The Right of Churches to Marry Same-Sex Couples

A blogger: Of course, some churches have same-sex matrimony, as well, and I’m sure, deep down certain in fact, that you would respect their religious right to have it, no?

I am more tolerant of the RIGHT of liberal churches to marry people to their same-sex friends, their pets or their motorcycles –if that’s their goofy man-made religion –more tolerant of that than I am of same-sex civil unions being sanctified by the state.

Marriage has ALWAYS, in nearly EVERY culture, every generation, been the union of a man and wife (or even wives in some cases.) It is by DEFINITION the union of opposite sex persons who then give us children (or role model the procreative units who give us children.) That definition shouldn’t change just because some people have been mentally damaged in their orientation and gender identity and don’t want to be with persons of the opposite sex.

Homosexual couples do not conceive and procreate together –they try to simulate marriage –and in doing so confuse any children exposed to them. The school and the popular media contribute to the confusion, telling children and teens that it’s ok to “marry” and do sexual things with their same-sex best friends. That’s what redefinition of marriage becomes: a teaching of youth that any 2 persons can enter into sex and also redefine marriage.

But marriage is the right of every person–to marry one of the opposite sex. That’s it. There is no other definition of “marriage” for which we are bio-designed. Our bodies aren’t made solely for orgasmic pleasures –but also for procreation and role-modeling the romantic/procreative/male-female unions –who become PARENTS and grandparents and role models of 2 genders to their offspring.

Each parent brings different qualities to the home –both of which are advantageous to children. And two moms and two dads can’t replace the opposite sex parent missing from the home.

All we do by the great marriage debate of the 21st Century is cause more kids to experiment and mis-identify their sexuality and get addicted to swinging both ways –sexploration and sexperimentation.

Sorry if this is too repetitive for you all — but I keep hoping someone will eventually GET IT!!!! Barb(Quote)

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Is Gay Marriage about Equality? Progress in Civil Rights? And What about Polygamy?

A blogger; Marriage is not just about procreation, both for individuals and the state, and it never was. Marriage is even more so not about “the” [sic?] these days. The varied state interests apply no matter the sexual alignment of the couple. Inequality is unjustified.

So you say. I disagree. And so do most all the states. See Map. There is no inequality in marriage being limited to heterosexual couples with the potential for procreation, who role-model the pro-creative unit to future generations, even if they are childless for any reason. Every man and woman has freedom and EQUAL RIGHT to become a hetero couple –if they can find a willing partner. But marriage, by definition, has ALWAYS, historically, everywhere –been the union of man with wife (or wives (plural) in some unequal, unenlightened instances.)

The creation model is Adam and Eve, The Jewish model is Abraham and Sarah (and what a mess they started by letting the wife give the maid to him, bearing Ishmael, claimed by Muslims as their ancestor.) Also Noah and sons and their wives. The OT also says a man should “stay with the wife of his youth.” Then there was John and Elizabeth, parents of John the Baptist, and Mary and Joseph, parents of JEsus –and finally Christ’s words saying a man should leave parents and cleave to his wife and never divorce–cleave to EVE, not STeve. And the NT also says the exemplary leaders of the Church should have only one wife.

As for polygamy, the two religions that permit polygamy happen to have both been started by “angel” communications to one founder each –Mormonism and Islam. Lucifer appears as an angel of light.

II Corinthians 11:13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. [Some Mullahs and Imams, fomenting terrorism –all of them propagating untruth of Islam.] Their end will be what their actions deserve.

There is no biological justification for recognizing gay unions same as hetero. Any benefits in the law are for procreative couples and those who model procreative units before the children. Children don’t need the confusion about sex and sexuality which is generated by homosexuals.

Homosexuals (as well as promiscuous straights) lure people into non-procreative sex addiction. The more we affirm homosexuality, and the more we are dysfunctional as hetero couples with divorce, etc. –the more homosexuals we will produce. We already see where non-gay men “on the downlow” –i.e. men who have sex with men –see homosexual acts as legitimate, non-relational, impersonal sexual recreation –like prisoners and congressmen in airport bathrooms.

Homosexual orientation is something to study and prevent and attempt to fix — it is not to be accommodated as “the same as –or equal to” heterosexuality. Homosexuality is simply counter to our bodily design and purpose. You can’t dignify it with “marriage.” It will always seem both unfortunate and bizarre to those who have the blessing of good heterosexual role modeling in their families and culture.

Good ploy to try to say homosexuality is genetic, inborn, a race, or a disability –and thus we should help homosexuals find one another for happiness together. We should be kind without creating new definitions and examples of “marriage” and “family” which will only be hard on their children and confusing to all children about the issues of sex and sexuality, gender identity and orientation. Gay marriage gives license to something that we should teach and help our children to avoid. Because however orgasms are first experienced with others, they are addictive and affecting the self-image as male or female, gay or straight.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

How Can Christians Justify the Killing of Osama?

Someone asked me how Christians could justify his killing.

Easy. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

Osama was not merciful; hence, no mercy for him.

Matthew 7:

“1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

or in modern English:

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Osama judged the west harshly–not his place –so he murdered and led young men to do suicide bombings with false and ungodly promises of free sex to come.

Therefore, with what judgment Osama judged the West, he was properly judged –and sentenced.

Christian mercy and forgiveness of others is not to be foolishness whereby we let tyrants oppress and murder if we can prevent it. There is justification for “just wars” to liberate people from tyrants –and our own vulnerable ones from future acts of terror. There is rightly a war being waged by good against evil. Barb(Quote)

There is still mercy for the repentant sinner who changes his way--or one who sincerely repents on his deathbed. I would hold out hope for all bereaved people, that their loved ones encountered Christ's mercy before their deaths. But those who "live by the sword die by the sword." I don't think that refers to those on the right side of just wars or peace-keepers. Our military's purpose IS peace-keeping in a world frought with evil-doers.

I was just reading in Time about Mueller, head of FBI --and 2 terrorists they recently captured. There are people bent on the destruction of others. We need our peace-keepers. God bless them all!

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

National Day of Prayer --Obama's Proclamation --Let us Pray!

THE WHITE HOUSE
NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2011
- – – – – – -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

2011 NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER PROCLAMATION

From the President of the United States

2011 NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER PROCLAMATION

Throughout our history, Americans have turned to prayer for strength, inspiration, and solidarity.

Prayer has played an important role in the American story and in shaping our Nation’s leaders. President Abraham Lincoln once said, “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for the day.” The late Coretta Scott King recounted a particularly difficult night, during the Montgomery bus boycott, when her husband, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., received a threatening phone call and prayed at the kitchen table, saying, “Lord, I have nothing left. I have nothing left. I have come to the point where I can’t face it alone.” Dr. King said, in that moment of prayer, he was filled with a sense of comfort and resolve, which his wife credited as a turning point in the civil rights movement.

It is thus fitting that, from the earliest years of our country’s history, Congress and Presidents have set aside days to recognize the role prayer has played in so many definitive moments in our history. On this National Day of Prayer, let us follow the example of President Lincoln and Dr. King. Let us be thankful for the liberty that allows people of all faiths to worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and let us be thankful for the many other freedoms and blessings that we often take for granted.

Let us pray for the men and women of our Armed Forces and the many selfless sacrifices they and their families make on behalf of our Nation. Let us pray for the police officers, firefighters, and other first responders who put themselves in harm’s way every day to protect their fellow citizens. And let us ask God for the sustenance and guidance for all of us to meet the great challenges we face as a Nation.

Let us remember in our thoughts and prayers those who have been affected by natural disasters at home and abroad in recent months, as well as those working tirelessly to render assistance. And, at a time when many around the world face uncertainty and unrest, but also hold resurgent hope for freedom and justice, let our prayers be with men and women everywhere who seek peace, human dignity, and the same rights we treasure here in America.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 5, 2011, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith or conscience directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I ask all people of faith to join me in asking God for guidance, mercy, and protection for our Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

BARACK OBAMA

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Why Not Gay Marriage Anyway?

A Blogger: To say that this [gay marriage and/or domestic partnership] would not help in sustaining relationships does not seem credible. Even if interest in monogamy is less in the gay community, the burden of canceling a legal agreement is much higher than when one would just be shacking up. More monogamy would be a plus for the gay community. Second, you seemed to ignore the impact on the children that gay people are going to create or adopt. Civil unions would undoubtedly be better as two parents are generally better than one.

Again, there are other contractual ways for gays to get most of what they want from each other in the event of separation, hospitalization, death, inheritance, etc. If they don’t get certain tax breaks, too bad and why should they? They can’t create children together and they don't role-model to youth the potentially pro-creative couple (man with woman.) They usually have a higher income than average. They have chosen their unnatural lifestyle –we shouldn’t have to subsidize or legalize it–even if they are victims of external influences on their gender identity and orientation.

I don’t think marriage and written agreement will incline the homosexuals toward monogamy OR long-lasting relationships –because it IS possible to have these without marriage ceremony and contract, and they don’t. The ceremony doesn’t keep the promiscuous together. These are not “natural” couplings, i.e. “according to biological nature.” They typically lack the glues of life-time commitment: child-making, child-rearing, grandparenting, better mental and economic stability. (Granted, science steps forward --more and more at our expense--to help them do the unnatural.)

At some point, even before they are really “old,” the males may find anal sex injurious and impossible in old age. Hence, the 50% rate of single gays (males) between ages 50–70. After all, without sex, who needs to live with some aging, crotchety partner in a lifestyle that is born of idolizing youth and beauty?

Proponents of homosexuality like to point out other methods of reproduction in the bio-world and the occasional confused animals who may partner homosexually (very, very rare, I believe) — but it is clear in our human bio-design, that we are to have sex with the opposite sex only –we are designed for it and this is the way we make babies and perpetuate the human race. These are the couples that can truly experience “perma-bond-ability.”

Heterosexuals are the ones who role model both masculinity and femininity to children –giving them what they deserve and need for their OWN normal sexual identity and orientation.

• The daughters of single teen mothers are over 90 percent likely to follow mom’s pattern.
  
• The children of divorce are over 90 percent likely to follow parental pattern.
  
• The unmarried baby-daddy/baby mama phenomenon in black community is epidemic.
• The children of functional hetero-parented homes who make life-time marriage and family life enjoyable tend to see their children follow in their footsteps.
• It’s logical, therefore, to expect that homosexual homes will produce more bisexuals, homosexuals, sexually experimental, gender insecure youth.

And it’s also true that dysfunctional married heteros reproduce their dysfunctions in their kids –and disillusion youth about marriage. The increase in numbers of homosexuals can be attributed in part (not always) to the breakdown of heterosexual marriages, the poor examples set by hetero couples whose homes were full of quarrels, temper, apparent lack of love on a daily basis.

Homosexuals want to do “it” differently and start out with idolatry toward the beautiful of their own sex and fantasizing about really close relations with the admired (this latter is also a typical stage of child development) — they also typically manifest some gender identification confusion –usually influenced unconsciously by parents –often (not always) by a lack of functional normal loving parents of both sexes –and then by peers –and sometimes by older molesters who seek out the fatherless males. If the kids get into sexual activities with their own sex, they can get fixated there –arrested development and a gay self-image. Especially with schools, media and law saying gay marriage is as good as straight and that “some of you are inevitably born gay.” It also doesn’t help late bloomers or effeminate boys or tomboy girls to be bullied and forced to wonder if they are abnormal –that just reinforces their gender insecurity.

Parents are role models. If they started to have sex promiscuously with their own sex, where is their moral authority to raise kids who are straight, abstinent and then married and monogamous? No moral authority –zip –nada. Because one doesn’t usually decide he is gay by living a celibate life abstaining until marriage. Instead, a typical homosexual has risked all sorts of diseases –especially males–and has a lot of mental disarray on the way to “partnership” because (I think) one probably can’t feel really good about crossing God’s design as they do.

Peace, joy, contentment don’t come to those in bed with people of the same sex –nor other people’s spouses, nor with bio– members of one’s own family, nor to pedophiles — And not to anyone, straight or gay, who is out of sync with their Creator in general. Hence, so much depression, dissatisfaction, misery, addiction, dysfunction and divorce in the world.

In the recent UCLA Center for Health Policy and Research report on health of older homosexuals, there is high self-reporting of poor health, both physically and mentally, among older homosexuals. They are more apt to be alone in ages 50-70, lacking both partners and children to care for them. We really don't have any reason to think that gay marriage can change the essential nature of this condition.

As for the impact on the children in gay-parented homes –I surely do not ignore that, as charged in the above blogger quote.
1. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt –considering straight couples abound who want children.
2. those who oppose gay marriage do not want their children to see gay coupling as normal and as an equally happy life-partner choice –because it isn’t. Who would desire this for their own children?
3. Children deserve to have both mother and father when possible.

Consider the case of one Rosie O’Donell–whose little boy, according to her, said, “I want a Daddy!” And she unsympathetically explained to him that he wasn’t going to have a daddy since his mommies were lesbians. How sad for a boy trying to become a man with a house full of ladies! And yes, single parenting happens in a high percentage of straight homes, too -–but the bio-dad will at least have a better chance to visit and influence his son–and get custody of him in case something does happen to the single or married birth mother. Pity the boy left with his usually mannish, lesbian, non-birth mommy and never having access to his bio-father –except by expensive legal arrangements benefiting only the attorneys.

Unfortunately, Rosie and her partner adopted that little boy–and he was denied a daddy because of their selfishness and the fact that they DECIDED a father wasn’t important to a child. And now the 2 women are “divorced.”

There is an additional complication for the children in gay-parented homes — they are already children of divorce or the unmarried. The birth parent in the couple was either divorced or abandoned by the other party. The male couples typically would adopt if they wanted children, not able to get custody of their bio-children (I'm assuming courts favor the mother when her husband decides to divorce because he’s gay. If the children are at troublesome ages (when aren't they?) I suspect most gay men prefer the mothers, their ex-wives, to have the custody, and it is surely better for the children, than to ponder and find out what their two dads do together in the bedroom.)

When the lesbian couple has children, one parent is usually the birth mother divorced or never married to the child’s father. This makes a mess for a father who wants to stay involved in his child’s life when that child is in a lesbian home. It will be harder to protect his son from homosexuality and gender insecurity/confusion.

There surely were straight couples willing to adopt Rosie’s little boy to give him both a daddy and mommy–as it is very hard for the straight couples to find infants in the US to adopt and foreign countries don’t make adoption easy, either. And now the gays are competing for those children on an equal basis with straight couples –as in England and one of our US states (if memory serves me) where Catholic adoption closed down rather than be forced by law to give children to gay couples.

The work for attorneys will never end, dealing with homosexual couples, their adoptions and divorces and custody battles. Because homosexual couples are INHERENTLY less stable, less capable of perma-bond, than straights –and this will affect all their children adversely –and a higher percentage of their kids will sex-periment with bisexuality and homosexuality. Their parents will give them the same license to sex-periment which they gave themselves.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for lesbian and gay parents who want to be favored in custody over the other bio-parent.

This whole national issue is one big can of worms. Polygamists will have no reason to be denied legal marriage–even though most men can’t afford multiple families without the help of the gov’t.

See my blog report about Andrew Solomon's modern family: http://thebarbwire.blogspot.com/2011/02/andrew-solomons-modern-family.html

His is an example of the educated, “enlightened” MODERN family –the most complicated family tree ever. It will be interesting, and probably sad, to see how these children do in adulthood. I’m predicting, sadly, that they are just as “at risk” for various problems as the financially disadvantaged children born to the single moms –who make up most of the jail population, incidentally.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Why Not Domestic Partner Status at Least, if not Gay Marriage?

a blogger: I could understand creating some legal scheme for same-sex partners given that they are de facto couples with property, shared income and expenses, and children.

In my city, to register as a "domestic partner," you can't be just 2 people sharing a place, family life, apartment, etc. in order to share expenses and have the same perks (whatever they are) as married couples --you have to say that you have a sexual relationship with each other. Why should gov't be recognizing homosexual couplings for legal purposes anyway???

What’s the need? Other contracts can suffice. As for the children, they belong to their bio-parents –and should never be given to gay parents via adoption or contrived “gay marriage.”

Mother’s house-mate ought not be in her room in the first place –and ought not be considered a parent –just Mommy’s friend. Or the lady friend “with whom we share life and expenses.” The other parent is the child’s father –by rights. If he’s a loser, join the club of other single mothers. There IS nothing inherently wrong with two women living together to pool resources and raise children and give the non-bio-parent-friend the comfort of family life --but today that suggests to outsiders that it is a lesbian arrangement --and in fact the gov't and employee benefits are only for those in a sexual "union." Too bad that sharing expenses and charitably taking in a same sex friend can look that way.

But 2 mommies? Even the step-mother/step-father situation has been problematic for kids, though sometimes the lesser of other evils. Two lesbian mommies and 2 gay daddies is not something to role model to kids –especially when we need kids to grow up able to form and stay in nuclear families –mom with dad and their children.

The functional nuclear family with a mother and father is a “mental health center” and “financial aid center” for families. We need more of those –not fewer.

See the post above for more on this topic.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible