WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
NEW
Movie Links
08/13/2026
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs Update 07/03/2026
Favorite
Websites--updated 07/03/2026'
My Stuff
On The Web, Updated 06/28/2026
Audio-Visual Updated: 08/027/2026
Favorite
Articles --
last updated 08/13/2026
This Month's Scripture Verse:

1 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep..
II Peter 2:1-3

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2015

ONIM For April 27, 2015

Christian News



World News



Pick(s) Of The Litter




Monday, October 13, 2014

ONIM For October 13, 2014

Christian News



World News



Pick(s) Of The Litter

Monday, July 14, 2014

ONIM For July 14, 2014

Christian News


World News




Pick(s) Of The Litter

Friday, January 3, 2014

The Christian War Against Gays

For those who are interested, this article has been delayed by the weather. For I cannot both construct and enter an article and shovel snow at the same time. I guess it is because of my age.

If some sensitive Christians can call the insistence of some to substituted "happy holidays" for "merry Christmas" a war on Christmas, then we  should be allowed to say that when Christians want to use the law to prohibit gay marriage or when Christians talk about homosexuality the way some do, they are waging a war on gays. It seems only fair. What isn't fair is when Christians feel persecuted by those who resist their antagonism.

Before writing about the war of some Christians against gays, I want to be clear about this blog's stance on homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sin and against God's Word. And one must practice Olympic level, exegetical gymnastics to interpret the Bible as saying anything different. And all sexual sin is taken very seriously in the Bible, including the ones Christians engage in.

But, contrary to the impression that many Conservative Christians give by how they talk about homosexuality, saying that homosexuality is sin implies nothing about how we should regard homosexuals both in society and as individuals. Some Conservative Christians have horribly misread the Bible on this matter so that they feel uninhibited in how they both judge gays and work to ensure that gays are persecuted in society. These Conservative Christians start predicting doomsday scenarios should gays not be kept under their thumb to some level. Even when Conservative Christians oppose same-sex marriage in society because they don't want people, especially children, to think homosexuality is normal, this is an attempt to control gays by insisting that society stigmatizes them. It's a form of persecution. 

With that being said, this blog is reviewing a portion of a lecture/article (not sure but it is posted on the web) by Dr. J. Budziszewski.  His message is followed up on by comments made by a Mr. Coolidge. This blog will focus on Dr. Budziszewski's statements. Dr Buziszewski's message is entitled, Advancing A Heterosexual Public Ethic With Grace, Wit, And Natural Law.

Having read his message, my opinion was that the message was mislabeled for there seems to be neither grace nor wit in the message. And we should note that Budziszewski wants to use natural law as a basis for how he speaks against homosexuality. For those who have not encountered natural law arguments before, it is used by people, many of them religious, as a source of authority to define and govern how we should live. Thus, it is somewhat like a Bible but for a wider audience with a lower common denominator. And all we have to realize is that us Conservative Christians, I am a religiously conservative, love sources of authority because it gives us permission to yell at others and boss them around.

We should also note that not all hold to a universal version of natural law. This is especially true when it comes to determining the appropriateness of homosexuality. Whereas Conservative Christians take their definition of universal law regarding homosexuality from anatomy and function, others look at how homosexual behavior is beneficially practiced by other species (click here). Christians can rightfully say that the nonbeliever, whether the person is homosexual or not, has had knowledge of what natural law as it actually is, but not believing in God changes one's view of natural law. And thus, in a land where religious liberty is celebrated, we must be careful about whose version of natural law we use when determining lawful behavior in society.

The crux of Budziszewski's article here is his reactions to 14 attacks on the Christian opposition to both homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage. His responses to these challenges to the Christian view is the focus of this blogpost.

Budziszewski's response to attack #1, which is the claim that Christians are not tolerant of homosexuals, is simply disingenuous. In his response, Budziszewski wants to turn the tables of the tolerance/intolerance debate on gays by saying that it is gays who are not tolerant of the Christian challenge to their sexual orientation. What makes Budziszewski's comeback rather disingenuous here is that the American Christian challenge to homosexuality has been more than saying that it is wrong. Christians have supported laws that once criminalized homosexuality and are now fighting legislation and court decisions that would allow for same-sex marriages. And the reason why Christians do not want same-sex marriages to be legal is that they don't want people to think that homosexuality is normal. In other words, they want society to stigmatize and possibly persecute homosexuals for their orientation. Budziszewski knows this which makes his description of Christians opposing homosexuality as merely challenging  a gross understatement. 

Budziszewski then responds to attack #2 on the Christian position on homosexuality. He states that that attack says gays have committed relationships. Budziszewski bluntly states that research denies that this could be true because it shows that gays still cruise for additional partners. The trouble here is that Budziszewski never tells us which research shows that. In addition, I know a few gay couples and I have observed that the partners in these couples are faithful. So what is Budziszewski's point here? In addition, one wonders how past persecution of homosexuality and the prohibitions to marriage affects the behavior of gays. Finally, I am going to take a wild guess and say that there are some heterosexuals who have strayed once or twice from their committed relationships too.

Budziszewski then responds to attack #3 which says that Christians demean the dignity of homosexuals. His comeback is that gays perform acts that would embarrass them if heterosexuals knew that is what they did. But, how does Budziszewski know this when certain sexual practices are shared by both heterosexual and homosexual couples?

Next, we want to look at Budziszewski's response to attacks #4 and #7. Attack #4 asserts that there is nothing wrong with gay love. Attack #7 declares that being gay is natural. Budziszewski's response to both show that he relies on antiquated information. In his response to #4, Budziszewski asks how gay love can be right when it results in physical injuries and diseases such as gay bowel syndrome. The problem here is that the US Center For Disease Control no longer recognizes gay bowel syndrome. Likewise, in responding to attack #7, Budziszewski claims that gay relationships are narcissistic. Certainly psychologists and psychiatrists from the past use to regard homosexuality as a disorder. And Freud theorized, note the word, that narcissism was involved in gay attraction because the genders were the same. However most of today's behavioral scientists do not regard homosexual attraction and relationships to be narcissistic per se. A point against Budziszewski's response here is that narcissists usually cannot maintain longtime relationships and that is independent of one's sexual orientation (some of this comes from a source which I cannot currently find).

In addition, the other diseases which Budziszewski cites in his response to attack #4 are diseases caused by promiscuity regardless of one's sexual orientation. 

Attack #8 claims that people like Budziszewski hate gays. Budziszewski's response is that love includes telling the truth. However, we have already seen how Budziszewski shades the truth as well as uses antiquated information. So he is either not telling the whole truth by mistake or deliberately. In either case, he cannot claim that his rebuttal to homosexual attacks on Christians are based on telling the truth.

Attack #11 scolds Christians for opposing hate crimes legislation. Budziszewski's comeback is that such legislation is unnecessary because murder and assault are already illegal. Here, however, we should ask Budziszewski whether he would undo all hate crime laws even if the victim was chosen because of their race or religion. In addition, we find that hate crimes for sexual orientation happens at a high rate compared to other hate crimes.

Attack #12 challenges Christians for not supporting equality of people regardless of their sexual orientation. Budziszewski's response is to point to sexual orientations such as necrophilia as being orientations as well. The implication is to question if the believer in such equality accepts those orientations too. Perhaps if Budziszewski were to ask gays what they felt about those other orientations, he would have his answer. But why ask when one can imply?

Attack #13 asks why marriage cannot be between two people of the same gender. Budziszewski's response is to ask about marriage between one man and two women. But here, as we could have asked him in his response to attack #12, which practices are closer to heterosexual marriage? Is it two adults of the same gender or one person with multiple partners? The similarity we have between heterosexual and homosexual couples is that we are still talking about the joining of two consenting adults. That should adequately challenge Budziszewski's response.

In Budziszewski's response to attack #14, which complains of workplace discrimination, he says it is better not to let sodomy advocates near kids. However, sodomy is not just practiced by homosexuals. In addition, Budziszewski gives no reason why we should prohibit sodomy advocates near kids.

We have covered enough of Budziszewski's responses to see his general attitude toward gays. In the name of all that is right with natural law, Budziszewski is both less than honest while wanting to assume enough authority to declare how homosexuals should be treated in a moral society. If we thought that Phil Robertson's reference to bestiality was bad, Budziszewski is far worse because he exudes an appearance of rationality and intelligence and he characterizes his comebacks as having grace and wit. But how can that be when he speaks with half-truths, if his word have any truth at all, in talking down to and speaking against homosexuality?Budziszewski's words play to a crowd that shares his antagonism.

Preaching the Gospel is difficult enough. We have to tell people that they are sinners and that the only remedy is faith in Christ. But do we need to place unnecessary stumbling blocks in their way to hearing the Gospel? All of us do and we do that to gays when we go beyond saying that homosexuality is sin by describing homosexuality in ways that distance ourselves, with our own sins, from homosexuals and their sins. We also provide unnecessary stumbling blocks when we don't give gays the respect they deserve by standing up for their rights and when we oppose their equality in society. Those who are impressed with Budziszewski's comments provide such stumbling blocks. And all of us provide unnecessary stumbling blocks when we deny the contributions gays have made to both society and each person individually.

Budziszewski's comments show and inspire arrogance. He does not talk to gays as equals or fellow sinners. Rather, he presumptuously takes a rather typical Conservative Christian approach of desiring a place in society where he will try to save gays from themselves. But in so doing, has he placed himself outside the reach of others who want to do the same for him?    











References
http://heidelblog.net/2014/01/rational-responses-to-attacks-from-advocates-of-homosexual-marriage/
cited the primary reference

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/files/j-bud-on-natural-law-and-homosexualitywitherspoon-lecture.pdf

Monday, December 30, 2013

ONIM For Dec 30, 2013

Christian News


World News


Pick Of The Litter

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

The U.S. Of Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-a's President, Dan Cathy, started another episode of Stereotypes Gone Wild with his comments on gay marriage. By decrying the national acceptance of gay marriage as both rejecting God and inviting judgment, and then by proudly describing himself and his partners as still being married to their first wives as well as supporting the traditional definition of marriage, Cathy did more than just call homosexuality a sin. He both invited the nation to scapegoat gays and he prayed a version of the Pharisees' prayer saying, "I thank God that I am not like those sinners over there." In doing all of this, Dan Cathy did more than meet the minimum requirements for what gays have sadly come to expect from their Christian opponents.

The response of who were offended also did more than enough to reinforce what many Conservative Christians' have come to expect from gays and their supporters. The response showed the typical recalcitrant sinner who is rejecting the message. Such Christians are happily oblivious to the fact that the messenger has deliberately become more offensive than the actual Biblical message.

The result is that these stereotypes continue to live happily ever after as co-dependents. That is each stereotype needs the other to be brought back to life.

To my fellow Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin, we must ask if Cathy's original statement shows more concern for gays or for himself. Note that within Cathy's statement is a concern that he might be a victim of God's collective punishment on the nation. In addition, there is Cathy's boasting of his marital accomplishments as well as that of his associates.

But not only that, there is Cathy's unawareness of his country's sins.  Cathy's statement shows an assumption that our nation's current state of blessedness is deserved and that our past actions such as the ethnic cleansing of American Indians from the land, slavery, the days of Jim Crow I & II, our military and economic empire, and whatever other sufferings we have caused were, at the most, tolerable sins that did not merit God's judgment. And here is the heart of Christian Fundamentalism's failure in preaching the Gospel; it shows gross selectivity in determining which sins to rebuke. Killing, maiming, and oppressing others, especially when done by those in uniform, get a free pass from the righteous indignation of the Conservative Christian but the sexual sin does not.

So what the above shows is a cold-heartedness by Conservative Christians. For they seem unconcerned by the suffering gays might experience if they are held responsible for future tragedies by their fellow citizens and unfazed by the destruction caused by violence Conservative Christians support. This cold-heartedness could be because the ultimate concern of Conservative Christians is their own individual selves. We might call their theology a Meology. And here, Cathy is concerned about paying for the sins of others, especially when he is doing what is right, than he is about the sinners he singles out.

Thus, what gays sense when they hear people like Cathy speak is more than just a call to repentance; it is antagonism. He uses the language of intolerance to preach repentance.  So when gays and others point this out, Christians like Cathy chalk it up to sin and rebellion. At the same time, Cathy, and others like him, are unable to see their own faults. They are too busy showing off their own righteousness to feel good about themselves.

Certainly, not all Christians who preach repentance to gays follow Cathy's example. But it does seem that all who have a public forum do. And it is wrong. We need more dialog than paternalistic finger pointing.

On the other hand, not all reactions against Cathy's remarks are do solely to the speaker. None of us, Christian or nonChristian, like to be told that we are sinning. So some of the reaction is simply because people are rebelling against God's Word. But this does not let Cathy off the hook. When he did not identify with gays as a sinner, not as a gay, then Cathy is telling gays that rebelling against God is their problem only, not his. Such a message is a lie and is just as sinful, if not more, as being gay.

In the end, Cathy is to gays what the U.S. has become to the world. Both Cathy and the U.S. are forever pointing out the faults of others in ways that indicate they are above reproach. Both Cathy and the U.S. blame others for rejecting accepted an authority that brings judgment. And both are oblivious to their own sins, even if their sins are far worse. While Cathy wants laws to control the behavior of those who, because they merit God's judgment, threaten him, the U.S uses force to control the behaviors of those countries that do not benefit it. In a sense, Cathy's hyperbolizing of sin and his intolerance of others is a microcosm of America's relationships with other countries. For neither one wants to relate to others as equals. Rather, they think that they deserve to call the shots.


Saturday, May 12, 2012

Should Christians Support Gay Marriage?

What appears to be a simple question, see the title, with a slam dunk answer is full of nuance. And it is an important question in the light of President Obama's recent statements on the subject. But more than that, this is one of the most emotionally charged questions that many Fundamentalists try to answer.

Whether Christians should support gay marriage  depends on location, location,  location. Location here, does not refer to a geographical place but to a sphere. So we need to clarify the question and ask whether Christians are being asked to support gay marriage in the church, in society, or in both.

Those who adhere to the whole Bible must firmly and gently say no to gay marriage in the church. Though Jesus never mentioned the subject, some of his predecessors and followers did and did so unambiguously. The basic gist of the Biblical objections to gay marriage is that it is contrary to  God's creation. Here, we are talking about His creation before the fall. He created men and women to be in physical union with one another other rather than with those of the same sex. That doesn't mean that we should not celebrate the love any 2 people have for each other since there is simply not enough love in the world to do that. But, if we are to remain faithful to all of God's Word, we cannot agree with any love that includes the physical union of two people of the same gender.

Because God's Word tells us that homosexual relations are wrong, and since God's Word should be the rule for the church, it is logical to say that Christians should not support gay marriages in the Church. Christians should challenge the practice of some denominations that support gay marriages in the church or recognize gay church officers. But they should only do so after they have first learned why those denominations lend such support for gays. Denominations that support gay marriages and ordain gay officers often do so to stand in solidarity with those who are being oppressed and for equality. Certainly such churches are going too far in their standing with others; but they are Biblically correct in standing in solidarity with gays who are not treated as equals.

But what about supporting gay marriage in society? Should Christians do so? Here, the question must be clarified. Does support here mean encouraging or does it mean defending the right to do so? Though the church should not encourage what goes against the God's Word, the church must defend the right of gays to marry in society and have equal rights.

Many of my fellow fundamentalist Christians struggle with making such a distinction. According to them, right is right and wrong is wrong and you cannot defend the practice of doing what is wrong. However, if we use that same logic for all other practices including our faith, we would end up merging Biblical law with civil law and every personal sin could be punished by both the state and the church. For example, having a different faith would make one a criminal and thus eligible for a prison sentence. Also, history, more than strongly, suggests that such a merging is extremely tragic for both the church and its victims.

The real question for the Church regarding gay marriage is whether or not the church will take a legal or evangelical approach to addressing it. If we take the former approach, we move towards making God's law the law of the land. Here, not only will we go beyond what the New Testament prescribes, but we will reveal something disturbing about ourselves. We will unveil a deep desire to control those who are different. To justify this control, some of us will overstate our case and even demonize homosexuals. And in so doing, we have forgotten that Romans 2:1 follows Romans 1:26-27--the verses that condemn homosexuality. For Romans 2:1 tells us that those who judge are as guilty as those whom they judge because all sin. In other words, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equals in that they all sin.

Those who wish to control others have cut the words equal and equality out of both their dictionaries and, if they are fundamentalist, Bibles. Those who desire to rule over others must make the case, and that will almost always be both overstated and unsubstantiated, that they are superior to those they wish to rule over. And, such people are either unaware of or apathetic to the past atrocities committed by the church as previously hinted to.

Those who rely on evangelism alone trust in the Gospel and respect the listener. When a disagreement remains, they part as equals and one cannot part as equals while not defending the rights of the other. This is not enough for those who want to control. For they want both guaranteed results, and to look down on others.

I can't join my fellow fundamentalists who choose to rely on control rather than evangelism. I cannot join them for Biblical reasons. And I cannot follow them because I have gay friends some of whom have made very important contributions to my life. And despite the fact that I cannot agree with these friends on homosexuality, I know that each of them has strengths that I don't have and I have weaknesses that they don't have.  I am not the only fundamentalist who can say this. And despite our disagreements, I believe they must have all of the rights heterosexuals have. I can't condone using the law to control their behavior.

I'm also afraid for many of my fellow fundamentalists. That is because while Obama's latest statements on same sex marriage will inspire them to reacquire homosexuality and gay marriage as targets, pride and hatred will fly under their radar to conduct their insidious attacks. For pride is described as being the antithesis to faith (Romans 3:27) and one cannot both love God and hate those made in the image of God (James 3:9ff; I John 4:20).

And though I applaud how the liberal churches stand in solidarity with gays who have been ostracized and abused and how they defend their rights, I cannot join them in saying that involvement in gay relations is acceptable before God.

The above points to a common error committed by both conservative and liberal Christians regarding sensitive issues like gay rights. The error is the belief that agreement and support go hand in hand. Conservative Christians find it difficult to support equal rights for gays because they cannot agree with their behaviors and lifestyles. Liberal Christians struggle with expressing disagreement with gay relations because they realize the moral imperative of standing in solidarity with gays when they are not treated as equals. However, just as Jesus' real test for love was when it was for someone who did not belong to one's own group, the real test for belief in equality is found in whether we defend the rights of those with whom we disagree.

All of this points to the need of making careful statements and well-thoughtout distinctions regarding issues like gay rights. It is important to be precise as to where we agree and disagree with others. It is also vital to understand how we could sin against those with whom we disagree particularly when we call our desire to control and rule over them "concern" or "love." This desire to control, whether it is out of ambition or fear, is a major cause for much of the suffering and violence we see today.