My Response on a Blog Re: Obama's Defense of Gay Marriage

On a blog --in response to specific comments of another blogger: 

 

Argue with St. Paul if you must. That was only 20 centenarians' lifetimes ago and he has more claim to divine insight than most of us since he was a persecutor of Christians who was blinded by a light on the road to Damascus ("he saw the light!".) He heard the resurrected Christ's voice telling him how and where and by whom (named him) to get his sight back (ironically on the street called Straight) --and from then on, he was a leading teacher/apologist for Christianity. Here's what He wrote: Romans 1: 18-32.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:%2018-32&version=NIV1984

I suppose you know Sodomy gets its name from the city where the men desired sex with the angels --who were visiting Lot as men. It refers to homosexual relations. Don't be so sure (as you stated)  that these acts possible for men with each other were as common as you think for married heteros through the ages ----especially anal --or swallowing semen. I'm pretty sure my mother and grandmother never did these things. And it's not the way I have sex either. And I've yet to have a lady friend tell me she loves sex this way--but I've had a few say they got rid of guys who wanted them to do gay acts. They told 'em to get hence and find a boyfriend for the yuck stuff.

Men want these acts once they experience them, evidently. Which is why sodomy is so forbidden in the Bible. God knows that men would put their do-hickies just ANYWHERE! and come to crave the forbidden if they pursued self-gratification this way (lovers of self.) The procreative plan is for man to crave intimacy with his wife in the normal way--not to say there isn't much variety in position and in foreplay --and in oral stimulation --which is probably all permissible. As Paul wrote, "The marriage bed is undefiled."

My remark about AIDS. It was quixotic what society/media did in the wake of the AIDS crisis. It seems suicidal to promote homosexuality as a normal, unavoidable, lifestyle. But we did it --and went to great lengths in our privacy protection--because we didn't want anyone to persecute AIDS victims for fear of their blood and fluids. The country WAS terrified that we didn't know how to stop this epidemic that was fluid-borne. We feared accidental contagion through contact sports, traffic accidents, bathroom accidents, hospitals --(and some of those were afflicted and died of AIDS because of needle-sticks or surgery accidents.) It WAS the gays and "men on the downlow" who brought it to America --to the blood supply, the prostitutes, the drug addicts, wives and their babies. The promiscuity of the gay community was amazing --horrifying --so the idea of marriage came up --maybe if they married....! But if heteros weren't faithful, why would we think that homosexuals would be more so? Considering the huge beach parties, bath houses, gay bars, and the extremely promiscuous nature of the movement. Newsweek noted the young gays, late in the epidemic, didn't use condoms.  They showed photos of huge beach parties, with hundreds of men standing around at night half-dressed --some women.  No, not swimming.  Holding their drinks, networking, finding temporary boyfriends.   Sad, not gay.

 

 

 

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

Who's Nicest? Obama or Romney?

This is from a blog --NOT BY ME --by a guy named Dan and I thought it was great.  (Why don't I cite the blogs where i write?  I have good reason.) 


Nice guy??? Maybe it's like everything else under Obama...try to portray it as exactly the opposite of reality. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy....and an incompetent. Obama's certainly an incompetent...but not a nice guy. This is the most self-congratulatory, overreaching egomaniac who's ever occupied the White House. And he's a not-very-veiled corrupt thug of the Chicago variety. 
  
A short list: 

•  sacking an inspector general who exposed an Obama crony;
•  Fast & Furious;
•  trying to use the Endowment for the Arts for propaganda purposes;
•  trashing the U.S. in foreign speeches; 
•  crony capitalism with his bundlers; 
• standing up the leader of a trusted ally;
•  race baiting before he has all the facts;
•  lying (profusely, it turns out) about the impact of Obamacare and other legislation;
•  unprecedented deficits and debt; 
• appointments of anti-American ideologues as secretaries of Energy, Commerce, Environmental Protection, Health & Human Services, etc....and we could go on endlessly.                                         
• On an almost daily basis, this President has assaulted:
•  common sense, 
• the Constitution, 
• the principle of separation of powers,
•  Congress, 
• the Supreme Court, 
• ordinary citizens who dare to disagree with his ideas
•  and American values.
• We won't be forgetting. November is pay back time. Romney's fine...but it wouldn't matter who the GOP nominee is. We're mostly voting against this failed President who it turns out has nothing, at all, in common with the average hardworking, patriotic American. If you enjoyed 2010, you're gonna love  2012  
•                                                                                                                                                                                             "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Why Does Gay Marriage Lose at the Polls?

• A RECENT BLOG EXCHANGE:  
   
   The Texan:  

  The answer may have to do with voter turnout. People who support gay marriage, or at least don't actively oppose it, are less likely to make a special trip to vote on the issue. Those who genuinely (if absurdly) believe that gay marriage is a threat to their own straight lifestyle are motivated to show up. Double that for those who believe their god condemns it.
  

   

  Me:  To The Texan:   You are sort of right.  The irresponsible citizens don't always vote --and they are often the ones too ignorant to see that marriage matters.   You think gay marriage is opposed just because it is a threat to straight lifestyles?  Let's say homosexuality IS a threat to heterosexuals --say in the case of the Episcopalian minister who left wife and kids to be with his male lover --and then the church elevated him to bishop.  She might consider homosexuality a threat to her life and happiness and marriage.  I would if I were her.  I'd be furious if my husband wanted to get his jollies with anal or oral sex --and had also been doing so for years and then coming home to me.  Blccch.

   

   This activity should never be entertained in the mind, much less in act.  "Yield not to temptation --for yielding is sin,"  goes the old gospel song.  What's happened to our brains that we don't have a taboo fence to keep us from pondering the taboos of same-sex relations, polygamy, adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality?    For all these activities start first in the mind. Today, we have tv and schools--all media--telling us "gay is good" --"choose your gender"  --"you can marry any other human(s)--regardless of gender."    This is all total bunkum and should never be entertained in mind or media or society --in any way at all.    We shall reap what we sow. 

   

   We don't just BELIEVE our God opposes gay marriage.  It's obvious from our design that we were NOT designed for homosexual coupling.  We are designed to couple with, and parent with, the opposite sex --only.   And God's Word is clear in Romans 1 --also Leviticus.  But nature tells us --even if there are aberrations in fallen nature --like the dog humping our legs --- the dog is still designed to hump a dog --not our legs.  

   

  Likewise, all men are designed for copulation with women --not each other.

  
  

  Nevertheless, God forgives the repentant sinner --and all of us have sinned.  But that's no excuse for legitimating sin via gay marriage. 

  
  

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

OBAMA --the first gay president??? on Mother's Day

Last week, Newsweek featured Obama on the cover with a rainbow halo and called him "the first gay president."  Andrew Sullivan, a married, gay conservative, wrote the article.   I noticed he suggested that Obama lacked closeness to his father and step-father  as many gays did!  (Now there's an admission that fits MY theory of gay causation!)   He likened Obama's situation as a bi-racial man to that of homosexual men.  But I have to wonder if the democrats were not chagrined to see the title, "first gay president," affixed to Obama --since Sullivan was not saying he was actually gay. 

However, allegedly, the mother of the murdered choir director at Obama's church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, came out to say her son and 2 other church men were murdered on the eve of Obama's  first presidential  candidacy because they were known to be involved with him homosexually.  One gay man came out publically after those murders to claim that he had a sexual encounter with Obama in the back seat of a limo that he (not Obama) had rented.  He said he did this so he would NOT be murdered for it, figuring if he got the story out, they wouldn't dare do him in.  

http://conservativeallies.yuku.com/topic/9086/Three-Openly-Gay-Men--Rev-Wright-s-Chicago-Church-KILLED---M#.T7PT1lL93Mk


 Our  minister said Sunday, that, in effect,  Obama had announced with his gay marriage affirmation during Mother's Day week that mothers (or fathers)are no longer necessary for the rearing of children. Aren't they???

Same-sex kids idolize each other as a part of normal growing up; in my youth, to turn that admiration for same-sex individuals into sexual desire was as taboo as incest or pedophilia. We slammed the mind's gate down on taboos --"didn't go there." Now the public school and media entertainment feel obligated to encourage kids into gay relations. New law for gay marriage will be a TEACHER to our kids --that they can explore same-sex possibility. What a mess on the horizon!

We do need a constitutional amendment defining marriage.   The writers never dreamed we'd be lunatic enough to make a new definition of marriage. Had they had prophetic insight, they would've defined it. If we today have any prophetic insight we SHALL define it and get it into the constitution as most states have done --before all the kids are confused, believing marriage is for any 2 (or more) people. 

Proponents of gay marriage say they have over 50% of the country in their favor.  If this isn't true, it soon will be, with youth growing up on GLEE and SISTER WIVES  and all the other media and education propaganda that says marriage and sex are for any combination of people.

Read Romans 1 to see that this problem of homosexuality is as old as the Gospel.   And the Good News is that ALL people can be forgiven of their sins and experience new life in Christ.  Repentance comes first.  Agreement with God about what is right and wrong is essential for repentance. 


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

DOES MEDIA SHAPE CULTURE --OR VICE VERSA?

I had a recent discussion with a couple who are PhD candidates and they assert that media reflects culture more than it leads it. I couldn't disagree more.

Cultural trends are always inspired --started by someone who gets a lot of publicity and admiration.  If there are no trend setters; no cultural change.    I believe Michael Landon's Little House on the Prairie tv series, based on the books,  inspired a generation of home-schoolers who wanted their kids to be wholesome and protected from the seamy side of life like the Ingalls girls --who wanted their marriages to be happy like the tv couple --who  even liked country decor and dress also. While we didn't all home school or dress our girls in dresses, we still ALL admired the little house family and their demonstration of "family values."   

Then came Seinfeld and Friends.   The Christian young people of college age were glued to Friends.   These are people who don't need parents or have them --and any parents are usually  ridiculous characters as in most sit coms.  And sure enough, Just like the Friends,  I find today's younger generation to be tolerant of gay marriage, transgendering, alcohol use (nothing new), cohabiting before the wedding (new as a cultural phenom) --even some who were raised to be Christians.  The shows  made light of immorality.  And while they sometimes showed glimpses of negative consequences of immorality--it never turned out THAT bad --with the woman and her kids in poverty.  Consequences are always more laughable than painful in such series.  Of course, we want them to have happy endings.

Dan Quayle wasn't wrong about Murphy Brown --that she made a choice to keep a baby and be a career woman raising her child without a father. As pro-lifers we support women who keep their babies --but would their kids have been better off in so many ways if they had been given up for adoption?    I don't in the least condemn single moms --but we are not speaking truth if we don't do as Santorum did --and tell the truth --that if you wait for marriage before parenting, you and your child have have much less chance of poverty status. 

TV says (watch Lifetime) single women can have jobs and raise their fatherless  kids just fine--and they will eventually meet a rich, single, professional man who will marry them.

I agree with being culturally savvy enough to engage others in conversation --and to point out truths that show up in good drama/good art, but the admired art today is selling us untruths --and we should protest and compete with better art and drama --like Courageous --which, for its alleged faults (maybe too many themes in one story,)  it had the power to move MOST of us in a good direction --in our realization that good Christian fathers are needed to impact our culture --for the sake of the children--for the sake of their ultimate salvation.





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

THE LAW TEACHES!

THE LAW TEACHES!

The law really does teach a  concept of what is "right" and what is "wrong."   The Ten C's and the Golden Rule teach the believer --along with other commands of Christ --and the majority of what is written in the Bible teaches us.   Granted, government and religion don't agree today about what is right and lawful or not.  Despite our claim of church-state separation,  the law teaches the masses by determining what is legal or lawful and what is not.  The masses equate "legal" with "permissable" and also "right."  Sometimes the law of the land has been  Biblically right --when it outlawed slavery, polygamy, sodomy and abortion.  But this is no longer true today, since it has created new "rights."

In 1973, the Supreme court said state laws against abortion were illegal --that abortion was a woman's constitutional right --and thus "right."   I've heard girls defend abortion by saying, "It's legal!"  The whole case was based on a fraud --Jane Roe (pseudonym) was not pregnant by rape as the women's advocacy groups (NOW) claimed.   She did go on to have the baby because the case wasn't settled until it was too late for her to have the abortion she wanted.   Her daughter and she are both pro-life advocates today! 

One defense given for legalizing abortion  was that so many women died at the hands of back-alley abortionists before 1973.  Is that a true statement?  It is according to this liberal site:   http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_Abortion.shtml:

One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret.The right wing has gone on an organized campaign to discredit such statistics, going as far to claim that deaths from illegal abortion were "just" a few dozen a year--and that the anecdotes of items such as coat hangers being inserted into women's bodies to cause an abortion are false. In reality, coat hangers were just one horror among many during the years of illegal abortion.

 So approx. 1.5 million babies killed a year on average  since 1973 vs. 5 to 15,000 alleged deaths of unwed women (double the number for their babies killed with them)  by illegal abortion attempts annually? before legal abortion.   Someone once did a cemetary and death records study and couldn't find 5-15,000 unwed women of child-bearing age per year  who could be presumed to have died by illegal abortions, even factoring in the secrecy.  BTW, CA doesn't report their abortion records and they probably have many.

All I can tell you is that I went to a small town/rural township school --with 40 in my graduating class, we fulfilled the stats of 1 out of 40 unwed teen pregnancies for white girls  --and this one ended in a marriage which did not last --but she was at least not a single mother without any child support or a father to her child.   I never knew anyone who had to go to a home for unwed mothers from which many adoptions were made. I did know a lot of adopted children. I also didn't know anyone who had an illegal abortion --and usually such secrets weren't very secretive.  We all  knew who was rumored to be  "going all the way,"  and it was considered immoral to do so --even by the unchurched.  Sex ed. warned us about STD's and we all had heard of condoms as an attempt to prevent pregnancy and disease.   Those were the options to unwed pregnancy in those days.  Abortion was never  a school debate or paper assignment --and no one I knew thought it was "right" or argued for that view.

   In the 1970's, Planned Parenthood hit our schools with their Rocky Mtn. PP brochure about how "no longer was there a dichotomy between good girls and bad --no longer was there a double standard whereby "all boys did it"  and "good girls didn't."  The brochure told how grandma used to say, "Keep your knees together, " but this was no longer necessary.  Because we have birth control --and abortion.  

Even then, "Good girls didn't" and " immoral, weak-willed girls did"  wasn't the standard  that PP alleged. AFter all, the shot gun wedding was evidence that the males were held to account --though sometimes the parents preferred the girl go have the baby and give it up --seeing no future in the baby's father.   There was more compassion  then PP admits --and eventually  a realization that the father shouldn't get to stay in school and keep playing football while the pregnant girlfriend got expelled.  It was around that time that schools decided to help unwed mothers stay in school, even providing childcare in some cases.   One school nearby was known for its pregnant girls on the Homecoming Court.
 The sexual revolution started after the advent of The Pill, with legal abortion in '73 --and the hippie revolution with its free love emphasis.  There were only a few real hippies in society in the 60's but by the 70's the culture was on its way to the free-love, drug-using culture it became --the sexual revolution.

There were not nearly so many fatherless youth or "broken homes," in our day.    There was no trend to keep one's baby as a single unwed teen mother.  Steadily dating couples were just as tempted then as now to have sex --but casual intercourse among relative strangers and new daters  was very unlikely and uncommon.  And before the pill, in the 50's, everyone was afraid of pregnancy, so much more time was spent on the preliminaries of intimacy --guys didn't expect to go all the way with casual dates, and as much as they pushed for the "foreplay" activities, they typically would stop themselves before they made a baby because society was likely to make them marry the girl.    Many did marry their first loves-- or 2nd or 3rd at least.  Promiscuity was not encouraged as normal, the way it is today.  And divorce was not as easy to get --many would change their minds in the waiting period.


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