Update III: I landed a week-long guest blogging gig at Beliefnet. I cross-posted today, but look for fresh content this week. While visiting the site last week, I found a link to The Da Vinci Dialogue. Check out the line-up of experts.
On a different note, this post hasn’t generated hate mail yet (It’s a miracle!), but I’ve got “liberal Christians” e-mailing, urging me not to deny homosexuals their “civil rights.” News flash: people who engage in that lifestyle have the same civil rights as I do. What they want are special rights.
James White on “super rights” here (daughter), here, and here.
An exposition of Romans 1:26-27.
Also see America on the Decline.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Homosexuals continue to equate perversion with black America’s struggle in the 1960s for equal rights. Highly offensive. But then again, they don’t care about offending me. 
An organization called Soulforce has formed a group to go on a 51-day tour of Christian and military colleges that oppose homosexual behavior. Members of the so-called Equality Rides travel to schools to “present a powerful case for GLBT equality.” For you virtual virgins, GLBT stands for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered. “Transgendered” is a euphemism for a man in a dress [or who thinks he should be a woman. What is the difference? ]
On the first stop of a 51-day “gay-rights” bus tour aimed at bringing media attention to the non-admission policies for gays at 20 Christian colleges and military schools, 24 members of the Soulforce Equality Ride found themselves sitting in the Lynchburg, Virginia, jail, arrested for trespassing at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and facing possible $2,500 fines and a year in jail.
…Equality Ride is modeled after the “freedom rides” of the 1960’s civil rights movement and the group, many wearing buttons reading “Learn from history,” says its cause is the same as ending racial discrimination was a generation ago.
Liberty University is private (thankfully), so Jerry Falwell was within his rights to have the group arrested as trespassers. Here’s what homosexuals can’t seem to grasp: Christians are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle not because we’re ignorant; we oppose it because God does. Exposure to the homosexual lifestyle or listening to “equality” sermons won’t negate or erase the word of God, no matter how many ways you serve it up.
Update: Blogger Randy Thomas recently appeared on a panel with a Soulforce member. The post is a must-read.
Update II: Reformed Christian apologist and debater James White says of Soulforce: “Their real goal is the overthrow of biblical morality, its utter abandonment by Christian people.”
Hopefully this week or next, National Review Online will publish an op-ed/review I wrote (finally) for Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. The author is enamored with lesbian couples and other “single by choice” women raising boys without fathers.
Additionally, if you find yourself in DC on March 27 and 28, stop by the Vision America Conference. I’ll be there. 
Related posts:
{ 7 trackbacks }
{ 67 comments }
I recently visited Azusa Pacific (one of the colleges targeted) and appeared on a panel with one of the Soulforce activists.
I think it is very important for the minority community to stand up for true civil rights. The gay identified community definitely have topics worth discussing but reframing those topics into power grabbing attention getters doesn’t help anyone.
You’re far from the only black person offended by the attempt to equate homosexuality with civil rights and struggles of blacks and other minorities in the past. The problem is that the leftist leadership and Democrat voter base is pulled in two directions: their cultural conservatism and their party’s allegiance to any leftist cause du jour.
Don’t these GLBT activists have real jobs?
I can’t get too upset about the GL –
But TRANSGENDER? Informed people tell me this is SERIOUS PSYCHOPATHOLOGY.
I agree with you. I think this is on the same level as the lesbians hijacking feminism.
according to CBS News ‘60 Minutes’ (from Sun, Mar 12, 2006) we’re ALL gay now…
The Science Of Sexual Orientation
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml
I guess it all depends upon who your God is. My God is cool with GLBT.
While you may find offensive this notion of civil rights applying to all people, Coretta Scott King disagrees with you.
On several occasions she equated the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement of her husbands era.
John,
I was pretty sure we buried Coretta Scott King not too long ago. That she is “disagreeing” disturbs me. Did they put the wrong woman in the ground?
On the real though, Coretta had her own agenda apart from MLK. She took some elements of the dream and unfortunately fashioned it into a nightmare. The greater moral John is that no matter if an angel from heaven came down or Coretta was raised from the dead to speak in favor of it, LaShawn is pointing out that God has already spoken clearly and convincingly. It is sin and should never be celebrated in any way.
Yeah, I’ve never understood how a group of people who engage in a certain behavior—-see themselves as a special race and creed.
Behavior = race.
And so, anyone who disagrees with that behavior is racist.
According to them.
“Here’s what homosexuals can’t seem to grasp: Christians are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle not because we’re ignorant; we oppose it because God does.”
As a Christian myself, let me say this: There’s one key thing in the statement I quoted here that most Christians can’t seem to grasp: The above statement should more properly read “….because WE BELIEVE God does”.
Many Christians forget that it’s called “faith” because it can’t be proven and so you can’t say what God does and does not do. All you can accurately say is what “you believe” God does.
There is a big and critical difference. You immediately shutdown dialog with non-believers when you talk about what “God does” as if you actually know. It comes off as supremely arrogant and is, in a line of logical reasoning, indefensible.
excerpt from Marianne M. Jennings column, Oct. 20, 2000,www.jewishworldreview.com:
…This controversy highlights the brutish tactics the gay community employs in its battles. They make ten mistakes in dealing with their fellow citizens. Perhaps this list can set the record straight, as it were.
#1. The vast majority of Americans don’t deserve to be portrayed as Matthew Shepard killers. Are there violent heartless rednecks out there? Sure, but a couple of barhopping guys in Wyoming are not representative of the rest of us.
#2. Sexual orientation and sexual activity are private issues. Was l’ affaire du Monica in vain? Privacy demands on everything from smoking to genetic screening are not suddenly irrelevant when it comes to sexual orientation.
#3. It is silly nagging to say that being gay means so much more than one’s sex life. Such an assertion smacks of obsession. Sexuality is but one part of who we are. To argue it is the focus of life belies human superiority to beasts.
#4. The vast majority of Americans don’t care whether someone is gay. If #s 2 and 3 were heeded, we wouldn’t know. Even when we do know, we don’t care. At work we care about slackers. At home we care about neighbors maintaining their yards.
#5. Homosexuals are often victims of their own conduct, not prejudice. I worked with a woman who let us know every day in every way that she was a lesbian. She drove us crazy not because of sexual orientation but because she was a miserable human being. There was no task she didn’t whine about, no unpleasantry she didn’t utter and no day she smiled. When she attributed her lack of advancement to her orientation one co-worker objected, “Actually, it’s because you don’t carry your load.”
#6. Americans favor equal treatment of gays and lesbians, but oppose special treatment. We resent anyone being fired for reasons other than poor job performance. An indomitable spirit of justice is ever present and vigilant in matters of earning a living and homosexual workers have this indignation as an ally. Opposition to homosexuality as a protected class like race does not squelch equality. Race is a physical trait. Homosexuality is not. And see rules #2, 3 and 4.
#7. Inconsistent arguments test our patience. A former student of mine who felt compelled to disclose his sexual orientation once asked, “Do you honestly think anyone would choose the miserable life I have?” Then why condemn the Family Research Council for its work in converting gays? If tolerance is important, why attack the BSA?
#8. Opposition to gay marriage is not homophobic. Marriage is more than insurance and pension benefits. It has been, in this era and all that came before, a union between man and woman for purposes of procreation and protection of progeny. Parental rights confusion in homosexual unions alone should give pause. The role of government is not one of dictating relationships. However, it is the role of government to provide legal protection for those relationships that further society’s best interests.
#9. Maligning heterosexual marriage does little to advance discussion. No marriage is perfect. No parent is perfect. That humans don’t always rise to the ideals of marriage and parenthood is insufficient reason to surrender its structure to same-gender unions.
#10. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance is live and let live. Acceptance mandates that the straights surrender religious beliefs. While some religions appear ready to jump ship when it comes to scriptures, there are many that condemn homosexuality, not homosexuals. Those same religions condemn cohabitation, regardless of gender. Faithful members will hire homosexuals, work with them in the community and help them as neighbors. But, they protect their children from the “gay lifestyle.” Just as they would not permit a male PE teacher in the girl’s locker room, they decline gay troop leaders for Scout camping trip. It’s not bigotry or homophobia; it’s common sense, applied equally across sexual orientation lines.
Homosexuality, if allowed to flourish publicly, ALWAYS becomes militant against God and all non-homosexuals. God illustrates that on a couple of occassions in scripture.
And after militancy is then followed by criminal behavior, that eventually degenerates into extreme criminal behavior.
God makes it clear that those who become a homosexual, end up with a stigma of shame that rests deep within their hearts. I have seen that sense of shame lead to alcholism, to drug abuse, to suicide, because everything they try to use to eliminate that guilt does not work, unless it is God Himself that they eventually turn to.
And lastly, homosexuality in the eyes of God is just as equal a sin as any other sin, and those people, through the work of the Holy Spirit can be saved and can repent away from homosexuality. Therefore, it is extremely important, to take this opportunity of these people who are confronting Christians, to show them the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit can begin working within their hearts. That should be the counter plan adopted and worked out amongst Christians they have schedule to protest. Of course those who close their hearts, should not be allowed to carry out criminal activities, so it will be a delicate confrontation.
whose God are we talking about here? Just to be clear.
Here’s what Americans can’t seem to grasp: Muslims are opposed to the homosexual not because we’re ignorant; we oppose it because Allah does. Exposure to the homosexual lifestyle or listening to “equality†sermons won’t negate or erase the word of Allah, no matter how many ways you serve it up.
Well at least there is one thing Christians and Muslims can agree on….
whose God are we talking about here? Just to be clear.
Comment by Jerry Remy — 03.13.06 @ 4:24 pm
There is only one God. And God does not belong to anyone. The One who created the heavens and the earth and gave people He created a choice to follow His statutes and Judgements or not to follow those Statutes and Judgements that He has laid out plainly before us through the Word of God, the Bible, authored through the prophets by the Holy Spirit of God.
There is only one God. And God does not belong to anyone. The One who created the heavens and the earth and gave people He created a choice to follow His statutes and Judgements or not to follow those Statutes and Judgements that He has laid out plainly before us through the Word of God, the Holy Qu’ran, authored through the prophets by the Holy Spirit of God.
There is only one God. And God does not belong to anyone. The One who created the heavens and the earth and gave people He created a choice to follow His statutes and Judgements or not to follow those Statutes and Judgements that He has laid out plainly before us through the Word of God, the Torah, authored through the prophets by the Holy Spirit of God.
Sorry Jerry, it’s a little more complicated than that.
Oops, make that “Sorry RG…”
The lack of compromise in “because God says” is telling. Must be lovely to have a God whose views mirror your own so perfectly.
FYI, transgendered is someone who doesn’t fall into a clear gender role. For instance, someone who is born with both sets of genitals, and has a mix of natural gender hormones created in their body. The T does not stand for transvestite, but thanks for spreading that hateful lie anyways.
Have a bad day,
Susan.
So “transgendered” commonly refers to people with “both sets of genitals?” Hardly. That’s not what the LGBT community has in mind when it uses the term. And despite your ill wishes, my day has been swell. Wishing bad things on people is…bad. Don’t you at least believe in Karma?
- Admin
“Lack of compromise” also describes adherence to moral values, a virtue to most of us. Your unintentional perspicacity is amusing. And you fail to understand that we can believe in what we choose, and that your right to advocate your (lifestyle) is equaled by our right to believe in (God). Pax transgenderati.
What equal rights does Soulforce want? Do they want to be admitted to a Christian school? Why? Do they want the Christian schools to change their theology or abolish their beliefs or change their curriculum? Why? Who do they want to change? Do they want people to turn from heterosexuality to homosexuality? Why? I don’t understand what they want. They can go to any public school. They can practice their sexual behavior as long as it is within the law just as heterosexuals can. They can interpret any religious text any way they want. What do they want?
“Here’s what homosexuals can’t seem to grasp: Christians are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle not because we’re ignorant; we oppose it because God does.”
I agree that the list of things that God opposes probably is quite lengthy. If we are to go strictly by what is in the bible, some may say that there are bigger fish to fry than GLBT. Being unfaithful to one’s partner in marriage is opposed by God. Are we equally as opposed to unfaithfulness in marriage as we are about the whole GLBT issue? God is opposed to divorce as well. Did you know that the rate of divorce is 4.7/1000, whereas the rate of marriage is 7.8/1000? (National Center for Health Statistics- CDC) Should we not be concerned that six out of ten marriages end in divorce? Is this not worthy of talking about rather than what the GLBT choose to do?
Sorry Jerry, it’s a little more complicated than that.
Comment by Patrick — 03.13.06 @ 5:03 pm
——————————————————————————–
Oops, make that “Sorry RG…â€
Comment by Patrick — 03.13.06 @ 5:04 pm
Hardly. It is very simple. It is the world that tries to complicate the simple Truth.
To those Christians who would confront these militant homosexuals. Do not present your opinions and do not try to persuade. Simply recite verse and scripture from God’s Word there fore allowing the Holy Spirit direct access to the hearts of the militant homosexual. Anything other than that is you interfering allowing the Holy Spirit to work through the Word of God.
This confrontation has been placed now on a very public plane, and in front of the most militant homosexuals. This is good, for as the Word is presented to counter this attempt by the militant homosexuals, you will also be exposing the world to the Holy Spirit through God’s Word.
FYI, transgendered is someone who doesn’t fall into a clear gender role. For instance, someone who is born with both sets of genitals, and has a mix of natural gender hormones created in their body. The T does not stand for transvestite, but thanks for spreading that hateful lie anyways.
Susan, you must have swallowed the blue pill.
“Transgenders” are nothing more than a man pretending to be a woman. Or a woman pretending to be a man. Because you mutilate your God given genitals doesnt suddenly transform you into the opposite sex. I mean simple intelligence tells you that. So called transgenderism is just a gender makeover. That’s it.
What’s really funny is that gay activists will foam at the mouth refuting that gays can change their sexual behavior and or so called orientation, BUT are die hard supporters of those who want to change from what is normal to abnormal. Seems like to me, if one change is good, why can’t all change be good?
Come on Susan, use your brain! Hermaphodites are not homosexuals.
As a Christian here’s my take on the issue. I get very tired of the homosexual lobby shoving their “victim status” in my face. Having said that I don’t condemn them, I pray for them. We are all sinners and the Bible lays out what is right and wrong and homosexuality is one among many sins. Its not our place to judge, but we also don’t need to accept their views.
For example regarding expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples I am strongly against that for many reasons. But if you boil it down heterosexuals create life, homosexuals cannot. That is a fundamental difference that needs to be recognized and held sancrosanct. But I have no problem with gay unions as a legal contract. That’s their business.
Gordon
“Exposure to the homosexual lifestyle or listening to “equality†sermons won’t negate or erase the word of God, no matter how many ways you serve it up.”
Yet, apparently exposure to the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous enough to want to keep homosexuals away from christians.
“For example regarding expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples I am strongly against that for many reasons. But if you boil it down heterosexuals create life, homosexuals cannot. That is a fundamental difference that needs to be recognized and held sancrosanct. But I have no problem with gay unions as a legal contract. That’s their business.
Gordon
Comment by gordon davidson — 03.13.06 @ 7:19 pm ”
Yet, homosexuals CAN nurture life. They can raise children. They can pass on morals and ethics. And since having children has never been a legal or moral perequisite for marriage, your point is moot.
I will never cease to be amused at people telling Christians what they believe and how they should read the Bible. I wouldn’t tell a NASCAR driver how he really drives or how he should shift on the turn. I wouldn’t tell a brain surgeon how he really ought to hold his scalpel. And if I did, I’d look exactly like you people who try this do: presumptuous and immature at best.
I especially love it when atheists try to lecture people on what God thinks or says. That’s worth a few minutes of chuckling if not outright laughter.
Man, La Shawn, I agree with almost everything you opine on in this forum because you back up your statements with such good common horse sense. But it comes to a screaming halt when your reason is simply that God said it’s so. You lose me there.
Blindly following a book, person, ideology, or anything for that matter just doesn’t cut for me. Back it up with some reasoning and I’ll always listen.
Care to elaborate? – Admin
Know not of a law that was passed because someone wanted to be prevented from doing something. Know of lots of laws that were passed to keep those horrid other people from doing something. In Canada a minister who merely reads certain scriptures aloud are threatened with jail.
People who disagree are intimidated, railed against by both protest and Main Stream Media, and sometimes threatened in person by loud bigots. This does not sound like the tolerance they claim to want. When they try to equate it with the struggle for civil rights they are knowingly lying. False but accurate. CBS claims studies with twins show that twins are the same. Nope, that was in the past, now it wants to use studies with twins that show that twins are different.
Enjoyed your thoughts about appearing on a panel at Azusa Pacific, Randy. Both brave, thoughtful, and totally admirable for not losing your temper in a tight spot. When we lose our temper and start to argue we no longer have the Spirit with us. Thank you for your example.
I feel that the act of adultery is even worse than homosexuality. My feelings are not supported in scripture. The commenter about all sin being wrong in the Lord’s eyes comes closer to what scripture actually says. When in doubt I need to learn to go with what the Lord says. Us humans get all tied up with what is better or worse. The only human scale with any possible relevance would be: Sins against others that restitution cannot be made for are worse. But when in doubt, go with scripture.
Was quite impressed with michael deberry’s thoughts. However “Matthew Shepard killers” are an example of a deliberate one sided story by the Main Stream Media. It was vile, yes, and murder. The story also left out checkable facts that would have interfered with the portrayal of the “noble innocent homosexual” who was killed.
Have worked with Boy Scouts. Have worked with young ladies at summer camps. Know people by who they support. NAMBLA is an enemy. Anyone who supports groups that are similar is evil. Period.
Most all of am hurt and offended by those who spew hate in the name of God. Matthew Shepard was and is not hated by the Lord. The Lord hates sin. He loves us, his children.
In response to post 31, (Mel Williams)
I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with your post, but I do feel you have a point when you fault La Shawn for simply stopping at “God said it’s so.” Too often, conservative Christians undermine their own position on homosexuality and gay marriage when they argue the point based solely on what the Bible says. I agree that the Bible is the foundation of our beliefs, but pointing to the Bible will do nothing for people who do not accept the Bible as a valid authority. Christians undermine their own position in doing this, because this then allows supporters of gay marriage to say that opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief, and one religion should not be allowed to impose its religious beliefs on people not of that religion. (I have heard that “argument” numerous times, mostly from young people who are in high school or college).
In reality, we don’t need to read the Bible in order to know that homosexuality and gay marriage are inherently wrong and completely backwards and nonsensical. We are able to know this from natural law–the same thing that allows us to inherently recognize that things like murder and stealing are wrong. Christians also need to point to this when defending the institution of marriage, etc, and not just the Bible.
“We are able to know this from natural law–the same thing that allows us to inherently recognize that things like murder and stealing are wrong. Christians also need to point to this when defending the institution of marriage, etc, and not just the Bible.”
Thanks for adding to the discussion, Derek. This is why I don’t need to say and support everything I write, and I’ve been writing on this blog for almost three years. If people don’t take the time to follow links in the post (because they’re certainly too lazy to read archives), I don’t waste time saying the same thing over and over again.
And if you, as a Christian, really believe that arguing from a biblical point of view somehow undermines our position but that a “non-biblical” argument doesn’t, that’s sad. People will believe what they want. I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to change men’s hearts, and I trust that declaring God’s word is the best place to begin. Only God, and not my words, can soften men’s hearts. If I cared more about what men thought of me than what God thinks, perhaps I’d agree with you. – Admin
Wow! I love the “whose God are you talking about” salvos.
I bet the god of promiscuity and mind expanding delights is a real bear about homophobes!
Wasn’t there a Commandment somewhere about God not being morphed into an idol?
Isn’t it passing strange that there are so many people who bypass the God of the Bible and come up with a more affable deity who will give a pass to sin with a wink and a nod?
He is the god of Flip Wilson’s “Church of What’s Happenin’ Now.” Unfortunately, there are no keys to that god’s kingdom. Anyone can get in.
“And if you, as a Christian, really believe that arguing from a biblical point of view somehow undermines our position but that a ‘non-biblical’ argument doesn’t, that’s sad.”
That wasn’t quite what I said, however. I think there is a valid comparison between this issue and the creation/evolution debate. Would you advocate Christians only arguing from the Bible, and not arguing from science at all?
You wrote: “Too often, conservative Christians undermine their own position on homosexuality and gay marriage when they argue the point based solely on what the Bible says.”
How is that different from what I wrote? – Admin
I ended my comment by saying: “Christians also need to point to this when defending the institution of marriage, etc, and not just the Bible.”
Do you have any thoughts on the comparison that I suggested between this and creation/evolution?
No, I would not use only the Bible to argue the case for ID. – Admin
Oops, hope michael did not think that I was accusing him of hate. It was a group from Kansas who do not speak for most jay hawks I referred to.
Marriage’s second most important part is a covenant to protect the children. Its most important part is a holy commitment to one of the opposite sex. Those who do not know of this are missing something special.
News flash: people who engage in that lifestyle have the same civil rights as I do. What they want are special rights.
I honestly don’t know what you (and others) mean by the phrase “special rights”. I assume you mean that gays want rights that nobody else (including us heterosexuals) have.
If my assumption is right, please name one of those “special rights” that gays seek, because I can’t think of one.
If my assumption is wrong, please tell me what you mean by “special rights”.
I’m not trying to be snarky; I’m just trying to understand your position.
I understand Derek’s comment that the argument of “God says so” is a non-starter for non-believers. There are other arguments against homosexuality/SSM and more ground would be gained pursuing those with non-believers than an argument that doesn’t fit their frame of reference.
I’ve never understood why same sex supporters claim a genetic origin for the behavior but show no interest in explaining how the evolutionary genetics of a non-reproductive sexual behavior represents something other than a biological dead-end or an evolutionary “oops”. No species worth its evolutionary salt is going to waste genetic resources on a behavior that prevents producing offspring. I have read of species that exhibit some homosexual experimentation in adolescence but that behavior disappears on sexual maturity, which makes biological sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In addition, evolutionary pressures should work to keep the number of “oops” organisms to a very small number in order to ensure species survival.
Same sex advocates also want to wish away centuries of social experimentation with family structures that have “evolved” over time to settle on one that lends the most stability to society, culture and government – mother, father, children.
Hanging our hats on a valid (in our opinion) but easily dismissed (in the view of the secularist) argument limits the discussion. Moral arguments are unpersuasive to secularists. Speak of social or biological science and more of them wll listen.
“No, I would not use only the Bible to argue the case for ID.”
If that’s the case, I’m not sure what your problem is with my original argument then.
Would people here not agree that there are some things humans may know without being familiar with Biblical teaching? For example, is it possible for a person who has never read or heard of the Bible to recognize that murder is wrong? My answer is a resounding yes! The apostle Paul recognizes this in Romans 2:14-15:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts …â€
It is my belief that, like murder, people do not need to believe the Bible in order to recognize or know that something like gay marriage is inherently nonsensical. And like Audrey stated, there are a number of arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage that can be used.
The problem is, a number of Christians–when expressing their opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage–express it entirely on the basis of passages from the Bible. This leads to the problem that I have encountered in college classes: students who see nothing wrong with gay marriage believe that opposition to gay marriage (i.e. a belief that gay marriage is wrong) as nothing more than a “religious belief” and a “religious issue”. One religion shouldn’t be allowed to force its religious beliefs on people who aren’t of that religion, they argue, and therefore, gay marriage should be allowed.
These students are actually correct when they say one religion shouldn’t be allowed to force its religious beliefs on people of another religion. The problem is, they have mistakenly identified opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality as a “religious belief.” But is it any wonder why they pick up that mistaken idea when so many Christians argue against homosexuality and gay marriage on Bible passages and Bible passages alone?
Christians believe murder is wrong. Does this make it a “religious belief” or a “religious issue”? No, and I think a vast majority of people would agree with my conclusion. The same goes for homosexuality and gay marriage. Christians need to also argue from a natural law standpoint, and do more than quote Bible passages to people whom Bible passages mean absolutely nothing.
Failing to do so would be like a creationist who argues only from the Bible, and never from science.
Kman notes: I honestly don’t know what you (and others) mean by the phrase “special rightsâ€. I assume you mean that gays want rights that nobody else (including us heterosexuals) have.
Homosexuality is a condition of lifestyle that bends and warps the traditional fabric of morality.
Our society has come a long way toward accepting the gay lifestyle within conservative boundaries. We have gay friends, go to church with them, use them as physicians and depend on them to defend us…….
But this is predicated on their keeping their personal business private. The gay is welcome to the “alternative” lifestyle so long as it does not infringe on the “societal norm.”
The “societal norm” is the same benchmark used in judging pornography, the location of bars, brothels, casinos and porn shops.
The “right” in question is whether the “societal norm” must accept gay behavior as a co-equal part of establishing the public morality.
In this sense, gay activism is little different from activists for polygamy, Man/Boy Love Association, legalizing drugs or many other efforts to reshape the “societal norm.”
Gay activists are desperately acting out to force themselves on society. That is the “right” they pursue.
Unless you can show me, in the Scriptures, that what you claim is “more important” actually is, don’t waste my time. My patience with non-Bible readers shrinks with every new biblically-illiterate comment entry.
Nobody should gain any rights simply based on their sexual desires. That’s a fairly obvious and basic fact of life, nothing based on your choice of action should gain you any special benefits or rights.
Changing the definition of marriage, expanding government and insurance benefits to include someone not now covered is without hope of refutation giving someone special treatment.
It also opens an oil-barrel can of worms legally, but that’s another thread entirely.
“Transgendered†is a euphemism for a man in a dress [or who thinks he should be a woman. What is the difference?
A man in a dress is a Transvestite.
“Transgendered” is appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member of the opposite sex.
Uh, thanks, Don, but you missed the humor and apparently skipped the comments. – Admin
Derek, you’re making a mistake. If someone wants to make policy and law, they have to appeal to more than scripture (and that’s easy to do in this case). But if someone is simply stating their beliefs and opinions, there’s no reason they have to do anything of the sort.
The reason that one would not use the Bible to argue Intelligent Design is that it’s not a faith issue, it is a science issue. This isn’t an area of personal belief (at least on the ID side…) but rather an area of scientific inquiry and method.
Moral statements about homosexuality are a moral area, which rather obviously calls to moral authorities and religious beliefs: the Bible, for instance (or in the case of homosexuality in particular, nearly every major writing of every religion in the world).
You know, if you heathens weren’t so insulting, I’d approve your comments. We could have a really good discussion going, but you have no home training. You are not allowed to call me names and insult my faith on this blog. Period. – Admin
In response to post 43, JML (which I think was directed at me but I’m not quite sure):
You quote me as using the phrase “more important,” but I have never used that phrase in any posts I’ve made here, so I’m afraid I don’t understand where you’re getting that from. I do not believe I have said in any way that something else is more important than the Scriptures.
In response to 43, Christopher: Thanks for your friendly response, I appreciate it. You write: “Moral statements about homosexuality are a moral area, which rather obviously calls to moral authorities and religious beliefs: the Bible, for instance”
I completely agree. But my point is, one can also appeal to natural law when it comes to certain moral issues and questions.
Perhaps I should define natural law here. I apologize for not having done so sooner. Natural law is “A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.” (dictionary.com)
The reason why I quoted the Romans passage is because Paul himself recognizes that natural law exists as something God created, along with the human conscience, etc.
Christians don’t stress natural law enough, and that is really my main point here.
I found your poor knowledge of the basic tenents of my faith or respect for it irritatingly trite. You come to a Christian’s blog (I didn’t come to yours) and attempt to broadcast your ill-conceived views. No dice. But you’re welcome to try again. – Admin
The vast majority of Americans are willing to adopt an attitude of “live and let live” toward homosexuals. However, most Americans believe that homosexuality violates natural law and persons of faith believe that it violates God’s law as well.
Should homosexuals have the same rights as every other American? Sure. But should they have special rights and demand that their lifestyle be portrayed as morally equal (or even morally better!) than a monogamous heterosexual lifestyle? By no means!
But what about Christians? Well, we are commanded to love the sinner yet hate the sin. No matter how uncomfortable a homosexual’s lifestyle makes us, we need to show them the love of Christ. A very high percentage of homosexual men were either (a) sexually abused as a child; or (b) had an absent or emotionally abusive father. These facts don’t excuse the sin but they can help us understand it.
The homosexual community is a desperately hurting community. There are many people dying of AIDS who are sick, lonely, depressed, and devoid of a relationship with God. I would argue that we Christians need to treat AIDS patients as we once treated lepers. Show them Christ’s love, help them to repent and change their lives, and bring them into a right relationship with God and other people.
The basic difference on this question is that Christians can confess their sins. These gay people do not even admit that engaging in homosexual behaviors is even a sin.
“I completely agree. But my point is, one can also appeal to natural law when it comes to certain moral issues and questions.”
You can, but it doesn’t carry any particular moral authority to do so. What I mean is that Natural Law is a pretty subjective method to determine morality or legality. Yes, you can generally find basic trends, but there are dozens of arguments why those don’t apply or are exceptions or don’t matter. Just something to consider.
Stingray notes the proper approach that Christians should take (10th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia is an example of this kind of attitude), as in opposition to the “God hates Fags” Democrat Phelps crowd.
But we at the same time need to work in the culture and law to block and oppose improper or immoral efforts to manipulate society or law.
The basic difference on this question is that Christians can confess their sins. These gay people do not even admit that engaging in homosexual behaviors is even a sin.
That’s very true. However, I can’t tell you the number of times that God has convicted me of a sin when I thought that I was doing the right thing. I could be the cosmic poster boy for pride and self-righteousness. Why? Because I’m a gentle, quiet person who tries not to offend others. But it’s precisely those things and the pride that I take in my personality traits that offend God the most.
Too sarcastic. Knew you couldn’t do it. – Admin
Ok. Well I still like your blog and agree with you most of the time. It’s hard to agree with anyone about everything all of the time.
Nice try, but if you’ve been reading this blog for longer than a week, you should know that plenty of commenters don’t agree with everything I write. Agreeing with me “all the time” is not the standard. It’s respecting the blog hostess. – Admin
(1) In response to my earlier comment in which I asked someone to define the meaning of “special rights”, Heliotrope (#42) responds:
“Gay activists are desperately acting out to force themselves on society. That is the “right†they pursue.”
With all respect, I don’t think that answers my question.
Lots of people try to influence society. Bloggers, politicians, clergymen, activists on the right and left — the list is endless. All of them have the right to do so.
And while I disagree or am outrighted disgusted at some of their positions (e.g., NAMBLA), I don’t see why, when gays seek the legal benefits of marriage, some claim that they are seeking something called a “special” right.
So I ask again, what is meant be a “special right”?
(2) Chris Taylor (#44) picks up thread by writing:
“Nobody should gain any rights simply based on their sexual desires. That’s a fairly obvious and basic fact of life, nothing based on your choice of action should gain you any special benefits or rights.”
Isn’t the proper question: “Should rights be denied simply based on one’s sexual desire or sexual actions?”
When you consider what rights we’re actually talking about, the answer is a resounding “no”.
For example, in most states, the law says that if you die without a will or other written agreement, your estate automatically goes to your spouse.
Now, laws regarding death have nothing — absolutely NOTHING — to do with sexual desires.
Yet, automatic inheritance is a right/benefit that is denied to committed homosexual couples.
What is so “special” about this right when it is applied to homosexuals? Nothing — it’s the exact same right that everybody else has (including, I might add, murderers, racists, rapists, and scores of other groups that we might find reprehensible).
When gays seek these rights, are they really “forcing themselves on society”?
Again, nobody is asking anybody to like homosexuality. And I can understand why many think it is a sin. I just fail to understand why the objection goes so far as to deny tax-paying Americans equal rights under the law.
“Yet, automatic inheritance is a right/benefit that is denied to committed homosexual couples.”
It’s also denied heterosexual couples who aren’t married. Do you consider that a crushing cruelty?
Or could it possibly be that marriage is such a beneficial system for society and strength of a culture that the government benefits this union legally?
What you want to do is redefine marriage so that it loses it’s significance and meaning for culture and society, and yet gain the benefits by law.
That’s what makes it special: you want law and meaning to change to fit a specific, narrow, and extremely minority viewpoint and lifestyle. That makes it special, out of the ordinary, beyond what people gain.
If you can convince the voters to do this, feel free – but you have to actually try to convince them and persuade them, not force it on them or abuse them for disagreeing.
Chris:
It’s also denied heterosexual couples who aren’t married. Do you consider that a crushing cruelty?
The point is that heterosexual couples have the right to get married, and enjoy the rights and benefits that come with marriage.
Homosexual couples simply don’t have that option.
Or could it possibly be that marriage is such a beneficial system for society and strength of a culture that the government benefits this union legally?
Yikes.
I always thought that government was “for the people”. I didn’t know that that rights were denied to people in order to benefit the government, or even “society”.
That’s an argument, by the way, that didn’t work for slavery in the South or segregation in the Army. And with good reason.
Besides, who’s to say that marriage among gays isn’t “beneficial to society”? It wasn’t long ago that social conservatives were pointing to the AIDS crisis and condemning the promiscuity among the homosexual population. Now, they’re against committed gay monogamy?
What you want to do is redefine marriage so that it loses it’s significance and meaning for culture and society, and yet gain the benefits by law.
I’m sorry, but I think this is a bit of a red herring.
If you were, say, a Lutheran, would your faith in God lose its significance simply because there was an uptick in the rolls of the Catholic religion? Or Jewish religion? Or Buddhism? Would feel “forced” in some way to adopt another religious viewpoint?
I suspect not.
So, by the same token, how does your marriage lose its “significance and meaning” by other people — that you probably don’t even know personally — getting married?
If gay marriage is recognized by law, will you love your wife any less? Will you take your vows less seriously? Will divorce rates and adultery rates among heterosexuals skyrocket?
State recognition of marriage is not the factor that makes marriage “significant and meaningful”. After all, marriage (and dare I say it, love) is one of the few institutions that pre-dates government. So let’s not pretend the two are inextricably bound.
That’s what makes it special: you want law and meaning to change to fit a specific, narrow, and extremely minority viewpoint and lifestyle.
While gays are a minority, I’m not even sure gay marriage is the minority viewpoint at all, much less the “extreme” minority viewpoint.
But assuming it is, what’s the magic number? How many gay people have to want the legal rights and benefits of marriage before you think it shouldn’t be denied to them?
Personally, I think marriages between albino men and dwarf women are disgusting and unnatural. And they’re a REAL extreme minority. If I can convince most people to my side, do I “win”? Is there nothing in the Constitution that protects “extreme” minorities, or does it only support equal rights for large minorities that the majority has (eventually) grown to tolerate?
The point is that heterosexual couples have the right to get married, and enjoy the rights and benefits that come with marriage.
“Homosexual couples simply don’t have that option.”
Sure they do. They just can’t “marry” each other. Just like I can’t marry my sister but you can. Just like I can’t marry my best friend’s wife. None of those facts are a cruel robbing of my rights.
“I always thought that government was “for the peopleâ€. I didn’t know that that rights were denied to people in order to benefit the government, or even “societyâ€.”
No rights are being denied. Privaleges are extended to some because of the benefit to society. Getting tax breaks or legal benefits are not rights they are privileges and benefits given to some people insofar as they benefit the society and culture.
Homosexual relationships simply do not provide that bedrock benefit to society that normal marriages do.
Incidentally, Gay Marriage is a minority viewpoint, a large minority in the last poll. So much so that several states made it impossible to happen in them – even liberal states like Oregon.
Your problem is that you
1) think marriage is a right
2) think that being denied marriage is a cruelty done to homosexuals
3) believe that the constitution demands this be made legal
all three are utterly false and without merit.
Further, when I say “significance and meaning” I’m referring to the bedrock basis of culture and society with is universally known to be marriage and families. You want to redefine the concept of marriage to include something that is not that basis simply out of personal whim. Why on earth should anyone listen to you or care, let alone redefine a millenia-old cross-cultural human insistution? They should not, until you can actually convince people and provide good solid compelling reasons.
You have not, and cannot. Simply crying “its not fair” is not any of those things.
Kman: I would add the following to Christopher Taylor’s excellent response in #62.
The courts have a traditional standard in plowing new ground which is called the “compelling state interest.”
Marriage is a state sanctioned institution that involves inheritance, property ownership, the legitimacy of children, etc. This state sanctioned institution directs laws and gives standing to litigants appearing before the the court.
Not to be foolish, but there are those who would marry their sibling or favorite pet or small child or many partners. Society had adopted certain taboos against these marriages and when the courts are challenged on one of them, they examine the “compelling state interest.”
Why would the state be better off if the societal “taboo” were to be overturned?
Because our society has drifted more toward the single parent family, live-ins who are not legal spouses and since we no longer care much about bastards, perhaps the time is close at hand when the state is no longer interested in sanctioning marriage of any type.
However, to ditch state sanctioned marriage would really mess up property rights, inheritance, custody responsibilities, etc.
Which brings us back to homosexuals marrying. Why should they? They can not bear children. Without marriage they can assign property, designate custody of adopted children, cosign for loans, etc. The only “rights” they miss out on is having the state take an interest in their property divisions due to divorce or in forcing private entities to accept their partnership. (Many retirement homes will not let them live together.)
Really, if you are going to champion homosexual marriage (recognized by the state) are you also ready to support polygamy? And if so, will you draw the line anywhere? If not, why do you even care if there is state sanctioned marriage as it would be basically meaningless?
I once posted at Belief net, until I realized that most of the posters there had an anti-born-again-believer-in Christ/anti-biblical worldview ideology. I commend you La Shawn, for entering into the hornets nest over there and countering many of their misguided, and false beliefs!
On a related subject, I recently received a newsletter from Desert Stream Ministries. I obtained permission to post the article, “Brokeback Mountain: A Christian Response.” at my blog. It was written by Andrew Comiskey in response to the many editorials and articles that tended to blame Christianity for perpetrating a judgmental, narrow, and/or intolerant attitude towards homosexuality. Andrew answers these critics in a brilliantly, forthright and biblically accurate way. I hope you will take the time to read it and comment.
I was very surprised to know that Beliefnet is teeming with such people. But their comments pale in comparison to what I’ve had to put up with for almost three years at LBC. Running this ship has taught me a lot about people.
I will take a look at your post this afternoon. Thanks for the link.
Heliotrope brings up a basic problem with the attempt at legal arguments for gay marriage. Everyone in the country has the same basic restrictions on who they can marry (some of the details are slightly different state to state, such as what is defined as “too closely related” or what age someone may be wedded at but the basic restriction remains). These restrictions are:
1) not too closely related
cannot marry more than one person at once
2) over the age of 17
3) not already married
4) willing to marry
5) not the same gender
6) the same species
7) must be alive
Each one of these is codified into law, and is based not only on cultural morés but because they are damaging to society and violate either personal rights (willingness to marry) or the basic concept of marriage as a building block of civilization and society.
We all are under these restrictions, equally, under law. I cannot marry my sister (if I had one), yet someone else could. I cannot marry my kitchen table or pet cat, no matter how much I love them. I cannot marry my best friend’s wife, no matter how hot she is. None of these restictions are cruel, unreasonable attacks on my personal liberty or a brutal crushing of my civil rights.
Further, the compelling state interest is, without possibility of rational or historical contradiction, in the side of these laws remaining in place as they stand. One woman, one man marriages provide the ideal and best possible construct for raising children and building the foundations of civilization and society. This is absolute fact as proven repeatedly through the world for all of history and affirmed unwaveringly by sociologists and historians worldwide.
The fact that people abuse the system and do a poor job of it at times does not somehow negate this or demand we destroy that basic building block.
Christopher/Heliotrope:
Christopher, you keep putting words into my mouth. I never argued that preventing gay marriage was “cruel”. “Cruelty” isn’t even the touchstone here. (By analogy, I don’t think segregation was “cruel” either; it was clearly, however, an injustice).
But let me pick up on Heliotrope’s compelling state interest issue.
Heliotrope does a fair job defining the “compelling state interest” test, but when it comes to gay marriage, he avoids the test altogether. Instead, he writes:
“Which brings us back to homosexuals marrying. Why should they?”
Asking “why should [gays be allowed to marry]” is NOT employing the “compelling state interest” test. In a free society, the burdon is on the *state* to show it has a compelling interest in restricting individual liberty, not on individuals to show why they should have it.
So the proper question is “what is the state’s compelling interest in NOT sanctioning gay marriage?”
Nobody has provided an adequate “compelling state interest” as to why gay marriage should be unrecognized.
Heliotrope, for example, argues that gay couples cannot bear children. I’m going to ignore the obvious counterargument that gay couples can certainly RAISE children. Instead, I’m going to point out that many heterosexual couples cannot bear children either. Yet, the state doesn’t seem to care. In fact, the state doesn’t even inquire into fertility when straight couples decide to marry. So how can you say that the state has a “compelling state interest” in people bearing children when it simply doesn’t weigh that as a factor?
Christopher, on the other hadn, offers essentially two “compelling state interests”. One, it seems, rests in preserving some nebulous moral standard regarding marriage. I don’t buy it. Every state in the union allows divorce. If states have some compelling “moral” interest in marriage, then why is divorce so easy from a legal standpoint? And what exactly are states doing to combat high divorce rates? Anything? Doesn’t sound to “compelling” to me.
In a related vein, Christopher argues that “one woman, one man marriages provide the ideal and best possible construct for raising children and building the foundations of civilization and society.” He states this as proven fact. I doubt that, but assuming it is a “fact”, it is a fact that is obviously too simplistic and pat.
The factors relating to the healthy raising of children are many and varied. Income levels, geographical location, education levels of the parents, etc. all play a part. No social scientist ever suggest that heterosexual parents is the magic bullet here to successful kid-raising. And I’m sure we all know kids who are raised by a single parent who are better adjusted than other kids raised in a troubled (albeit dual parent) household.
And, as I said before, states will sanction marriages between an 80 year old man and his 79 year old wife, so the child-bearing and child-raising “interest” really doesn’t hold water.
A final point. Heliotrope writes:
“The only ‘rights’ [gays] miss out on is having the state take an interest in their property divisions due to divorce or in forcing private entities to accept their partnership.”
Those two are the “only” ones? Sorry. I’ve already mentioned intestate succession. Want more? How about 1138 more?
In 2004, the United States General Accounting Office did a study of all the federal benefits, rights and privileges that would be denied homosexual couples as a result of not being able to solidify their union as a “marriage” (assuming that “marriage” is limited to a man and woman).
The total number was 1138. Everything from tax benefits, to veterans benefits, to hospital visitation rights, etc. You can read the study here (PFD format).
And that’s just FEDERAL benefits. Obviously, there will be many more when you add state benefits.
You can get all those benefits by law, the same way unmarried heterosexual couples can get them by law. The answer is not “lets redefine marriage” it is instead “go take the effort that everyone else has to.”
I’d encourage you to read and address the points made rather than trying to cherrypick points you want to attack. You’ll find people take your attempts at logic and rhetoric a lot more seriously. You’ve skipped over enormous parts of people’s posts and left behind points they made to attack specific parts as if by showing these to be weak the entire point is negated.
That’s just bad rhetoric and would get points taken OFF your score, not added to it in a debate.
If you care to doubt me about marriage being the foundation of society (and I didn’t say it was only because of child-rearing, although that’s a major part), don’t trust me. Trust any credible sociologist or historian you can find. Don’t find an activist, find a trustworthy, reliable, accredited and honored person in the field. They all unreservedly support my basic point.
Simply denying it’s true doesn’t matter. Even if it wasn’t true, you don’t have a compelling case, all you have been able to do is criticize what we say, with limited success.
Convince people you’re right. Pursuade people.
If you cannot, perhaps it’s time to think about your position more critically.
Kman: Let’s not split hairs.
What is the compelling state interest in overturning the state laws in order to accommodate gay marriage? Conversely, what is the compelling state interest in upholding a gay marriage permitted in a maverick state and forcing the provision via the “full faith and credit” clause on the remaining states? These are not transient questions, but quite apropos to current dilemma.
My preceding remarks about childbearing and marriage are not so shallow as to obfuscate the traditional purpose of marriage. If there is a compelling state reason to keep geriatric heterosexuals from marrying then bring it on. Likewise requiring a fertility test.
The 1138 disadvantages of law accrued to homosexuals because they can not claim a marriage benefit is just so much smoke.
The state has differentiated between married couples and unmarried couples and it had granted advantages, particularly in the tax and inheritance codes, to married couples.
Let’s start there. Perhaps the state should just get out of the marriage business entirely. Poof! All 1138 disadvantages disappear for everybody, without regard to their sexual proclivities.
So now we have come full circle. Shall the state regulate marriage or not? Should the state “reward” marriage. Both the Greeks and the Romans went through this conundrum and both rotted at the core due to their conclusions. (Ooops! They had plenty of other pressures of negative societal proclivities that added to their decent, as well.)
In all seriousness, why should we deny the right of a father and several sons and a few neighbor men to marry and form a grand, gay family? What is the compelling state interest in preventing it?
Chris:
You’ve skipped over enormous parts of people’s posts and left behind points they made to attack specific parts as if by showing these to be weak the entire point is negated.
My apologies, but I simply can’t address EVERYTHING, so I have to pick and choose. My comments are plenty long as it is.
If you care to doubt me about marriage being the foundation of society (and I didn’t say it was only because of child-rearing, although that’s a major part), don’t trust me. Trust any credible sociologist or historian you can find.
The entire premise is a matter of subjective opinion. No “expert” can “prove” or “disprove” that marriage is the foundation of society. It’s like saying “Apples are the most delicious fruit on Earth — just ask any credible culinary expert.”
Heliotrope:
Let’s not split hairs….What is the compelling state interest in overturning the state laws in order to accommodate gay marriage?
Equal treatment of citizens to the privileges and immunities of law, and a respect for the private choices of citizens. It’s the same reason why states in the last century overturned laws that forbid interracial marriages.
If there is a compelling state reason to keep geriatric heterosexuals from marrying then bring it on. Likewise requiring a fertility test.
There isn’t a compelling state reason. That’s my point. That’s why the argument that you offer (”states have an interest in encouraging child-bearing”) is simply absurd.
Let’s start there. Perhaps the state should just get out of the marriage business entirely. Poof! All 1138 disadvantages disappear for everybody, without regard to their sexual proclivities.
Fine. But that’s not, you know, reality. And until the states get out of the marriage business entirely, they’ve shouldn’t discriminate unless there is a compelling interest.
In all seriousness, why should we deny the right of a father and several sons and a few neighbor men to marry and form a grand, gay family? What is the compelling state interest in preventing it?
You mean, like, the Elks?
Okay, that was a stupid joke. I like the Elks (but you know, not THAT way).
But seriously, I’m not sure the state HAS a compelling interest in preventing polygamy. I suppose one concern (from the state’s point of view) would be the formation of “sham” polygamous marriages where groups of people unite not for love and emotional support, but for 100% economic interests (tax write-offs, etc.). Furthermore, there’s a body of evidence suggesting that many polygamous marriages aren’t truly consensual, i.e., the women tend to be subjugated. So the state might not want to condone that.
But who loses out from gay marriages? The state? Heterosexual couples? Exactly how is the fabric of society going to come apart?
Kman answers my query with an absolute: “There isn’t a compelling state reason. That’s my point. That’s why the argument that you offer (â€states have an interest in encouraging child-bearingâ€) is simply absurd.”
‘Nuf said! Kman does not believe that there is a compelling state reason for the state to encourage marriage.
So, ala Kman, drop all marriage restriction laws and let all benefits that accrue to marriage be annulled.
Let the games begin!
I didn’t suggest you should address everything. I suggested you address the actual points made rather than cherry pick individual points out of context to attack as if that somehow negates the points being made. If you cannot do that, all you do is add to bandwidth like so many do on the internet in this sort of setting.
“Equal treatment of citizens to the privileges and immunities of law, and a respect for the private choices of citizens. It’s the same reason why states in the last century overturned laws that forbid interracial marriages.”
This has already been addressed, 03.16.06 @ 1:17 pm Scroll up. You can’t cherry pick one issue and decide that should be addressed to grant equal protection of law, and deny the others (like marrying your pet or your kid sister). The same legal argument applies to each. The same argument you’ll use to deny those applies to homosexuality.
Why wont anyone just say its not right because God said so? Because the Bible says its wrong.
You can do all the legal arguments and benefits to society and everything else under the sun and still miss this point.
Gays have already accumulated alot of rights and benefits. Health insurance benefits, civil unions and marriages in some states. Adoption rights, etc. ALL WRONG….
It’s not about some standard somewhere, its God’s standard. God is holy and demands that we be holy.
God says its wrong, it’s perversion and sexual immorality. There are consequences for engaging in these acts.
Its just that simple. Its the same thing as heterosexual sex outside of biblical marriage, pornography, men having sex with boys, etc. etc. etc…All of these are SIN and they have the same end result if practiced continuously, death and hell.
It may be the ultimate in close-mindedness but that’s all that any born-again Christian needs to say.
Comments on this entry are closed.