rife with people breaking your god's law in a very public way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians

    Oh right, and christians have a better than 50% divorce rate. I say give gay people a try and if they do better than you all, we will make it illegal for christians to marry.

    And, for what it's worth, the nearest star is 24 trillion miles from here, and there are 200-400 billion stars in this galaxy and maybe hundreds of billions of galaxies. To say that you have a relationship with the god of all that is like saying you believe a quark (sub-atomic particle) can build a 787.

    If it brings you comfort, good for you, but keep it out of the government that includes Jews, Muslims, Baha'i, Buddhists, Taoists, and yeah, atheists like me.

    Oh, and for what it's worth I am an ordained minister with all the rights and privileges. It's the thinnest premise in the world. From my perspective, a job at a seminary is an escape from reality, and there's little honor to the position.

    • Matt

      it may help you to think of Christianity as what it truly is: a cosmology, a meta-narrative, a comprehensive worldview. You are on a soap-box for your own worldview, or if you prefer, religion. By your comments, you must think that a Theistic worldview(what you may call a religion) is a source of pain and problems in the world, hence you dishonor someone else's worldview(that of a seminarian). As a Christian, I don't think Athiesm is what's wrong with the world, but as G.K. Chesterton said, "I am" the problem. It is sin in all of us. Once you start listing scandalous actions from those who claimed a certain worldview, consider for a moment the black sheep amongst your ideology: namely all the major genocides in the 20th century. The question remains: is it true or your preference?

    • Susan

      Judgement Day is coming, Elmer. You're not ready.

      • Elle

        Why would you say something like that? Do you actually believe statements like that will change someone's mind? I know, I know, you're trying to "speak the truth". Just don't forget the "in love" part of that verse.

        • Susan

          I do say it in love, Elle. I am one who has a big heart for those who don't know Jesus...for those who are 'dead in their trespasses' and on the 'broad road that leads to destruction'. In an earlier comment I mentioned that forgiveness is available to all through Jesus Christ. I responded this time with the simple truth that there is a day of reconning when people will be judged for their sin. To not warn an impenitent person of this is not a mark of love.
          God has said in His Word that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." If a person never considers the call that God has on their life they will one day face God's judgment, whether they believe in Him or not.

          In answer to your question, "Do you actually believe statements like that will change someone's mind? "
          No, but the Holy Spirit can use my verbal witness of the truth to change his mind. Conviction of sin comes by the Holy Spirit but we, as believers, are charged with speaking the gospel and warning of the consequences of rejecting Jesus as Lord and Savior. To not speak of this is to not care about someone. I would be thrilled to learn that one day Elmer came to not only know that God exists, and loves him, but to acknowledge his sin as an offense to a holy God and find forgiveness in the loving act of Jesus death on the cross in payment for our sin. Nothing would make me happier!
          So, perhaps you have misjudged my heart.

          • F. T.

            I would be thrilled too, sister.

      • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

        Wow Susan, I know you mean well but your words here echo the heart of the problem in this Christian vs. LGBT discussion. From what I read, Elmer is quite ready for judgment day... And I suspect you both will see each other in heaven one day.

        Your words come across as if the gospel is fearful obedience. The gospel is Jesus, grace and love that drives out fear.

        • Kim Duffy

          They don't drive out obedience though.

          • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

            Exactly, Kim. Faith produces obedience. And faith produces work. Love prompts labor. And hope inspires endurance. The gospel of grace produces all these things.

  • Provy Odell

    Marriage is as old as recorded history, did not begin with your tale of fables (i.e. the bible), did not begin with your god or jesus. Get over it. You all are nothing but bigots who dislike gays and anyone who is not like you and you'll go to all sorts of lengths to justify your hatred of people who just want to live their lives to the fullest and to be able to be married to the person of their choice. Gays are not hurting you, hurting the "institution" of marriage, hurting America. They just want the same rights as everyone else has and under our Constitution I don't see any reason why they should be denied that right.

    • EX BISEXUAL

      Who among us is not a bigot? A bigot is merely somehow who holds strongly to their beliefs or system of beliefs and rejects other opinions as invalid. Have you not done that to the Christian belief. Are you not a bigot, Bigot?

      • Austin

        If we go by that definition then everyone is a bigot, but then we can divide it into two types of bigots. The fanatic bigot who won't listen because he doesn't want to, or the understanding bigot who will listen but won't change because he has either already experienced, or witnessed someone who has experienced. And yes there are fanatic bigots in every religion, faction, place, group, etc. the biggest thing is to try and be the understanding bigot and at least listen to the other point of view and possibly accept it if you realize that your point of view is wrong.

        • Peter Stokes

          But ONLY if we concede their point is right. Austin.
          To do that there has to be a debate where people who want change show just cause and argue their point. So far nobody has given a good, logical, well reasoned argument as to why governments should legalize same-sex marriage and ignore all the health risks and damage to young people.
          All we here are simplistic and irrelevant notions of 'love' and 'human rights', and in most cases all people do is call people names (like bigot) for holding a different view rather than debate the point.

  • Elmer

    Right on Provy.

    Matt - I don't dishonor the christian or theistic world view, but it has spread more hatred, bigotry, rape (hello, catholicism?) and oppression than anything in the history of human kind.

    So keep it out of our government, Gays are going to marry and there is no christian or group of christians that are going to do anything about it. As Provy said "Get over it".

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black

  • Dan

    As Christians Jesus exhorted & warned us to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. When a question regarding same sex attraction or orientation is raised, consider the world view of the questioner by asking questions & listening to the answers with courtesy & respect. The question ““Sexuality is basically just a cultural thing and that each culture has established its own terms of right and wrong” is coming at level 3 (Application-why we legislate for others) and the answers should not be given at level 3. As Ravi says we ought to lay a foundation first by arguing at Level I (Is it tenable? Argumentation-foundation of truth and logic-why we believe what we believe), illustrate at Level 2 (Is it livable? Why we live the way we live-existential) and then apply at Level 3 (Is it transferable? Why we legislate for others). Particularly if the questioner is an unbeliever, then before we answer any activity as right or wrong we must go to the real question which is at Level 1 (since that person does not accept the authority of the Bible): "Are there moral absolutes? If yes, on what basis do you make a judgment as to whether something is right or wrong?" This question is only an entry point to a larger discussion of the whole question of moral absolutes and we can gently, graciously & prayerfully lead the person to the only One who is Absolute in His morality-Christ Himself. It is the Gospel that changes lives…so our focus should be on Christ.

    If the person is an unbeliever-He/she needs to be taught Justification-How to be born again.If a believer-He/she needs to be taught progressive sanctification-how to grow & change

    One very common objection we will hear is that Christians are not consistent-they are against discrimination on the basis of ethnicity but discriminate against sexual orientation. Ravi Zacharias deals with this insightfully when he says, God in His Word declares that ethnicity is sacred and the same God tells us our sexuality is scared-that we are made male and female and therefore, those who live by the Word of God are actually consistent when we say we are against discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or sex. The person who blurs the distinction between the sexes is the one who is actually being inconsistent.

     Just because I have a desire-it is NOT my identity
     Just because I have a desire-it does not become a legitimate ‘need’
     Just because I have a “Natural” desire (note that all our desires are tainted by the fall) it does not make it God-ordained.
     Just because it feels right, it does not make it natural.
     Just because I have a desire it does not automatically mean I am obligated to fulfill it.

    The key issue, for anybody, and particularly for Christians, is which of our desires and affections we choose to be defined by. A Christian with SSA/SSO will, emphasize their identity in Christ and in the body of Christ, and view same-sexual desires as a product of the Fall, just one of many forms of sexual deviation and temptation that can be overcome by God’s grace. They will grieve over their SSA, and some will repent of it depending upon how they understand its origin and how they understand sin and guilt and repentance. A Christian Explanatory Framework comprehends the reconstruction of our identities upon adoption into the family of God: “Now, God is my Father, Christ is my brother, I am a son/daughter of the Lord. ‘I’ (in the deepest sense of that little word) belong to Him. He redefines and redirects every part of my being.” (Sam Williams)

    “What about love, loyalty and commitment? Mere affection & commitment, even it they are present in a relationship-same-sex or opposite sex does not mean God approves of that relationship. If a man is unbiblically divorced and marries another woman he believes he truly loves, that union is still wrong in God’s eyes. Adulterous relationships may on some level, be loving & committed but they are still sin. Even here many advocates of SSA will agree that adultery is wrong as someone is hurt (in this case the non-adulterous spouse). But what about when no one else seems hurt like a premarital sexual relationship? Do they not legitimize any relationship-especially between consenting parties?” Such an argument does not apprehend Biblical love. Love is not simply the absence of injury to anyone. For example, critical thoughts do not victimize, but they are unloving and wrong. Defining love in terms of whether people get hurt misses the heart of Biblical love. We may not autonomously decide what form love takes. God tells us how to love. When we love on our terms rather than His, we are in sin. Even if our sin does not seem to hurt another human being, it is still sin. If sin were reduced to hurting others, then we could all become morally perfect by isolating ourselves from all people. Sin, however, is not primarily a human-against-human action. It is human-against God. God defines love as obedience to Him.”

    Ultimately SSA & SSO are all expressions of the idolatrous instincts of our hearts-an instinct that switches our allegiance from God to our idols. We truly have an “orientation”, but it is a spiritual orientation that is against God. As the Holy Spirit exposes these critical issues about a person, the Spirit also reveals more of the knowledge of God. The theme of God’s love continues but now we are reminded that is a HOLY love. It is unparalleled and distinct or separate from our love. It leaves its witnesses in awe with the right kind of fear of the Lord-as was the experience of Isaiah, or the disciples when they saw Jesus calming the storm…Ed Welch.

    And the reason why the marriage ordinance applies to all mankind is because it is a Creation ordinance given before the fall. God not only defines marriage, but also regulates it.

    May I recommend “Blame it on the Brain” by Ed Welch, & Dr. Sam Williams in his excellent article on this topic entitled: “A Christian Psychology of and Response to Homosexuality”

  • Pingback: Saturday News Roundup #130 | SouthernGospelBlog.com

  • Pingback: Gay is Not the New Black « A Modern Puritan

  • Kristen

    1. I do not want to live in a theocracy. God doesn't need the government's help.
    2. The Bible clearly states a lot of things. Things that a lot of you have no intention of following. ever. Sometimes these things are ignored outright, and sometimes they are explained away. but there seems to be no objective criteria for what is literal and what is universally applicable. So go back to reading your Bibles, give away all you possessions, greet each other with a holy kiss, stay away from synthetic fibers, and leave the gays alone.
    3. Two people finding happiness by committing themselves to each other does not diminish your right to carry on with whatever you do to find happiness. Rights are not a zero-sum game.

  • Pingback: Live and Let Live? « Janitorial Musings

  • Robin

    Thank you for this post. Having lived through the nightmare of having my husband of many years decide he wanted to live a gay lifestyle, I applaud you for speaking out for truth. I have never considered myself a "homophobe" but I have been accused of being one simply for refusing to accept the idea that gays are "born that way". I have to admit a lot of trepidation at even commenting in favor of your post for fear of being labeled in the ways you outlined in your article. I really don't know how we can combat the overwhelming media bias towards this. Your article is so poingnant because the comparison with the struggle for racial civil rights does guilt many well-mined people into thinking that they must be secretly "racist" or "homophobic" if they don't support gay marriage.
    I have seen first hand the destruction that choosing the homosexual path can lead to. I don't think it will get any better by granting same-sex marriage. I care deeply for mankind and human rights, but as you so aptly described, many of the things called for in the gay movement are not rights at all. There is a danger in guilting well meaning Christians into feeling they are not accepting of all God's children when they don't accept gay rights. The danger is that we break down the barriers against sin. The Holy Spirit speaks to us about avoiding the pitfalls of sexual sin and these arguments attempt to undermine that still quiet Voice and call for an "anything goes" mentality.

    • samh

      Not having same-sex marriage leads to homosexuals marrying the opposite sex only to become dissatisfied with the relationship and breaking up, like your experience.

      Do you want that to continue?

  • Pingback: Saturday Shout-Outs: Psalms, & Aurora | H.B. Charles Jr.

  • Elmer

    Exactly Kristen!

    Look, dear christian folk... believe what you want. Use it to be better people, we all need to do that. Just know that:
    A. It will never be the law of THIS land
    B. No one will ever ask you to support anything you don't agree with BECAUSE of the laws of this land
    C. As times goes on, your god will join Odin, Zeus, El and the other gods you yourselves no longer believe in.

    • Kim Duffy

      A) Read your history, it had always BEEN the law of this land.

      B) People are forced to support what we don't agree with every day BECAUSE of the laws- abortion, contraception, estate taxes and others, laziness via welfare, false teachings via humanist schools, etc.

      C) The difference is that those were false gods. You'll find out the truth one day and I hope that when that day comes you will have accepted Him.

  • Elmer

    Thank you Elle, Susan wants me not to be ready. If more religious folks focused on the "Love" part of the teachings they purport to cherish, we wouldn't have a conversation like this.

    Susan - you're right, judgement day IS coming, and I am NOT ready. It's coming in about 20-30 billion years when the star we call Sol is finally done. At that point, if I am still alive, I will welcome the nothingness of death. Hopefully, by then, you will have long stopped holding your breath to me to believe in your god. I can't imagine ever wanting to believe in something that has such a hateful, bigoted following.

    • Susan

      I'll do something better than holding my breath, Elmer. I will pray that God will reveal Himself to you, somehow, and that you will one day know how much you are loved by your creator. :-)

    • John

      Elmer, How can you have a belief in Sol and know when it is coming, but deny a belief of someone else, because you don't agree with it or have rejected it?

      God has given us laws to follow to protect us (the same as government has laws to protect us). No matter what you do, it effects others.
      God and evil can be thought of as forces. When there is a positive force, there is a negative force against it. God and Satan. Satan has rule over this world and is tearing it down, but God will have ultimate rule. Most of the things God is blamed for is actually Satan.
      The "Christians" that you all are so disgusted with are allowing Satan triumph over God (in this world).
      Tele-evangilist are the black eye to Christianity as well as the kooks that say one thing and do another.
      God is good. Evil is not.
      Look around, you will see that there is much more hateful, bigoted people in other areas too.

  • Jacob

    I know if I disagree, it'll be chalked up as "propaganda", which will ensure that the sheeple (people and sheep, for those with no imagination) reading this will disregard it, but I press on...

    Thousands of years of history shows that marriage was a way to sell your daughter.
    The Bible shows that Kings had concubines and multiple wives at the same time (David, Solomon, etc).

    But you pick on gay people. Why?
    Where in the Bible does JESUS say a word about gay people? NEVER.

    Good luck and God Bless.

    P.S. I am a 29 year old man and father of two. I've been married to a woman for a little over 4 years. (just in case you were wanting to profile me)

    • Susan

      Jacob, here is a solid response to part of what you have said here (about Jesus not saying anything on that topic).
      http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/09/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency/

      Christians tend to object to the legalization of anything that God calls sin. Once homosexual marriage is instituted the next thing will be polygamy. Then polygamists will say, "you pick on polygamists, why?"....and then there is abortion, and don't forget that a number of Christians lead the force to end slavery.

  • Elmer

    Susan - the last of the polygamist sects in this country claim to be _christian_ (well, Mormon). And don't you forget that the biggest institutionalized bigotry in the USA is the KKK, who claim to be divinely inspired.

    Religion can be an excuse for just about everything. Who are YOU to say that homosexuals weren't made and meant to be that way by your god? It's just your interpretation of those writings that makes you believe that homosexuality is wrong. Why does it frighten you?

    Domestic partnership needs to be a legal construct available to everyone for one partner that they can claim as their de-facto power of attorney and family for purposes of insurance and care.

    Beyond that, what any church does or does not allow is absolutely fine.

    As a minister I have performed weddings for straight and gay couples and to this day, they are all, still, lovely, happy, blended families. They are also all non-believers. They have in common that they have left their church of their family of origin because they were rejected for who they are and what they believe.

    You should know that no matter what else you believe, the world simply doesn't work this way. You can't hide behind your religion these days, it has become too transparent a veil to disguise anything, let alone bigotry against gays.

    • Susan

      Your argument is with God, not me.

    • Susan

      You are a minister?

      Sound teaching and pure living go together. There is an inseparable link between truth and morality, between right belief and right behavior. Theological error...get this...theological error has its roots in moral rather than intellectual soil. The point is this, when people teach wrong doctrine, it is not that they do not understand, it is that they are the base evil...evil. And they have a theology to accommodate their evil. Don't you for a moment imagine that a false teacher, a liberal, a cultist, an occultist or anyone who teaches falsely around the things of God is some kind of poor well-meaning nice person who went astray, they are in error because their hearts are evil. And they will not submit their evil to the cleansing work of Christ and the true gospel so they invent an accommodating error. And the reason these theologians come along and want to vote on what Jesus said is not because they cannot intellectually know the veracity of Scripture, it is because there are things in the Bible they will not submit to. And in order to avoid unnecessary submission, they will eliminate them. It's that simple. John MacArthur

    • Michael

      Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie -- I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.

      • samh

        Are Jews who don't accept Jesus part of the synagogue of Satan, Michael?

        • Michael

          What did Christ say in the verse I quoted above?

        • Kim Duffy

          If you're a Jew and really believe what the word of God says, then you would see that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies and that He is the Messiah you have been waiting for, but that you are rejecting. Those Jews who have not yet accepted Christ are fortold in the Old Testament (Psalm 118:22) Jesus is the stone that is rejected (Gen 49:24, Isa 28:16, Acts 4:11, Matt 21:42, Mark 9:12).

      • Tomme

        You know Billy Graham was accused of anti-Semitism for saying that, right?

        • T Ward

          So Billy Graham was accused of anti-Semitism for quoting New Testament Scripture. Wow! Well, I guess he is in good company because Jesus said things that others thought were anti-Semitic even though He was Jewish.

          Now Billy Graham is human and he has been wrong about some things but I think Jesus hit every nail right on the head even the ones He let be driven into his body.

    • Amill

      I'm sorry... You're minister for who? Of what? I'm having a hard time telling.

  • Elmer

    Jake, Matt, Samantha and Ben: You guys ROCK! So Jake, the salient point from the article http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html (which is _excellent_), is this:

    Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..."

    I would very much like to see an updated study. Part of the possible problem with this report is that cultural acceptance of homosexuality in general wasn't what it is today at the time of the research. Also, prison is not necessarily the safest place to "come out", and I think the influence on the study can't be discounted. Still, the numbers are compelling and it warrants another look.

    One other study listed is worth mentioning:

    Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

    In short, the author has his right to express an opinion, but if you don't back up that opinion with any kind of research or fact, it's easily construed as bigotry.

  • Pingback: Daily Roundup | Rated R For Reformed

  • ezam

    So you believe homosexuals should marry people of the opposite sex even though most of those marriages fail?

  • samh

    If you want to argue about pedophile marriages, during biblical times it was common for Hebrew men to marry girls as young as their period started. Not to mention Mary was probably around 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, and she was already married to a much older man.

    • Fifthmonarchymn

      Hey Samh

      Thank you for proving

      1) That consent can not be used as a firewall against pedophilic marriage

      2)That for many people the gay marriage cause is not about civil rights but about disparaging the Bible and Christianity

      3)That Gay marriage crusade is not like Civil Rights.
      Instead of trying put Christianity in a unsympathetic light civil rights leaders like MLK chastised Christians for not following the scriptures.

      That is quite a feat to accomplish is so few words

      Peace

      • samh

        So you are OK with grown men marrying little girls like God wanted?

      • Fifthmonarchymn

        You have so far failed to provide any evidence whatsoever (Bibical or otherwise) that God wanted old men to marry little Girls.

        Therefore on top of your other accomplishments you have now proven that it’s not rational argument that you are interested in but only incendiary rhetoric.

        This is yet another thing that separates the crusade to redefine marriage from the Civil Rights movement.

        You make this too easy

        Peace

        • Fifthmonarchymn

          Where does the Bible say how old Mary was? Can you give me the chapter and verse? Of course you can't....

          On what basis do you call me a hypocritical fundie? Do you even know me?

          This sort of snap conclusion based on a stereotype of what folks who believe the Bible are supposed to be is just like the prejudice of the 1960's American south.

          You have now proven yourself to be exactly the sort of person that the civil rights movement was battling against.

          in a couple of paragraphs you have now shown conclusively that Voddie’s argument was exactly right.

          Wow, you are batting a thousand here aren’t you

          peace

  • http://stasisonline.wordpress.com Danny

    I dont think psychologists would agree that "homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification". Drs have been known to test males for sexual arousal and to consider the results as a valid method of differentiation.

  • Pingback: July 22, 2012 | Another Slow News Day

  • M Young

    Here is your LOGICAL reason, Mr. Voddie: YOURS is not the only religion in America. That is why religion should not legislate rights away from your fellow Americans. That is completely logical. You are welcome to forbid your family and church members from getting married if they are gay. You (should) have no right to deny by law the right for adults to marry who they choose. In your very first sentence, you are saying that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics also do not fit within "your understanding of marriage". I guess my religious intermarriage of almost 30 years is a sham to you. That is your problem, not mine, but it does not deserve to be anyone else's problem.

  • http://www.differenthomeschoolgirl.blogspot.com Abigail

    Excellent article! I appreciate your sound reasoning and documentation.

  • Pingback: For All It’s Worth: Week of 15 Jul, 2012 | A Wretch, Reformed.

  • Fifthmonarchymn

    So in your mind a supposed “custom in ancient Israel” some how equates to God wanting “grown men to marry little girls” and "choosing a 13 or 14 year old to bear His son” for some unknown reason you also contend that this is “what the bible says”.

    Perhaps before you confidently make claims about the desires of the Almightily you should actually read what the Bible says about a subject.

    The fact is even a cursory reading of scripture will reveal that in general God had a major problem with most “customs in ancient Israel“ (Mat 15:9). One area in particular that is mentioned repeatedly is in the area of marriage.

    Over and over again the Bible presents marriage as a picture of the relationship of Christ and his Church. Therefore it necessarily involves the informed consent of the bride (Genesis 24:57, Numbers 36:6, etc)

    On top of that the Bible explicitly says that unmarried people should remain unmarried until they can no longer exercise self control when it comes to sex (1Co 7:8). This requirement alone is enough to rule out pedophilic marriage.

    If you want to be seen as more than a foolish internet troll you might want to do a little actual research.

    Peace

    • samh

      Because God had a problem with Jewish custom, he impregnated a young teenager? How does that even make sense? You are trying way too hard to justify that 2000-year-old book.

    • Tomme

      Those passages are vague and none of them disprove the argument that adult-child marriages are permissible.

  • SoulSista

    I have read a lot of comments that have been posted here today, after reading the article of course. Ravi Zacharias once said: "These days its not just that the line between right and wrong has been made unclear, Christians are being asked by our culture today to erase the lines and move the fences, and if that were not bad enough, we are being asked to join in the celebration cry by those who have thrown off the restraints religion had imposed upon them. It is not just that they ask we accept, but they now demand of us to celebrate it too." Most of the comments talk about the biblical, historical, logical, legal, and definition based problems of same sex marriage. The one many have not fully answered, which is often argued by those defending same sex marriage is this: Why are Christians being so mean, hateful, unChrist-like, homophobic and bigoted towards two people that love each other and are in a committed relationship? It is to this that I would like to respond. It is not out of hate that I oppose homosexuality in general and same sex marriage specifically. I would argue it is the direct opposite of this claim made by many of the other side of this issue. I would argue it is out of love that I oppose both. I do not hate homosexuals or the GLBT community. I am not afraid of homosexuals or the GLBT community. I am called as a Christian to love my neighbors, to pray for my enemies, and to share a message that the Creator of the Universe loves them so much that He sent His Son to die on their behalf. Love, real love, is not the absence of truth, but living in the reality of truth. The term "coming out," the process by which one reveals to friends and family that they are homosexual, is often the end result of a prior internal struggle. This same struggle is illustrated in the words of The Apostle Paul in Romans 7:14ff [taken from The Message Bible] "I can anticipate the response that is coming: "I know that all God's commands are spiritual, but I'm not ... What I don't understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise. So if I can't be trusted to figure out what is best for myself and then do it, it becomes obvious that God's command is necessary. But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can't keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it. I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time." I use this passage to point out that the struggle is not a unique experience of the GLBT community. It is, in fact, the very struggle of mankind as a whole. My struggle may not be your struggle but neither is it less legitimate. I believe many finally come to a place, from what I have heard, where they stop "struggling" and come to terms with what they believe is their true selves, and their sexual identity. Paul says in verse 24 "I've tried everything and nothing helps. I'm at the end of my rope. Is there no one who can do anything for me? Isn't that the real question?" I would argue many people, in their pain and hellish agony, give up before they find the answer. Paul goes on to say in 25, "The answer, thank God, is that Jesus Christ can and does. He acted to set things right in this life of contradictions where I want to serve God with all my heart and mind, but am pulled by the influence of sin to do something totally different." The full answer is this, Romans 8: 1-4 [NIV] "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." So at the end of the day, it is not that I do not understand the struggle, a hard fought internal battle, but I do not accept the premise that the battle ends with accepting a lifestyle outside the bounds set by a Holy and loving God. My prayer, my hope and desire is that all would be free to live, to love, and walk humbly and in harmony with God. So you see, there is no hate at all.

    • F. T.

      Dear SoulSista, that was so great. Thank you. I may copy for my own review. Thank you and thank our Lord who dwells within us. It seems the HS spoke thru you! -frances

  • d girard

    These arguments are specious and disingenuous at best. It's clear that the essay is written because Baucham thinks homosexuality is a sin. Make that case first, and good luck supporting that position Biblically, unless you want to write similar essays about cutting your hair, wearing cloths of different fibers and planting two crops in the same field. He makes legal arguments but points out he has no legal expertise, akin to me making automobile engineering commentary because I think I understand how an internal combustion engine works. Perhaps most frightening is his utter lack of recognizing (must less understanding) the breadth human psychology - a bit frightening given his position as a minister. Does he really believe we're all supposed to be alike? Regarding logic - why even have that argument? His logic vs. mine? What's the point? Historically, he just couldn't be more wrong. History is replete with society's rejection of others' rights - women, minorities, immigrants (also not a group that can be immediately identified, to use his point), children, the elderly - only to determine later that we were wrong all along.

    "There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason..." If Baucham wants to preach from his pulpit that homosexuality is a sin, I thank God that I live in a country where he is able to say what he wants and others are able to attend. I also thank God I live in a country where I don't have to attend that church. But for a minister to use his position as a church leader to argue against civil rights of others - dangerous and shameful.

  • Daniela Lollie

    "Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. "

    Idiocy and ignorance. You don't think race is just as socially constructed as definitions of sexuality?

  • Pingback: Gay is Not the New Black « Kingdom First

  • Pingback: TBR Recommends… « The Blessed Rebellion

  • kaveman

    Why do christians get so angry and hateful about homosexuality?
    Same reason christians get angry and hateful about all the other sins. Sin is an evil act. Christians are suppose to hate evil in all its forms. So we pray and work on changing evil into good by the power of the holy spirit.

  • http://www.faithcarthage.org Timothy Buelow

    Thank you for taking the time to logically lay this out in one article.

  • David McGladdery

    Thank you Voddie.

  • Amill

    Well, well, written Voddie. My hat is off to you. I do find it interesting that the argument for gay marriage has taken the moral turn at this point after the question has been voted on in 30 (+?) State ballots. In each of these contests it was decided to not adopt a change in what the definition of marriage is.

    It seems that this is more of a fall back position by the champions of same-sex marriage than a front line winner. How long have people been voting on this? The people have clearly spoken, however I don't see that the LGBTQ community is interested in listening.

  • http://sebaspace.wordpress.com/ Sebaspace

    So, gays are free to marry ... someone of the opposite sex. Does any woman on here want to marry this gay man, knowing fully well that I will never have a fully unitive union with you? But who cares about deep, passionate, loving when you have the grace of Jesus Christ to fill that void for both of you?

    • mel

      I've seen deep passionate loving on pinterest from gay men. It's gross and has nothing to do with love.

      Women have been married to men that didn't really love them for centuries. That is why you have been commanded to love us. We have also been married to men that become middle aged with pot bellies and hair growing out every orifice except the tops of their heads yet consider themselves quite the catch. It is only with God's help that a person can love and respect most of them. The subject of being attracted to them doesn't enter into it most of the time either. I don't know anywhere in the bible that gives a "turn-on" loophole for any of us.

      I don't know why people that are attracted to the same sex think they have it so much worse than the rest of us. The majority of us don't get what we want in another human being. Why should you be more special?

      • Tomme

        Why do you think divorces and extramarital affairs are so common?

      • ezam

        Gross to YOU. What straight people do to the opposite sex can be seen as unloving and disgusting to other people.

  • Pingback: Really Recommended Reading: Gay Is Not the New Black « No Apologies Allowed

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black « Depravity

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not The New Black — Fr. John Peck

  • Pingback: Why Gay Rights are not the same as the Civil Right Fight for Racial Equality | A Tethered Kite

  • Robinm

    Mr. Baucham has easily dispelled the arguments put forth by the 2% of the population that call themselves homosexuals. I am deeply saddened by those who call themselves Christians yet are willing to allow the homosexual agenda to go its way...the "live and let live" mentality. Sometimes it seems we, who are saved, are happy in our salvation and don't want to get out of our comfy pews to actually tell people they are sinning and there is a way out through the blood of Jesus Christ! Those of you who are "for" homosexual marriage, are you really content in letting people go to hell? If you allow them to be comfortable in their sin saying they are okay and they should be allowed all the rights, etc, then the Bible says they will perish in their sin. That's not okay with me. I will preach the Gospel 'til my last breath, and I pray, save some lost souls in the process.

    • Jack

      The Bible says a lot of things that aren't true or can't be proven. How can you know YOU aren't going to hell for worshipping the wrong God or going to the wrong church?

  • Pingback: Two Monologues And No Dialogue: How (Not) To Talk About Religion and Social Issues « Joel M. Hoffman, PhD

  • Mary

    Thank you Sir for this well written and informative article.

  • First Last

    "We don't have a gun problem, we have a sin problem" - Huckabee

  • T Ward

    Well stated. I happen to live in South Carolina where for years a confederate flag flew over the state capitol building along with the state and US flags. Finally, intelligence prevailed and ONLY flags that represent EVERY resident of South Carolina fly over the State House. There where and still are two sides that greatly disagree if that confederate flag should have been there.

    The point could have been decided sooner and with much less rancor if all had been intelligent enough to realize that only a flag that represents ALL residents belonged in that spot.

    It is the same with marriage. Only a woman and a man belong in a marriage by definition. No group can change that, whether it be a religious or homosexual group. Same sex partners can claim to be married all they want but it will never be a marriage because that is by definition not what a marriage is. A goose can claim to be a duck all it wants but if it does not walk like a duck or quack like a duck, then it is not a duck. It does not, can not, and never will represent a marriage union just as a confederate flag can not represent all South Carolinians.

    Married people suggest that a new word be used to describe a social union between homosexuals. Go ahead and even hijack another word like "gay" was, just as long as the word is not "marriage". Please, you are asking people to respect you; well we are asking you to respect what we are, married.

  • John

    Excellent post. Thanks for writing this Voddie.

  • Curtis P

    I have never been so ashamed by the level of discourse. As a Christian I have left the church because love was not preached but hate spewed, wrapped in the words of the Lord...when I look upon my father I know only love and peace and that I am made in his image. An image that is hated upon on a daily level. I want to speak platitudes like many have here but I respect myself enough to speak my truth. Only through the grace of God have I been blessed to be where I am. And only in his grace will I continue to move forward. There is a reason there are so many things wrong within our community...I need not point them out because many have done a fantastic job of showing how hate can destroy people from the inside out.

  • Steve

    Beautiful

  • Alec Witham

    I have often wondered why Afro-Americans and Aboriginal Australians have not publicly protested the homosexual hijacking of their struggle. Finally we have someone who has done so, and eloquently.

  • Kimberly

    Excellent article...thank you!

  • T Ward

    Bottom line, it comes down to semantics. Let’s leave religion and social customs out of it for now. Personally, I have to say that God has a place in this debate but let’s leave God out for now (I know I am crazy for saying that).

    Bottom line, people who are married (the one woman and one man variety) do not want to be confused with any other variety of marriage. When someone asks or I introduce myself as married, I want everyone to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am married to someone of the opposite sex. It is not unreasonable for me and many others to want that.

    The bottom line is that for many married people, this distinction is important to us. It just is. We really do not have to explain ourselves to you. You have made it plain that you don’t want to think like we do. Fine, go your own way. We were here first.

    Marriage has long defined the union of a man and a woman and only recently has a same sex union been getting included with the word “marriage”. We were here first. Please stop trying to be like us and go your own way. Grow some backbone, balls, tits, guts, or whatever and stop trying to claim you are like us. You are not, never will be, and no matter what fine sounding arguments are used, married. The emperor has no clothes on!

    Yes, same sex unions should have rights and not be “sinned” against. Go ahead, politically and legally claim your right to have a same sex union. I personally advise against it but in America, it is your right to be represented. My bottom line request again is this, please develop some intellectual honesty and do not try to steal from us by calling yourselves married.

    You are welcome to worship God with others at church but realize that building is full of sinners. It is full of cheats, liars, adulterers, murderers, and yes also people who practice homosexuality. From what I have read in the Bible, most “Christians” are on their way to hell. Most “Christians” do not really lead a life that honors God but they lead a life that honors themselves. Hey, the road is narrow and there really is just that one little shepherd’s gate. If you doubt that, then read the book. Jesus was the most irritated with the sin of the religious people thinking they were OK. When it comes to God the Father, well, He got the most upset with the sons of Abraham because they kept drifting away from Him. Read the Old Testament.

    Yes, many of these people who hate you because of your sin of homosexuality are on their way to hell also because they are too prideful to realize their sin is just as ugly. No wonder you find it hard to listen to them! Only as small number (remnant) of “Christians” is not on their way to hell.

    You hijacked the word “gay” so I do not refer to myself as gay anymore when feeling happy. Please, you want to be respected, then respect me and leave the word “marriage” to those of us who are. Find a new word for yourself, unless you are too ashamed to do that.

    • emily

      we were here first?!?!?
      really?!?!?
      i am a married woman (of the one man-one woman variety) but i don't have a problem with people thinking i might be in a same-sex marriage. what being married means is that i have found someone i want to spend the rest of my life with and i want other people to know that i have made a commitment. there should be no reason to defend oneself against being homosexual as it is not offensive.
      if we were to follow your logic of the we were here first argument, then the world would be vastly different. warlords would still run most of asia, Baal and Yahweh would still be battling it out for lead deity in Israel, and the Pagans and rationalists would still be dividing the Mediterranean.
      even if you don't believe in evolution, you must see the change that has taken place over centuries of humanity. you can't just quit changing now.

      • T Ward

        Emily,

        Yes, we were here first. It is understandable that there are as many views on this subject as there are humans. It is no big surprise that someone of the "man and woman marriage variety" does not care if others know of them that way or as part of a homosexual union. That is very open minded of you. What matters is that many married women and men think it makes a big difference.

        Does it matter what people in same sex unions think and are called? Well, it matters to them very much. And again, it matters very much to many married heterosexuals what they are called. We are called "married". We did not make up the word but we simply made a choice to live it, even though we do it imperfectly.

        In Wikipedia, {heterosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, physical or romantic attractions to persons of the opposite sex"; it also refers to "an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them".}

        Also in Wikipedia, {homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."}

        What if someone came along and decided they wanted to change those definitions to something that meant the opposite of what we all know they really mean? I think their redefinitions would be edited out! Don't you?

        Marriage means a union between a man and a woman. That means something important to a lot of people. Stop trying to steal it. Stop trying to hide behind the truth of it. Man up! Woman up! Pick your own word but do not let it be marriage.

        Yes, we were here first.

        • Carole

          You know what... if you want the word "marriage", you can have it. I could care less. Most gay ppl could care less. What we care about is the legal contract that "marriage" really is. If the law wants to reprint a couple million of them with the words "Civil Union" at the top, fine. Just so long as it's the same contract with all the same bells and whistles you guys get. As it stands now, a civil union is not the same. It is devoid of about 1,100 or so rights and benefits that come with a "marriage" contract, and for some that might be good enough, but not for all of us. I, for one (as well as about 36,000 others in my situation), need a contract that is recognized by the federal government so that I can sponsor my Japanese-born partner as my "spouse"...or "legal significant other"...or "legal cohabitant"...take your pick. None of the "marriage licenses" in any of the six legalized states are federally recognized at this point because of DOMA. So, I suppose first DOMA needs to be done away with so that I can "legally unite" with my non-citizen partner and sponsor her for a green card on my US citizenship. I AM a US citizen, after all. My tax dollars certainly say I am.

  • http://www.thinch.org Russ White

    Without having read all the other responses --the folks claiming "Gay is the new black," actually don't have a clue what they're saying. If they did, they wouldn't use this line of argument.

    First, if behavior is tied to genetics in a way that prevents people from denying their genetic makeup, then we've lost all the greatness of being human. "Why did you run away in battle?" "Can't help it, my genes tell me what to do, can't help my behavior." If this is true, then all morality is gone, you might as well open the prisons and just let everyone go, because there is no such thing as a crime.

    http://thinkinginchrist.com/2010/08/16/one-way-free-will/

    The second problem with this entire line of thinking is it actually destroys the case against racism. If "gay is the new black," because homosexuality is genetic, then one of the underpinning arguments of racism --that behavior is tied to race, color, or some other physical attribute-- is absolutely true. So if "gay is the new black," then we've allowed racism back in the door.

    Just my 2c.

  • Pingback: Culture Wars: Christians and the Homosexual Agenda « Christian Development

  • Charlie Lee

    "'Pedophiles are not homosexuals!' is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment." Really?

    Google : Larry Brinkin

    • T Ward

      I did Google "Larry Brinkin" and he is a bona fide Gay Rights Leader/Activist. In addition, he is a bona fide pedophile. He is both. Homosexuals can be pedophiles; you would have to be a compete idiot or liar to not admit that. So if the homosexual community tries to claim otherwise then chose which you think they are, an idiot or a liar.

      Of course, heterosexuals can be pedophiles also. That particular sin/law breaking is something both sides have to admit to.

  • Charlie Lee

    "'Pedophiles are not homosexuals!' is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment." Really?
    Google: Larry Brinkin

  • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

    Should Christians be running to Cesar to define marriage?

    Why would a guy who wrote the book "The Children of Cesar" a book about removing children from public Schools be using our broken kingdom laws to show the faults of homosexual marriage? http://www.amazon.com/The-Children-Caesar-American-Education/dp/0915815834

    John 18:36 (NLT)
    36 Jesus answered (Pilate), “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

    John 19:4–7 (NLT)
    4 Pilate went outside again and said to the people, “I am going to bring him out to you now, but understand clearly that I find him not guilty.” 5 Then Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said, “Look, here is the man!” 6 When they saw him, the leading priests and Temple guards began shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” “Take him yourselves and crucify him,” Pilate said. “I find him not guilty.” 7 The Jewish leaders replied, “By our law he ought to die because he called himself the Son of God.”

    As evangelicals are we going to actually use the law to get rid of those we don't like it when it suits our interests and then curse the law when it doesn't? (Augustine "Idolatry is worshiping anything that ought to be used or using anything that ought to be worshiped.")

    We should be standing up for the fact that some human beings (image bearers) are being unjustly treated (Acts 16:37) by an obvious legal double standard based on what two consenting people do in a bedroom.

    Micah 6:8 (NLT)
    8 No, O people, the LORD has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you: to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

    This where we seem to be like Blind guides! who strain our water so we won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but we will swallow a camel!(Matthew 23:24)

    How pious we look to everyone with our micro morality. I have enough to work on in my own heart and life with without meddling with worldly laws (culture war) hoping they might change the hearts of others.

    James 1:27 (NLT)
    27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

  • Ryan

    Once again an ignorant person has attempted to justify his contempt for another human being. Gay may not be the new black, but this christian hatred is the new brand of intolerance and ugliness that is usurping the hatred that has existed along racial lines in the past. I love the baseless argument regarding pedophiles because, If I, a man, molested a small female child I would not be labeled "straight" I would just be a pedophile, but we automatically condemn people who are gay when there is same-sex child abuse.

    Also, what about this notion that this does not count because you cannot automatically determine a persons sexuality with a glance, well what about Jews? what about Muslims, and what about Christians being oppressed during the Roman empire, I am quite sure they were picked out because of an unwavering faith, not because they necessarily looked that different from Jews or roman citizens.

    How about we try to end hatred Voddie? Lets not proliferate it with this archaic thinking, because while Gay may not be the new black it seems that you are the new Faubus, the new Wallace, the new Thurmond, only more dangerous because your bully pulpit is in cyberspace.

    • Amill

      Chalk up another one beconing us to join the Kum-by-ya chorus. I sang that mystic tune enough growing up.

      They'll probably be still singing it when Jesus comes...

      • Ryan

        I didn't say anything about singing songs of love and holding hands, but I do think we need to stop burning crosses, I would not want anyone to be doing that when Jesus comes...

    • T Ward

      Ryan,

      A person (man or woman) who has sex with a child of the opposite sex is a heterosexual pedophile. A person (man or woman) who has sex with a child of the same sex is a homosexual pedophile. Both are hateful people because they took something from that child that they should not have.

      I agree, I do not much care for the "christian" hatred being spewed towards homosexuals. Real Christians know that the Church is full of sinners and that many of them will never fully repent and will therefore spend eternity in hell. I have noticed that many homosexuals take Christians stating what they believe, in a respectful way, as hatred when it is not. It is just plain old disagreement that humans will NEVER resolve. You believe what you believe and we believe what we believe. Period.

      A real Christian will admit that an adulterer, a thief, a liar, a hater, a murderer, a complainer, someone who said they took out the garbage but really didn't is going to spend eternity in hell if they do not change. God, not me, included homosexuals in that long list. If you really want to complain, I suggest you take it up with God. Of course maybe you don't believe in God. I understand that too. After all, what is faith but a decision? You have decided to believe what you believe.

      In the meantime it comes down to semantics. Those of us who are married (the woman and man variety) do not want any confusion about who they are married to. We respectfully ask that you stop trying to steal the word that describes what we willing entered into, even though we practice it imperfectly. Please have enough intellectual honesty to call yourself something other than married. Make up a new word. Please stop hiding behind who we are. Who is gonna stop you?

      • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

        "Real Christians know that the Church is full of sinners and that many of them will never fully repent and will therefore spend eternity in hell."

        "A real Christian will admit that an adulterer, a thief, a liar, a hater, a murderer, a complainer, someone who said they took out the garbage but really didn't is going to spend eternity in hell if they do not change."

        Wow? What gospel is this... "IF THEY DON'T CHANGE?"
        This is basically the worldly gospel of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy with Jesus on the side lines cheering a person on.
        ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy )

        • T Ward

          Able,

          You write very well and use a fine sounding argument. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has probably helped a lot of people.

          The religious word for change is "repentance". It is actually a word that has been abused and misused by the religious world for a long time. In brief, it means to have a "sea change", to turn around and go the opposite direction, to have a self awareness "ah ah" moment that sticks.

          Humans are great at claiming they have changed but not really doing it. Look at our politics, our businesses, our TV programs. We are a dishonest people. The ones we are the most dishonest with our ourselves. Why is it any surprise that such dishonesty exist in the Church? What do you think God and Jesus got the most irritated about in the Bible? People who claimed to honor and worship them but really did
          not.

          God wants people to change, to stop sinning basically. God is not an idiot. For example, what if someone gets married and their spouse promises to be faithful in the marriage. Then that spouse a little later says, you know what, I just want to have a couple of little extramarital affairs, but I still love you and we are still married. I know you can come up with some smart responses but do you really think that persons spouse wants to stay married to the cheater? Why should God not feel the same way when we cheat on Him? Granted, he is very patient and offers a lot of forgiveness but He is no idiot. He knows when he is being played.

          With all that in mind, yes the Church is full of sinners but some of them are really working on repenting. Those are the ones that represent God in this world.

          In the meantime, this Gay Marriage thing is really just a question of semantics. They choose to believe what they believe and many married people choose to believe what they believe. Please, again I ask respectfully, have some intellectual honesty and come up with a different name. Marriage has already been taken.

          • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

            I understand that we will disagree on this but in my opinion and many other scholars (much wiser than I) The best meaning of the word repent is to "come back".

            I also understand that we may disagree on this point... The definition of marriage has changed several times over the last 2000 or so years. Jewish marriage was different than Roman marriage. Marriage today means little more than civil union to many. For the first time in recorded history Marriage is being spoken of in a way that would allow an Athiest to get married. A great question would be should atheist get married?... because that seems to be more of a threat to your definition of marriage than anything.To most Christians it is a civil union + warm feeling (love).

            I see marriage as a commitment between two broken Christ followers pursuing wholeness together through the oneness offered in the person and work of Jesus Christ (This is of course best displayed between a Perfect Man and a Perfect Woman but made extremely difficult or more complicated because of the havoc the fall has wrought in all peoples identity (mental, physical, emotional, volitional, spiritual) and sexual identity for that matter).

            I would rather allow the government to take care of the legalities of civil unions and leave the "marriage" defining to the religious communities.

            So again maybe a good question would be (in my mind) for the sake of consistency... Why are we not this worked up about Atheists being allowed to get married?

            • T Ward

              Ryan,

              I appreciate your desire to be kind and loving towards all people. After all, God wants us to be loving towards all people just as He is. Of course, we have to also remember that God gets very angry when people choose to continue sinning and especially when people hide behind religion while sinning. So, God is both very loving and patient with us when we sin and also very ready and willing to destroy us when we choose to continue a life of sin.

              I imagine there will be many people peeing in their clothes on judgement day. I don't want God angry at me and I do not want Him angry at you.

              You sound like many others who embrace the loving aspects of God but reject the righteous aspects of God. Maybe I am wrong about you, but that way of living sounds like "cafeteria christianity" where you pick and choose what you want to practice from the Bible much like people pick what they want to eat in a food line. That is an empty faith.

              The Israelite nation was a group of people that God set aside and made separate from everyone else. Read the Old Testament. God actually said He wanted them separate from all other people. Now read the New Testament where God expects and demands that Christians be a people separate from the rest of the world.

              So there you go, Christians want to be separate from those who practice "cafeteria christianity", and all types of sin including homosexuality. We do not want to be hateful and judgmental in the process because we know how narrow that road we are trying to walk is. We are constantly tempted to join back up with the world. We have to constantly remind ourselves to be separate.

              With all that (and lots more) in mind, we Christians who are married want to be separate from homosexuals who want to claim marriage. We know, you believe and choose to live differently than we do. We really can not stop you other than to respectfully remind you of the way God wants things done. We want to be separate from you.

              Words are important. The word marriage is important to us. You have changed the meaning of the word "Gay". Please stop trying to change the meaning of the word "Married". We want to be separate from you.

      • Ryan

        I am not a gay person seeking to take away the definition of marriage, I am a straight person who is seeking to create an inclusive society free of "separate but equal conditions" If we call it something else then it will not carry the same weight, if we call it something else it can still be used by those who seek to oppress. Semantics is a tool by which people discriminate against others, have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge that if you label a union of two people who love each other anything other than marriage they will never be on the same playing field.

        People don't want to hide, they want to bring who they are into the light of this society and not be cordoned off, let people be who they are. If you don't want them married in your church, let your preacher know, they will be welcome at mine, or they can go to the court house and make it a legal marriage in the eyes of the law only. When I get married I will be just as in love with my wife and we will be just as married regardless of the number of states that permit gay marriage.

    • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

      Amazing when the intolerant call the intolerant intolerant. YOu are not inclusive because you exclude the exclusive. Ryan, you and those who think like you have perpetuated much anti Christian rhetoric , and rarely any civil discourse. Your solution is that we need to conform to your thinking or be discarderd as hate mongerers. Who exactly is intolerant?

  • Pingback: SiftingPoint | Strengthen, strive and stand

  • William Bobstein

    The core of the argument seems to be "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin." That is fine if you believe that, but there is one huge issue: not everyone in America is a Christian. Why must I, a non-Christian, have to obey and live by all of the Christian doctrine?

    I am not saying to force every religion to accept and allow homosexuals to marry within their church. Religion is not a required institution by law, so there should be no restrictions on what it can and cannot do, as long as things are reasonable/lawful. However, you have to acknowledge that Christianity is not to rule of the land, that we have a freedom of (or even from) religion, and that people should be allowed to practice their own free will and live their lives how they see fit.

    You do have every right to protest and discuss how homosexuality is a sin. I will argue and fight for your right to do so until my dying breath. However, it is a two-way street. People are allowed to counter your claims/arguments.

    No man has a right to block and stop another's right to live how they see fit. If the concern is for the children developing ideals counter to your religious teachings, then the issue needs to be tackled in the household and the church. Strengthen their beliefs through teachings, lessons, writings, and sermons. Enacting laws to have the Government do the church's job is not how you should strengthen your core beliefs. Do not force Christian law on non-Christians.

    Love your neighbor as yourself. Allow them the option of choice.

    I do not mean any ill will towards you or any religious person, Christian or not. You have the right to believe in whatever ideals that are anchored in your religion or belief system. I just wish to allow others that same right, no matter what their religion or belief system is.

    • amill

      William,
      I do find it funny that you castigate Christians for their belief, then quote 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

      But you might want to look beyond Christianity itself. Christians are not alone in this stance. According to Jewish, and Muslim beliefs Homosexual behavior is a sin. That right there, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, circumscribes most of the US population.

      Add to that, that in every case where people (general populace here, not legislatures) have voted on the issue (30 times so far) at the ballot box, Gay Marriage has been turned down.

      This is not a case of forcing the rest of the country to adhere to the wishes of a small minority. Plainly seen this *is* the will of the people, as has been seen time and time again.

      • William.Bobstein

        If you think I am trying to reprimand Christians for their beliefs, then you did not get anything I tried to say. I want you to follow whatever beliefs you want to. I want you to freely discuss how you feel. I want you to express yourself as you like, as long as it does not hinder someone else. And I want you to give others the same.

        I know Christianity is not alone in the belief of homosexuality being immoral. They have every right in America to follow their beliefs as anyone else. But does it hinder your life to allow people to love who they want in the manner they want? When has a majority agreeing on something always been right?

        The minority has the same right as the majority to choose their lifestyle and make choices about how they live. Isn't that one of the things that makes America the greatest place in the world?

  • John Thro

    Excellent article. However, one topic not discussed ( it might be a little off subject), is the moral problem of being born homosexual and the moral non-issue of being born black.

    Being born black is a matter of mostly superficial skin pigmentation, and a few other physical characteristics that have no moral relavence. There is nothing immoral about being black.

    Being born homosexual has dramatic moral implications. All of us are born sinners, many of us "born with" desires to steal, to have sex with animals, to lust after other men's wives, to drink alcohol excessively, etc. Though we are born with these desires, we are commanded by God to resist them, and when we fail, we must repent.

    Conversely, there is nothing about being black that one should ever resist or repent of, to the contrary, it should be celebrated. It is an insult to black men and women to compare the beauty or their race to the brokeness of homosexuality.

  • Sue

    Thank you for putting into words what I have been thinking but unable to articulate. I always think of the phrase "coming out of the closet" when a homesexual decides to tell people he/she is gay. However I wondered how they could make the gay/black connection when I imagine one of my black friends coming to me and saying, "Hey I have come to the difficult decision to come out of the closet & let you know I am black." I guess I would just stare at him/her and say, "Ummm...OK?" The two scenarios are just not the same.

  • Alex

    As a Christian, I understand the argument that homosexuality is wrong. However, I also understand that nowhere in Christ's teachings did He mention homosexuality. To me, that means it's not that important of a subject. If you think that allowing two people, regardless of gender, to make a commitment to monogamy and each other is going to destroy the foundations of this nation, or harm the value of marriage, then you have missed all the stories of pastors and ministers who are caught in affairs. That does more to harm marriage than allowing homosexuals to be married. I have several gay friends who have been in loving, committed relationships for years. All they want are the same rights that the rest of us have; not to redefine marriage, but simply the ability to marry the person that they love. Maybe if more Christians took the time to get to know and befriend a few gay people, they would better understand the argument being raised.

    • Tony

      You're just wrong. No logical explanative defense needed on my part.

      • Kim Duffy

        Do you know what makes you the final authority?

  • Pingback: Right to Opine » Non-daily Digest

  • Pingback: For Your Edification (7.27.12) | Via Emmaus

  • Pingback: Thanks Mayor Rahm Emanuel It’s Now Our Moral Obligation to Eat @ChickFilA | Scott Fillmer

  • Pingback: Saturday Post: 7/28/12 « In Christ Alone

  • chutche2

    Marriage existed before christianity, exists today in forms separate from christianity, and will exist after the death of christianity. The very first paragraph of the article is a bold-faced lie.

    • Charlie Lee

      You're right. Marriage existed before Christianity as a religion was established. It began in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis) right after Jesus Christ,(by whom all things were created; see John) created Eve (female) as a suitable marriage partner for Adam (male), whom he had just created.
      I'm exhorted to never call one a fool, bit I'll take a chance and assume 'dumbass' would be appropriate.

  • T Ward

    Words, words, words. There sure have been a lot of words exchanged here. Some have been used to stir up the waters and some have been used to calm them. Remember that old children’s saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”? Broken bones are never a good thing but the truth is angry words cause a lot of hurt too.

    Words are so important that God used the word, “Word” to describe himself. When it comes to us, we are what we eat and we are what we speak. The words we use are important, they have power, they shape who we are, and they decide where we are going.

    Religious people and people who claim being Gay is an innate, even a God given right, will disagree with each other till their dying breaths or until the end of time, whichever comes first. We can beat each other up with words all we want but each person makes a choice and each person will live and die with that choice.

    Gay people, you need to understand something about religious people. We have been told by God to not judge those outside of the Church. That will be His job. Our job is to judge those inside the Church. (1 Corinthians 5:12) Religious people often do a bad job of pointing out why it is best to not practice homosexuality. We either are harsh, silent, or try to bend our faith to what feels right. We forget that it not our job to judge but it is our job to accurately, respectfully and gently tell of a better way. (2 Timothy 2:24) Religious people too often get belligerent and judgmental when we talk to those outside the Church. We have enough work keeping our own ranks mindful of the truths that are so foreign to this world; we do not need to be ugly towards Gay people. So, our job is to politely tell others the reason for our faith. Maybe we get slapped for it and then perhaps get the other cheek slapped too. Eventually we shake the dust off our feet and leave the people who slap us behind.

    The word marriage is important to religious people. Gay people have made it very clear the word is important to them also. From Wikipedia: {Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage. In the 21st century, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same sex-marriage.}

    When you look at dictionaries, you see that words can change meaning over time based on social usage. The words “cool” and “hot” now mean more than they originally meant. Originally, the word “marriage” meant a union of two people of opposite sex. Recently, some people have begun to use the word “marriage” to also mean a union of two people of the same sex. This is a change. Religious people prefer the word does not change. Gay people prefer that the word does change.

    We are politely and respectfully asking that you find a new word for Gay marriage. However it happened, the word “Gay” was changed. It really does not mean happy anymore. Happy people do not refer to themselves as gay. OK, maybe happy homosexual people do, but you get the point. That word has been changed. I guess I can get by without using the word “Gay” for myself anymore but that word “marriage” is a tough one to give up. It deeply defines and shapes who some of us married people are. We really do not want to have to stop using it and if you continue to socially hijack it, then we have only so many cheeks left to turn.

    Will it really be so difficult to coin a new word for same-sex marriage? Haven’t you already come out of the closet and now socially identifying yourselves appropriately is just another step? Can’t one of your leaders show some backbone and coin a new word and rally the Gay community around it? Don’t get me wrong, religious leaders still want to respectfully tell you about a better way but if you have your mind made up and want to go your own way then why do you have to include us? Stop clinging to our ankles.

    We understand you want to legitimize yourselves and gain the same basic civil and social rights that others have. Obviously, in God’s sight your choices will never be legitimized because He does not change but religious people understand your need for legitimization and rights in society. You should be able to buy insurance, a house, a car, pass on an inheritance, claim your commitment to someone important to you, and be treated respectfully and fairly. Can you please do it using a word other than “marriage”?

    We are reminding ourselves to be kind and respectful. We are willing to turn the other cheek. We are shaking the dust off our feet. This is important to us; we do not want the word “marriage” to be used for a homosexual union. We know and understand that many of you do not believe in God and see the Bible as a big fairy tale. Please be respectful towards us and do not use the word “marriage”. After we shake the dust off our feet, the only thing we have left is to ask our God to step in for us. You really don’t want us to do that.

  • Kim Duffy

    My husband came up with this question and it's what we always ask people (including confused Christians) regarding homosexual marriage.

    If there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, then is it right for two sisters or two brothers to marry each other?

    Laws regarding incest are based on preventing diseases (something that is discriminatory since rapists who are carriers of certain hereditary diseases don't receive harsher penalties) although some states even include in-laws in the definition. In some countries, incest is not illegal, such as Portugal and Russia.

    Outside of a Biblical understanding, there should be nothing preventing same-sex siblings from marrying if homosexuality isn't wrong.

    I like to ask "Christians" who believe homosexuality isn't wrong if they believe bestiality is wrong. I had known that a friend of mine is one of these "Christians." One day, I asked her to explain her reasons for disagreeing with bestiality. She said that in bestiality, they're not the same species and there's no consent.

    My response is that choosing the word "species" is openning a can of worms because that's a term scientists can't even agree upon since it depends on what type of creature and many other factors. One definition requires that the two creatures be able to meet and produce fertile offspring. Two creatures could be identical, but if their populations were separated by an ocean they couldn't cross, then they'd be different species. But further, why would it be wrong even if the two creatures were fundamentally different?

    As far as consent, I told her that I don't know anybody who hasn't had their leg humped by a dog. There are thousands of videos on the internet devoted to people having sex with one animal or another, so animals are not only willing, but eager. Consent is not a reason in this case.

    Her response was "I don't think homosexuality is wrong, I'm sorry you feel that way." I hadn't even brought up homosexuality, but she must have realized that she couldn't reason that the Bible says bestiality is wrong since she chooses to arbitrarily decide what to believe of God's word regarding homosexuality and other things.

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      Kim,

      You raise some intriguing questions, and questions that will catch most people off guard. I would be careful about throwing these questions in the face of people who aren't able or ready to think through a good response.

      "If there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, then is it right for two sisters or two brothers to marry each other?"
      >>> My answer is not always and I don't know. I've not thought about that one. I have thought some about a brother/sister marrying. That doesn't seem right to me, but Abraham and Sarah were in fact brother/sisters in the Bible. God didn't seem to care.

      "I like to ask "Christians" who believe homosexuality isn't wrong if they believe bestiality is wrong."
      >>> I like to ask people with this attitude: Why is eating shrimp acceptable? Do you wear clothes with two kinds of thread? Why don't you stone your disobedient children? Matthew Vines' video explains my thinking very well:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

      >>> To answer your question, yes I believe bestiality is wrong. And I belive it's wrong for moral and medical reasons. I view the Bible as a redemptive narrative. So the laws in Leviticus which forbid beastiality have a redemptive purpose. Redemption is not the same as freedom to follow any desire. One redemptive narrative of the Leviticus verses that forbid beastiablity is that animals should be protected and that human life should be held in higher regard than animal life.

      • Kim Duffy

        BrianK, you're not ready for meat yet. Have some milk: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

        Blessings!

      • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

        Ha, nice one Kim. I almost laughed :) That website does have some good information though. Genesis has a far greater purpose than what that site proclaims. Genesis is about Jesus now. We Christians really ought to not be reading Genesis to learn morality or social structures or history. I contend that we should be reading the Old Testament, especially Genesis, to learn about Jesus. The OT exists to point to Jesus and teach the full spectrum of the redemptive story.

        Here's the deal: After 25 years, 10,000+ hours of Bible study, I've had my share of "meat". I found though, that a lot of the "meat" in Christendom is tainted with E-Coli.

        I'd rather have a rum and coke with an LGBT "sinner".

    • Pam

      Putting Christians in quotation marks?! Ugh. A Christian is someone has faith in Christ's death and resurrection to save them from sin. It has nothing to do with what they think about gay marriage.
      Also, your response on consent is ridiculously specious. An animal cannot consent to a relationship, because they lack the ability to articulate such a concept to a human. And the dog humping the leg comeback is laughably stupid. For a start, you're forgetting that when a dog does that it isn't a sexual act, it's establishing dominance. So absolutely nothing to do with relationships or sex at all.

  • T Wood

    It is called "cafeteria christianity". People are very good at picking and choosing what they want, llike when you are in a food cafeteria line and pick and choose what you want to eat. Many so called, "christians" believe they can go through life picking and choosing what they want to believe in God's Word.

    We all need to be constantly reminded that God does not change and it is our daily job to fearfully figure out what He is teaching us. Some things are very obvious like do not practice stealing or homosexuality. Others are less obvious like should a man wear a hat in Church or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Each of us should figure out the truth in humility (Acts 17:11).

    The very real danger is that everyone can be tempted to try and change the Word of God to fit our own perceptions and emotions. Often times, I have been tempted to reason that maybe practicing homosexuals are not sinning. God knows there are many Gay people who are much kinder, considerate, and loving than some heterosexual people who call themselves christian. The truth is, I would often rather spend time with the Gay person than with the fake christian because they are a more genuine person. The danger would be looking for ways to support my emotional and intellectual reasonings concerning what God flat out says no about.

    Yes, we need to respectfully and gently teach all people what God's truth is without forgetting that we are aliens and strangers in this world. We need to be concerned about how the weeds of sin are choking this world to death. We need to ask the Gay community to come up with a different word to use than "marriage" because words are important and that is an important word to us. Most importantly, we need to remind those who call themselves Christian to humbly accept all that God says or they will end up being very disappointed. God is not a fool.

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      T Wood,

      "we need to remind those who call themselves Christian to humbly accept all that God says"

      What verses are you referring to? And what does God say about what?

      • T Ward

        BrianK,

        The full thought was this: Most importantly, we need to remind those who call themselves Christian to humbly accept all that God says or they will end up being very disappointed. God is not a fool.

        First, it is very important because your soul and many others are at risk of spending eternity separated from God. That means spending eternity without any love, beauty, or truth.

        What you or I think really does not matter. What we have to write here on this webpage really does not matter because our thoughts are flawed. Proverbs 14:12, Isaiah 64:6, Isaiah 55:8, 1 Corinthians 1:25 There are many scriptures that point out how we do not think like God thinks. There are also plenty of scriptures that point out how humans will pervert the truth. It is just what we do and we are good at it.
        2 Timothy 4:3, Matthew 7:15, Acts 20:29-30, Romans 1:22 Reading what you write, I see that you are very good at it.

        Secondly, when I wrote about those who call themselves Christian I was writing about most of the religious world. Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:21-23 is Jesus talking to religious people and telling them that most will not enter His kingdom. We humans are very, very good at twisting what God said into agreeing with what we want. We did it in the beginning, we did it in the middle, and we are doing it now at the end. It’s funny how most people get upset at hearing this.

        Next, we need to humbly accept that what God said is what God said. Hebrews 11:6, Matthew 23:12, 2 Peter 1:20-21 Some people see the Bible as a fairy tale, some people see it as a valuable tool of history and wisdom, some people see it as written by man for God’s benefit, and others see it as exactly what God wanted to say. Where do you fall in there? I would guess that you would fall in that next to the last category. That is why the term cafeteria christian would likely fit you. You pick and choose what you want to believe from God’s word and you twist His words to fit what your intellectualism and emotionalism dictates. You have lots of company and again it is not really funny how upset people get when they hear that.

        My words and choice of scriptures here are imperfect. I bother to write this because you and others who claim sonship with Christ are misleading people. You are misleading people into thinking that some sin is OK with God. Romans 1:32 That is not a good thing to do.

        There are many other sins we humans practice other than homosexuality. Honestly, I personally dislike many of those other sins more than homosexuality. Abortion, murder, thievery, adultery, deceit are all widely practiced and glorified as OK. Personally, I would like to see Wall Street thieves and abortionist gone before homosexuality ended. The problem is claiming any of them are OK with God is a big mistake. The problem is none of them are going away until God comes back and many will be disappointed on that day.

        Finally, God is not a fool. I am writing to those who believe there is a God. Many think He is just a fairy tale. To those people I say, “Faith is a decision. It can not be proven any more than love can be proven. It can only be lived.” And I would also say, “Either God is a figment of my imagination or I am a figment of God’s imagination. Whose figment is better?” You get to decide what you want to believe just like everyone else. To those who claim God knows them then I challenge you to humbly accept everything God has said.

        BrianK and you other Pseudo christians in this post, you can respond to this all you want. I am sure you will be able to pick apart what I’ve written and call my honesty and intelligence into question. Go ahead. I am going to stop posting to this discussion because it is becoming counter productive. I am shaking the dust of you off my feet. The last advice I will give you is to humbly read the whole book. I encourage real Christians to lovingly and respectfully continue speaking out the truth that God has given all people but let’s stop wasting God’s time and shake the dust from our feet when specific people will not listen after repeated attempts.

        I end by again asking the Gay Community to come up with a name that will describe a union between homosexuals. Please do not use the word “married”. You deserve to be treated fairly and respectfully under the laws of our nation. You need to understand that real Christians do not mistreat you and if they have then they need to stop sinning. Real Christians want to obey God and be separate from the world even as we must live in it. We do not think we are better because we are not.

        Please use a word other than “marriage”.

        • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

          "You pick and choose what you want to believe from God’s word and you twist His words to fit what your intellectualism and emotionalism dictates."

          Is it not you who is picking out command #103 to be obeyed absolutely and choosing only some of the 613 commands? These commands were nailed to the cross and should now be understood in light of grace and the redemptive purpose of Jesus:

          http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

          I'm not picking selectively; I'm saying none of the law applies directly. We are not under the supervision of the law anymore.

          If you want some a la carte Bible items, maybe you could answer these Biblical questions (when I say we I mean anyone who professes to be a Christain; and I mean you and I)

          -Why don't we stone our disobedient children?
          -Why do we allow people to eat
          -Why don't we condemn makers of clothes with multiple kinds of threads?
          -Why do we charge interest on loans to fellow Christians?

          And by the way, I've spent over 14,000 hours studying, reading and praying about the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, both in a Catholic and a Protestant environment.

          Matthew Vines explains most of my thoughts on the matter of the Bible and homosexuality/sin/law quite well.

        • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

          "You pick and choose what you want to believe from God’s word and you twist His words to fit what your intellectualism and emotionalism dictates."

          Is it not you who is picking out command #103 to be obeyed absolutely and choosing only some of the 613 commands? These commands were nailed to the cross and should now be understood in light of grace and the redemptive purpose of Jesus:

          http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

          I'm not picking selectively; I'm saying none of the law applies directly. We are not under the supervision of the law anymore.

          If you want some a la carte Bible items, maybe you could answer these Biblical questions (when I say we I mean anyone who professes to be a Christain; and I mean you and I)

          -Why don't we stone our disobedient children?
          -Why do we allow people to eat shrimp and other certain sea food?
          -Why don't we condemn makers of clothes with multiple kinds of threads?
          -Why do we charge interest on loans to fellow Christians?

          And by the way, I've spent over 14,000 hours studying, reading and praying about the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, both in a Catholic and a Protestant environment.

          Matthew Vines explains most of my thoughts on the matter of the Bible and homosexuality/sin/law quite well.

          • T Ward

            BrianK,

            OK, I will respond one last time and then I leave this forum to others.

            Yes, I wrote, you pick and choose what you want to believe from God’s word and you twist His words to fit what your intellectualism and emotionalism dictates. That is still apparently true.

            OK, you wrote, “Is it not you who is picking out command #103 to be obeyed absolutely and choosing only some of the 613 commands? These commands were nailed to the cross and should now be understood in light of grace and the redemptive purpose of Jesus:”

            Then you provide a website link to A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) . When I go to #103 it list, “Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22) (CCN116)”. Then you go on to ask, “If you want some a la carte Bible items, maybe you could answer these Biblical questions (when I say we I mean anyone who professes to be a Christain; and I mean you and I)

            -Why don't we stone our disobedient children?
            -Why do we allow people to eat shrimp and other certain sea food?
            -Why don't we condemn makers of clothes with multiple kinds of threads?
            -Why do we charge interest on loans to fellow Christians?”

            So about those commands being nailed to the cross, yes, the law and sin where nailed to the cross. Colossians 2:13. “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14. having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” So again yes, the law and sin where both nailed to the cross (but of course sin did not disappear from us humans when that happened). There are a whole bunch of scriptures in the New Testament and some in the Old about what happened with sin, the law, and the cross but that one in Colossians sums up a good bit of what we are writing about (I know by this point many people who don’t believe in Christianity and think it is all a big fairy tale are rolling their eyes and looking for something else to read, but that is all right since I am really writing to BrianK and others who profess to be Christians but are willing to accept sin in their and other peoples lives as something God is OK with. For people who don’t really believe in or care what God thinks, then you can skip to the last couple of paragraphs and see what I have to summarize there if you want. Or don’t. It has always been your choice).

            So to answer your questions: No we do not stone our disobedient children to death, but if we are wise we make them fear being disobedient but of course not in an unloving way (Kind of reminds me how God had 3,000 Israelites killed by their brother’s swords because they made a golden calf. God IS love, compassion, forgiveness AND He also does not play around). Some Christians eat shrimp some don’t. It is actually a nasty bottom feeding animal (I remember how a drowned person’s body was pulled out of some water near the ocean and it was covered with the little cockroach-like things just munching away). Some people do not eat pork for much the same reason (I think God knows what is good for our bodies and gave some early rules to help the Israelites out as He was teaching them about being separate from everyone else). Also you might remember that thing with the Apostle Peter where he was told all food and the Gentiles are now OK (Acts 11:1-18). Ya, I wear mostly cotton but there are many clothes out there that have all kinds of materials and threads in them. Pretty much all of us wear them, including me. Who knows, maybe cotton farmers will come up with a new scientific study that shows mixed fiber clothes promote cancer (LOL). There was a post elsewhere in the forum that does a good job of explaining that God gave the early Jews some pretty unique laws to make them stand out and be separate from the other people around them (look for it if you want to learn). Fellow Christians definitely do charge interest on loans to fellow Christians. I would warn Christians not to be greedy in how they charge anyone interest. Again, this is God giving His early people some good rules. I liked the one were every seven years all debts are forgiven. I guess my bank is not interested in that one.

            You are right, there are quite a few Old Testament laws that we do not follow anymore like #197 Not to sell a Hebrew maid-servant to another person (Ex. 21:8). Or #304 To punish the wicked by the infliction of stripes (Deut. 25:2). Or #366 That a woman should not wear men's clothing (Deut. 22:5) (CCN178). Or #365 That a man shall not wear women's clothing (Deut. 22:5) (CCN179). Or #18 To put tzitzit on the corners of clothing (Num. 15:38) (CCA10). Or #342 Not to enquire of an ob (a ghost) (Deut. 18:11) (CCN172). Or #370 To break the neck of the firstling of an ass if it is not redeemed (Ex. 13:13; Ex. 34:20) (CCA56). Or #114 To appear in the Sanctuary on the festivals (Deut. 16:16). Or #120 To eat matzah on the first night of Passover (Ex. 12:18) (CCA23).
            And that #103 law, which says, Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22) (CCN116) is also in there. Your point seems to be that if we can ignore the others, then we can ignore good old #103 also, right? No, that is not right because you are making some mistakes.

            Matthew 5: 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” So here we have Jesus saying He is not getting rid of the law. It stays because God said it and God does not change and the laws will be around as long as heaven and earth are around. Yes, in this verse He is getting ready to nail that law to the cross along with sin because He knew we humans are not capable of observing the law perfectly and also not capable of being sinless. That 5th Chapter goes on to say Jesus is basically keeping and refining that law. For example, He goes on to say that anyone who murders is guilty but also anyone who gets so angry as to say, “you fool!” is just as guilty (I guess saying “you fool” back then was a really hateful insult, so there must be some things we think and say to ourselves today that are just as hateful in God’s eyes. Maybe Mr. T is in a lot of trouble). Also for example, He says how the law stated an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” but He refines that law with “turn the other cheek”.

            The point BrianK, is that we were given laws to make us aware that we need to follow our hearts and our consciences in a way that pleases God. Romans 3:20 “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” It is kind of like a sign on a park bench that says “wet paint, do not sit”. The purpose of the sign is to keep the paint job and peoples clothes from being messed up. After the paint dries, it really is OK to sit on the bench. Some of those 613 laws that website have listed are well known to Christians. For example, the Ten Commandment laws are well known and we have not stopped obeying them because if we do, we will get into big trouble. I don’t know about you but I’m not gonna start putting another god before God; I’m not gonna make an idol (yes, I have to be careful about the money given me); and I am not gonna misuse God’s name. How about you, are you gonna ignore those laws (I guess those would be #’s 1, 2, and 3 on that website you provided)?

            Again the point is BrianK, there is no longer a Sanctuary (Temple) that I can go to during a Jewish Festival I know nothing about (#114), and I don’t know what matzah is (but I would guess it is not yeast) so I can’t be sure to eat it during Passover (#120), and I am not going to whip anyone and put marks on their skin (#304), but I WILL be sure to not practice murder, adultery, thievery, homosexuality, and some others because it is made clear in the New and Old Testaments that God’s people are supposed to obey these laws.

            So the point is BrianK, when you write, “I'm not picking selectively; I'm saying none of the law applies directly. We are not under the supervision of the law anymore.” I have to guess you are referring to the fact that we do not live under the law anymore but under grace, Romans 6:14. “For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.” That book goes on to say, Romans 8: 4. “in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” Just because God changed the way we can relate to Him from a legal perspective to a spiritual perspective does not mean He is now OK with us sinning, even if those sins are ones He listed earlier as laws. It is kind of like when I was very young and my parents gave me the law that I could not play in the road (I know, some of you may wish I had). They gave me that rule because they loved me and didn’t want me run over by a car. As I got older and wiser I was allowed to throw the ball with friends in the road. My parents removed that law from over my head but they still expected me to be careful. I promise you, if today I am run over by a car in the road, my parents would still be very upset with me. The point is (and this is just an analogy and analogies are imperfect but try to follow along with humility), the law is put in place to protect us and keep us from sin. We may grow up and learn that love (Christ on the Cross) is a better motivator but the intent of the law is still there, which is to keep us from sinning. Again, it is like that wet paint sign on the park bench. If the painter forgets and leaves the sign on for a week, it really is OK if someone walking in the park moves the sign and has a seat.

            Additionally consider Jude 1:4 “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” That scripture goes on to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah and sexual immorality and perversion.

            My analogies, and perhaps choice of scriptures, are perhaps amateurish but I think the main point for you is that you think practicing homosexuality is not a sin and/or that if we practice sin then it covered by the cross. You are mistaken and the only reason me and others bother to correct you, is that you and those like you, have influence on others. You are tickling a lot of ears. You are on your way to an eternity without God. You wrote that you have, “spent over 14,000 hours studying, reading and praying about the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, both in a Catholic and a Protestant environment.” Sounds like you have spent a lot of time studying and thinking about God. Sounds like you probably lead some type of congregation of people and get paid for it. You have obviously devoted much of your life to this.

            The problem for you is that you think practicing homosexuality is not a sin before God. That happens to be one sin I’ve not practiced but there are plenty of others I have. I used to curse a lot so I’ve definitely abused God’s name. I have stolen many times. I’ve looked at women other than my wife lustfully. I’ve hated some people so much that I’ve thought about how I could kill them (I never carried it out by the way and I say that so the police don’t come knocking at my door). I’ve done a lot of sinful things, so I AM guilty before God. For example, from that list, I am a thief and a murderer in God’s sight. What I do not do anymore is PRACTICE those sins (You know the drill about repentance and God providing forgiveness through the cross. In other words, Christians are repentant sinners. When we mess up and sin again, we must stop and not make excuses or try to justify our sin like you are doing with homosexuality). Thank God for Jesus.

            So BrianK it comes down to not practicing sin. You and I know that people still slip up and sin after God has forgiven them but they have to stop practicing sin. For example, if a man gets married and promises he will be faithful to his wife but a year later says I’m just gonna have a few affairs but don’t worry about it cause I still love you and am devoted to you as your husband. Most women will very quickly say you don’t really want to be married to me anymore, do you? How do you think God feels if we treat Him this way? He will say you really don’t want to be my child anymore, do you? God is not an idiot. Of course at this point you might claim that idiotic concept of, “once saved always saved.”

            At this point, I will write that EVERY denomination has perverted God’s truth in some way. Why should anyone be surprised by that statement? Jesus spent three years teaching and getting upset with the religious leaders about this perversion and said we should get ready cause it was gonna happen after He left the earth. The Apostles corrected and warned about it going on in their time. The Old Testament is slap full of God’s chosen people doing it. What is new under the sun? Are people so stupid to think that it suddenly stopped? BrianK, your particular perversion of God’s truth is likely what the Episcopalians are claiming about practicing homosexuality not being a sin. Maybe your denomination is another flavor, whatever. Sin is sin. Voddie Baucham did an OK job of trying to make people think about why homosexuals should not be married. Anytime you use an analogy to explain something it can be looked at from several different angles, so the whole, gay is not the new black” thing can be used by both sides. Hey, people take Jesus’ analogies or parables and misuse them all the time. Even Voddie’s Baptist denomination holds to some perversions of God’s truth. Again, they all do, take your pick Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Christian Science, Universalist, Racist Churches and the list goes on and on. Sorry if I left yours out (As a side note I have to write that everyone should consider the word “denomination” has a dirty side to it and maybe we should all drop our added on books and creeds. God might like if it was just called Church or something like that. Man, I bet those last few lines get people more upset than anything. There really is nothing new under the sun, a lot of people got super angry at Jesus for speaking His mind about the subject).

            To wrap things up consider how 1 Corinthians 6:9 says homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God (basically go to heaven). 1 Corinthians 7: 1-3 talks about marriage being between one woman and one man. The rest of the chapter talks about things that some have a hard time understanding, but basically the Corinthian Church was messing up with a bunch of sexual and other sin and getting corrected in this letter. Romans 1:26-32 talks about women and men practicing homosexuality and God not thinking very highly of them for it. It also talks about people approving of those who practice sin. BrianK, you need to take note of that part. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 talks about how Christians are not to associate with sexually immoral people inside the Church. It says for now we are living in this world so we can’t avoid associating with sexually immoral people outside the Church. It says it’s not my job to judge those outside the Church but it is my job to judge those inside the Church (You know, keep sin from growing in the pews. By the way, I’ve always liked that saying, “He who farts in church must sit in own pew”).

            BrianK, with that last scripture in mind it is a little tough to decide how to treat you. I and many others do not believe you have a relationship with God, because you choose to practice accepting the sin of homosexuality. If that is the case, then you are not inside the Church and it is not my job to judge you (By the way, I don’t judge practicing homosexuals outside of the Church, but I will tell them about the error of their ways if they want to listen). The trick here is that you claim to be inside the Church and you teach people it is OK to sin. Because of that, I remind you of your error, tell you that you are not welcome in God’s Church until you repent, and shake the dust of you off of my feet. You are leading your wife, children, family, and a lot of people to a very nasty place where your worm will never die. I guess we will see who is wrong in the end.

            You ended with saying, “Matthew Vines explains most of my thoughts on the matter of the Bible and homosexuality/sin/law quite well.” When I go to his website, I notice he makes the point that “being Gay is not a sin”. I have to agree with that. Being Gay is not a sin. Many, many Christians do not understand that. The problem is that PRACTICING being Gay is a sin (meaning having homosexual sex, claiming marriage to someone of the same sex, teaching and proclaiming that practicing homosexuality is not a sin). What people forget is that everyone is something. We are all thieves, adulterers, murderers, slanderers, drunkards, liars, or something because at some point in our life we have done these or similar things (the Pope and Billy Graham ARE sinners if that helps you understand the problem). The forgiveness and the opportunity to be back in God’s good graces, happen when we stop practicing sin (you know what they say, practice makes perfect). BrianK, you and others have a lot of practice at twisting God’s word to agree with your desire to sin. I really do hope you stop it and get out of that habit. You sound like you are a nice person and you want to love God and bring His healing to the world but you really do need to repent. You are in a big boat with a lot of other people who in various ways claim they know God but have pet sins they are not willing to give up. Please hop out of the boat and try walking on the water. You may get wet but at least you won’t be in that nasty boat anymore.

            To Gays who want the right to be married I say this: Please consider creating another word to describe a union between people of the same sex. You are Americans and deserve the rights that all Americans have. You deserve the right to declare your commitment to another and to be protected and nurtured under American law. It is wrong of Christians to say that you do not deserve those rights. Please understand that we want to be separate from you even as we live as good neighbors next to you. It has to do with what our God has told us to do. We understand that you may not believe in God and/or may not believe what the Bible says about God’s way of thinking. Fine, you have always had that right and America is not gonna take it away from you know. In the meantime, words are important to us. God even describes Himself in the Bible as “The Word”. Please understand that the word “married” is important to us and if you continue to claim it and change the meaning of it, then it is you who are attacking us. Next time a Christian accuses you of being a sinner because you are Gay, just ask them, “OK and what kind of sinner are you? Do you hate me right now because I am Gay? If so, then that means you are a murderer in God’s eyes and may be headed towards an eternity in hell, where your worm never dies.” By humbly saying something like that it will put the Christian back in their place, which is to tell you about God, if you want to listen, but not to judge you.

            In the meantime, will someone in the Gay community show some backbone and start using a word other than “married”? If you do, I bet you will get less grief from the Christian community.

            • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

              T:

              "OK, I will respond one last time and then I leave this forum to others."
              >>> Ok, I will continue the conversation and strive to keep learning.

              -Why don't we stone our disobedient children?
              -Why do we allow people to eat shrimp and other certain sea food?
              -Why don't we condemn makers of clothes with multiple kinds of threads?
              -Why do we charge interest on loans to fellow Christians?”

              "So about those commands being nailed to the cross, yes, the law and sin where nailed to the cross."
              >>>Correct. And also the code was abolished (Ephesians 2:14-15). We are no longer under the supervision of the law, yet we who believe the gospel have all the promises Abraham received (Galatians 3:24-29)

              "You are right, there are quite a few Old Testament laws that we do not follow anymore..."
              >>> One of my points is that obedience to the law is all or nothing. James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." We either need to keep ALL the laws (which by the way is more than 613) or depend on grace 100%.

              ... Your point seems to be that if we can ignore the others, then we can ignore good old #103 also, right? No, that is not right because you are making some mistakes.
              >>> My point is not to ignore the commandments and regulations. My point is that they teach us a redemptive purpose about whatever subject the regulation is about. My point is that zero of the laws apply directly. We who believe the gospel ought to learn the redeptive purpose of the laws.

              Matthew 5: 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
              >>> Yes! If we understand what "to fulfill" means, then we understand what Paul said when he wrote that the commandments and regulations were abolished in the flesh of Jesus on the cross (Ephesians 2:15).

              "So here we have Jesus saying He is not getting rid of the law. It stays because God said it and God does not change and the laws will be around as long as heaven and earth are around."
              >>> Indeed, Jesus was not "getting rid of the law". Jesus was fulfilling the law. Jesus' obedience and Jesus' perfection is our perfection when we believe his grace.

              "Yes, in this verse He is getting ready to nail that law to the cross along with sin because He knew we humans are not capable of observing the law perfectly and also not capable of being sinless."
              >>> Correct.

              "That 5th Chapter goes on to say Jesus is basically keeping and refining that law. For example, He goes on to say that anyone who murders is guilty but also anyone who gets so angry as to say, “you fool!” is just as guilty (I guess saying “you fool” back then was a really hateful insult, so there must be some things we think and say to ourselves today that are just as hateful in God’s eyes. Maybe Mr. T is in a lot of trouble). Also for example, He says how the law stated an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” but He refines that law with “turn the other cheek”."
              >>> Correct. Jesus, in those verses, demonstrates how vastly high God's law really is. The Old Testament exprssion of the Law and Prophets was an imperfect and temporary expression of God's mind. The stone tablets have been replaced by the Holy Spirit's writing on our hearts. (I think Mr. T is ok though :)

              "The point BrianK, is that we were given laws to make us aware that we need to follow our hearts and our consciences in a way that pleases God."
              >>> I agree that we need a conscience and I agree that the laws were given to make us aware of our brokenness and our falling short of God's glory-- ALL of us. But that should point us to Jesus, lead us to the grace at the cross for 100% of our sins, and to following the Holy Spirit, not merely our heart and conscience.

              Romans 3:20 “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” It is kind of like a sign on a park bench that says “wet paint, do not sit”.
              >>> I think the law is far deeper than a wet paint sign. That superficial view of the Law was what was nailed to the cross. We now have the spirit of the Law. Law and righteousness gets into our identity. The Law is a mirror, and we see ourselves as we are--our naked, raw humanity. We have a personal identity and the law points out our brokenness. So lets apply this to the LGBT issues. What I learn from God's law about homosexuality is that LGBT people live with an expression of broken sexuality that is different from the original Design in Eden. This simply means they are human, because we are all broken in some way. The grace of God and Spirit of God teach me to love my fellow human beings including those who are LGBT. Healing for all of our brokenness, as I've learned so far, is that we find a greater identity beyond just our sexual orientation or whatever brokenness we experience. It is entirely possible and rather typical, that whatever healing an LGBT person finds, they will come to terms with their LGBT identity and find God's identity beyond their sexual identity. And most of them will remain homosexual, just as I remain heterosexual and yet have found an identity far better and beyond any sexual identity I may have.

              "The purpose of the sign is to keep the paint job and peoples clothes from being messed up. After the paint dries, it really is OK to sit on the bench."
              >>> Ironically, I would tend to agree. By nailing the regulations to the cross, Jesus let the pain dry on the law! So it is ok to find God's redepmtive purpose now for all of the laws, i.e. to sit on them if you will :)

              "Some of those 613 laws that website have listed are well known to Christians. For example, the Ten Commandment laws are well known and we have not stopped obeying them because if we do, we will get into big trouble. I don’t know about you but I’m not gonna start putting another god before God; I’m not gonna make an idol (yes, I have to be careful about the money given me); and I am not gonna misuse God’s name. How about you, are you gonna ignore those laws (I guess those would be #’s 1, 2, and 3 on that website you provided)?"
              >>> My point is not that we ignore these laws. But my point is that we find a redemptive purpose of those laws. How do you obey these laws? Does it mean you guilt-trip your family and yourself into going to church aboslutely every Sunday? Does it mean you conform to your churches idea of service and serve the church even when you know it would be far more healthy to do something else at that moment? If you think like this, then you've not found the redemptive purpose even of the 10 commandments. Much of Christendom has accepted these #1, etc. commands legalistically and created thousands of tribes, demanding conformance and performance to the laws, as if we were under their supervision.

              "Again the point is BrianK, there is no longer a Sanctuary (Temple) that I can go to during a Jewish Festival I know nothing about (#114), and I don’t know what matzah is (but I would guess it is not yeast) so I can’t be sure to eat it during Passover (#120), and I am not going to whip anyone and put marks on their skin (#304), but I WILL be sure to not practice murder, adultery, thievery, homosexuality, and some others because it is made clear in the New and Old Testaments that God’s people are supposed to obey these laws."
              >>> Sorry, but you demonstrate your legalism here. You have already committed murder, adultery and theivery, according to Jesus. Jesus' sermon on the mount is the best demonstration of my points here: we are all broken, we are all guilty before the Law and we all need grace.

              "So the point is BrianK, when you write, “I'm not picking selectively; I'm saying none of the law applies directly. We are not under the supervision of the law anymore.” I have to guess you are referring to the fact that we do not live under the law anymore but under grace, Romans 6:14."
              >>> Yes.

              "That book goes on to say, Romans 8:4. “in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” Just because God changed the way we can relate to Him from a legal perspective to a spiritual perspective does not mean He is now OK with us sinning, even if those sins are ones He listed earlier as laws."
              >>> I partially agree.

              "It is kind of like when I was very young and my parents gave me the law that I could not play in the road (I know, some of you may wish I had)."
              >>> I would never wish such a thing on you.

              "They gave me that rule because they loved me and didn’t want me run over by a car. As I got older and wiser I was allowed to throw the ball with friends in the road. My parents removed that law from over my head but they still expected me to be careful. I promise you, if today I am run over by a car in the road, my parents would still be very upset with me."
              >>> Good analogy. I think it is ok to view God as a father, trying to "raise" humanity. We needed the laws in our lawless world centuries ago. As you say, I think we are in some respects, getting wiser. That is debatable, but I would say it is God's wish that we humans "grow up", and start listening to the Spirit and learning to love each other, and not getting so hung up on sin and what laws to obey and how to obey them. Morality is not the gospel.

              "The point is (and this is just an analogy and analogies are imperfect but try to follow along with humility), the law is put in place to protect us and keep us from sin. We may grow up and learn that love (Christ on the Cross) is a better motivator but the intent of the law is still there, which is to keep us from sinning."
              >>> Fair enough. I say we should also take into account our new guide, the Spirit of truth.

              "Additionally consider Jude 1:4 “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” That scripture goes on to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah and sexual immorality and perversion."
              >>> I think that passage goes on to describe a lot of what has been going on in Christendom. I someone says that some of the commandments and regulations are still supervising us, I think that is exchanging the grace of God for a license for immorality. That very thinking is one big thing wrong with Christendom today in America.

              "My analogies, and perhaps choice of scriptures, are perhaps amateurish but I think the main point for you is that you think practicing homosexuality is not a sin and/or that if we practice sin then it covered by the cross."
              >>> Not quite my point. I probably did not state my point clearly here on this blog. I think all promiscuity (gay or straight) is wrong. Only sex inside marriage is not a sin (gay or straight). So homosexuals who are married would not be sinning in my mind. Which is why I say that Christians prohibiting LGBT people from the sacrament of marriage are causing God's little ones to sin. We should instead be teaching the value of celibacy for all (gay or straight, single or married). And we should not be prohibiting marriage from the LGBT community.

              "You are mistaken and the only reason me and others bother to correct you, is that you and those like you, have influence on others."
              >>> I see your attempts to correct me, but frankly I would say you are writing me off mostly.

              "You are tickling a lot of ears. You are on your way to an eternity without God."
              >>> I know that I am on my way to an eternity with God.

              "You wrote that you have, “spent over 14,000 hours studying, reading and praying about the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, both in a Catholic and a Protestant environment.” Sounds like you have spent a lot of time studying and thinking about God. Sounds like you probably lead some type of congregation of people and get paid for it. You have obviously devoted much of your life to this."
              >>> I have devoted much of my life to this. I only recently started applying my thoughts to the LGBT issues after President Obama's remarks this year. I have been a Sunday preacher and a Bible teacher for decades, but I have not received one dime for it :) I have no official church position these days, for I resigned in protest. A haze of legalism and self-righteousness has hardened over much of Christendom in America. And I was part of it. Just 3 years ago I would have been writing here just like you, for I thought a lot like you not too long ago. I found that Jesus was calling me to go outside the gate of Christendom (see my blog priestlynation.com to know more about me :)

              "The problem for you is that you think practicing homosexuality is not a sin before God."
              >>> Not if the couple is married. And there is grace for practicing homosexuals too.

              "That happens to be one sin I’ve not practiced but there are plenty of others I have. I used to curse a lot so I’ve definitely abused God’s name. I have stolen many times. I’ve looked at women other than my wife lustfully. I’ve hated some people so much that I’ve thought about how I could kill them (I never carried it out by the way and I say that so the police don’t come knocking at my door). I’ve done a lot of sinful things, so I AM guilty before God. For example, from that list, I am a thief and a murderer in God’s sight. What I do not do anymore is PRACTICE those sins (You know the drill about repentance and God providing forgiveness through the cross. In other words, Christians are repentant sinners. When we mess up and sin again, we must stop and not make excuses or try to justify our sin like you are doing with homosexuality). Thank God for Jesus."
              >>> Your words remind me of the Christian hamster wheel I used to tread: sin/repent/sin/repent/sin/repent. That is not the gospel Jesus proclaimed. Your words remind me of myself a few years ago. I was about 80% certain I might be in heaven. But I had a nagging fear that I wouldn't be good enough. So I kept trying to live the Christian life. I found that I didn't know the gospel, even after 24 years of preaching and teaching it... The gospel Jesus proclaimed is rest: rest in the grace of God.

              "So BrianK it comes down to not practicing sin. You and I know that people still slip up and sin after God has forgiven them but they have to stop practicing sin. For example, if a man gets married and promises he will be faithful to his wife but a year later says I’m just gonna have a few affairs but don’t worry about it cause I still love you and am devoted to you as your husband. Most women will very quickly say you don’t really want to be married to me anymore, do you? How do you think God feels if we treat Him this way? He will say you really don’t want to be my child anymore, do you? God is not an idiot. Of course at this point you might claim that idiotic concept of, “once saved always saved.”
              >>> I am not a face of once saved, always saved thinking. But it does get close to an important truth about the gospel, and I can accept that phrase. I am 100% certain I will be in heaven, because the Spirit is living in me now.

              "To wrap things up consider how 1 Corinthians 6:9 says..."
              Ah yes, the infamous clobber passages. There are numerous good articles now explaining these and why they don't condemn the LGBT community to hell automatically, and why they don't prevent gay marraige.

              BrianK, with that last scripture in mind it is a little tough to decide how to treat you. I and many others do not believe you have a relationship with God, because you choose to practice accepting the sin of homosexuality. If that is the case, then you are not inside the Church and it is not my job to judge you."
              >>> Yes I am outside the camp, and gladly so. I found Jesus is outside the camp. And in fact, God directs us to go outside the campe (Hebrews 13:13). If it's not your job to judge me, then why are you?

              "(By the way, I don’t judge practicing homosexuals outside of the Church, but I will tell them about the error of their ways if they want to listen). The trick here is that you claim to be inside the Church and you teach people it is OK to sin."
              >>> Yes, I am outside the gate, with all the "public sinners".

              "Because of that, I remind you of your error, tell you that you are not welcome in God’s Church until you repent, and shake the dust of you off of my feet. You are leading your wife, children, family, and a lot of people to a very nasty place where your worm will never die. I guess we will see who is wrong in the end."
              >>> Shouldn't you be living and proclaiming the gospel instead of reminding others of their error?

              "You ended with saying, “Matthew Vines explains most of my thoughts on the matter of the Bible and homosexuality/sin/law quite well.” When I go to his website, I notice he makes the point that “being Gay is not a sin”. I have to agree with that. Being Gay is not a sin."
              >>> Good.

              "You may get wet but at least you won’t be in that nasty boat anymore."
              >>> I choose to be with the "nasty" people in that "nasty" boat becuase that is what Jesus did and that is what the Spirit directs me to do.

              Thanks for the diaglogue. I hope to continue it.
              BrianK.

            • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

              BrianK, just suppose that our nation as a whole would decide to allow homosexuals to legally marry. Would God be in agreement with that man-made law, and, therefore, view them as married? It is ridiculous to say that Christians are causing homosexuals to sin simply because we KNOW that God does NOT allow them to be in a married state. The Bible calls their homosexual lifestyle sin.

              Concerning 'once saved, always saved,' "He who endures to the end shall be saved." ~Matthew 24:13 Also, check out 2 Peter on this topic, among many others.

              Unlike we filthy human beings, Jesus is God. He is the only one infallible. He could surround Himself by sinners without the possibility of being led into sin. We cannot! It is imperative that, as often as possible, we go out at least two-by-two, for accountability as well as for protection. To do otherwise would be foolish. It is not wise for us to spend copious amounts of time in the presence of sinners, for we become like the company we keep. The more we keep company with Jesus, the more like Him we will become. The Holy Word of God instructs us to live as a set-apart people.

            • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

              "The Holy Word of God instructs us to live as a set-apart people."

              That really is another key point at the crux of the Christian/LGBT debate: Are Christians supposed to separate themselves from the "icky" world? At one time, the answer to that was yes. But after Jesus, the answer is no. The time for creating a separate, priestly nation is over. Jesus instructs us to go into the world, to go outside the camp and to live amongst "sinners", like he did. What does this tell you about the state of Christendom, the set-apart nation-builders: Ozzy Osbourne preached the essence of the gospel (in his song Crazy Train) far more effectively than most modern Christian preachers.

              Where is Spurgeon when you need him? We need a man of God like Spurgeon these days!

            • Kim Duffy

              BrianK, it's clear that you're too devoted to your own understanding to trust God's truth. I got through half of your video from Matthew Vine (which felt like at walking at least 10 miles with him) and you have allowed his clearly biased cherry picking of scripture to become an idol by believing that over what is plain to see in God's word. He isn't specific about all the verses he uses to support his view so I'm not sure how he draws some conclusions. He ignores that in Lev 18, the consequences of sexual immorality fell on those who had not received the law as they were driven out before the Jews before sexual immorality had been defined for them in Lev 18. He is the false teacher who he refers to in the beginning of the video. The wages for sin is death, SIN leads to suffering. Obedience to God's word WILL cause internal conflict because the spirit is against the flesh.

              Vine says to examine the fruit. You can only do that if you believe in what the Bible calls the good and bad fruit. Sexual immorality is a fruit of the flesh, a bad fruit (Gal 5:19-21) Sexual immorality is blatantly defined in Lev 18. not one of the other forms of sexual immorality listed are right today, why would homosexuality be ok? If you don't accept God's own definitions of what He calls sins of the flesh, then how can you examine the fruit? You and Vine are choosing what you want believe and disbelieve over what God states.

              Thank you T Ward for trying so hard. You've made it evident that anything more said to BrianK will just be wasted pearls.

            • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

              BrianK, we, as Christians, are called to be in the world but not of it. That means we are to be good stewards of the world, while loving its inhabitants. Following is a poem that describes how we are to live:

              No Sense In Pretense

              My character is known by whom I praise.
              My character is known through all my ways.

              My character is known by the words I speak,
              My character is known by the friends I seek.

              My character is known by my heroes and mentors.
              My character is known through what I stand for.

              My character is known by what I believe.
              My character is known by the counsel I receive.

              My character is known by the books I read.
              My character is known through establishments I frequent.

              My character is known by the music I play.
              My character is known by how I spend every day.

              My character is known by the images I view.
              My character is known through my attitude.

              My character is known by how I'm attired.
              My character is known by how I respond in trials.

              My character is known by my service to others.
              My character is known through my love for my brothers.

              My character is known by my willingness to forgive.
              My character is known by how I live.

              Actually, there are many men like Spurgeon alive today, such as: Eric Ludy, Eric Metaxas, John Stonestreet, Dinesh D'Souza, Ravi Zacharias, and Dr. James Dobson, among others. Sadly, we recently lost another - Chuck Colson.

            • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

              Thanks for responding Ginny,

              "we, as Christians, are called to be in the world but not of it"
              >>> I agree. I further contend that to be "not of the world" does not mean "create a barbed wire fence around your own little kingdom". Christians are equipped to be able to get a "little mud on the tires" and be salt and light in a "messy" world... to "touch the lepers"... and live with other human beings.

              >>> I like your poem, and agree with it. I'm not so familiar with all those you listed. Among those you listed, Eric Ludy gets a lot right about Scripture, and is the closest to a Spurgeon in our generation. Yet, for some reason, none of them come close to the influence Spurgeon had, and Spurgeon preached in a time without world-wide communication devices.

              I think the next Spurgeon will either be a woman or someone from the LGBT community.

            • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

              @Kim D:

              "BrianK, it's clear that you're too devoted to your own understanding to trust God's truth."
              >>> Really... I did hold to "my own understanding" for 25+ years, speaking and acting like the rest of Christendom, trying to "be a good Christian". I succeeded quite well in that. But I had a nagging fear and uncertainty about the future. I ended up only relying on "trying to overcome sin".

              >>> About 3 years ago I realized I was a white-washed tomb. Outside I looked like a rather good, decorated Christian of the "moral majority" type. But inwardly I had to live with the "sewage", trying to keep the sewage from spilling through the cracks of my Christian mask. I thought about sex 95% of the time.

              >>> But then I let go and accepted the grace of God. I went "outside the camp" and found the effervescent joy of grace! I found that I was holding onto an incomplete and even false gospel that consisted only of the penal substitution aspect of the cross.

              >>> I am now on an amazing, wonderful, vibrant journey with Jesus! The Holy Spirit is living in my like never before. I am now learning like a sponge, and finding that grace is the key for ALL Scripture!

              "I got through half of your video from Matthew Vine (which felt like at walking at least 10 miles with him)..."
              >>> Thank you. I'm glad you have the ability to walk in someone else's shoes. That is good.

              "He isn't specific about all the verses he uses to support his view so I'm not sure how he draws some conclusions."
              >>> The audience he speaks to (and all of us in this debate) already know the 6 passages quite well.

              "He ignores that in Lev 18, the consequences of sexual immorality fell on those who had not received the law as they were driven out before the Jews before sexual immorality had been defined for them in Lev 18."
              >>> I don't understand. Are you saying Lev 18 is for those who did not receive the law?

              "The wages for sin is death, SIN leads to suffering. Obedience to God's word WILL cause internal conflict because the spirit is against the flesh."
              >>> Fair enough.

              "Vine says to examine the fruit. You can only do that if you believe in what the Bible calls the good and bad fruit. Sexual immorality is a fruit of the flesh, a bad fruit (Gal 5:19-21) Sexual immorality is blatantly defined in Lev 18. not one of the other forms of sexual immorality listed are right today, why would homosexuality be ok?"
              >>> I contend that Leviticus 18, like the whole OT, should be teaching us a redemptive truth and something about Jesus. You seem to be saying that Leviticus 18 should be teaching us about morality/immorality. Ok fine.

              >>> Let's examine Leviticus. Take verse 9 for example: "Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere." If that is teaching us strictly about morality, then how do we explain the rather large number of Biblical characters who did sleep with their sister, like Cain, Abraham, etc.? A moral approach to Leviticus and the OT, I contend will drive you insane.

              BrianK
              (a repentant straight, white, former Christian do-gooder who just wants to learn :)

            • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

              I will respond to what BrianK wrote earlier: I think all promiscuity (gay or straight) is wrong. Only sex inside marriage is not a sin (gay or straight). So homosexuals who are married would not be sinning in my mind. Which is why I say that Christians prohibiting LGBT people from the sacrament of marriage are causing God's little ones to sin. We should instead be teaching the value of celibacy for all (gay or straight, single or married). And we should not be prohibiting marriage from the LGBT community. ~Brian K

              Homosexuals who are married would not be sinning in your mind, huh, Brian? Who are you to determine whether or not they would be sinning? Homosexuals are God's little ones? Really? I thought God's little ones were children? You claim to be familiar with the Bible, so you are familiar with the verses that condemn homosexuality. Why will you not acknowledge them?

              You already read my poem that is a good explanation of how followers of Jesus Christ are called to live set-apart holy lives as He is holy. Jesus sent His disciples out two-by-two, as sheep among wolves. Remember the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. satan is often able to pick off isolated Christians. We do always have our buddy Jesus with us, but we also need god-in-skin, many times simply as a witness. Yes, the world, the flesh and the devil are "bad," Brian. The entire world is under the power of the evil one. That sounds "bad" to me!

              My family has always lived amongst worldly folk, and it's usually ugly. It's especially difficult attempting to raise Christ-like children when surrounded by those who are NOT raising their children in the same manner. Wherever we go, we are bombarded by the filth of this world. WHEREVER WE GO! I have grown weary of the infiltration of this fallen culture into our lives, especially when it sucks my children into its evil, powerful grip! Thank God, our three older children have found their way back to Jesus. Now, we're suffering with our youngest living as a wayward, rebellious teen! Only God knows how long it will take, and what she'll be forced to endure, before she returns to her first love and the bosom of her family? How weary I have grown of those who have all of the answers and none of the problems (those who have either zero children or young children) accusing me of failing as a parent. Guess what? There is ONE perfect parent and He only has ONE perfect child! How in the hairy heck can anyone expect there to be perfect human children when there are no perfect human parents? I guess I can blame my parents for causing me to turn out to be such a bad parent! The children of God have always rebelled against Him! Only Jesus is perfect out of the entire bunch!

              http://www.ericmetaxas.com/

              http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

            • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

              I will respond to what BrianK wrote earlier, as well as to address some of his most recent comments to me:

              "I think all promiscuity (gay or straight) is wrong. Only sex inside marriage is not a sin (gay or straight). So homosexuals who are married would not be sinning in my mind. Which is why I say that Christians prohibiting LGBT people from the sacrament of marriage are causing God's little ones to sin. We should instead be teaching the value of celibacy for all (gay or straight, single or married). And we should not be prohibiting marriage from the LGBT community." ~Brian K

              Homosexuals who are married would not be sinning in your mind, huh, Brian? Who are you to determine whether or not they would be sinning? Homosexuals are God's little ones? Really? I thought God's little ones were children? You claim to be familiar with the Bible, so you are familiar with the verses that condemn homosexuality. Why will you not acknowledge them?

              You already read my poem that is a good explanation of how followers of Jesus Christ are called to live set-apart holy lives as He is holy. Jesus sent His disciples out two-by-two, as sheep among wolves. Remember the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. satan is often able to pick off isolated Christians. We do always have our buddy Jesus with us, but we also need god-in-skin, many times simply as a witness. Yes, the world, the flesh and the devil are "bad," Brian. The entire world is under the power of the evil one. That sounds "bad" to me!

              My family has always lived amongst worldly folk, and it's usually ugly. It's especially difficult attempting to raise Christ-like children when surrounded by those who are NOT raising their children in the same manner. Wherever we go, we are bombarded by the filth of this world. WHEREVER WE GO! I have grown weary of the infiltration of this fallen culture into our lives, especially when it sucks my children into its evil, powerful grip! Thank God, our three older children have found their way back to Jesus. Now, we're suffering with our youngest living as a wayward, rebellious teen! Only God knows how long it will take, and what she'll be forced to endure, before she returns to her first love and the bosom of her family? How weary I have grown of those who have all of the answers and none of the problems (those who have either zero children or young children) accusing me of failing as a parent. Guess what? There is ONE perfect parent and He only has ONE perfect child! How in the hairy heck can anyone expect there to be perfect human children when there are no perfect human parents? I guess I can blame my parents for causing me to turn out to be such a bad parent! The children of God have always rebelled against Him! Only Jesus is perfect out of the entire bunch!

            • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

              Ginny,

              I feel prompted to share some of Spurgeon's words here. I think our generation needs a healthy dose of Spurgeon. His sermons on the law and grace are astounding.

              In case anyone thinks I am advocating lawlessness or antinomianism or a "get out of jail free card" or changing the grace of God into a license for immorality, I am not.

              I am on a quest to understand and live the gospel, and I find the LGBT issues are the single best arena to do so. Christians ought to be declaring the amazing freedom and grace and love the gospel of Jesus brings to the LGBT community, and to all the world! And I contend we ought to be using the law to do it.

              Here are some choice quotes that are relevant from one of Spurgeon's sermons. He says these things far more eloquently than I could. I contend that if we understand the gospel correctly, we would have no problem sharing this good news to any community or "sinner":

              "Can you wipe away your trangression by future obedience? Ah, no. The old debt must be paid somehow. God's justice is inflexible, and the law tells you all your requirements can make no atonement for the past. You must have an atonement through Christ Jesus the Lord. "But," says the man, "I will try and be better, and then I think I shall have mercy given to me." Then the law steps in and says, "You are going to try and keep me, are you? Why, man, you cannot do it." Perfect obedience in the future is impossible."

              "The law tells you that unless you perfectly obey you cannot be saved by your doings, it tells you that one sin will make a flaw in it all, that one transgression will spoil your whole obedience. It is a spotless garment that you must wear in heaven; it is only an unbroken law which God can accept."

              (Spurgeon Sermon 128, April 19, 1857)

            • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

              BrianK, I highly esteem Charles Spurgeon. I agree that today we are all suffering from a lack of the truth being taught and extolled, as well as a great lack of the fear of God.
              Actually, the hardest test of sharing our Christ-like love and His Good News is in the midst of family life. Issues are not addressed or resolved, judgment is rampant, and forgiveness is withheld, making the possibility of reconciliation unlikely. How anyone, such as former President Jimmy Carter, can make the sweeping declaration that peace is possible is absurd, when it's improbable among close blood relatives or brothers and sisters in the Lord. That is due, in great part, to the lack of humility. Following is something Pascal said:

              "God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy, what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day, with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest will see Him.” It is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good which they do not want.

              It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him.

              He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

              - Blaise Pascal, Pensées (430)
              "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone. That is, we are saved, not by anything we do, but by grace. Yet if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live. Unlike cheap grace, which means going to church and hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it doesn't really matter much how you live, anyone who truly understands how God's costly grace comes to us will have a changed life. Costly grace changes you from the inside out. Actions must follow what one believes, else one cannot claim to believe it." ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
              When we live for Jesus, out of our faith in Him, we will do good works in His name. Faith without works is dead. But works without faith in the One who calls us to Him is for naught. It will be burned up. If we bring material bread to the hungry without, at the same time, bringing them the Bread of Life, it is not significant to God. We must first give thanks and praise to the Maker of the bread, our Bread of Life. We must bear witness to the fact that He is the giver of all gifts, including bread, and that without Him, there would be nothing to give the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison. Only because of Him do we even have life. Only because of Him do we have the hands, the feet, the mouth, the heart, the knowledge, and the compassion to reach out with eternal purpose to touch the life of another, to make a difference for good in this life, as well as a lasting difference in the next. It all boils down to abiding in Him. "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." ~Galatians 5:1 We are free in Christ to do that which is right, to surrender all to Him, His will, His way. We are not free to go back into bondage in Egypt, back into living for our own sinful will and way. We are not free to take license in the freedom of Christ to live however we selfishly want to.
              As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."
              Words like diversity, pluralism and tolerance have anesthetized us to the reality of good and evil. We’re called to love all men in the name of Jesus, not ignore their debauchery in the name of diversity. Sin is a big deal to God. So much so that He allowed Jesus to die on a cruel Roman cross to rescue us from its grip. Tolerance is the cultivation of an attitude of indifference to things we see happening around us. In the name of peace, we tolerate evil. In the name of tolerance, we accept sin and call it free enterprise or freedom of sexual persuasion. We dare not stand up for what we believe for fear of being labeled intolerant, hateful homophobes. The humanitarian sentiment of the postmodern church makes them give that which is holy to the scornful and unbelieving. As exemplary Bonhoeffer said, "Costly grace is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son: 'ye were bought at a price,' and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ. Grace simply means discipleship."
              In Matthew 9:11-13, Jesus' disciples were asked, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” He didn't tell the tax collectors and sinners that they were fine the way they were. He didn't join them in their sin in an attempt to relate. He wasn't down with how they were living. He boldly declared that they needed His healing and His salvation. Does that sound like a meek and mild Saviour? Yes, He’s loving, gentle and forgiving, but He’s also a warrior who has zero tolerance for sin!
              God is love as the Bible declares, but He is also holy. His holiness is the side many don’t like. He is the divine Judge. He points at sin and calls it evil. And at the end of time, He will finally shut the door, and no one else will be allowed to enter the kingdom. Those who rejected His holiness in life will not have their rebellion winked at and brushed aside. They will go into hell for eternity. You can't understand God without seeing both these attributes - love and holiness - constantly working together. It was holiness that expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden, but love that even in that moment promised a redeemer (Genesis 3:15). It was holiness that caused God to turn away from His own Son while Jesus hung on the cross bearing the sins of the world; but it was love that had sent Him there, love that held Him there, and love that raised Him from the grave.
              True love will be against the world for the world, because true love knows what the world needs most.

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black - Gadsit Buzz

  • Pingback: Michael Key | how I almost supported the legalization of gay marriage

  • Pingback: Human Sexuality and Intimacy Resources

  • Pingback: 4 thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Day | the Cripplegate

  • Pingback: The Family Loftus - 4 thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Day

  • Pingback: Homosexual Rights ≠ Civil Rights Struggle | Faith Bible Blog

  • Pingback: Chick-fil-A Day! « A Modern Puritan

  • Gizmo

    Black is not a choice. Sexuality is. To wave your fist in God's face & claim differently doesn't make it so. It is called maturity, self-control.
    When I was a child I thought as a child & acted as a child; When I grew older, I matured & walked away from being a child & childish thinking.
    I am constantly bombarded by sex & choices thereof. I could easily be "as our Liberal leadership" has shown us for decades (FDR, JFK, LBJ, WFC, & "played around". Extra-marital affairs, internet, etc.
    But, as an adult, I work daily to be an adult & control my lusts & desires. As a Christian, as an Adult, as a Human Being. Without self control/maturity, we fall prey to any and all whim & desire.

    • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

      "Black is not a choice. Sexuality is."

      We are sinners by NATURE and by choice. Common evangelical theology. So sexuality is both nature and choice. One can be born gay according to most evangelical theology we just don't like to admit that. With other sin issues we are fine but not homosexuality.

      Black is also NATURE and CHOICE look at Michael Jackson.LOL

    • Carole

      I, too, am mature and grown up. I am faithful to my g/f and I control my lusts and desires. And I'm a Lesbian. Go figure. You think straight ppl are the only ones who have values? I'm probably one of the most conservative, old-fashioned gay ppl you'll ever meet. I believe in monogamy and faithfulness. Never had a one-night-stand, never will. My relationship is not about whim and desire. I work hard at it, to make sure we have good communication and that we respect each other. The idea that gay ppl's relationships are somehow frivolous and whimsical and lustful is offensive and very typical from someone who obviously knows nothing about gay ppl.

      • Kim Duffy

        Hi Carole, I want you to know that what I'm going to say may sting, but I really do say it in love. The problem is that your values are arbitrary because you've created them. You don't believe in absolute truth so there is no absolute right and wrong. You are your own god because you believe that your opinions are higher than God's laws, this is the definition of idolatry.

        I'm very willing to discuss this, if you're open-minded enough.

        • Carole

          Kim, I have no desire to be a part of any man-made religion. You do, and I respect your choice. That is what makes this country what it is, the freedom to choose religion or not. To say that my values are arbitrary is a bit arrogant. It implies that only YOU are right and that only YOUR religion is right and that all people must bend to the will of your religion, or their views must otherwise be cast aside as drivel. If you were to frame the discussion in such a way that simply shares your religious faith and all its tenets...without imposing them on others...it might be more well-received from non-Christians. I could then say, "Hey, those are great ideas for you, and I'm glad they work for you and make you feel like the best person you can be. Stick with them!" We could have a friendly sharing of ideas, yours based on a religious faith, mine based on non-religious philosophies, we learn a little something about each other, allow each other to remain who/what we are, and go our separate ways respectfully enlightened. Yet, we can never seem to be able to do that as Christians and non. I never have that problem with ppl of other religions, actually. I've never had a Muslim tell me I was going to Muslim hell if I didn't accept the words of Muhammed or Allah. They've simply told me what they believe and left it at that. Same with Hindu, Jews, Buddhists (not really a religion, per se), Bahai, etc. It seems only Christians--even in the nicest ways--try to 'convert' people. If you guys would simply just be Christians, live by the religion's tenets, be the upstanding people that many of you are, and let others NOT be Christian, we probably wouldn't even be having this Gay/Straight debate.

          • Kim Duffy

            If your values are not arbitrary what are they based on?

            One of the tenets (the Great Commission, Matthew 28:16-20) is "therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." To share the truth with non-believers is a tenet of the Christian faith. So, by asking Christians to "just be Christian...and let others not be" you are asking for something impossible.

            If two things contradict each other, they can not at the same time be true. One can not believe that the Bible is the truth and also believe that things that are directly contrary to what it says are valid.

            The philosphies that you believe are religious by definition: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality" according to Webster's. The ultimate reality you have chosen to believe is that there is no god. You operate on that assumption of what the ultimate reality is.

            The reason you won't have a problem with other religions is that the members of them don't care what happens to your soul after this life. There is no moral imperative in any other religion to "love thy neighbor as yourself." You've been indoctrinated to believe that Christians tell you that your lifestyle is wrong because they hate you. The truth is, if they really believe what the Bible says, they are telling you that because they love you.

            Living a homosexual lifestyle, according to the Bible, is a sin. Refusing to turn to God for help to overcome it and refusing to believe Him when He says it's a sin, is evidence of lack of faith. Faith is what saves us, so when we see someone struggling so blatantly, it's uncompassionate not to try to help them.

            Christians aren't trying to say "conform to MY lifestyle." We're trying to show you the only One who is perfect and telling you to "look to Jesus to help you conform to His."

            I once believed everything that you do. Continue to examine all things. I'm so glad that you're at least willing to talk about this.

  • Pingback: fundamentalism and anti-gay propaganda « re:

  • Kevin

    If "gay is the new black" then I guess formerly gay people who repented of homosexuality and surrendered their lives to Jesus Christ must be of the smallest minority of all. Wouldn't then the same secular society that protects and venerates the voices of its smaller confederacies have the same zeal to not only "tolerate" the voices from men and women such as me but to make sure they are amplified in order to be heard by all?

    • Kim Duffy

      As we see, they don't, but they should. If I'm undertsanding you correctly, I'm glad you've come to know the truth that is in Jesus!

  • Pingback: Regarding: “Gay Is Not The New Black” « The Intrepids

  • Rachel
  • Pingback: Browse Worthy (8/2/2012) | Gentle Reformation

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    What Julian Bond said about sexuality being unchangeable is absolutely correct. At each baby's birth, the proclamation is stated, either, "It's a girl," or "It's a boy." Undeniable. Factual. Unchangeable.

  • Pingback: Black Is Not the New Gay - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum

  • flimflamjimmyjam

    ‎"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves". Abraham Lincoln

  • Pingback: Helping staff with social media « Following the Fremd's

  • Karen West

    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for posting this article. Will share on FB.

  • Pingback: Gays and Christians cannot agree - where do we go from here? | Rick Thomas

  • Carole

    First off, this seems to be all about semantics. Those opposed to Gay marriage seem mostly opposed to the word 'marriage' identified with same-sex unions. That's all well and good. You know what? Call it whatever you want. You'd prefer 'civil union', perhaps? Fine! All we want is to sign the very same legal contract that straight people sign in their "marriages". If the govt can provide that and call it the hokey frikkin pokey, we'll all shut the heck up about it. Because after all, marriage is a contract. That's IT. Religion is OPTIONAL, not required. That's why two athiests can legally marry. You go down to the courthouse, pay your fee, sign on the dotted line and boom--married. That's why there's no minister or cleric or rabbi in the courtroom when they get divorced, UNpronouncing them man and wife. They are there to dissolve a contract, and all that is necessary are a couple lawyers and a judge and good enough reason. As far as gays equating this struggle to civil rights--no, Gays have never undergone what Blacks or Native Americans (or many other ethnic groups) have in this country. That is correct. Thousands of us were rounded up and gassed/burned during the Holocaust (as known Gays/Lesbians), yes, but that's about the worst we have to speak of in our history. One cannot hide his or her race, and often cannot hide a nationality, as the surname can give it away. Being Gay is something on the inside, and many of us choose to be 'out' in honor of those who cannot hide their racial difference(s). A Black person cannot hide being Black, but I can hide being Gay with three magic words: "I'm not gay", and no discrimination will come to me. What a luxury. So, many of us who are not of color are out as a means of standing WITH other races and taking the social crap right alongside them. The real heat comes down on those who ARE Black or Hispanic,etc AND Gay. I have a friend who is Black-Chinese, female, Lesbian, and left-handed--a quintuple minority! Go figure. I know I never chose to be a Lesbian. That I can tell you for certain. That would be nuts. Why on earth would I choose that?? Who would?? I don't know why it's so, it just is. I am who I am, and I will not live a lie. Life is way too short to pretend to be something you're not. We just want to be happy and free and left alone. We want to be able to enter into a legal contract with our partner that binds our lives as one, just like you. And no, NAMBLA should not be able to 'marry' their pedophelia victims. They are an organization of pedophiles, which baffles and disgusts the Gay community as much as it does the Straight community. And no, people should not be able to marry animals or children. Why?? Because neither can understand the terms of the contract, and animals cannot sign their own names or be taught to say "I do". Hence, we as a society rule them out as marriage candidates. Pretty obvious there. So, if the religious straight community will back off and let us have our 'unions' IN THE SAME legal fashion as a 'marriage', same contract, then we will shut our big mouths about it. We don't care what it's called, we just want the right to choose whether to get married or not. Right now, you folks have made that decision for us. You've already decided we won't in 38 states. Can I at least have the option to make my own decision??

    • T Ward

      Carole,

      Thank you for your comment. We are on opposite sides of the disagreement, if it can be called that. I appreciate you saying some things very clearly and plainly.

      Our sides see things differently and I don't really expect that to change. Many religious people want to legislate same-sex marriage out of existence but that is not going to happen. Many Gay people want religious people to accept their unions as God pleasing but that is not going to happen. We should stop banging our heads up against the wall.

      Religious people should accept that God can handle the situation and will have an effect on those who want to listen. Gay people should accept that religious people want the word "marriage" to be used for opposite-sex unions only.

      Religious people think words are important and some should not be changed to fit society. Gay people think they have been abused, mistreated, sinned against, and hated and want the chance to have social rights that others have.

      We will never really totally agree. Religious people think that God does not change and Gay people think that social evolution will make us all better people. I guess we will all see someday.

      In the meantime, can you or someone else in the Gay community please lead the charge to stop using the word "marriage" to identify same-sex unions? Show some backbone. Come up with another word that works for you and us.

  • Pingback: equate | gay | pride | black | civil rights | behavior | NAMBLA

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black « Ratio Christi-At The Ohio State University

  • Pingback: Love Speech | Politics and Religion

  • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

    Someone asked me to "name them", so I did. Unfortunately, it appears someone deleted a lot of the conversations above.

    http://www.priestlynation.com/archives/1340

  • JohnO

    "If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys? [...] Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question."

    First off, let me clarify, I am a heterosexual advocate of homosexual civil rights. Secondly, I am not "loath to answer" your inane questions, but I understand how such a statement makes you look invincible to your Fox News consuming followers. But, I digress.

    To address your faulty logic, the answer to what would prevent a bisexual from marrying a man and a woman is the basic stipulation that you can only marry ONE person--regardless of sexual orientation. And what prevents a NAMBLA from marrying a young boy is the age requirement. So, there's your answers. And I appreciate your toughness in forcing them upon us since so few of your colleagues have the guts to put them to us. You are a hero among heterosexual homophobic men, my friend!

    Congratulations on totally conflating the issues for a simple-minded audience, but you fail when trying to persuade people who actually use critical thinking. For starters, the ONLY component of marriage equality in question is the gender component--not the number of marriage partners, not their ages, not even their species. Let me make this simple for you. Take the current marriage statutes and let them be equally applied for two members of the same sex. That means, EVERYTHING else remains EQUAL. See, you really don't have to let fear or anger malign your numerous logical fallacies.

    Nice try.

    • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

      Homosexuals do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

      Marriage is between a husband and wife. The majority of people in our nation do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

      We need a marriage amendment to settle the homosexual marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

      Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

      Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

      Good day!

    • Kim Duffy

      JohnO, The current definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. You are seeking to redefine marriage and your response to the question about what would prevent a bisexual from marrying a man and a woman, or a NAMBLA member from marrying a young boy is to include a stipulation in the definition? You, sir, are the one using faulty logic.

      A stipulation was already in place (that marriage is between one man and one woman)to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other and you're seeking to change that stipulation. The question that needs to be answered is what prevents stipulations from constantly being changed?

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    Homosexuals do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

    Marriage is between a husband and wife. The majority of people in our nation do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

    We need a marriage amendment to settle the homosexual marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

    Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

    Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

    I realize that the progressive elites running this world are thrilled with the homosexual part of their global domination plan, for when folks engage in homosexual acts, there is no possibility of more offspring to populate the globe! Their zany march towards zero population growth would be accelerated!

  • Richard Daniel

    It is difficult to respond to such a thorough discussion of the justifications Mr. Baucham has listed in his article without an equally well considered response. The standard internet response would be terribly pedestrian, so, wanting to see his points discussed where possible, considered with equal research and refuted where necessary, I take up the task.
    Let me first say that Mr. Baucham’s premise is rooted, as would be expected, in an evangelical Christian world-view. This is not uncommon from the opponents of same-sex marriage, as the one irrefutable argument made against such marriages is that a Biblical marriage references, and is rooted in, Christian precepts. There are some churches that have opened their doors to same-sex couples, but their decision is based upon their understanding of religious text, so it is with equal fervor that those opposed do so with Bible quotations at hand. Indeed, the most strident opponents of the very existence of homosexuals as anything other than prisoners, converts, or corpses justify their beliefs with strong words from Leviticus, Romans, and the ever popular Corinthians, whose supposed author, Paul, has been a source of uncompromising religious law for centuries. However, short of one point, Mr. Baucham has set aside religious arguments in favor of logical, legal and grammatical ones, so I will address his concerns on those terms.
    Some of Mr. Baucham’s frequent arguments seem to be those of definition; that the arguments supporting same-sex marriage and homosexuality, cannot be accepted because they are simply illogical or factually unsound. He believes that homosexuals cannot seek legal or social refuge in the inherent immorality of discrimination because they are not a social group by any rational definition. However, his statement that “there is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation”, is no argument against that persons claims to equal rights and fair treatment under the law. It is also patently false as a same-sex attraction would be simple to demonstrate and pointless to fabricate.
    If, however, we ignore that point for a moment, we are still stuck with the fact that discrimination is illegal in reference to certain protected classes, among them Race and Color, which Mr. Baucham agrees are right to protect. There are, however, other protected classes, including Religious Affiliation and Nationality. These are classes that fit his criteria as being unworthy of protection, namely “while blackness and maleness are attributes one cannot deny, homosexual behavior is not”. One can deny homosexuality, as one can deny nation or origin and religion. These three groups have at least one thing in common. They are not discriminated against because they cannot deny their status, they are discriminated against because they WILL not.
    Another element of definition is the boundaries of homosexual behavior. It is not uncommon for pedophiles and homosexuals to be lumped together as if there is no difference in their behavior. The logical response is one refuting the assumption: If homosexuals are by definition attracted to adults of the same sex, they must also be attracted to children of the same sex; thus pedophiles, who are attracted to children of the same sex are do different form homosexuals.
    This argument is the basis of many a discriminatory practice that deny homosexuals the right to adopt children, to teach, or to participate in organizations where they have authority over children, such as the Boy Scouts. This is however, a false syllogism. For that argument to be true it would also have to be true that a heterosexual male is no different than male perpetrators of sexual assault on female children. This is obviously false, so we are left with the more likely scenario that pedophiles are not attracted to a particular gender, but to an age group. This attraction is terribly harmful to those children, and this is why pedophilia remains a crime in our society.
    Mr. Baucham makes a legal argument as well, suggesting that homosexuals classified as a minority group, thus creating “legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage” that there is a slippery-slope risk. This is another argument frequently made by his peers, that same-sex marriage opens the door for bigamy, or socially accepted pedophilia, or even socially accepted zoophilia. I must first say that the bigamy argument has merit, inasmuch as the precedent for same-sex marriage could apply to bigamy, although I am unsure that legal bigamy would necessarily lead to wide spread adoption, but I will leave that argument for a different day. As for his argument regarding NAMBLA suggesting that their orientation allows them legal rights, Mr. Baucham asks, “where do we stop, and on what basis?” Again, the answer is that we stop where people who cannot legally make life decisions are affected. This is, incidentally, why a person cannot legally marry their pet, either.
    It is in his conclusion that Mr. Baucham makes his religious argument. He believes that same sex marriage is an affront to “traditional” marriage, and inherently flawed, “because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church”. Put another way, the relationship between man and wife must strive to emulate the intended relationship between Christian and Christ. I cannot refute the argument.
    I say again that the Christian definition of marriage is the one irrefutable argument. It is also totally useless. Chirstians nationwide may stand opposed to same sex marriage, but people nationwide are not uniformly Christian. Many are, to varying degrees orthodoxy, but this nation has millions who profess non-Abrahamic faiths; millions who profess no faith. This is to say nothing of the millions of Christians who believe, just as fervently as Mr. Baucham that their faith is not quite so cut and dried, and while he can question their interpretation, they are no more likely to convert their opinions than he is.
    The root of Mr. Baucham’s article was rejecting the notion that “Gay is the new Black”. That “there is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage.’”. Well, allow me to offer a few reasons.

    The most common response to “why did you get married”, is, in a word, “Love”. Our culture, as reflected in books and on the screen has nearly universally depicted marriage as the natural conclusion to a loving, committed relationship. As he indicated, the only people denied the right to marry in modern times are those without the competence to make the decision, or those who already are married. If the latter is not true, then Mr. Baucham must believe the former.
    Right now laws in several states allow same sex marriage. Whether people are married in those states or laws are changed in other states, those marriages must be given full faith and credit on the national stage.
    Lastly, like Mr. Baucham, I am not a lawyer, but I can read. And if the only irrefutable argument is religious, and he, his peers, and the millions of Christians in this country and all over the world are so certain that the very existence of same-sex marriage will destroy theirs I can only say this. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.” If the free exercise of Christianity includes denying the rights of other Americans to share their lives, socially and legally, then he is welcome to try. But his religion cannot and shall not be used as the arbiter of my life, nor the lives of my friends, or my family. Gay is not the new Black. It is its own, new bigotry, where people are not simply denied rights because other people think them inferior. They are denied rights because other people think it is their religious duty. And that is far more terrifying.

    • John Dunn

      Fantastic response Richard.

    • Stephen Grus

      i appreciate your thoughtful response richard, and you do well at addressing the points made by the author.
      however, it seems to me the author glossed over the essence of the issue...genetics.
      despite the attempts by many to find a genetic component to sexual orientation, nothing with scientific credibility exists (at least not yet). instead, we're left with anecdotal "evidence" from the homosexual community saying "i was born with it, i just knew." or better yet, the ol' patronizing favorite, "when did you decide you were heterosexual?"
      well, clearly, there wasn't a moment of decision. from what i can recall, my sexuality was a process of questions, confusions, curiosities and intrigue. all that to say, it involved various stages of development. at one point, girls had cooties and i wanted nothing to do with them. as time went on, they still had cooties but i didn't seem to mind them so much. before long, puberty hit and i was done for.
      all that to say, the current scientific evidence we have is from psychology and sociology, both of which continually point to the integral role of sexual DEVELOPMENT. and this applies to all sexual behavior (hetero and homo). nothing happens overnight. it's a process. it takes time, and decisions...an active pursuit of primal curiosities. why is the homosexual community so different? plenty on both sides throw around the word "choice", though it is highly inaccurate. but if i were to say "development" instead, i assume people would still take issue. yet, this is all the evidence we have (thus far).
      and IF this is the case, then the slippery slope argument DOES hold weight, and the bigamy/polygamy argument is a natural extension (of paths of personal, sexual development), among a few other, more far-fetched possibilities.
      and frankly, if ANYbody should be shouting from the rooftops for supposed equal rights, it should be the polygamists, who have a much longer, culturally-sanctioned standing throughout human history. and in fact, it still remains in many parts of the world.
      anyway, i tend to straddle the fence on the issue, and i'm left with the limited science on it. but until i see strong evidence to the contrary (genetics), i clearly can't compare it to the civil rights battles of yesteryear (race, gender, etc), nor can i say that the definition of marriage should be expanded to accommodate the sexual proclivities of 3% (give or take 1%) of the population.
      my present inclination, however, does not a hater make.

      • Richard Daniel

        Stephen,

        I suppose my real argument is, and always has been, Why not? If freedoms exist by default in this country, until they are abridged, then why deny this freedom to these people?

        It can't be medical. Even if the wildly untrue and universally debunked studies about the "homosexual lifestyle" were true, then the argument that they should not marry based on behavior could be used for every person with a communicable disease, gay or straight.

        It can't be legal. There is no problem anyone but the most paranoid can come up with where a gay wedding in, say, Boston affects anyone, anywhere.

        It can't be economic. Allowing a larger percentage of the population to be married can only positively affect the local economy, and the tax burden cannot be perceived to make any reasonable burden on the rest of us.

        No, the only argument, is and has always been religious. Morality is frequently cited but the morality of those who cite it is almost exclusively informed by their religion, so it is a semantic argument. I just can't see any justification for the denial of a right that does no harm to others and represents and significant portion of adult society.

        Put another way, your religion should never have control over my life.

        • Stephen Grus

          well, for starters, it's far from representing a significant portion of adult society. as i said, most legit calculations put it at 2-3%.
          and i too can put it another way, your anti-religiousness should never have control over my life. but with that flimsy conclusion, we'd get nowhere quickly.
          just because postmodernism tells us that all actions, attitudes and behaviors are morally relative doesn't make it so. there is plenty of black and white...a long list of right and wrong. but of course, there is also a wide spectrum of gray, and the lawmakers of our land are the ones tasked with navigating these gray areas of our culture's ever-evolving norms and producing policy as a result. the definition of marriage is one such area, as we've seen in recent years.
          now you're certainly free to take the easy way out and attribute all of this to religious fervor. but in reality, it's far more nuanced. plenty of non-religious people don't think homosexuals should be included in the definition of marriage, as seen in state after state in which it's been put to vote (inCLUDING california no less!!).
          it is indeed a legal/moral issue, and our lawmakers (an activist judiciary notwithstanding) have been elected to represent the citizens of this country and entrusted to vote based on the sentiments (and election votes) of their constituents.
          it's convenient to point to religious folks and say they're to blame, they're the haters preventing this supposed right. but the reality is that plenty of people don't think homosexuals should be included in marriage (which is not a "right," fyi). that is where our cultural norms currently stand, for a variety of reasons.
          as i said earlier, for me personally, the genetics of it all really is at the heart of the issue. clearly, from a biological standpoint, a male and female are required to procreate. this has been so since the dawn of time. there is a primordial instinct that says, this is good. this is the most basic, vital component to sustain the species. clearly, social support has naturally followed in every culture throughout history. to suddenly think that homosexuality merits the same socially-sanctioned status is presumptuous.
          no one is saying anyone should stop engaging in their lifestyle. no one is trying to deny anyone from fulfilling their sexual desires. but this does not a marriage make.
          to deny the fact that this is the first step of a slippery slope is to deny reality. i mentioned polygamy, which i feel is the most viable and frankly, deserves far more consideration, well before homosexuality. why is no one championing that cause, including the homosexual community? it seems they could use the same hollow talking points...consenting adults, engaged in loving relationships, receiving none of the same benefits as their one man/one woman counterparts. they can argue the same genetics case too! which opens up plenty of others arguing the "genetics" of sexual attractions as well.. where does it stop? where do we draw the line, saying, "this may be genetic (for the sake of argument, since this is unproven), but this cannot be officially sanctioned in this society."
          luckily, we have elected officials who will make these decisions (so i don't have to sweat it too much), and the voice of the people should guide their hand.
          but until it's shown that biology (aka genetics/science) is on the side of the homosexual (or any other sexual inclination), i'm not instinctually comfortable including them in the same category as a married man and woman.
          but again, this does not a hater make.

    • T Ward

      Richard,

      The simple fact is that many people in America want the word "marriage" to be separate from what a homosexual union would be. Words are important.

      Can some one in the Gay community show some backbone and create a word to use other than "marriage"?

  • JB

    For those who want to understand the "shelfish and mixed fibers" argument, read this:

    thecripplegate.com/shellfish-mixed-fabrics-and-homosexuality-picking-and-choosing/

    • Kim Duffy

      Thank you so much! This article is so clear and concise. Such a useful tool!

      • JB

        A snippit from an article I am reading that seems pertinent.

        "It is the Holy Spirit's central purpose to bring every person to a knowledge of sin through the proclamation of the Divine Law so that the message of God's grace in Christ Jesus (the Gospel) can be applied to those suffering the pangs of guilt. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 3:19: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Again he writes in Romans 5:20: "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more." The proclamation of the Good News of what God has done for us in Christ Jesus is, so to speak, "set up" by the knowledge of our own sinful condition. Martin Luther wrote:

        A doctor must first diagnose the sickness for his patient; other wise he will give him poison instead of medicine. First he must say: this is your sickness; secondly; this medicine serves to fight it.."

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black | Defending. Contending.

  • Pingback: Homosexual Marriage and Racial Equality: Why This Isn’t the Late ’50s/Early ’60s « Treasuring Christ

  • Pingback: A La Carte (8.7.12) | familylifeatccc

  • http://disableme.wordpress.com/ Able Baker

    “Homophobia is LIKE racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to DEHUMANIZE a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.” Coretta Scott King

    • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

      Sounds good except it isn't the case. I find it to be quite a conundrum to hear this from a proponent of abortion (a form of bigotry that seeks to DEHUMANIZE a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood).

      • http://disableme.wordpress.com Able Baker

        How is it not the case? Expound.

        I wrote a little bit more about this on my blog here... http://disableme.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/theologically-dehumanizing-people-7/

        • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

          Firstly, calling homesexuality sin is not homophobia. That is one thing we need to get out in the open. If i called adultery a sin it wouldn't make me adulteryphobic. If I called murdering a sin, it wouldn't make me murderphobic. Secondly, if you actually flesh out the Christian argument it isn't that the homoesxual is less than human, but on the contrary it argues FOR the humanity of the homosexual. Understanding that we were all created in the imago dei a certain level of inherent value is attributed to all people. It is because of this that we admonish all men to bear the image of God and take upon the roles He created us for. If I saw a himoesexual as less than human I would not expect them to possess the capabiltiy to comprehend this theological concept. I would say ,"They are defined by their desire and therefore can be no other way. They are like herbivores, and to offer them meat is pointless." I believe they are more than their gender prefrence. I believe that they like me have a sin issue and just like me ave one road to redemption. Just as I was once defined by these desires I realized that it was me who dehumanized me, by defining myself by my gender prefrence and no higher statute. When I realized that the Creator defined me, I was no longer bound to creature but rather Creator. "It Gets Better"...once you repent

          • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

            "Firstly, calling homesexuality sin is not homophobia."
            >>> Good point.

            "Secondly, if you actually flesh out the Christian argument it isn't that the homoesxual is less than human, but on the contrary it argues FOR the humanity of the homosexual."
            >>> The problem is that this "Christian humanity" you speak of includes at least one hidden premise: Homosexuals must repent of being homosexual.

            "Understanding that we were all created in the imago dei a certain level of inherent value is attributed to all people."
            >>> Good point. And if God created someone with a non-heterosexual image, we should not try to change that.

            "It is because of this that we admonish all men to bear the image of God and take upon the roles He created us for."
            >>>Another good point. Could you accept that God created some homosexuals for a VERY special purpose: testifying to the love and grace of God? The LGBT community has some amazing Bible teachers who understand some things that I couldn't for decades.

            "If I saw a himoesexual as less than human I would not expect them to possess the capabiltiy to comprehend this theological concept."
            >>> Now you are getting off track and speaking philosophically. I don't think this helps the conversation.

            "I believe that they like me have a sin issue and just like me ave one road to redemption."
            >>> This, then, is the crux of the issue for me. What "one road" do you speak of? I see two viable, healthy options (from God if you will), for ALL humanaity: marriage and celibacy. The third option is promiscuity, which is where the problems begin, mostly, for all genders.

            "Just as I was once defined by these desires I realized that it was me who dehumanized me, by defining myself by my gender prefrence and no higher statute. "
            >>> This is good for you. I think some will take this path. The problem becomes when you or others extrapolate your paradigm (which worked for you) into other's lives. The only universal paradigm is love.

            "It Gets Better"...once you repent"
            >>> Indeed. To repent however, does not mean "change who you are", but "accept the grace of God where you are".

            Ex-Bi, you've made some good comments here, as have several others. I think we could begin to have civil discussions if we put aside our "truth dictating" and start learning and observing.

          • http://disableme.wordpress.com Able Baker

            Comment:
            "Firstly, calling homesexuality sin is not homophobia."

            Response:
            The above article is not calling it sin. It is saying that it is not a (civil-rights) constitutional issue. As a Christian I say it is a civil rights issue based on a Constitutional perspective. The only reason why one would not see it that way would be 1.) They think homosexuality is icky. 2.) They want everyone to interpret the constitution through their own personal interpretation.
            -What about non-Christian interpretations of the constitution?
            -What about Atheist marriage? Why has Voddie not written an article on atheistic marriage?
            -Why are proud people allowed to get married... come on Satan wasn't even Gay he was proud.
            For some reason we are fine with pride. It's the whole hierarchy of sin issue here really some are just more icky than others.

            Comment:
            "If i called adultery a sin it wouldn't make me adulteryphobic. If I called murdering a sin, it wouldn't make me murderphobic."

            Response:
            Again this isn't about sin (the article)here this is about legislating morality and using the constitution to do so in a highly pluralistic culture.

            Comment:
            "If you actually flesh out the Christian argument it isn't that the homoesxual is less than human, but on the contrary it argues FOR the humanity of the homosexual. Understanding that we were all created in the imago dei a certain level of inherent value is attributed to all people. It is because of this that we admonish all men to bear the image of God and take upon the roles He created us for. If I saw a himoesexual as less than human I would not expect them to possess the capabiltiy to comprehend this theological concept. I would say ,"They are defined by their desire and therefore can be no other way. They are like herbivores, and to offer them meat is pointless.""

            Response:
            I understand what you are saying. Within the context of the kingdom of God and our churches. Great point. However, based on Voddies document above. This is how the rest of the world is seeing this issue... "It is unacceptable that our laws and culture in the U.S.A. aren't based solely on MY interpretation of the bible."

            Comment:
            "Just as I was once defined by these desires I realized that it was me who dehumanized me, by defining myself by my gender prefrence and no higher statute. When I realized that the Creator defined me, I was no longer bound to creature but rather Creator." "It Gets Better"...once you repent"

            Response:
            I understand you have made a great point. I do not think we disagree here. I would just add that the constitution of the United States of America does not bring about repentance. It is NOT a Kingdom document.

            • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

              Good points, Able.

              "Again this isn't about sin (the article)here this is about legislating morality and using the constitution to do so in a highly pluralistic culture."

              Thanks for reminding us all that there was an article here somewhere :)

              Here are some of my thoughts on Voddie's article:

              I understand some of what makes Voddie upset. To say gay=black is just not helpful and is even hurtful. A key reason for this is because both issues are multi-layered and complex, and just don't equate. So it is wrong to say "Gay is the new black."

              At the same time, to say "Gay is the new black" is correct, at least on one level: human rights. On the human rights level, gay is the new black. I'm too young to remember, but anyone remember how the Bible was used to condemn blacks? How about interracial marriage in the '50's? From what I've read, the discussions between black/white and Christians/LGBT are VERY similar when it comes to human/civil rights.

              The problem I have with the article, is that it seems to try to make some of these points, but then jumps into wholesale condemnation of LGBT people. That probably was not the intention, but that's how the article comes across to me.

  • Chris

    I'm married and the only ones involved in my marriage are myself and my spouse. Atheists get married you know, and we are just as married as religious people. More so, if there are that many *people* wrapped up in your marriage!!

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      Excellent points Chris!

  • http://jesaja662.wordpress.com jesaja662

    Good important article!
    Thanks a lot!

  • Carole

    http://cyryus.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-story-of-second-class-citizen.html

    The above link is a blog, discussing the effects of DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) on Gay and Lesbian binational couples. Please read and feel free to comment. All views welcome. It is the story of my partner and I and our struggle with immigration due to the current federal marriage laws. Sometimes I think if people heard stories like ours, they might not be quite so quick to jump on the anti-Gay Marriage wagon. I've found that many who were on the fence about the issue find themselves with stronger support, once they hear a story like ours and see just how devastating these discriminatory laws can be. Give it a chance and hear me out. Subscribe if you want, as I'll be posting ongoing musings about the subject as time passes toward the November elections. Thanks.

  • Harold Crews

    Sorry but yes it is. I wish that it were otherwise but logic can't be denied. Once 'Civil Rights' ended the freedom of association and became subject to legal prohibition then it became a political matter and nothing stops homosexuals from politically organizing. Additionally your distinction concerning innate characteristics or an obvious characteristic doesn't describe the current limits of legal prohibitions on discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited and religious affiliation is neither innate or obvious. It never was or is a question of whether there is to be discrimination or no discrimination but what forms of discrimination will be permitted or even required by the government. Where the law goes politics necessarily accompanies it.

    I know you want to have your cake and eat it too and so long as homosexuals are weak politically then that is possible. But in those jurisdictions that homosexuals have increasing political power that just isn't possible anymore. The 'Civil Rights' revolution subjected the freedom of association to politics for everyone.

  • Bob Pawson

    AMEN! We can't and don't choose our skin pigmentation or melanin levels, but we can and do choose our behaviors and moral vices. Black, white, yellow, and brown are only skin deep, but SIN goes all the way to the core of our being. The Lord created only ONE race (the human race) - and only TWO genders (male and female He created them). <

  • Tony Armour

    Great article!!

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black | Time For Discernment

  • Pingback: Voddie Baucham - O homossexual não é o novo negro | Voltemos Ao Evangelho

  • http://www.heteroseparatist.com Mantronikk
  • T Ward

    I am just amazed that no pro Gay organization has been willing to come out and say, "OK, we will make up a brand new word that means homosexual legal union." Maybe you could try making up a word like "gayried." Such leaders could then demand equal rights under American law like married (heterosexual) couples enjoy.

    It would be very possible that many people would have no objection to that. I would not. Gay people would then have what they want, which is legal representation and equal rights for their "union" and then everyone they introduced themselves to would know who they are, homosexuals that have come out of the closet and decided to commit their lives to another person.

    Christians have already told you that God is not pleased, but Gay people are not listening, so let your own blood be on your own heads. God is big enough and tough enough to take care of Himself. We Christians do not need to defend God. We do not need to be like some Muslims that hurt and kill others because their god is not big enough to take care of himself. We Christians will, no matter what, continue repeating what God has told us to say and we must do it with love and respect. For those who think the Bible is a fairy tale or that people get to pick and choose what they want to believe from God's Word, then their blood is on their own heads also. I happen to believe that God exists; He is not a fool and that He has already said what He means.

    In the meantime, Christians do not hate people who sin. We simply do not want people who choose to practice sin, to call themselves one of us (yes, we too sin but we work hard to not practice sin and we accept what God says about us and we accept what He says about Himself and our relationship). ANYONE who wants to practice sin and wants to cover it up, or call it something else, is not a friend of God, period. Sin separates people from God. God gives us the opportunity to STOP sinning and not be separated anymore but that person must not practice sin or they are His enemy. There are plenty of groups that call themselves "christians" but they are not, because they choose to practice “saying sin is not sin”. They are foolish because they think people are the ones that define God and what He says. Episcopalian's, as an example, along with other Denominations are thumbing their noses at God by accepting practicing homosexuals as children of God. God is not a fool. Stop being a "cafeteria christian". You can not pick and choose what you want to believe about God. We do not define God, God defines God! I know my words sound harsh but read the Bible sometimes. Look at what God said and did when His people did wrong. He did not and still does not play around.

    So, again in the meantime, Christians do not hate practicing homosexuals. Go ahead, you are Americans and should have rights like other Americans do. I know that some Christians will say you should have rights only as long as it does not hurt others and that Gay legal unions hurt others and that granting such legal rights is a slippery slope. Even with that said, I think it is time for Christians to say go ahead you should receive the same American legal rights others have but please DO NOT call yourselves one of us.

    We are married. You never can be if you practice homosexuality! We want to be separate from you. We do not hate you but we do not want to practice what you practice! We are married. You took the word "Gay" and changed it. OK, Christians can find another word for youthful exuberance and happiness. No problem. But with this, we are drawing a line in the rock. We are not willing to have the word "married" changed to include a homosexual union. PERIOD.

    Please, please, please have some backbone. Go ahead, claim your legal American rights but stop trying to steal the word “married”. We do not and never will want to be like you, thumbing your noses at God. We understand that you do not care about God or at least you do not care about what He plainly says in the Bible. Fine, then go your own way but do not try to include us in your way. There are plenty of other sins we humans practice that we can help others avoid. Many of them are, I would say, uglier than homosexuality. Maybe we Christians should concentrate more on how abortion is murder and how Wall Street thieves actually kill people with their greed. There are unfortunately plenty of other sins to concentrate on. Maybe it is time for us to shake the dust of your sin off our feet. Jesus certainly told His disciples to do that at some point. Maybe that point has been reached here, today in America.

    You want us to respect you? Then try respecting us. WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO USE THE WORD “MARRIED” TO DEFINE A HOMOSEXUAL UNION. Marriage defines what we do.

    Here is the challenge: If the Christian community says, go ahead and claim your full, legal, American rights to have Gay Union then will the Gay community be willing to stop using the word “married”? Does anyone in the Gay community have the backbone to make that happen or will you continue to claim you are what we are? We are separate from you. Will you be separate from us?

    Now, some questions for the “fake christians” who claim God did not say practicing homosexuality is a sin that separates us from Him. Who made you? Who decided that you would have an easy or a difficult life? Who decided if you would be deaf or blind, handsome or ugly, die from cancer as a child or old age surrounded by family, be paralyzed by a drunk driver or escape injury from an enemies IED? If you can answer those questions and many others like them without blaming God, then there may be hope for you after all. GOD DOES NOT CHANGE; HE IS NOT AN IDIOT BUT HE IS JEALOUS FOR YOU! God is not you.

    Now for those of us who are willing to accept God at His word and humbly choose to have faith in what He is doing, I suggest we go ahead and let the Gay community have their earthly, legal, civil unions. It is what they want and what many of them will do, no matter what we tell them. Maybe some of them will change and will not spend an eternity in a place where God is totally absent, a place where there will be no beauty, peace, or love. Maybe some of them will not go to that place where their worm never dies, where lost souls continually rape each other in hopes of experiencing some scrape of memory from times of goodness and love. Let’s shake the dust off of our feet. The community that accepts practicing homosexuality does not want to listen to God’s Words. Let’s let God deal with them.

    Again, Gay community can you call yourself something that separates you from us? Who among you has the backbone? It is a simple question that can be answered simply. We want to be separate from you. Will you be separate from us? Will you find another word? I have noticed that no one from the Gay community seems willing to answer this one question. Are you willing to be separate from us? We want to be separate from you. Words are important. ARE YOU WILLING TO CREATE A WORD, SEPARATE FROM US, WHICH WILL DESCRIBE A GAY LEGAL UNION?

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      "I am just amazed that no pro Gay organization has been willing to come out and say, "OK, we will make up a brand new word that means homosexual legal union." Maybe you could try making up a word like "gayried." Such leaders could then demand equal rights under American law like married (heterosexual) couples enjoy."
      >>> Really? "gayried"? So you want the LGBT community to go around saying "I'm gayried"... maybe Spongebob's pet snail could be the new gay mascot?

      "It would be very possible that many people would have no objection to that. I would not."
      >>> You have a noble-sounding idea, but your idea throws salt into the wound. Some things the LGBT people want seem to be 1) treated as equals 2) taken seriously. Your suggestion about a new word does neither.

      "Christians have already told you that God is not pleased,"
      >>> To me, it is clear that *Christians* are the ones "not pleased". Your presentation of God comes across more like a dead puppet that Christians need to keep propping up. I know that's not what you believe, but that is how you sound.

      "God is big enough and tough enough to take care of Himself. We Christians do not need to defend God."
      >>> Yes! Good points.

      "We Christians will, no matter what, continue repeating what God has told us to say and we must do it with love and respect."
      >>> The "continue repeating" part is a big part of the stalemate here...

      In the meantime, Christians do not hate people who sin. We simply do not want people who choose to practice sin, to call themselves one of us (yes, we too sin but we work hard to not practice sin and we accept what God says about us and we accept what He says about Himself and our relationship).
      >>> There it is: the double standard. You come across as saying this: "Our sin is better than your sin".

      "We are married. You never can be if you practice homosexuality!"
      >>> These kinds of attitudes are at the heart of the stalemate as well.

      "We want to be separate from you."
      >>> Thank you for finally being honest. This, I believe, is how most of us Christians really feel. A lot of us just want to be separate, go away and form our own "holy nation". The rub is however, Jesus told us to go "outside the gate" (Hebrews 13:13) and that we have to say in the world.

      We are married. You took the word "Gay" and changed it. OK, Christians can find another word for youthful exuberance and happiness. No problem. But with this, we are drawing a line in the rock. We are not willing to have the word "married" changed to include a homosexual union. PERIOD.
      >>> And how many words have we Christians taken and redefined? These words all had meanings before Christians came along: cross, love, kernel of wheat, etc.

      Please, please, please have some backbone.
      >>> I find the solutions find when we all put down our weapons and "man down" as it were...

      "Maybe it is time for us to shake the dust of your sin off our feet. Jesus certainly told His disciples to do that at some point. Maybe that point has been reached here, today in America."
      >>> No, that's not helpful here. Sadly, a lot of people seem to feel this way. For some reason, a lot of American Christians don't seem to be able to handle life in the real world. We have the power to extend grace and show love, but we use such power to condemn sinners and justify building our own kingdom.

      "You want us to respect you? Then try respecting us. WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO USE THE WORD “MARRIED” TO DEFINE A HOMOSEXUAL UNION. Marriage defines what we do."
      >>> This is a key statement. Perhaps it was St. Augustine's obsession with his lust struggle that has contributed to the modern American Christian mindset that hinders civil discussion about sexual issues?

      "We are separate from you. Will you be separate from us?"
      >>> Wow, what an offer.

      "Who made you?"
      >>> God.

      "Who decided that you would have an easy or a difficult life?"
      >>> That would be me, primarily, along with those around me.

      "Who decided if you would be deaf or blind, handsome or ugly, die from cancer as a child or old age surrounded by family, be paralyzed by a drunk driver or escape injury from an enemies IED?
      >>> I'm not sure anyone "decided" these things. Most of these just happen in a cursed world.

      "If you can answer those questions and many others like them without blaming God, then there may be hope for you after all."
      >>> Well that's a relief... I thought my hope was in Jesus alone.

      "GOD DOES NOT CHANGE; HE IS NOT AN IDIOT BUT HE IS JEALOUS FOR YOU! God is not you."
      >>> Ok, fair enough. None of us is God. Good point to remember.

      "Now for those of us who are willing to accept God at His word and humbly choose to have faith in what He is doing, I suggest we go ahead and let the Gay community have their earthly, legal, civil unions."
      >>> If that's how you can rationalize things in your mind, then so be it. At least you're starting to talk about reasonable solutions.

      "Maybe some of them will change and will not spend an eternity in a place where God is totally absent, a place where there will be no beauty, peace, or love."
      >>> If that is how you think, then maybe you shouldn't care about the word "marriage" so much. If the gays are going to hell (using your reasoning), why not let them have some peace and rights here? The way I see it though, just as in Jesus' time, there are people outside the gate of Christendom who are entering into the kingdom of God before many religious people. In the end though, I think we Christians should stop trying to figure out who's going to heaven and just love.

      Just some thoughts from a straight Christian.

      • T Ward

        BrianK,

        Your thoughts sound like the thoughts of a cafeteria christian.

        • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

          T, is it not you who is picking out command #103 to be obeyed absolutely and choosing only some of the 613 commands? These commands were nailed to the cross and should now be understood in light of grace and the redemptive purpose of Jesus:

          http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

          • JB

            thecripplegate.com/shellfish-mixed-fabrics-and-homosexuality-picking-and-choosing/

      • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

        Thanks T, for seeing enough Christ-likeness to consider me a Christian.

        Speaking of the cafeteria part, maybe you could answer these Biblical questions:

        Should we stone our children when they are disobedient?
        Should we eat milk and meat together or separate?
        Should we give loans to fellow Christians with interest?
        Should we put tatoos on our body?

        If we don't understand the redemptive purpose of the law and the prophets, we miss most of what Jesus died for.

  • F. T.

    This is the real issue, for anyone. For all of us:
    Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
    John 3:3

    Get legally married or don't get legally married. But Jesus is the only Truth. We don't need rights, in the end, or any kind of happiness the world can bring. We need forgiveness of all sin, salvation, eternal life. Jesus lived the perfect life while we were still sinners and took the just wrath that we deserve so that we can be forgiven. He is the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. He is living water, the answer to all our seeking, our sorrow. He is Lord and King and He opens His arms to everyone. There is no sin too great for Him. He died so that you might live and now yearns for you to turn to him and be born again. Hallelujah!

  • Kim Duffy

    Ex-bi, I've agreed with you on many points except for your characterization as extreme those who believe that homosexuals are trying to "turn out your preschooler and have him marching with a rainbow flag."

    To believe that is not a stretch. "And Tango Makes Three" was written for the preschool-3rd grade set and it's been forced into the education curriculums and school libraries.

    Indoctrination is done from the start in public schools. In every way, schools deny God's existence and through THEORIES like the big bang, evolution, and the present as true the false perverted philosophies of what sex is and should be in so-called "health classes."

    The truth is that public school teachers preach from the pulpit of the church of humanism, the religion of homosexuals.

    In fact, if you pray for discernment, you will see that homosexuality has been introduced in EVERY form of secular entertainment for all ages as well as in commercials. Look at children's TV shows on Sprout or Nick and it's easy to see and hear.

    Do you have kids? I never watched kid's shows or paid attention to these things before I had kids, so I didn't realize until then and now I can barely watch TV or movies.

    The only example I can think of, because it's the ONLY TV I've watched all year is the Olympics. The Olympics should be something that families can watch together, so I started watching with my 3-yr-old and 2 1/2-yr-old. Unfortunately, I had to turn off the TV because of all the commercials for the TV show "The New Normal." The normalization of homosexuality is forced into the minds of all people, but I believe the young are targeted.

    As NAMBLA's long-standing motto ("sex before eight – or it’s too late") clearly shows it is important to teach a child when they're young. A Biblical truth ("Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." -Proverbs 22:6) that the homosexual agenda seems to grasp better than most.

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      "The truth is that public school teachers preach from the pulpit of the church of humanism, the religion of homosexuals."
      >>> I suspect that the teachers I know would be highly offended by this remark. I respect most public school teachers for attempting to present facts (as known at the time) and let children decide for themselves how to live.

      "...homosexuality has been introduced in EVERY form of secular entertainment for all ages as well as in commercials."
      >>> You are probably correct on this point. And the result? LGBT people are still a small minority of people. I've seen most of this supposed homosexual-"media", and it has not changed my heterosexual orientation one bit.

      "The normalization of homosexuality is forced into the minds of all people..."
      >>> No, not the normalization, but merely the acceptance and tolerance.

      • Kim Duffy

        They would only be offended if they, like you, did not understand the definition of "theory" as opposed to "fact."

        Your orientation hasn't been changed, but you are an adult.

        Acceptance of sin is not acceptable. There is a big difference between condoning something and tolerating. I tolerate and I love homosexuals, but I do not condone their actions.

        • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

          "Your orientation hasn't been changed, but you are an adult."
          >>> Maybe I misunderstood your time period... I was speaking about the past 40+ years of my consumption of mass-media in some form. Plus, having 4 kids, I've spent the past 17 years watching quite a bit of children's programs... What time period are you speaking about? And by the way, did you just imply that an adult's orientation can't be changed?

          "Acceptance of sin is not acceptable."
          >>> I wouldn't want to stand before God with those words. You condemn yourself by your own speech.

          • Kim Duffy

            Media today is vastly different than it was when you and I grew up. If you haven't noticed, I would say that points to how compromised your judgment is.

            As far as to whether orientation can be changed, isn't the whole homosexual argument that it can't? Do you really want to go down that road with me? Because, YES, I do believe it can be changed. I would hope that by adulthood one's judgment would be more sound than to turn away from God though.

            I haven't condemned myself by saying that sin is unacceptable. God says that and so we stand condemned until we accept salvation through Christ. The wages for sin are still death, but it is through Jesus' substitutionary death that we are saved. We are saved by grace through faith in who He is and what He taught.

            I'm working on my response to your video, by the way. :)

    • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

      Kim I am not denying the radical agenda of the politically charged homosexual community. I am saying that it may not be a fair representation of the community as a whole. Just like it is unfair to characterize every Christian church as a Westboro Baptist ChuRch. I am not denying that there is push by liberal media, hollywood execs, and many in sEcular society at large who are not only pushing to normalize but to impose it as the preferred OR superior. Yes those people exist and that agenda exists. That doesn't mean that it is he face of everyone in the communtiy. Please don't think I am advocating at all or weakening my position. It is sin, and needs to be called what it is. We do not need to change our message. Just lets be careful that we don't bear false witness against an entire group for the sake of some.

  • Pingback: O Homossexual Não é o Novo Negro – Voddie Baucham | Portal Tailândia | Portal Tailândia

  • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

    Ginny, my responses to your comment above:

    "BrianK, just suppose that our nation as a whole would decide to allow homosexuals to legally marry. Would God be in agreement with that man-made law, and, therefore, view them as married?"
    >>> I'm sure there is much in this world God does not agree with. That is why he spoke so much about love and grace and truth when he visited us :)

    "It is ridiculous to say that Christians are causing homosexuals to sin simply because we KNOW that God does NOT allow them to be in a married state. The Bible calls their homosexual lifestyle sin."
    >>> Ah so we just "know it"? I've read the Bible (yes, all of it). Where does the Bible call "homosexual lifestyle sin"? That statement is fraught with inconsistency.

    "He could surround Himself by sinners without the possibility of being led into sin. We cannot! It is imperative that, as often as possible, we go out at least two-by-two, for accountability as well as for protection."
    >>> So we Christians are supposed to live in wall-off, security-enabled, barbed-wire fences, and only venture out into the real world with a buddy to keep us safe?!? Where is THAT in the Bible?

    >>> I think Jesus and the Holy Spirit equip our hearts and minds with enough "armor" to protect us so that we can interact with anyone, anywhere. Keep in mind, when Jesus "went out into the bad world", he had many disciples with him (hundreds of disciples in fact). They went into the world too.

    • Kim Duffy

      BrianK, You claimed to know the verses that refer to homosexuality, but apparently you don't. Here is where God clearly calls homosexuality and all other forms of sexual immorality sins:

      "The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

      “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

      “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

      “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

      "‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

      “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

      “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

      “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

      "‘Do not defile yourselves in ANY of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you BECAME DEFILED. Even the land was defiled; SO I PUNISHED IT FOR ITS SIN, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."

      To argue from your extra-Biblical and non-Biblical beliefs is one thing, that's just you leaning on your own understanding. To deny what is plain in the text is another thing entirely. God clearly calls homosexuality a sin.

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      I think you just condemned a lot of Christian folk...

      Although I see a complex issue, I could accept your blanket statement: "God clearly calls homosexuality a sin."

      My main contention is: What then? Let's assume homosexuality is a sin. What does that mean? How should an LGBT person live? How would we Christians preach the gospel to them?

      • Kim Duffy

        You preach the gospel to a homosexual the same way you would to every single other person on this planet:

        1) Tell them God loves them
        2) Tell them everybody sins and the sins need to be paid for. When they claim they don't sin, you point them to God's word to see His definition of sin. When they accept this and acknowledge that they are sinners, you can move on.
        3) Tell them only Jesus can pay for sins
        4) Tell them all they have to do is accept salvation and believe that God is true.

        It's not our effort that saves us, it is grace. With grace comes the strength from God to overcome sin, but the first step is faith.

        • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

          And that legalistic process is exactly what is wrong with Christendom in the West. That is precisely why we have 30,000 plus Christian denominations: one denomination for each tribe of sinner, each tribe practicing their own version of the hamster wheel called "repentance".

          Grace has nothing to do with being a crutch or helper when we fail. Grace is the restraining, magnificent power of God to heal a broken world.

        • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

          Kim,

          Your step-by-step process is what I used to believe too. I call it now the "ladder of self-atonement." You list 4 steps, but unknowingly, you introduce about a 30 step ladder to the person hearing this.

          Here's how my conversations typically go:

          First I listen to someone and try to understand their understanding. Usually the conversation will eventually come to something God-related or religion-related. Most often, the conversation goes toward morality, and how we aren't good enough to live up to some standard.

          And usually a form of the self-atonement ladder comes up, with God at the top of the ladder. At that point, I tell them what Jesus did to the ladder. Jesus tore down the ladder and threw it at the foot of the cross. Jesus' furious love on the cross says (like God said to Job) "I love you. Take everything, but on my child do not lay a finger! Don't you dare touch my son or daughter; he's mine; she's mine."

          The gospel is never about repentance of sins, but about forgiveness of sins. On the cross Jesus says "Forgive them" and "Today you will be with me in paradise". Jesus says "Come to me and rest". The gospel is grace. The gospel is entering into God's rest. The gospel is the Spirit (Holy God) willing to live in the heart of sinners and write his holy law on our hearts without the condemnation of disobedience.

          Then that same grace begins to transform us. The Spirit is our guide and teacher. Grace transforms. I see no verse that speaks of the gospel as conforming to morality, but many verses that speak of the gospel as the transforming engine to live a life of love for fellow humans.

          The gospel is that you can get off the hamster wheel! Understand this gospel, and suddenly all of Apostle Paul's words make sense and the apparent contradictions in the Bible melt away. Understand this gospel and you will know why a Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees would be stoned by other Pharisees. And you'll know more about why Jesus was hated so vividly by Pharisees.

  • Kim Duffy

    BrianK, I wasn't bringing up Genesis because I wanted you to gain insight from it. I was bringing it up because you clearly don't have faith that the Bible is true and I want you to to start over and really believe that Genesis is real. You keep saying that we're just supposed to learn redemptive ideas from the OT as if it wasn't legitimate history. To you, it seems, that the Bible is just a series of fables. I believe that everything from beginning to end actually happened.

    Yes, I am saying that that Lev 18 applied to those who hadn't received the law. If it didn't, why would they have been punished because of those sins? God's actions and words say they applied in Lev 18: 24-25.

    Cain was punished for the sin of murdering his brother before the law was given that "thou shalt not kill." If sin didn't exist before the law, why was there death before it? Why did God warn Cain that sin desired to have him and that he must rule over it? (Gen 4:6-7)

    When Sarah joined Pharoah's harem, God punished Pharoah with plagues because she was married (Gen 12:17). When Sarah married Abimelech, his house was punished when God "closed every womb in it (Gen 20:18) before the law was given that "thou shall not commit adultery."

    Sodom and Gomorrah were also punished before the law was given.

    Moral laws are eternal because they go against the nature of God. Ceremonial laws were temporary for the purpose of differentiating God from false gods.

    At creation, everything was good. Things became not good after the fall and have progressively gotten worse since. Incest was part of the original design, so at that time, it was also good. However, as degradation of the creation continued, there are ways in which things became not good. Incest now causes diseases, death and people abuse their positions of authority to force or coerce children into incest "causing little ones to sin" (which God hates- Mark 9:42). Incest has become something that goes against God's nature so it is not good.

    If you think that homosexuality became good, can you tell me of any other thing that God called a sin that you think became good?

    You need to understand the definition of good. God is good and everything about His nature is good. Whatever is contrary is sin.

    Consider this:
    "Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." (Rom 7:13)

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      "BrianK, I wasn't bringing up Genesis because I wanted you to gain insight from it."
      >>> That's rather odd... I should gain insight?

      "I was bringing it up because you clearly don't have faith that the Bible is true and I want you to to start over and really believe that Genesis is real."
      >>> I believe the Bible is true. I believe the events in the Bible did happen.

      "You keep saying that we're just supposed to learn redemptive ideas from the OT as if it wasn't legitimate history. To you, it seems, that the Bible is just a series of fables. I believe that everything from beginning to end actually happened."
      >>> I believe almost everything happened (Revelations hasn't quite fully happened yet :) Yes, I contend we should learn redemptive truth from the OT. I agree that the OT is legitimate history, but I do not agree that it should be taught as a history lesson. There is much more about history that we should learn outside the Bible. A lot of the Bible has indeed been verified by archaeology, especially within the past 20 years.

      "Yes, I am saying that that Lev 18 applied to those who hadn't received the law. If it didn't, why would they have been punished because of those sins? God's actions and words say they applied in Lev 18: 24-25."
      >>> Good point. There is an "absolute morality" that I believe did exist in Eden before the fall, and probably does exist in heaven.

      "Cain was punished for the sin of murdering his brother before the law was given that "thou shalt not kill." If sin didn't exist before the law, why was there death before it? Why did God warn Cain that sin desired to have him and that he must rule over it? (Gen 4:6-7)"
      >>> I'm not arguing this point. I agree that sin existed before, during and after the temporary, foreshadow called the Law was given to Moses.

      "When Sarah joined Pharoah's harem, God punished Pharoah with plagues because she was married (Gen 12:17). When Sarah married Abimelech, his house was punished when God "closed every womb in it (Gen 20:18) before the law was given that "thou shall not commit adultery." Sodom and Gomorrah were also punished before the law was given."
      >>> Agreed.

      "Moral laws are eternal because they go against the nature of God. Ceremonial laws were temporary for the purpose of differentiating God from false gods."
      >>> So you advocate separating the Law into 3 parts: moral, ceremonial and social? I am currently working through Jesus' sermon on the mount, which corresponds to this grouping on my lambheartedlion.org blog. I advocate not splitting the law into 3 parts, and contend that the law must be kept all together. Either it all was nailed to the cross, or none of it was.

      At creation, everything was good. Things became not good after the fall and have progressively gotten worse since.

      "Incest was part of the original design, so at that time, it was also good."
      >>> I agree.

      "However, as degradation of the creation continued, there are ways in which things became not good. Incest now causes diseases, death and people abuse their positions of authority to force or coerce children into incest "causing little ones to sin" (which God hates- Mark 9:42)."
      >>> I agree up to here.

      "Incest has become something that goes against God's nature so it is not good."
      >>> I don't understand this thinking.

      "If you think that homosexuality became good, can you tell me of any other thing that God called a sin that you think became good?"
      >>> That's not my argument (and I hope that's not what I implied somewhere). Homosexuality didn't suddenly become good. All sexuality is broken. My contention is that all people, HGLB or T, need to find a better identity than sex.

      "You need to understand the definition of good. God is good and everything about His nature is good. Whatever is contrary is sin."
      >>> Fair enough. I can accept that.

      Consider this: "Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." (Rom 7:13)
      >>> Good point. Romans is really tough to pull out of context like that. Keep reading, though, and consider the conclusion of Paul's thought in Romans 7:25 "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Paul sees himself as a slave to the law of God and the law of sin.

      >>> Kim, you and T Ward and many in Christendom today have stopped here. You've proclaimed to the world that the Christian gospel is about grace to fill in the gaps of our trying to fight against our slavery to God's law and to sin. You've proclaimed that if you just "try", God will accept you. The world sees through this and says hogwash! (and rightly so). We are all in the same boat. You and I and all the gay people, are all sinking. The hamster treadmill you proclaim (sin/repent/sin/repent) is not what Paul was proclaiming. You've understood only part of his message.

      >>> What is Paul's amazing declaration just after chapter 7? Chapter 8! Romans 8 "1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."

  • Kim Duffy

    Brian K, God made distinctions between laws. If you want to put them all in the same basket and say that none of them apply anymore, that's your choice and contrary to what the Bible says.

    Paul didn't say that he was still a slave to sin, in fact, he said "So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir." You aren't a slave to sin, not because you no longer have to obey God's laws, but because God has the power to help you overcome the temptation.

    I'm signing out of here. I have my own little flock to raise and can't spend any more time debating. I sincerely hope you will reread your Bible and trust it without waiting for outside sources to confirm it's veracity before you're willing to proclaim it as true.

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      Kim,

      I'm sorry to hear that. I am open to continue the dialogue. I call myself a Bible learner these days, after calling myself a Bible teacher for 20+ years and dictating my morality to others. I now want to understand and learn (though I am very careful not to accept everything I hear).

      Interesting note: If you are indeed a woman pastor, how do you remain consistent with your "sin logic" on the LGBT issue when talking about the roles of women in the church?

      In my view, I think the gospel of Jesus liberates women to be pastors. But in the "goes against nature" view, most men in Christendom would condemn your role as pastor/teacher.

  • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

    Ginny,

    "I have grown weary of the infiltration of this fallen culture into our lives, especially when it sucks my children into its evil, powerful grip! ... How weary I have grown of those who have all of the answers and none of the problems (those who have either zero children or young children) accusing me of failing as a parent."

    >>> I hear your pain. We have four children. I appreciate your love as a parent.

  • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

    Brian,

    It is obvious that while we'd essentially agree on the nature of the gospel we would disagree on quite a few other things. You are correct that the gospel is not depedent upon our obedience to the law. Nevertheless, obedience is a fruit of the gospel. (Read the book of 1 John) The scriptures declare that he who makes a practice of sinning is not of Christ nor have they known Him, but are if the wicked one. Those who make a habitual practice of sinning are said not to be of Christ. Christ fulfilling of the law did not make that legal which was illegal. Christ satisfies the penalty of sin to redeem the sinner and make the sinner as sinless, but Christ doesn't redeem sin and make sin sinless. Homosexuality along with other sins have not lost their sinfulness. The grace and kindness of God draws men to repentance from sins; not denial of sin. This is the crux of the issue. Is homosexuality sin? Indeed. If it is surely sin then it must be acknowledged as such and repented of. We are not saying that you must become perfect to be saved, but Jesus says concerning the 18 in Saloam that unless we repent than we shall likewise perish. The grace of God draws men to repentance. Many liberal theologians pervert the grace of God into lasciviousness. The same Paul that taught in depth about the grace of God also speaks in depth about the outworking of saving faith. "Should we sin that grace may abound? May it never be." And John often called the apostle love says this "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil." Now a reasonable question is what constitutes a practice of sinning? Is it three sins a day, or 300? Is it willful sin or unintentional? Reasonable question indeed but not important for this conversation. John writes that if we confess our sins the Lord is faithful to forgive us of our sins. If we deny our sins then we have rejected the need for God's mercy. Homosexuality is sin. Period. There is no arguing that away, but God offers grace and mercy to all who would seek Him if we would merely seek Him.

    • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

      Hi Ex:

      "It is obvious that while we'd essentially agree on the nature of the gospel we would disagree on quite a few other things."
      >>> I'm not so sure about that. I am finding that the definition of the gospel is a the heart of the matter.

      "You are correct that the gospel is not depedent upon our obedience to the law. Nevertheless, obedience is a fruit of the gospel. (Read the book of 1 John)"
      >>> Agreed. 1 John, however, does not undo the nailing of the written code to the cross.

      "The scriptures declare that he who makes a practice of sinning is not of Christ nor have they known Him, but are if the wicked one. Those who make a habitual practice of sinning are said not to be of Christ."
      >>> It seems to me you are paraphrasing something from 1 John 3?

      "Christ fulfilling of the law did not make that legal which was illegal."
      >>> This sounds like human wisdom. Unless you have a Scripture reference?

      "Christ satisfies the penalty of sin to redeem the sinner and make the sinner as sinless, but Christ doesn't redeem sin and make sin sinless."
      >>> Good-sounding paraphrasing again, but does not sound like the gospel to me.

      "Homosexuality along with other sins have not lost their sinfulness. The grace and kindness of God draws men to repentance from sins; not denial of sin."
      >>> Could you show me where the Bible expresses the gospel as "repent from sins" or "repent of sin"?

      "This is the crux of the issue. Is homosexuality sin? Indeed."
      >>> You have wrestled with your sexual orientation and concluded that homosexuality is wrong (sin). If that is the crux of the issue, then you are preaching and have believed that moralism is the gospel.

      "If it is surely sin then it must be acknowledged as such and repented of."
      >>> How exactly do you repent of being gay? I can see how you might repent of being "bi", but how about the LG or T people?

      "We are not saying that you must become perfect to be saved,"
      >>> I am. And the Bible does. Jesus commanded "Be perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Either you must be 100% perfect to have God dwell in you and enter eternal life in heaven, or you must 100% depend on the grace of God.

      " but Jesus says concerning the 18 in Saloam that unless we repent than we shall likewise perish."
      >>> Good point. 1 John (which you referenced above) speaks of one sin that leads to death, and a people whose sin does not lead to death. Also, there are five problems I see in humanity and described in the Bible: sin, death, law, curse and brokenness. Not all "falling short" is sin. And not all "bad things" are caused by sin (John 9:2). A person born with a homosexual nature was not born that way because of sin.

      "...Now a reasonable question is what constitutes a practice of sinning? Is it three sins a day, or 300? Is it willful sin or unintentional? Reasonable question indeed but not important for this conversation. John writes that if we confess our sins the Lord is faithful to forgive us of our sins. If we deny our sins then we have rejected the need for God's mercy."
      >>> You just proof-texted the idea of a Christian hamster wheel of sin/confess/sin/confess...I got off that wheel and threw it away.

      "Homosexuality is sin. Period. There is no arguing that away, but God offers grace and mercy to all who would seek Him if we would merely seek Him."
      >>> Ok, let's accept this as a base line: Homosexuality is sin. (I don't fully agree, but let's use this as a starting point and conisder that I do agree.)

      >>> What happens next? What choice does a gay person have? Celibacy for life? Suicide? Loneliness forever? What do we do with the laws in numerous countries that say we should kill the gays and/or lock them up in prison for life?

      • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

        BrianK,

        You responded:

        "I'm not so sure about that. I am finding that the definition of the gospel is a the heart of the matter."
        I think RC Sproul sums up what I understand to be the gospel.
        "The Gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the imputed righteousness of another. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God."

        "You have wrestled with your sexual orientation and concluded that homosexuality is wrong (sin). If that is the crux of the issue, then you are preaching and have believed that moralism is the gospel"
        By the issue I was referring to the dialouge between the homosexual community and the Christian community. If we were discussing politics and you insisted upon calling capitalism socialism, and I was referring to capitalism as capitalism; it would be difficult to have any meaningful dialogue without a common definition.

        "How exactly do you repent of being gay? I can see how you might repent of being "bi", but how about the LG or T people?"
        Are saying then that the B is not equally as legitimate of an orientation as the LGT? I will tell you from experience that it is just as deeply engrained as the LGT. Were it not for the regeneration of the Holy Spirit I would not believe it to be possible.

        " A person born with a homosexual nature was not born that way because of sin."
        If homosexuality is not a result of the fallen nature then surely we would expect to have seen it in creation. (Perhaps this is more human reason , but this reasoning is consistent with the scriptures).

        "What happens next? What choice does a gay person have? Celibacy for life? Suicide? Loneliness forever?"
        I would suppose that what happens next is different things for different people. Some people will struggle for their entire lives with these desires. I now others who have been saved, and remain single and celibate, others who have pursued or are pursuing dating, and Others who are now happily married to a member of the opposite sex. To think that God can't alter the will and change the desires of the heart is to deny the power of regeneration.

        • http://www.knet6.com BrianK

          Thank you for your thoughts, ExBi. You are making sense to me, and I appreciate learning from your words. Here are my thoughts on your thoughts:

          "I think RC Sproul sums up what I understand to be the gospel."
          >>> You just made my point! RC's words you quoted are a very good summary of the doctrine called penal substitution. That doctrine is correct. RC's words, however, define only half of the gospel! It is good news that Jesus died and rose again. However, if we do not combine that with the rest of the good news, the second half, we have something that ends up being no gospel at all.

          >>> Such "one-part gospel" presentations have made it nearly impossible to distinguish between the Mormon gospel and the Christian gospel. A haze has settled onto Christendom, and RC's words describe why.

          >>> Mr. Sproul and a WHOLE lot of Christendom has missed the power of the gospel. It is difficult to find someone since Spurgeon who understood the gospel and articulated the gospel so correctly.

          >>> What is the gospel? The gospel has two parts and we won't find the abundant, effervescent, all-surpassing joy, faith, hope, love, holiness, justice that we long for until we know both tenants of the gospel.

          >>> What was Apostle Paul's gospel? He wrote: "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained." (2 Timothy 2:8-9)

          >>> Paul and Jesus built their message on both tenants: 1) Jesus was raised from the dead and 2) Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (such as by being descended from David)

          >>> Penal substitution, though correct and good, cannot stand alone as the gospel.

          "To think that God can't alter the will and change the desires of the heart is to deny the power of regeneration."
          >>> Agreed. I would also say that to think God *will always* alter the will and change a person's orientation is to deny a person's identity. And I contend that subduing one's orientation to conform to society or to some church's moral system would be causing violence to one's soul.

          • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

            "Agreed. I would also say that to think God *will always* alter the will and change a person's orientation is to deny a person's identity."
            Response: I would agree that conversion and sanctfication occurs differently in different individuals. Paul's appeared to be a radical conversion. As soon as he was confronted by Christ there was an almost immediate transformation,whereas James ,the brother of Jesus, probably had a more gradual conversion.

            I would disagree with the notion that orientation necessarily defines identity. As a born again believer my identity is found in Christ. I am being conformed into the image of Christ. I am not Jose, the former bisexual current heterosexual. Those are things about me but they do not define me.

      • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

        You ask, "How exactly do you repent of being gay?"
        Being gay is not the problem. Sin in general is the prbolem. Chances are homoesxuality isn't ones worse or only sin. Idolatry, pride, drunkeness, lasciviousness, greed, etc. these all exists within the same heart. What good is it to merely say ,"Let me put away this thing." As if God isn't looking at the sinfulness of ALL sin.To the homosexual I don't just say repent of your homosexuality I say confess that through and through your entire being is sinful. Repent and place your trust in the only One who saves.

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black « Simul Justus Et Peccator

  • http://www.knet6.com BrianK

    "Are saying then that the B is not equally as legitimate of an orientation as the LGT?"
    >>> No, I'm not saying that. I'm just trying to understand. "Bi" seems to be a confusion of orientations. Being part of the "H" group, I just can't fathom such confusion :)

    >>> By the way, it is clear that the full spectrum of human sexuality is broken. Hetero- is just as broken, if not more than, homo-. I contend that we need the healing and power of the gospel for all of us, for the "LGBTH" of humanity.

    • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

      "No, I'm not saying that. I'm just trying to understand. "Bi" seems to be a confusion of orientations. Being part of the "H" group, I just can't fathom such confusion :)"
      Response: I would say it is similar to being an omnivore. An omnivore isn't confused it just is. An omnivore has an appetite for both meat and plants. Such is the way of bisexuality.

      "By the way, it is clear that the full spectrum of human sexuality is broken. Hetero- is just as broken, if not more than, homo-. I contend that we need the healing and power of the gospel for all of us, for the "LGBTH" of humanity."
      Response: Agreed

      • Ex Bisexual(Saved by Grace)

        Good convo Brian.

        • http://www.priestlynation.com BrianK

          Yes, thank you. I appreciate your thought process. Just a side note, I used to engage in these kinds of discussions to "dictate the truth". I now participate to learn and grow. I don't want anyone to follow me or adopt my beliefs (the world would be very messed up if that happened :)

  • Pingback: O Homossexual Não é o Novo Negro – Voddie Baucham « Quaminical Oficial

  • Pingback: O Homossexual Não é o Novo Negro

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black « The Vineyard Ministry

  • Peter Davies

    It actually states in the Bible that it's ok to have slaves "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

    Now I don't believe that "Gay is the new black" because you can not compare oppression, once you start comparing different groups of peoples struggles and oppression you truly have lost the war before the battle has even started, you take away the severity of the problems and turn it into a "who was treated worse" battle, which is idiotic, both the LGBT Community and the Black community have had horrific things done to them, both still struggle today to be accepted in certain places, I am only 22 years old and I can already see the problem with society these days, we allow an Old Religious book to dominate our lives, we condemn people and use faith as a Weapon, both the Black Community and the LGBT have been attacked by religion, but we are not talking about religion here, we are talking about Marriage a completely different thing, if you want to get married in front of the God then that is your choice, as a Human being that is your right to be able to practice your faith and marry someone you love but that does not give those the right to condemn an entire group of people who may not even want to marry in the eyes of the lord, I have met loads of gay people and not one of them has told me that they want to be married in a Church, they just want to be treated as equals and as Humans, There is nobody in this world who has any right whether it's in their faith or not to tell another Human being " You can not do that because it says in this book that it's an abomination" The book which you speak so highly of also defines eating shellfish and cutting your hair and shaving your beard as an abomination. I am a young man and I support Equal rights, I do not support LGBT rights or Civil rights, I support EQUALITY because like Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

  • albert

    Many cultural attitudes are afraid of his true feelings hidden, censored for fear of what they think friends, family members, cousins, community religious denominations, and european,oriental, African, creeds.In Europe and South America, it is very normal to express homosexual feelings.But there are many black and Muslim people in africa who are afraid of expressing their true homosexual feelings of attraction to other men. White,brown, yellow,pink black feelings will learn to love homosexuality, freedom for diversity

  • Pingback: Homo/phobia/fascism « The Home and the World

  • BILLYWINGARTENSON

    this guy remidns me of the time when the traditional definition of marriage in the USA excluded black people.

    And during the battle to end anti miscengneation laws, inter-racial marriage bans were justified to protect the sanctity of the white race.

    And he conveniently forgets that Jews , Quakers etc and other citizens in the USA can marry - and they dont believe in Christ.

    Welcome to the world of the victimized becoming the new VICTIMIZER.

    He seems to side with the worst of worst in America, and becomes one of them re gay people.

  • Pingback: To the Bethren in The Gospel Coalition: Where art “The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc.”? | National Association of Hard Complementarians

  • Pingback: Christians Following Jesus » Gay Is Not the New Black – The Gospel Coalition Blog | Christians Following Jesus

  • Pingback: (tw: for religious homophobia, stereotypes, etc.) Gay Is Not the New Black – The Gospel Coalition Blog |

  • http://www.godcamedown.com Christ Centered Teaching

    http://wp.me/p1Lr49-NZ
    DNA proves people are not born gay.
    Homosexuality,bisexuality,and transgender are all behavioral choices.
    Race is biological.
    Behavior is not.
    We are responsible for our choices.
    Behavior is not a basis for race or laws afforded genuine race.

  • http://www.considerthecross.blogspot.com/ Phil Mollohan

    After reading your arguments, I'm thinkng one could also say "I have the right to join the church, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the church so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to follow Christ." Thanks for the bold article and your faithfulness to the truth.

  • Jake

    By laying the foundation of this argument on Christian faith automatically strikes a crippling blow to it. For those of us who are not Christian,nor follow any religion, attempting to persuade others that gay marriage through citing of scripture is folly. Plus the argument of devolution to the absurd is always a last resort for someone who thinks their argument isn't strong enough on its own merits. So unless you're simply trying to rally like-minded people to your cause, you've done nothing but push me away from trying to understand your side of the argument.

  • JKelly10

    May all God fearing Christians remember and share this quote with the world:
    "It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way".....and leave the rest to the LORD.

  • http://glancingout.com Matt

    While the author makes a nice attempt at sounding academic, there are multiple holes in his arguments. First of all, the crux of his entire argument seems to be, "Since there are biological differences between homosexuals and being a different race, there are no similarities regarding their struggle for equal rights." When people invoke that analogy - between civil rights for African Americans and gay rights, they aren't saying being gay is exactly the same as being black pre-civil rights. All they are saying is that there are similarities in the struggle and the arguments against providing that group of people rights (Biblical references, tradition, shame and identity politics, etc.).

    "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

    Haha - this quote is like saying, "An interracial couple can get married, just not to each other". It demonstrates a true disconnect regarding the reality that gay people live in. They can't just 'turn off' their gayness and marry an opposite sex person. THEY AREN'T ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX. Once you religious types get over the 'ickyness' of gay sex, we can move on and debate more important issues facing society.

  • Sam

    Any behaviour or practice that if made normative for all people would inevitably lead to the cessation of the human race should be seriously questioned.

  • Nicole

    Ah, I am overcome with conviction and have seen the love of Christ in this post! I have read the words of Christ where he promised to heal and forgive my gay. Please, how do I get to this "Grace" Baptist Church?

  • Adrienne

    This article is unconvincing. Voddie writes: "The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice."

    But actually, race is NOT biological and there is no genetic basis for race! Furthermore, racial classification in the United Staes has historically been based on traceable ancestry, or "one drop" (in a figurative sense), rather than skin color. Thus, one need only have traceable Black ancestry or identify oneself as Black--and NOT a certain phenotype--in order to be Black. That said, if you think that there is no biological marker for homosexuality, then the same would have to apply for Blackness--that is, unless you think we all look alike...

  • Casey C

    Awesome article! I'm grateful that there are organizations such as the gospel coalition which stand firmly for correct principles. Keep up the good work.

  • Paul

    "An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8"

    This is an outright lie. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman can "interbreed." Just because they do not have the attraction does not mean that they do not have the ability. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman are still a man and a woman, both with reproductive organs; organs that do not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual reproductive parts.

  • Don

    Always thought it interesting that the supporters of homosexual rights assert that their orientation cannot be changed in the same manner one's gender cannot be changed. And then they proceed to assert that men who undergo certain medical procedures and therapies are now women and vice versa. So, in reality, what they are saying is that with therapy homosexuals really could be happy and straight.

  • sun777

    No one is born racially neutral. Some people are born sexually neutral i.e. eunuchs or so called asexual people, therefore sexual orientation issues are not objectively equal to racial issues. And to add a bit of spice: If I was being persecuted for being black there would be no place to hide, if it was because of sexual orientation I could atleast be in the closet.

    • Adrienne

      "If I was being persecuted for being black there would be no place to hide, if it was because of sexual orientation I could atleast be in the closet."

      How then do you explain "passing"? Race is actually quite malleable and varies spatio-temporally. Maybe you need to travel more to see how racial classification changes depending on context and thus how one can, in fact, "hide" from being any race...

  • Keith Batts

    Brother, and I mean it from the bottom of my heart, well put and well written. We as Christians need to remind ourselves what happens to a nation when they leave the presence of God. It's there in the Old Testament for us. I'm a firm believer that God established the United States so we could worship Him, but if we walk away I also believe he can send us into "captivity."

    Thank you again for your words. May God continue to bless your words of encouragement.

  • Pingback: #SOTR Wednesday Headlines: Gay is NOT the New Black Edition | Stacy on the Right

  • Lorelei Eddy

    For millennia, the most basic building block of social order has been one man and one woman in a stable, lifetime commitment. It's current failure rate in the U.S. doesn't change that fact, nor does it change the fact that each future generation is served best by having both mothers AND fathers. In all the shouting for rights, I wonder who is protecting children and their right to grow up seeing both sides of the genetic coin at least try learn to live peacefully together.

    Being a person of respect, love, and forgiveness, Jesus told those that choose to do wrongly "neither do I condemn you," AND "go and sin no more." To encourage what law and nature agree is wrong is not love but license. To re-structure the foundation of society is to give license to its collapse, and I can't in good conscience agree to that.

  • Adam

    I'd like to point out that while the author claims a lot of his points are logical and have sound reasoning, that this article contains a lot of fallacies. Might not hurt to give it a second read through with a more critical eye.

  • anna west

    point blank you cannot choose your skin color nor your gender but you choose who you screw and have a relationship therefore the gay is the new black let alone is acceptable is not valid. being gay is a choice not genetic.

  • drdysentery

    Genetics do not determine a person's race. Race is a social construct not something you can verify using a blood test. Human ancestry can be traced using DNA but a person who is white looks no different than someone who is black on a genetic level. To say the contrary is to espouse the worst kind of phrenological science that was used as the basis of human oppression for the larger part of American history.

  • live830

    While I disagree with the phrase "gay is the new black," there are valid similarities that this article chooses not to address. Most offensively, it pushes an anti-gay agenda. Within a decade, you will be so ashamed to have written this. You are standing on the wrong side of history. I leave you with this relevant picture.

    http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years.jpg

    • Gregg

      Which history are you talking about - the last 20 years, or the last 2,000? Sorry - but you are the one who will see one day that you stood on the wrong side of this issue.

    • Tim

      Actually Live830, I am sorry - but YOU are the one who will see one day that you stood on the wrong side of this issue, not only before God, but when the civilization collapses just like every other culture which has accepted sexual deviation as the norm. Ask the Romans, or the Assyrians or Babylonians. Time will surely tell. I pray for your repentance.

  • Pingback: Former Republican Senator Offends Blacks over Gary Marriage Comment

  • Josh

    three-way union and beyond is only a matter of time:
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/world/americas/brazil-polyfaithful-union

  • http://blessedinhomemaking.com alix

    Amen!

  • http://robertanthonydavis.com Rob Davis
  • ron

    white black who cares? it's discrimination,,,

  • Cayte

    Great article! Does anybody else see the irony in fighting for a "natural right" by demanding they be given a "license"? :P

    Legal definition of Natural Rights: Political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights.
    Legal definition of license: The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort.

    Marriage is a right by God and not a privilege of the State! Homosexual marriage wouldn't even be an issue if we didn't allow the government to control marriages.

  • Jennifer

    Thank you so much for your thoughtful article. I couldn't agree more. It seems to me that comparing gay "rights" to other civil rights struggles that our nation has gone through in the past, cheapen those struggles.

  • http://www.godcamedown.com Christ Centered Teaching

    The issue at hand hinges on the decades old assumption asserted by the American Psychiatric Association that people are born gay and therefore have no choice and responsibilities for being homosexual.A/Genetic tests have been unable to find such evidences to support the American Psychiatric Association assertion.
    APA has formally admitted a genetic link to homosexuality has not been found despite much searching.
    A similar assumption about Native Americans and near 50% alcoholism made many assume a genetic link was to blame. No genetic link has been found to shift cause from sociological pressures to biological predisposition.(2006)

  • Pingback: The Christian’s approach to homosexual marriage | Moments of Inspiration; a blog by Russell Korets

  • Bob Muery

    When a man who loves Christ uses the power of reason and logic given him by our Lord to explain why and why not things should or shouldn't be it is a powerful and compelling action. I read some of the replies previous to mine. Those that have used words to put down Voddie's arguments are missing the point completely. This article goes beyond "..is not the New Black" We are all I believe part of the human race. As a member of God's creation this article goes beyond any issue of color, it gives clarity to an otherwise intentionally twisted logic applied by those who want to lend credence to an agenda of changing a natural order of things to fit personal behavior. THANK YOU VODDIE FOR SPEAKING FOR ALL BELIEVERS AND EVEN THOSE NON BELIEVERS WHO ARE FRUSTRATED BY THE ATTACK ON MARRIAGE, SOMETHING THAT UPLIFTS AND PROTECTS. I have been married almost 40 years to the same woman, we have grandchildren and can clearly see God's marvelous plan in action. Albeit with all the challenges it brings. God Bless You brother and may you continue to enrich the world with your God given gifts and talents.

  • Tim

    I can see the title of the next sick liberal article... "Pedophilia is the new homosexuality". Keep it classy America.

  • http://FB Walter Aho

    We do have freedom of choice....Barabas was chosen to live and Jesus to die. Do not confuse love with lust. I can love my dog but I won't have sex with it or marry it. Let this country and each individual choose what they will, the Romans did and the Empire rotted to oblivion.

  • sicandtired

    95% of black voters voted for the "1"....you bought you own it!! It's all on you.

  • Curtis

    I do love the spirited debate about all of this religious and biblical stuff. I also love the infallability of the word of God (That was put together by Man ala Council of Nicea). SO lets not purport that the bible today in what man has pieced together is the bible that God has made as his word...None of us know because many of the experiences of others of christian Faith have been excluded. One can look up the Valentinians and their potential contributions that were not included, and thusly were attempted to be destroyed. One cannot attempt to indoctrinate and subjugate the minds of people without completely eradicating any thought that is not within the scope of the ruling party or government (or ruling theology of the time). So please do not sit here and try and quote this bible as if it is the infallable word of God when Men pieced it together and sought to make it in the image they saw fit. So your arguments abotu men trying to change God's law is actually man trying to change Law that men made.

    This coming from a Christian who has sought his own truth and not just become a lemming. I have chosent o use the free will that God gave me in order to find what His truth is.

    Continuously blessed...

    • Melody

      "Sought his own truth"

      so basically no truth at all but something that is relative.
      If you cannot accept that God is big enough to influence the coming together of scripture then at least accept this.

      He made them male and female. That is what He did to carry on the human race. So far man has not been able to change that fact.
      That is truth that you cannot change and you cannot deny Curtis.

  • Freida

    It's good to see that there still are pastors who fear God and not man.

    Too many pastors want to be popular and to be on the bestseller's lists, they refuse to denounce homosexuality and actually advocate for the homosexual agenda.
    I can understand unbelievers' approval but where's the rebuke from godly men when they see the cowardice and faithlessness of these men-pleasing pastors?

    • Peter Stokes

      Your right, Freida. Rob Bell, Steve Chalks, Brian McLaren and so many more of today's mega church leaders are full of themselves not the Holy Spirit.
      Interesting to read that 3,000 people left Mars Hill church after Bell released the book 'Love Wins'. Hopefully, even more Christians will wake up to their nonsense now they see where it leads.

  • Pingback: Top Five Reasons to Support Gay Marriage (and why those reasons are still not good enough) | Paper Fences

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not The New Black by Voddie Baucham | The Confessing Baptist

  • Pingback: Angry Christians; Left Intolerance; Same Sex Marriage; Kevin DeYoung; Gay and the Civil Rights Issues « ChosenRebel's Blog

  • BR

    "The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!" is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment."
    Pedophilia is not a homosexual act. It is rape. It is not a "relationship" just as the rape of a woman by a man is not a relationship. Pedophila and rape are criminal.

    • Peter Stokes

      Sadly, society now been coned into believing that homosexuality and lesbianism is 'all about love,' rather than, as it once did, think about the unnaturalness of same-sex relationships.
      Yet when they use examples of s-s in animals, as a reason to be accepted, they are talking about sex not love - they can't have it both ways.
      Rest assured homosexuality might well be about a search for it but it is more about sex.
      While it is true that most homosexuals are not paedophiles - when a man seduces or rapes young boys, rather than young girls, that is homosexual paedophilia or pederasty. No other term is appropriate. Ask the Catholic Church - it is now very clear, and well documented, that they were targeted by many homosexuals because of the easy access to Boys.

  • http://paperfences.wordpress.com Sara F.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I had been mulling over this for months, knowing that the comparison was wrong, but not able to articulate why. Thank you! I linked to your article (and expanded on the idea, just a little) here:
    http://paperfences.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/top-five-reasons-to-support-gay-marriage-and-why-those-reasons-are-still-not-good-enough/

  • Pingback: Recapping The Gay Marriage Conversation On The Blog Last Week » Doug Hankins : Into The World

  • linda s

    The NAACP should be ashamed of themselves and I would never join even though I am black. WIll they be for group "marriage next" sister and brother "marriage" daddy and daughter "marriage" the are all just as perverted. Someone need to tell Obama he needs to give sexual advice and marriage advise to his daughters and NOT THE COUNTRY. He can tell them it is ok for them to have a lesbian wife but he does not represent the Christian Community. I didi not vote for him this past election because he is too gay friendly(and rumors are flying about his own sexuality) and he is too friendly with illegals and not americans. We say "God bless America" but God won't and never will bless gay anything. An that is real.

  • Pingback: Fighting the Bubble | A Crown for Ashes

  • Elyse

    All these are arguments are being presented and backed up by the Bible. However, what you fail to see is that those who do not believe in the sanctity of the Bible or its inerrancy will not be persuaded by your points. I am a Christian, but not everyone in this country is. You need reasons beyond biblical ones to oppose same sex marriage, because our country is not inherently biblical. Furthermore, I felt as if this article was slightly ignorant of what the LGBT community is actually like, and this was demonstrated by the sentence talking about bisexuals requesting to marry a female and male simultaneously. Bisexuality doesn't automatically mean someone is polyamorous, it describes the attractions they feel. I was a little angered at that sentence, actually. If you are going to argue against a community, please at least understand what you are arguing against. Until you have a better understanding of what you're fighting against and can provide reasons not based on the Bible for a country and government which is not composed of all Christians, I will not be persuaded that our inherently secular government should ban basic civil rights for members of the LGBT community.

    • Steveo

      I did not write this but here are 5 unbiblical arguments against it:

      As advocates of gay marriage are seeking to change a tradition that has existed since the dawn of time, the onus should be on them to prove that changing the definition of marriage would be good for society. Here are their five best arguments:

      1. Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.
      I am all for equal rights. I don’t think the government should be in anyone’s bedroom, telling individuals what they should or should not be doing. I don’t think gay people should be told they can’t marry. But equal rights already exist. Gay people are not asked to use separate bathrooms or drinking fountains, as much as gay “rights” activists want to compare their plight to the Civil Rights Movement. LBGT people do not make less, on average, than others (as even women still do). Most companies now offer same-sex partner benefits. And – get this – gay people have all the marriage rights as straight people.

      “Wait! But straight people can marry whom they love; gay people can’t.” But straight people can no more marry anyone they love than gay people can! The restrictions are the same, regardless of sexual orientation: no one can marry someone who’s already married, a minor, more than one person, an object/animal, a close relative, the same gender, etc. There are no additional restrictions on LGBT people. The laws are EXACTLY the same for everyone. And unless we as a society are prepared to throw out everything on that list, we should be very careful about removing one aspect. Marriage: it is what it is for every American, and the laws regarding the institution apply equally to every citizen.

      2. You can’t/shouldn’t legislate morality.
      Every society has legislated morality to some extent. Passing laws against murder or stealing is legislating morality. My question to gay rights’ activists on this topic is this: If we shouldn’t legislate morality, why should it be wrong to marry your father? More than one person? An animal? If you object to any of these on moral grounds, then you want to legislate morality. Also, just for the record, telling restaurants they can’t sell sugary drinks over 16oz is legislating morality… if liberals are willing to have such minor moralities legislated, they should understand conservatives wanting DOMA. As a side note, though sodomy is illegal in some states, that is not the right being fought for here; policeman are not monitoring bedrooms in any state. What gay rights’ activists are asking for is a public celebration of their sexuality and the public benefits that go with it.

      3. Gay is the new Black.
      This general idea has become very ubiquitous. Someone in my Facebook feed even compared traditional marriage advocates to racists of time-gone-by who tried to prevent Black people from being able to vote! He said that those opposing gay marriage would be ashamed of themselves in years to come. The article linked to above does a great job explaining how ludicrous this assertation is. One of the author’s main points is that race is something that can be empirically observed; you can’t hide it. I would add that homosexuality has an action attached to it, and it is the action that Christians object to; victims of racism are rejected before they ever act, before they ever speak. If being gay is accepted as being comparable to being Black, then affirmative action will soon follow, which becomes very complicated when it’s based on a non-observable criteria. I would also add that racism, unlike homosexuality, is a generational problem. One’s parents are held back economically or socially because of their race, which in turn, affects the next generation and the next, making the oppressive hand of racism so heavy that it is hard for any individual to crawl out from under it. There is no such generational oppression of gay people. They have no fewer advantages at birth than anyone else.

      4. The current thinking on gay marriage is the most progressive and enlightened thinking to have ever existed on marriage in the history of the world. Just because no one’s EVER sanctioned gay marriage before our current day doesn’t mean anything. Evolution has taught us that we are currently the highest form of life, with the highest form of thinking. Ever. I’m not sure that homosexuals should be using evolution in their arguments (though it may be more implicitly than explicitly present), yet in the SCOTUS hearings, that’s the answer that was given for why a change from traditional marriage should be considered necessary at this time. But if you follow this line of thinking, and evolution has its way, gay people will either settle down with someone of the opposite sex to rear children, or never pro-create. Either way, the gene would necessarily (according to evolutionistic theory) eventually be diluted and die out. If evolution is more cyclical and not as simplistic as I’m making it out to be, then how can we be so ready to throw out centuries of wisdom in such a short span of time? The evolutionary argument on one hand works against the longevity of homosexuality and on the other hand supports marriage laws being changed because of our progressive and enlightened thinking. Both cannot be true.

      5. True libertarians should support gay marriage.
      I strongly lean libertarian politically. And that is, in part, why I cannot support gay marriage. As indicated in point #1, this is much less about gay people getting rights and much more about forcing the rest of us to condone a behavior we disagree with. A wedding photographer was taken to court because she didn’t want to take on a gay couple as clients – she didn’t want to celebrate in photographs what she felt to be an affront to God. Even if you think she was wrong, don’t you think she, as a small business owner, has a right to choose her clientele? The courts didn’t. If gay marriage is sanctioned, and if homosexuality is put into the same category as race, it will likely follow that adoption agencies will be forced to choose between placing babies with same-sex couples or closing their doors. Businesses will be told to provide benefits to married, same-sex couples, regardless of the business owners’ religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby, anyone?). Sanctioning gay marriage doesn’t just allow couples to “love and let love.” It involves the government in more details of our private lives than ever before. And it invades freedom of religion in a way never before seen (or even conceived of!) in America. Speaking against homosexuality in public, even from the pulpit, will be considered a hate crime, and pastors will either shut up or risk jail. Discerning libertarians see the writing on the wall and oppose gay marriage. Or they at least see that we should allow states to choose their own laws so that U.S. citizens/businesses have options for establishing a residence where they can freely practice their religions.

      Just because the gay rights’ movement has lots of outspoken, powerful supporters: our president, celebrities, etc. doesn’t mean that it has logic on its side. And just because a current trend seems fresh and progressive, doesn’t mean that we all have to jump on the speeding bandwagon while waving rainbow-colored flags. We can want all people to have equal treatment under the law without wanting to celebrate and sanctify an idea that is newer than DVR technology as a replacement of an institution existing from the beginning of time.

    • http://www.godcamedown.com Christ Centered Teaching

      Elyse,
      Thanks for being so rational and civil.
      I wish we could all reason together at that level of respect.
      Here is my version of the extra-Biblical argument you requested.

      Society has blindly adopted the assumption that people who adopt a gay lifestyle are BORN THAT WAY.

      If that was true then people could not be held accountable for homosexuality as a moral choice, since that would mean they did not choose to be that way. If people were BORN THAT WAY it would mean they are a unique category of RACE.

      But DNA proves people are NOT BORN THAT WAY.

      Worldwide, many DNA tests have tried to prove people are BORN THAT WAY and have only proven the opposite. People ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY, rather it is a matter of moral choice and therefore it is an accountable behavior choice to be homosexual.

      Race is biological. Behavior is not.

      The American Psychiatric Association asserted that people are born gay and therefore have no choice and responsibilities for being homosexual. Genetic tests have been unable to find such evidences to support the American Psychiatric Association assertion.
      The APA has formally admitted a genetic link to homosexuality has not been found despite much searching.

      A similar genetic assumption about Native Americans and cases of near 50% alcoholism on some reservations made many assume a genetic link was to blame. No genetic link has been found to shift cause from sociological pressures to biological predisposition.(2006)

      Behavior is not a basis for race or laws formed to benefit a genuine definition of race.

      We need to protect the integrity of the definition of genuine race.

      We need laws that would define the difference between what is race and what is behavior.
      It must be repeated, We adopted a false assumption that homosexuality is not a choice and people are therefore not accountable for it and it can’t be called a moral issue , but homosexuality is a choice, and one we are accountable for.
      With DNA proof that men are born men and women are born women, conservatives can now draft laws to protect traditional marriage without even mentioning marriage. State laws could require genetic or ancestral proof of race minority status in order to grant protected status rights and the right to marry. The basis for discrimination is genuine race.

      Harassment is not the same as discrimination. We must not confuse them.

      Both are wrong, but are not the same issue.
      DNA is legal evidence in court, and to date no conclusive evidence exists to prove the assumption that people are,”born that way”.
      Race is biological.Behavior is not a basis for race. Therefore GLBT IS behavior.Race should be based on genetic data. GLBT “assumption” is “born that way”. Since DNA is established evidence in court, and the evidence disproves the “born that way assumption,any new laws will be based on facts, not assumptions.The American Psychiatric Association stated an unproven assumption that they believed people were ,”Born that way” decades before DNA proof to the contrary even existed. APA conceded no genetic proof in a still available 2008 pamphlet titled,”Answers to your questions about Homosexuality.”
      We have reached a state where we are now legislating behaviors that have negative results on society. Some places have been doing so longer and are now hearing court cases for legitimatizing previously unheard of behaviors. The same bogus assumption that they were born that way is the basis for those who would make the currently illegal into legitimate.
      Tons of clinical study DATA exists today from all over the world, and none has proven the,”born that way”,theory. This assumption has been the basis for legislation that will continue to give special privileges to behaviors instead of biology that will ultimately lead to societal destruction.
      If you wonder what I personally know about homosexuality and why I feel qualified to comment, this is the reason why.
      I grew up the youngest of 6 boys. I had no sisters.
      2 of my older brothers were homosexual and have died of AIDS related illnesses. I saw how they struggled with something more like sexual addiction , and how our father frightened them and therefore never bonded with them. My brothers never felt accepted as men by their father and therefore lacked a healthy male self image.
      Please consider legislation that will require genetic and ancestral proof of race and minority status to receive protected status and marital rights.
      And for those who desire to change, they will at least have the hope they receive from the knowledge of that fact that they were not born that way.

      Please check out what is available on the internet in regards to the assumption that people are ,”born that way”, or ,”naturally gay”, and the race and subsequent inalienable rights afforded at great cost to those who are a unique and legitimate race unto themselves.
      Because the integrity of what is defined as race at stake.
      Behavior does not constitute race, therefore the moral integrity of being homosexual is dependent on the moral acceptability of that behavior and the basis for concluding such.
      We all agree that race is biologically verifiable by genetic testing and DNA.
      After decades of clinical testing to find such from institutions world wide, we have no such proof.
      Any test that seems to show these signs is disproved by the next test because clear evidence of ,”naturally gay”, does not exist.
      We were told by the American Psychiatric Association,(APA),back in the late 80s- early 90s, that their opinion was that people are,” born that way.”
      The APA made that statement long before we had DNA science sophisticated enough to prove or disprove such a claim.
      In 2008 the APA admitted they could not genetically prove that claim in a pamphlet they still have published at their web site, titled,(Answers to Your Questions About Homosexuality). I believe the lack of proof statement is on page two and the fourth paragraph down.
      I grew up with five older brothers, two of which were gay and died of AIDS related cancers.
      Understanding homosexuality has been a matter of life long reflection and based on knowledge that only brothers share.

      Our Supreme Court has much more to consider here.

      I pray they have the debate now that we should have had long ago before the APA turned public opinion without any genetic evidence.

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black | The Vineyard Ministry

  • Pingback: So-Called Same Sex Marriage Debate: Part III | Too Many Dark Things

  • Justin

    I think the biggest flaw in your last argument is that you admit that your reasoning needs to be grounded in the belief of God's view of marriage and other religious principles. The USA is not governed by God's laws. It is governed by Man's laws. Just because your religion opposes something does not mean that the country's laws needs to follow suit.

    Secondly, in regards to the question of "where do we draw the line", NAMBLA is different and you know it. Homosexual relations between consenting adults is not the same as taking advantage of a child's innocence and lack of knowledge. We don't allow children to drive cars or buy property because they are not mature enough to know the consequences. If 2 adults knowingly choose to enter into a relationship, you have no right to prevent that.

    Lastly, if you look at history PRIOR to your Savior, Greek and Roman civilizations were rampant with homosexual relationships. They were widely accepted at every social class level. Once again, the reluctance to accept homosexuals lies almost purely in organized religion, specifically the monotheistic religions that are most prominent today.

  • Pingback: “Gay is Not the New Black!” | New Leaven

  • http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com Short Little Rebel

    Excellent. Unfortunately, once you leave God, you leave logic. Or even the desire for it. All logic and clear thinking resides in God himself, as He created it. From my experience on my blog, every single individual that is practicing homosexual sex also claims to be an atheist or agnostic. Jesus hating and mocking is always present in their commentary. These people will never listen to reason specifically because they don't WISH to. I love this article and want to re-post it to my blog and my FB page. But it will only edify those who already know homosexuality to be a sin. It will give them the proper logical mindset and equipment to respond to so-called atheists, progressives, liberals and all around God haters. But for those who have immersed themselves in this lifestyle in conscious rebellion against God, it will have no effect but to enrage. Sadly. Thank for a beautifully written article. Mostly, it is just so good to know there are others out there speaking the truth.

  • http://www.godcamedown.com Christ Centered Teaching

    In his video, "Four Gardens", Apologist Ravi Zacharias recounts being asked why Christians do not support racial injustice in regards to homosexuality.

    He replied that Christians believe that both race and sexuality are sacred. Neither should be violated.

  • Pingback: DNA Proves Homosexuality is Not a Race Issue But a Choice – We Are Responsible For Our Choices – State and Federal Law Should Require DNA Proof to Constitute Race | Christ Centered Teaching

  • Pingback: Religion Aside… | Robert Jensen Photo & Video

  • Pingback: It’s not all about you. | nicholsberggallery

  • Pingback: It’s Not About You | nicholsberggallery

  • Pingback: Is Gay the New Black? | Firestone Baptist Church

  • M. Coleman

    Our gratitude for your courage and wisdom in putting together this piece cannot be overstated. You have brilliantly broken down concepts that until now have only been rumblings in our hearts ... you have put words to them. We are fighting the battle in MN now, and we will use your piece to give to legislatures. Thank you!

  • http://www.godcamedown.com Christ Centered Teaching

    As Christians, we believe race and sexuality are sacred.Neither should be violated.

    Since DNA proves homosexuality to be choice, and not race,same sex marriage violates the sacredness of race and sexuality.

  • Pingback: Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage – The Gospel Coalition Blog

  • Pingback: Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage

  • Pingback: My Epiphany | Family Home Evening Lessons

  • Pingback: Words of Caution | Ronfurg's Blog

  • Daniel P. Eberhardy

    This article is very good as far as it goes but would be even better with these further comments. Much of the world has discarded all the main features of proper marriage: lifelong commitment, sexual activity only between spouses (thus, no fornication or adultery), and openness to having children; in effect, resulting in a "marriage-shaped fair-weather friendship," or MSFWF. Marriage is supposedly primarily about gratifying "loving feelings." This altered view of marriage is evidently largely responsible for giving an unjust appearance to the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman. See "Why Homosexuals Want What Marriage Has Now Become," on the webpage "The Howard Center: The Family in America."

  • Daniel P. Eberhardy

    I meant to include the following in my post of a few minutes ago: lifelong-committed married couples and those opposing homosexual acts and same-sex marriage may become the "new black."

  • Pingback: The Objective Scoreboard | MattRob.com

  • Katie

    I feel the need to say this briefly. I am a religious person, I don't see a problem with gays getting married, and I read this article in full and did my research on it.

    While some things in this article are not accurate (Such as the history part, as many gay people have been recorded in history all over the world who have married in a variety of cultures, past and present. You just have to look because many religions and societal laws tried to mask them), I do agree with the main issue of this article. BEING that gay IS NOT the new black. To liken the struggles of the two parties is silly to me. Their struggle is not the same, and while both parties have had certain things denied of them at various points in time, their struggles are totally different, and really not even close to comparable in my opinion. In this aspect, I give this article a 10 out of 10 for putting it into words and citing some historical context. :)

  • Pingback: Engaging Sinners | JoshuaReich.org

  • Pingback: Jesus and Homosexuality | SteveKroeker.com

  • Pingback: Contend Recap: Is Homosexuality a Sin? | Activate

  • Pingback: I love the LGBT – Part 1 | Cause for Joy

  • Pingback: Cheerios and “Gay Is Not the New Black” | Reformed African American Network (RAAN)

  • Pingback: I Love the LGBT Pt. III – The Perks of Being Straight | Cause for Joy

  • Pingback: Beliefs Are Not Set in Stone, Except for When They're on Tablets | Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture

  • Pingback: How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong if It Doesn’t Harm Anyone? – The Gospel Coalition Blog

  • Pingback: Much To Talk About- 4 | theologyarchaeology

  • Vanessa

    "It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow."

    SERIOUSLY!?! Ok, sooo... because we don't allow polygamy (totally supported by the bible), underage girls to marry (also supported by the bible) and cousins to marry (hello, Adam and Eve's children, supported by the bible). We should not allow two adults in love to marry!?! I do NOT follow this "logic". A MARRIAGE LICENSE IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT, AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS. Should we not let the gays have a drivers license? Not everyone is asking to be married in your church by your version of God, but let all consenting adults be allowed the opportunity to marry whom they chose, regardless of sexuality.

    • Austin

      That is a great response. If only people would see it that way, but everyone thinks that it is going to destroy the world to let two adults in love have a document that says that they want to be together in a family.

    • Peter Stokes

      Vanessa, laws are supposed to be a guide to society about what is right, safe, and in the best interests of the whole society.
      giving legality to same-sex marriage immediately sends the message, especially to young people, that they are 'right, safe, and in the best interests of the whole society', when this is simply NOT the case. And they are certainly not in the best interests of anyone.
      If we simply legalize something simply 'because of love' - and love itself has many different definitions - we should legalize all those things you mentioned - extra marital affairs, multiple person marriage and children/adult relationships based on 'love'. Clearly you accept we have to have boundaries - who says whose boundaries are right if everything is simplistically based on love?

      • Austin

        What makes it unsafe? I understand the spiritual side is what many people think of (which even then is not a good enough reason to say no to homosexuality, because there many who are still spiritual and follow Christian values even though the Bible states in a couple of passages that it is wrong, and the interpretation also depends on what language you read and the version). What physically is harmful?
        If it is for the children of same-sex parents, then here are two articles for you.
        http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
        http://www.impactprogram.org/researchers/research-blog-the-kids-are-all-right/?gclid=CJu_1r-PqLgCFa9fQgodHmMA4w

        • Peter Stokes

          Firstly, re children and your links - every bit of research that claims children are not disadvantaged by same-sex parenting has been engineered to get the answer that answer. Done mostly by lesbians/homosexuals, through self selection rather than random selection, small samples and no controls for bias, and self answering questions rather than outside observation.
          All properly done research shows children generally do best (there are always exceptions both ways) when raised by both their biological parents in a committed marriage relationship.
          As for being "unsafe" check all government health statistics - HIV?AIDS in the west is predominately (up to 80% or higher) due to male-male sex, STD rates are much higher withing s-s communities - much higher than among hetro promiscuous groups.
          Why? Partly because the sex is unnatural - partly the promiscuity. Two men use a well designed and highly efficient garbage disposal system - which is not designed to have anything shoved up it and women use plastic/leather penis replicas and lots of 'toys' for sex - because they cannot do it naturally. The only 'safe sex' is abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage.

  • Steven Reisiger

    Marriage is not just a license, it is a covenant. Thinking it is any less is the number one reason divorce is so commonplace these days.

    Relationships can be given certain rights but, by definition, you cannot call it marriage if it's not between a man and a woman. It is something else and not marriage.

    You mentioned logic. Here is, logically, why same sex marriage is by definition, not marriage -

    http://www.athenaeum.edu/News.aspx?ID=336

    • Austin

      Though I agree with what your article says about defining a right/privilege/act, there are some errors and mistakes in the wording and definition in that article.
      For today's society and laws, the laws are there to protect society and prevent its downfall. Same-sex marriage does not harm society. For proof look to the economy boost in New York since they legalized marriage there.
      Also if we look at the Bible, Adam and Eve were married before they were ever commanded to procreate. Therefore it is not a covenant of procreation but a covenant of love between two people.

      • Peter Stokes

        Where is your evidence for stating "Same-sex marriage does not harm society".
        It seems the only 'reason you give is 'money' - but when the first flourish of ss couples is gone and it becomes a mere trickle like everywhere else that ssm has been legalized even the poor excuse of 'money' won't be there. No country has seen a sustained growth in ssm - in fact they have all dwindled to almost nothing. In most countries LESS than 15% of all known ss Couples have tied the knot.

        • Austin

          Psychologists have studied children from different families (same-sex, single-parent, etc.) and have brought forth results that show that there is no damaging effect.
          http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
          http://www.impactprogram.org/researchers/research-blog-the-kids-are-all-right/?gclid=CJu_1r-PqLgCFa9fQgodHmMA4w
          These are two sites that state basically the same results from the studies.
          Now pertaining to the "money" issue. That is really all the government thinks about (even thought they are supposed to think of our well-being). The issue there is even if it helps the economy at the moment, if the system is broken then there is nothing that can help it until it changes.

          • Peter Stokes

            See my other response (above) re children.
            Sadly your right when you say that money "is really all the government thinks about". But that is not how it is supposed to be - Governments, like OT judges and priests, are God's leaders - see Romans 13 - to make good laws that keep the peace, protect the people from sinful men/women (murder, theft, sexual immorality, etc) governing according to God's laws. They are able to tax people to carry out this role. They are not there to find ways to increase their power and control over God-given freedom or make evil good and good evil"
            The 'separation of church and state' (In the USA and in Australia, where I am) means 'not forming a state 'religion' or 'denomination' (such as the C of E in the UK or Islam in many countries), it does not mean keeping God, God's values, or Christians, out of politics. The US founding fathers and our Aust. Constitutional writers knew that 'man is inherently evil/wicked' and would seek more power, so, just as the UK King was forced to sign the Magna Carta, which told the King God was 'his' higher authority, so do our constitutions.

  • Pingback: A conversation and an article | FBC Crawfordsville

  • Austin

    After having read this, there are some really good points. Points that are not fully viewed as a whole, but still very valid in a debate. To keep this on the political side as is in the article, I would just like to point out what is in the Declaration of Independence. We have certain inalienable rights, liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Emphasizing the part on happiness, what the LGBTQ Civil Rights movement is centered on can be placed on the key part of happiness. Why would someone live a life that makes them unhappy? Why should someone have to live a life of unhappiness? Just because someone else is uncomfortable with it? No valid reasoning there. Though it is not exactly like the civil rights movement with skin color, it is comparable. As Christ made comparisons in His parables, and so it is OK to make comparisons in other parts of life.

    • DYLAN

      " Emphasizing the part on happiness, what the LGBTQ Civil Rights movement is centered on can be placed on the key part of happiness."

      Nice try there Austin, but you couldn't be more wrong. Same-sex couples have always been free to pursue "happiness" with each other. They've been able to live together, handle finances together, support each other, have sexual relations together (albeit distorted/dysfunctional sexual relations), make memories together, grow older together, and also name each other as benefactors of a will. This has been the case for a long time. Coincidentally, what they cannot do is procreate, which is really what the government-recognized institution of marriage is all about in terms of the ordering of society. So in effect the Same-Sex marriage agenda is not after happiness, it wants to utterly change the purpose of marriage so that it will ultimately no longer be recognizable apart from merely casual relationships. It will make "marriage" just another relationship of convenience, not to mention an unbearable burden to society and government.

      • Austin

        So answer me this one question. My cousin who is infertile and can never have biological children, is her marriage to her husband invalid? Does that mean her marriage is a relationship of convenience?
        Also if you go by that point of view then we should look at the cases where interracial relationships were denied marriage. They could still procreate, but they were denied the legal benefits of finalizing a legal marriage.
        Legally the benefits of marriage are so vast that it would take too much to write them all, but two key benefits include tax benefits and the privilege to visit your spouse in the hospital (because there are many who have been denied that privilege just because they were not legally married).

        • DYLAN

          "My cousin who is infertile and can never have biological children, is her marriage to her husband invalid?"

          Great question. To begin to answer that, I need to ask whether she knew that she was "infertile" before getting married.

          As for interracial relationships being denied marriage, could you please specify what "cases" you are referring to. Are you talking about when a family denies one of its members the opportunity to enter into an interracial marriage even though it is legal to do so? Or are you talking about the past when the government would not recognize as marriage a committed covenant relationship between interracial couples?

          As for tax benefits, they are available to traditional marriages because of the aforementioned inherent connection between marriage and procreation. It's a financial incentive meant to assist parents as they invest in the future of society. The government is not involved in the business of marriage in order to subsidize "warm-fuzzy feelings" and temporary romantic flings. The government is helping families invest in the future of society.

          As for hospital visitation rights to spouses, I haven't the slightest clue why hospitals restrict visitation in certain situations to spouses. If I want to be able to visit someone I care deeply about in the hospital, I shouldn't have to become that person's spouse. It's the rule that needs to be changed, not the nature of marriage.

          • Austin

            My cousin was in an accident that left her infertile since she was in high school (so before she got married). The doctors told her this.
            Up until the 1967 with the supreme court ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, there were states that would refuse interracial marriages and even arrest those who had been married in other places that did allow that.
            The rule about visitation rights in hospitals depends upon the hospital, but most hospitals state that only close family members can visit you in the hospital (especially when it is an emergency or you are unconscious).
            Now there are tax benefits for just being married, then there are tax benefits for each child/person you are supporting. How are these two connected? As with my cousin who is infertile, does that mean that she should not reap the tax benefits for marriage if she can't have children?

            • DYLAN

              "...there were states that would refuse interracial marriages and even arrest those who had been married in other places that did allow that."

              The above article addresses this issue adequately and shows why marriage discrimination based on race was different in nature than the issue of gender. With interracial marriage, people knew full well that interracial couples could conceive children and raise families, but legalization was delayed because the ideology of segregation was too well entrenched in certain places. The main difference between the two is that race has always been known to be an immutable trait based on the dynamics of conception. Sexual orientation has not been shown to be an immutable trait, and thus could never be decided upon using the same rationale as what ended the ban on interracial marriage.

              As for visitation rights, I already stated that it makes no sense to only allow "close family members" to visit someone in the hospital.

              As for the tax issue: If there is no connection between being able to file jointly and receiving tax credit for children, then we would expect to see the IRS granting joint filing status to any two people who desire to have that benefit. A brother and sister could file jointly; two brothers could file jointly, etc. But reality is, the IRS would not allow this because that particular tax benefit, along with the child tax credit, is associated with investing in the future of society (ie. the next generation).

            • Austin

              I understand that this article states it, but just because one place states it does that make it true? Just because one person does an experiment, does that make the results true? Why is it that the Bible mentions things several times? Could it be God's way of stating that it is true?
              Also with the tax issue you still haven't answered my portion about my cousin being infertile. Does that mean that she shouldn't get tax benefits? It is exactly the same because no children can be born, but they can always adopt or find a surrogate mother.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    we are not on this beautiful privileged planet to be happy. We are here to be made holy.

    • Austin

      Happiness is used with several words in the Bible, some of which include Joy, Gladness, Pleasure, Cheerful, Merry. Knowing about language and how synonyms work, we can know that we are here to be happy. Some scriptures that you can look up include Proverbs 3:13, Romans 14:22, Luke 15:32, and 1 Peter 4:13. I could list more scriptures that mention these synonyms. The two key scriptures that I would like to point out are the following (which I have already posted here too): Romans 14:22, and Luke 15:32.
      Now in Luke it says "it is meet that we make merry, and be glad." Why would the father in this parable say that we need to be glad? Are we not to be glad in this life? Is not gladness also happiness?
      In Romans it says "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Also in the verse following it says "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." And Faith is a belief in things not seen but that we know are true. Homosexuals know and understand this and they doubt not in themselves. Now why would he who condemneth not himself be happy? Why does happiness show up so much in the Bible if we are not meant to be happy?

      • Austin

        And though there are variations in what I have written from the King James version of the Bible, the meaning is still the same all around. (Especially with the parable in Luke using "fitting" and "celebrate")

      • DYLAN

        Austin, you are mishandling the Scriptures. None of the verses you mentioned say anything about us being here to be happy. What you are doing is proof-texting, which causes you to misapply verses because you are ignoring the context. In the Luke passage, the message of that verse is that celebration was a proper response to the return of the lost son. That son pursued "happiness" outside the father's house, but soon found it to be fleeting. He eventually returned home to be a servant not because he felt it would make him happy, but because he realized it was the right and proper thing to do.

        Your take on Romans 14:22-23 is also way off base. First off, the consistently repeated context of this passage is in regard specifically to issues of food and drink which were causing division and stumbling among the brethren. This is then the only context within which one may make an authoritative statement about honoring a person's individual faith before God. Secondly, although the "faith" of this passage is referring to a somewhat "personal" dimension, it is still a faith wholly accountable to God. Part of being accountable to God is aligning oneself with the Word of God. Another part of accountability to God is using the reasoning abilities of our minds and our critical thinking skills to put ideas and concepts to the test. This is how we keep ourselves from being driven and controlled by our emotions and feelings and by destructive, selfish desires. This is how we guard ourselves from the lies of the media and our own tendency to deceive ourselves. If you consider a lie long enough, it inevitably becomes "truth" to you (ie. "I was born gay".)

        Several translations render the phrase in verse 22: "Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve". The point is, even if the context of this verse was somehow shown to extend to areas of sexuality (which as I said before is highly unlikely), it is implied that this individual conviction must still rest on a thorough, exhaustive search for the truth of the matter. The problem is that people with aberrant sexual orientations are highly sucseptible to things like confirmation bias and self-justification. Many of them simply refuse to have an open mind to evidence outside themselves. So while they may not condemn themselves by what they approve, it is not based on faith. Rather, it is based on pride, selfishness, and lies.

        • Austin

          So you are saying that the scriptures are not there to answer our questions and be used in our responses to people?
          So I will take one more scripture (using it in context) and explain my point. In Acts 2:46 the Apostles had been doing miracles and great works. The people would eat their meat in gladness, which is another word for happiness. If we are not to be glad in this life, then why is it mentioned that people who did good deeds were glad?

          • DYLAN

            "So you are saying that the scriptures are not there to answer our questions and be used in our responses to people?"

            I am definitely not saying that. All of Scripture is useful for many things (2 Timothy 3:16). But it is easy to misuse individual passages, especially when one is unfamiliar with the principles and tools of Biblical interpretation (ie. commentaries, original languages, modern scholarship, etc).

            As for Acts 2:46, I would first off be very careful equating gladness with happiness. Although in our modern English the two words may be interchangeable in specific contexts, we have to remember that this passage was originally written in Greek and later translated, often through Latin, into English. It is important to note that the Greek word "agalliasei" is never translated "happiness" or "happy", but usually refers to thankfulness for something. In this case, their hearts were glad, or full of thanks, because of the magnificent works of God happening in their midst. They were not glad because of their good deeds...their good deeds followed from the gladness in their hearts.

            So we are indeed, as many other scriptures testify, called to be "glad" in this life because of the wonderful works of God in our midst. But to pursue "happiness" as an end is really not much more than hedonism.

            • Austin

              So it is hedonism to pursue Christ because he will bring us happiness? All I am saying that those who wrote the declaration of independence (who were also inspired by God) wrote that it is an inalienable right, or in other words something that cannot be taken away. I am also certain that they knew and understood the scriptures enough to get that connection even though they did also create a government that is separate from church.

  • http://www.GodCameDown.com Christ Centered Teaching

    An exhaustive scientific compilation of studys proving any and all claims that homosexuality has a biological cause are false.

    http://wp.me/p1Lr49-1aZ

  • Pingback: Why Christians Aren’t Like Racists Regarding Homosexuality | a servant named chad

  • Tim Wood

    Please consider that straight people, who respect God, appreciate that the word "marriage" means a union between a man and a woman. I also appreciate that gay people, who do not respect God, deserve to find what happiness, acceptance, and legal rights that they can in this world. Please consider coining a new word for homosexual legal unions. Marriage is already taken. We do not want the meaning of the word to be hijacked and changed like the word "gay" was changed. With all due respect, please grow a backbone and come up with a different word than marriage. I, as a heterosexual man, am proud to say I am married and do not want it to be confused with a homosexual union. If you really are proud and you really have come out of the closet and you really want to live a life that will make you happy, then please do not ride on the coat tails of those who are married. Yes, you deserve to be treated fairly and to pursue happiness and to have full legal rights. Please understand that we heterosexual people,who have long respected God, simply want the same respect when it comes to what our legal unions are called. They are called marriage and should not be confused with something else. Please grow a backbone and stop stealing the definition of what marriage is.do you want to be respected? Then you need to respect the word "marriage". If my physical height is tall, I do not claim to be short. That would be foolish. I am what I am. Grow a backbone and be honest. Homosexual people who join into a legal union are not married. Please come up with a new word.

    • Michael

      In religion, a straight lifetime relationship is known as Holy Matrimony, which is not under the control of any state or judge.

      Don't confuse that with Civil Marriage, which is a legal category for the protection of certain stable relationships, and implies certain legal rights and obligations.

      An earthly judge may dissolve a Marriage or grant a Divorce, but that may or may not affect how a Church regards that relationship.

      Instead of quibbling about a legal category given and taken by the state, why not remember the term Holy Matrimony?

  • Tim Wood

    I have noticed that when this request to find a new word for homosexual legal unions is made (and I've made the request numerous times on numerous forums) that no one from the Gay community answers. My goal has always been to ask sincerely, politely, and respectfully but because there is never an answer, I have to assume that the Gay community is basically dishonest and unwilling to face an honest and reasonable request.

    • DYLAN

      You're absolutely right Tim. They are just as unwilling to face that issue as they are to face the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a biological origin for homosexual orientation. In fact, the most recent research in the field of psychology has called into serious question whether someone can actually legitimately say "I am gay".

      • Peter Stokes

        Dylan, your right, - but see my comment to Tim.
        Can you post a link to that research, please.

    • Peter Stokes

      H Tim, You won't get an answer because it is not about marriage - it is about 'equality' and they know that ONLY 'marriage' will give that.
      Substitutes are always seen as less than equality - no matter what substitute they are given, they will simply use it to push to the next level - onward towards what they see as social 'equality' even though their relationships can NEVER be equal to hetro (which means opposite) relationships.
      Don't fall the idea you can be 'nice' by giving them something else - it never works. Everything is seen as second best unless it gives total 'equality'.

      • Austin

        Also here is a good link. A key part says: "In the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Justice Department wrote that marriage “confers a special validation of the relationship between two individuals and conveys a message to society that domestic partnerships or civil unions cannot match.” Apparently, that special validation has little to do with rights, since domestic partners would have all of them if, as the department’s other brief urged, federal benefits were extended to same-sex couples. In fact, in its brief for Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government is careful to highlight the “social recognition conferred by the institution of marriage.”"
        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/why-do-people-still-bother-to-marry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • Pingback: testing featured post | Michael Kim-Eubanks

  • Pingback: LAF/Beautiful Womanhood » Cranial Dominionism – Defining What We Think About…Defending Biblical Marriage

  • Pingback: Religion? Or Discrimination? | I Love You but You're Going to Hell

  • Pingback: Gospel Singer McClurkin Cut From MLK Event Over Gay Rights – The Gospel Coalition Blog

  • Pingback: Wedding Photography, Sacrifice, and the ‘Price’ of Citizenship

  • Pingback: Wedding Photography, Sacrifice, and the ‘Price’ of Citizenship (CaPC) | Reformedish

  • Pingback: Kevin Rudd, Homosexuality, and Love | the Cripplegate

  • Pingback: Kevin Rudd, Homosexualidad y Amor | El Evangelio Segun Jesucristo

  • Pingback: Yes, Indeed, God Loves “Gays” | West Main Baptist Church

  • Pingback: Yes, Indeed, God Loves “Gays” | JBenSimpson.com

  • John G

    "Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. . . ."
    There are three quotes (from the Iowa Supreme Court) in this section, but I don't find any citation(s) for or identification of the source. Could you post the reference information for those quotes? Thank you. JG

  • John G

    I think I found what I asked about. A web search brought up a link to an actual document of the court decision. I'm starting from the end and reading backward in order to find the exact quotes (apparently part of the concluding decision) used in the article here.

    http://www.samesexmarriageiniowa.org/pdf_docs/decision-04-03-09.pdf

  • Pingback: Cheerios and "Gay Is Not the New Black" - RAANetwork : RAANetwork

  • Michael

    Dear Sir, I believe you are confusing Holy Matrimony with Civil Marriage. Those things are two totally different animals.

    Holy Matrimony refers to the union of male and female to embody and signify the union between Christ and the Church, Bridegroom and Bride.

    Civil Marriage is a legal category which protects a relationship and which affords certain rights and duties.

    An earthly judge may dissolve a marriage or grant a divorce; but a church may or may not recognize that judgment.

    Likewise, the state may grant the status of marriage to protect certain stable relationships, allow hospital visitation, permit inheritance, etc., but your church doesn't have to recognize that relationship as blessed if it doesn't want to.

    Please don't confuse the two.

  • Pingback: This is what goes on in my head every time I hear Macklemore’s “Same Love” | Everyday Christophany

  • Pingback: The Ravenous New Youth | Reformed Libertarian

  • Pingback: An Open Letter To Pre-Christian Brothers & Sisters Struggling With Homosexuality « Jesus is the Justice

  • Pingback: Loving Does Not Equal Participating | JoshuaReich.org

  • Occupy Christianity

    C.S. Lewis's view of marriage ought to be the norm. Marriage in the church should be defined by the church. Marriage in civil society should be defined by civil society. There is no problem with the two being different from one another. But when the view of one is forced upon the other, the right to freedom of expression is abridged.

    • Austin

      I agree with you on that point that church and civil (state) should be separate. Now making Same Sex Marriage legal is not forcing upon others, what would be forcing upon others is forcing the people to marry someone of the same sex.

  • Pingback: Gay Is Not the New Black - Rick Green