Prop 8 and Arguments Against "Accidental Pregnancies"

This blog post is a rebuttal to:  “Argument against gay marriage in California hinges on accidental pregnancies”, Liz Goodwin, Yahoo News, March 4, 2013

Introduction

It doesn’t take long to figure Yahoo’s position on gay marriage.  The company is located in the liberal state of California where the democratic process and the will of the people has been bypassed not once but twice by gay judicial activists.  The liberal-minded writers at Yahoo are in full support of the judicial tyranny as they write analogies about “marriage equality,” whereas gay marriage really has no equal.

The gay marriage argument assumes a “crystal ball” by comparing a gay union to a traditional marriage that is childless by choice-or-circumstances.  The crystal ball is broken because there are children from these types of “childless” traditional-marriages where the outcomes are different from what everyone understood when they entered those marriages.  

Article Content

In the article referenced above Liz said “One of many potential pitfalls of the (traditional marriage) argument is whether it follows that the government could pass a law saying that only fertile people are allowed to wed, for example, or whether the state could ban marriage between elderly people.”

Dialogue

Christine said: "It's a woman's instinct to have children in the context of marriage." HA HA HA. Oh my God, are you kidding me?!

SRF said:   WOW Christine -- you're way out of touch with womanhood!!!  You are the riot!  Here's the same  question over at yahoo answers:

• Q:"They say women want babies because it's a "natural instinct", but what does that mean?" 

• A: "It's kind of programmed in our brains that once our bodies know we're in the peak of baby-making days, it is almost impossible to get off our minds. We see other women who are lucky to have babies and start wonderful families, and want that for ourselves.  We want that miracle of life.  SO SUE US!!!!!!“

BluesFan1 said:  Those (childless) marriages don't last? Really? My husband and I got married knowing we would not have children, by choice. Yet, here we are, 13 1/2 yrs married and we've been together for over 20 yrs. So what other ridiculous statements do you have?”

SRF said:   @ Bluesfan -- our beloved government is publishing that "ridiculous statement" over at the U.S.  Bureau of Social Statistics. Only three out of ten childless marriages last 10 years.  Now I have a question for you: Where is a traditionally married couple WITH CHILDREN that thinks procreation is trivial in a marriage? I've heard from several specious "childless marriages" like yours.

Allen said:  My brother and his wife have been married 25 yrs with no kids. Plus the fact that there are such things as infertile couples who got married knowing they would never have them. You are an idiot.

SRF said:   @ Allen, there could be an idiot in the room but I don’t think it’s me.  A doctor told my cousin and her husband they'd NEVER have kids so they adopted a baby boy and showed him off at our family re-unions year after year. We watched him grow up -- then -- she got pregnant and had another boy. Well, Allen, so much for your "broken crystal ball" of an argument.

SRF said:  If the states banned marriage between elderly people nobody would enforce it. Grandparents raise a lot of kids these days.

 

Skyliner said:  The whole matter of parenting depends on the possibility that the parenting couple will be having intercourse and there is a possibility of pregnancy. At least, so say some.

SRF said: @ Skyliner how does someone determine whether a marriage will be childless or not? I can understand the chances are really slim with elderly people -- BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Paulo Wen said:   (the decline of marriage) … is all the more reason to not discriminate against same sex couples.

SRF said: @ Paulo -- With all due respect I do not believe that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage, and I've looked at it for many years, wondering how my Creator could allow such a difficult situation for gay people.  I do think gays should have civil rights in the context of their union which I don't agree with, but this is America.  The facts are NOT forthcoming regarding gay parenting and gay marriage is an irrevocable decision. Until someone can PROVE a benefit from gay marriage that is shared with the rest of our society -- I think it is wise to wait. The courts have already evaluated the social impact of traditional marriage on the society we live in.  It's a fact that children from this kind of family unit are more likely to get a college education, find a job, and start a stable family unit of their own.

The Inequality of Marriage Equality

The Inequality of Marriage Equality

February 2013

The purpose of this blog-post is to help God-honoring Christians understand the current debate about gay-marriage compared to the marriage-ordination we received from the Holy Bible.  The Bible is clear on the subject, but that's not enough for judicial activists.  Hopefully, this blog post will help us prepare for what's to come.

Introduction

A new social-experiment is being forced on society in the name of “marriage equality” that redefines marriage irrevocably – meaning there is no return once the traditional definition of marriage is changed from a man and a woman to include gay-marriage.  As the saying goes, a little bit of corruption spoils the whole batch.

The US Supreme Court will hear two cases on March 26 and 27 that challenge the definition of marriage and they will be decided by one vote – Justice Kennedy.  If marriage is redefined it will signal an end is coming to marriage-culture in America according to some academicians.  At a minimum the traditional-definition of marriage will continue to be challenged at state-levels.

Background

Our fatherless president, Barack Obama, grew up outside of the marriage-culture and obviously has little understanding of it.  He decided the traditional-definition of marriage is indefensible as it is spelled out in DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) though it was passed by a bipartisan congress and senate and a democratic president signed DOMA into law to affirm the federal definition of marriage – which was a man and a woman as it applied to federal benefits.  Obama the illegitimate, bypassed the democratic process and the Creator he claims to worship.  

Barack Obama claims DOMA was passed without "reasonable cause" or a "rational basis" for the sole purpose of discriminating against gay Americans, and he refuses to defend it.  Obama has many other extreme views that his own party can't accept and it's little wonder the US government is the most dysfunctional it's ever been since the days of the founding fathers.  His claim to the Christian faith goes against the Creator's design as well, and his fate awaits him.  God have mercy.

DOMA came about when Hawaii (his state of birth)  challenged the standard-definition of marriage known by everyone, and the act stood by the definition of marriage that was applied to all previous federal legislation.  The federal definition of marriage remained consistent with what it always had been and the states continued to decide the meaning of marriage for themselves under federal principles.  

Some of the same democrats that passed the bill are still serving in the government today and recently they changed their minds about gay-marriage for some curious reason – like maybe their convictions go no further than the voting booth.  Currently there are millions of Americans that think gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but they draw the line with traditional-marriage.  

The president acknowledges that many Americans feel this way, but according to him -- gays will not have equal protection under the law unless the definition of marriage is changed, even though other unions are available to address their unique circumstances which differ from traditional-marriage.  The argument says their union is equal to traditional-marriage and hence the definition of marriage must change so they will benefit equally under the law.  

Hence, with the new definition of marriage in place -- you could find gay-couples one evening cruising gay-bars in pursuit of liberty while traditionally-married parents were staying up all night with babies and going to work the next morning -- each group of couples doing something common to their cultures -- and somehow this scenario requires equal protection in the context of "marriage."

The Culture of Marriage

Marriage has been defined as a man and a woman throughout the ages and through all societies and cultures.  It’s well understood that procreation is the building-block for a society, and that parents want a viable-habitat for their offspring as they become future-citizens and do likewise with their offspring.  The courts recognize that two biological-parents have a genetically-vested-interest in posterity that no other parenting arrangement offers.

 

It's a basic human-instinct felt by both biological-parents – and it's a strong-bond that assures the health and well-being of children, grand-children, and future-generations.  Courts and legislative bodies recognize the importance of biological-parenting.  Tax codes and property laws are designed to help facilitate everything from child-rearing to property-inheritance.  Even though our president is a parent he does not seem to understand the marriage-culture or the fragility of traditional-marriage at this time in history.  He views government as a surrogate-parent for everyone where he’s the father.

Gay Rights in America

Gays have been stigmatized and persecuted through the ages because of an inclination they have that is not fully understood.  It apparently comes from a combination of social, environmental, and biological factors.  The courts recognize it’s a deeply-felt condition and it goes to the core of their personal identities but it hasn't reached a class-status like race or sex that justifies a heightened review for discrimination in the court system.

Gay people live in a world that’s hard to fit-into.  It’s argued that they made poor moral-choices and they need to change.  Some have changed – but the vast majority of those that tried have failed and many live with a condition they don’t want.   For them it’s a pitiable situation. They continue to function in society, but they’re unable to pursue the same dreams that other people have -- including marriage.

Gay-marriage has been proposed to help change this situation for them, but does it also change the situation for everyone else as well?  Once gay-marriage becomes law it’s irrevocable and there is no history of gay-marriage to go by. 

Many Americans feel the facts have not been forthcoming. This makes them feel uneasy about the uncertainties surrounding gay-marriage and its irrevocability.  Hence some states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as a man and a woman until the democratic process can sort things out.

Gold Standard for Marriage and Parenting

Childbearing is typical in a traditional-marriage and it’s the gold-standard where both parents are responsible for the care, development, and upbringing of their biological-children.  Children from this unit are most likely to get an education beyond high school, maintain employment, and continue in the marriage-tradition according to social statistics.  The gold-standard is impossible for gay couples, and hence it’s trivialized in the gay-marriage argument.

Marriage laws provide a safety-net for all family-members in the events of unplanned-pregnancy, birth-defects, childbirth through marital-infidelity, divorce, and disposition of family inheritance.  This safety-net seems rather inappropriate for gay-couples with no vested interest in biological-parenting.  As an analogy, it's like a perfectly healthy person parking in an empty handicapped-space that’s convenient to their cause, but it displaces someone else that’s truly handicapped.

In summary, there is no similarity between traditional-marriage and gay-marriage at the gold-standard level.  There is no comparison between a gay couple and biological parents that bear the risks and responsibilities of child-birth. If the law treats them equally, it produces an inequality for the majority of the outcomes in a traditional-marriage.  

Silver Standard for Marriage

Gay-marriage advocates minimize the importance of the gold-standard to focus on the weaker examples of traditional marriage, pointing out that some couples get married when they are not capable of having children and some don’t ever intend to have children when they marry.  Social statistics show that only 1/3 of all childless marriages last 10 years or more. This is not the intended outcome of marriage though "childless marriage" is the foundation-axiom for the gay-marriage argument.

As many of us find out in marriage – the marriage bond grows where you’ll want children regardless of your intentions in the beginning.  It’s just the way nature works. In reality nobody knows for sure when the capacity to procreate ends for one or both partners in a traditional-marriage.  There are couples that have children whether they intended to or not and there are couples that have children that thought they could not.  

To justify the gay-marriage argument of childless marriages, one must have the foreknowledge of God -- knowing which couples won't have children before they marry.  Everybody knows that gay-partners can't have children between themselves though many are fully capable of producing children in the biological way.  The only problem is that biology doesn't work for them.

Menopause typically ends childbearing for women but marital-infidelity by a male-spouse can cause unplanned-pregnancies.  This is not the intended consequence of marriage either but the outcome affects both parties in marriage.  On the other-hand gays won’t become pregnant from infidelity unless it’s with the opposite-sex -- thus weakening their claim to a strongly held gay-identity and weakening their cause in the gay-marriage debate.  Hence gay marriage doesn't relate to the silver-standard.

Bronze Standard

But let’s not forget about the people that divorce and remarry – and gay-marriage could be the same thing.  Well maybe not – because typically they can still have children according to the gold or silver standard.  Divorced people from traditional-marriages could remarry as a gay-couple with children, but we can’t compare them without jeopardizing their claim of an immutable gay-identity. 

Moral Conscience

People in the marriage-culture typically get married for the sake of being morally-responsible to their partner and to society rather than living in co-habitation which is an undesirable outcome to society. The reasoning is based on their religious-convictions and moral-conscience, and it applies the same whether they end up with children or not.

Government recognizes these strongly-felt-convictions and the benefits of traditional-marriage to society -- therefore preachers are licensed with the legal-capacity to marry couples.  

Moral conscience doesn't fit for gay-marriage and no equality  is found here.  No benefits for society can be shown.

Conclusion

After diligently searching for marriage-equivalence it can’t be found even at the extreme-ranges of traditional-marriage, hence traditional-marriage and gay-marriage are unequal across-the-board.  There’s really no way to make them equal.  

Everyone should have equal-rights when those rights can be applied in the same way, but equal-protection-under-the-law is irrelevant to unions that are fundamentally unequal.  

Gay-marriage is found to have no equal -- the comparison is incomparable and the new equality is the new inequality at the expense of traditional-marriage.  Some states have already taken the irrevocable-step by redefining marriage.  Someday they’ll probably regret their hasty decisions.

Christians Beware of Forums

Many Christian/Religion forums on the internet are gathering places for unbelievers that are there for one reason -- to undermine the Christian faith. I have personally encountered this on just about every one of them -- whether it's universalists out to assail the value of repentance, or atheists that deny Jesus Christ ever existed. In many cases the forum moderators fully support their un-Christian views and join in with their chorus. You'll hear just about everything you didn't sign up for if you stay there long enough. Does this assessment sound familiar to you?

This post is intended as a roll-call. If you have experienced similar issues on other forums, please share them in the comments section.

I begin the warnings with Christian Forums -- the largest on the internet, and totally chocked full of hedonistic permissivity.

Attached is a petition listing some of its sins. A fellow forum member sent this petition to me. I was warned to cease and desist from circulating this petition by the forum administration, or I'd lose my membership. My link to SRF was removed from my signature line at Christian Forums.

Petition: Christian Forums Repent

As God-honoring members of ChristianForums.com, we demand that Webmaster LeeD and his administration immediately remove the following offensive content from ChristianForums.com and change its policy towards allowing sexually explicit material to appear outside the designated recovery forums.

-Teenage 'Fornication'
-Fornication definition
-Getting forgiveness for being a complete self-indulgent moron (masturbation related)
-Weird sexual attractions.
-Christian Hedonism
-Why is incest a sin?
-Already lusted, so it is OK to have SEX?
-Should prostitutes be able to adopt?
-Swingers
-Swapping Partners
-Subforums that entertain debate on homosexuality and abortion

The abortion and homosexual subforums have become gathering places for advocates of said sinful practices and have no place in a Christian environment.

LeeD has steadfastly refused to repent from his sinful practice of allowing sexually perverted threads and posts to appear on this forum, even after other administrators spoke up against this practice. According to Scripture, it is now up to us, the church assembly, to voice our opinion on this matter.

Should LeeD and his administration refuse to listen to reason, we shall obey Scripture and leave CF as if they were heathens and corrupt tax-gatherers. "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:15-20, NKJV)

There are other so-called Christian forums that are apostate as well. Please feel free to add your suggestions, comments, and warnings.

Thank you

SRF

Is Gay Sex Sin According to the Bible?

First let me mention why this subject is being addressed here at SRF. The authority of the Bible is under attack by liberal social, political, and religious elements that want to justify immorality. They try to falsify the scriptures in order to justify sin, telling us that God's guidelines for Christian life are no longer relevant. This is a direct attack on the Christian faith, and on the hope of eternal life we Christians believe in.

The authority of the scriptures is axiomatic to the Christian hope of a resurrection. This is why Christians object to any attack on the scriptures. So this isn't a matter of "picking on gays", rather the issue here for many Christians is our hope of eternal life, which rests on scriptural authority.

A simple, straight-forward, objective reading of the Bible seems to provide ample evidence to many of us -- the God of the Bible finds gay sex detestable.

Yet there are several sites on the internet that spin us a new gospel in the name of "tolerance" as we're told the scriptures are just the cultural whims of their day. Following this logic through, the Christian hope of eternal life that rests in the scriptures is likewise a cultural whim of its day. Hence Christians are labeled "intolerant" and "bigoted" because they hold to a faith in the Bible and a hope of eternal life that the Bible explains.

This "alternative gospel" is the theology of "gay Christianity" where sin is no longer sin, and "detestable" no longer means detestable. We're told that "the prophets were bigots", "the translations are in error", "culture has changed", etc. etc.. I suppose this methodology could justify any kind of immoral conduct no matter how awful it is.

I have attached a great summary of the pro-gay Christian theological arguments and their rebuttal from Layhands.com. This article is not copyrighted, and I commend the author for a job well done.

SRF

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian Evangelism, Healing, and Teaching Resources

Home > Questions and Answers > Is Homosexuality A Sin?
Email this article

Question: "My church has been struggling with the issue of same-sex unions and whether practicing homosexuals should be ordained and so on. My question is, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?"

Answer: It seems that a number of churches and denominations these days are wrestling with the issue of homosexuality. Since this is such an emotionally-charged subject, we need to be especially careful when we study what the Bible says about this. For example, some people use Scripture to justify homosexuality, and other people use Scripture to condemn homosexuality. Obviously the Bible does not support both of these viewpoints (because then Scripture would be contradicting itself), so it is important that we carefully study the Bible with an honest desire to find out God's view concerning homosexuality.

Jesus commanded us to love our "neighbors" (Matthew 22:39), and I love gays just as much as any other "neighbor." So if the Bible says that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals will be excluded from heaven, then it is proper for us to be just as concerned about their salvation as anyone else's salvation. I have prayerfully studied all of the arguments that I can find both for and against homosexuality, and I have not found the pro-homosexual arguments to be convincing from a Scriptural standpoint. Many of the Christian arguments against homosexuality line up with what I see in the Bible, and therefore that's the only view that I can teach in good conscience. It has nothing to do with "gay bashing" or "homophobia," it is simply a question of "What do I honestly and prayerfully see in the Bible concerning homosexuality?" It would be wonderful to be able to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but I would want to have strong proof of that because the stakes are immensely high. The stakes are nothing less than salvation itself (as we will see), and unfortunately I just don't see any Scriptural proof that homosexual activity is ever acceptable to God.

-----------------------------------------------

Please refer to the article for a complete scriptural analysis, and point-by-point counter-arguments to gay theology. It evaluates the scriptural texts in original Hebrew and Greek. It is the most comprehensive one I've found on the internet and it may be found at this link:

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

Historical Christianity Can Not be Reconciled with Gay Christian Theology

Many Christians feel their beliefs are irreconcilable with “Gay Christianity” (*a). This prepared statement should spare a lot of wasted words for unsuspecting Bible-believing Christians that walk in unaware of the ambush that awaits them on supposedly Christian debate forums. Several Christians reviewed this statement and they agree with it. When I say "we" I mean those who reviewed the statement before the posting, and this includes the views of Protestants and Catholics. I submitted a poll regarding views on same-sex sex within the church. A list of points was stated from Section 1, and voters that claim to be Christian voted on their agreement or disagreement on the points.

(*a) The terms "Gay Christian" and "Gay Christianity" are used in this report to describe same-sex practicing unrepentant gays that call themselves Christians and refuse to acknowledge that gay sex is sin.

Introduction

The church body (*b) is divided over the Gay Christian Movement's attempts to legitimize immorality. The purpose of this statement is to explain what biblical Christians believe regarding "gay Christianity." In short we believe "same-sex practicing gay Christianity" is not compatible with Christian conduct or our faith in the God of the Bible. The theology that supports "gay Christianity" is irreconcilable with the historical Christianity that we received.

(*b) The church body of Christ is the body of believers, some of whom died to bring the Bible that we read today. As a body the church is accountable to the authority of Jesus Christ as its head.

We believe God can forgive any sin including gay-sex, and we believe gays should be accepted in the church body like any other sinners. However, we do not accept their brazen attempt to legitimize immoral conduct that the Bible never commanded us to accept. It is not required for a sinner to repent first before they attend church, and they are welcome to attend, but it is required that they must abstain from injuring the church body by trying to legitimize immorality.

In our opinion the gay Christian Movement is a Trojan horse to launch the gay-political agenda into the church.

Section 1, Points About Gay Theology

We have exhaustively debated "gay Christians" on internet forums regarding historical, biblical Christianity, and we have found them stubbornly unwilling to yield to the Holy Spirit of the Bible and our Savior Jesus Christ whom we experience through our faith in the God of the Bible. All of the following points have been discussed with them to no avail:

[1.1] Whereas, many "gay Christians" that practice same-sex sex consider themselves brothers and sisters in Christ yet they claim repentance is not a necessary product of salvation. In our opinion, Christ's atoning redemptive work on the cross is necessary for saving faith that produces repentance. The message of repentance was delivered through John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the prophets. We believe ANYONE that rejects their repentance message by preaching against it, can not be a brother or sister in Christ but they are considered an enemy of the cross because they corrupt sacred testimony and nullify the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. "Gay Christians" can not be excluded from our assessment.

Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. "Gay Christians" say the law that Christ died to fulfill is an irrelevant relic. In addition we see no evidence of God's transforming power in the lives of "gay Christians." Rather we see no change at all.

[1.2] Whereas"Gay Christians" oppose the historicity of Christianity which is based on the Bible. We believe "gay Christians" lack the Holy Spirit that is necessary to understand the scriptures to discern right from wrong.We believe the Bible is God's revealed word to mankind. The translations consider gay-sex to be immoral conduct from a simple straight-forward reading of the scriptures. No credible Bible version or Bible translator agrees with their revisionist view that legitimizes immoral sexual conduct, where the "gay Christians" claim that gay-sex is blessed by the God of the Bible, that historical Christianity is based on bigotry, and that none of the Bible translations can be trusted.

The issue of translations is a moot point because it's trumped by Christian love as explained in 1st Corinthians 8. We feel "gay Christians" lack both knowledge and Christian love based on a close examination of their doctrine and their attitude toward ex-gays (ref Section 1.5). Also we believe they can not have spiritually discerning knowledge of the scriptures without the Holy Spirit which we believe they lack.

When someone says the church and the Bible can not present scripture accurately they are really saying Jesus IS FAILING to do His job through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our living witness to the revealed truth in the Word of God. We believe the Holy Spirit is doing its job, and we believe the "gay Christians" are in error.

[1.3] Whereas "Gay Christians" condone loving monogamous gay-relationships as a blessing from God. God, the perfect author of life and of love, gave them the ability to reproduce but not with one another. We do not believe our God is a bungling-inept-creator that couldn't complete His work. Instead we believe gay-sex was never God's intention for humanity. In addition when "gay Christians" condone gay sex as "God's creation" we feel this is an insult to our Creator.

[1.4] Whereas We do not believe God has two standards for Christian conduct, one for ex-gay Christians, and another for "gay Christians."

[1.5] Whereas"Gay Christianity" fails the minimum standard for Christian love. Loving others the way God intended fulfils the OT law, whereas gay sex was a capital offence under the OT law. In addition "gay Christians" do not love or even tolerate ex-gay Christians that are making a tremendous personal sacrifice to serve Jesus Christ. Gay Christians often collaborate with gay-activists that are out to destroy the Christian faith, testimony, and reputation of ALL ex-gay Christians in direct violation of 1st Corinthians 8:1-3.

[1.6] Whereas"Gay Christians" present dietary ordinances and dress codes as justification for abandoning ALL moral codes in the Bible. Under the Mosaic law, dietary and dress violations could be cleansed with an offering, but gay sex required an eternal death penalty. Jews were stoned to death for gay sex. In the day of final judgment we do no believe God will tell those Jewish offenders to depart to hell, and then tell the gentiles "well done" for having gay sex the way he/she was made.

Section 2, Poll Results

Results of the orginal poll

Looking at the poll, the views are evenly divided over same-sex sex as sin.It is notable that the Forum Staff leans heavily toward the liberal view that same sex-sex is not sin, and the staff TOTALLY DISAGREES with ALL the points made in this OP.This is quite telling indeed, as the poll would lean more toward traditional Christianity without their influence as moderators, supervisors and administrators that have the authority to steer their views on Christianity.

Section 3, Notable Quotes in the Discussion

Regarding OP, Gay-advocate said: You clearly don't know much about the old Jewish law.

Gay-advocate said: Gay people are doing no harm to Christianity.

Gay-advocate said: The Bible can be very distracting, especially when you use it like this and act like the Bible IS God.

Baptist said: That's the first time I have ever heard anyone say the Bible is somehow a distraction that sets us up for sin, while they defend the Bible.

Gay-advocate said: bringing up the Old Testament is about the stupidest proof of gay sex being sin as far as i'm concerned

Baptist said: Arguing the viability and credibility of Christianity, while also including criticism of God, is not keeping within the confines of the OP and IMO tends to derail the argument.

Baptist said: When committers of other sexual sins start to refer to their sin as nonsin, that too will be addressed.

OP said: What about those that preach gay sex is righteous from the pulpit?

OP said: On the one hand you say gay sex is sin like any other sin. On the otherhand you say it is ok for a preacher to tell everyone it's not sin.

Baptist said: So when God says something is an abomination, you are going to defend it? That doesn't really make sense.

Baptist said: So when God says something is detestable to Him (does it mean) He doesn't hate it?

OP said: I'm sorry but I can not respect someone that honors the dishonorable. Respect must be earned.

OP said: If the Bible is in error according to you, and you use it for scriptural proof, then it just looks kind of hypocrital.

Gay Universalist said:I think people should throw away the Bibles. It would probably lead to more moral behavior.

Gay Universalist said: If you fear death, you have to deal with it yourself. Your beliefs about salvation are not my concern. They are up to you.

OP to Gay-advocate: If I accept your view, how can I know that I am going to heaven?

Gay-advocate to OP: WAY off topic.

OP said: Jesus didn't have a problem with the Old Testament. Why should we?

Christian said: WHAT ARE YOU A LESBIAN POSTING in a christian forum for?........ you're like a lamb to the slaughter or was this your intention, are you trying to convert people to your way of thinking?

Liberal Theologian: The Bible does not assure me of Heaven, God in Christ does that.

OP Responded: The Bible assures me of heaven, and I'm sorry you haven't received that promise (from the Bible). If I were you, I'd get it in writing.


Conclusion

There are verses in the Bible that talk about a "beam in the eye", "judging", and "casting the first stone." EVERYONE has sinned and will continue sinning until they die. That does not leave Christians powerless to deal with immorality in the church body, and we are COMMANDED to deal with it.

I conclude this blog post with a warning from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Rev 2:5:

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

ADDITIONAL READING (updated 4/17/08)

I want to thank Real Proposal Magazine for their information on Joe Dallas. I was perusing some NARTH documents and discovered that Joe is the founder of Genesis Counseling. For additional study on the Gay Christian Movement be sure to check out Joe's paper titled:

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

.

.

.

COMMENTS

The Real Proposal™ magazine said...
Firstly, we wanted to let you know that we have posted a link to your blog entry to the current "Marriage In the News" page for The Real Proposal magazine.

http://www.therealproposal.com/815503.html

We think it has relevance to an article we posted regarding Barack Obama's pastor's view on gay rights. At the end of March, that web page will be archived as "March 2008."

http://www.therealproposal.com/March_2008.html

Also, we wanted to bring your attention to a couple of links on our page that we believe you may be interested in:RELATED ARTICLE: "Responding to Pro-Gay Theology" By Joe Dallas, Leadership U.

This three-part series addresses the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments--or tenets--into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. Joe Dallas, Founder of Genesis Counseling, is the author of three books on homosexuality: Desires in Conflict, Unforgiven Sins, and A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement. A former gay rights activist and staff member of a Metropolitan Community Church, he has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems.

RELATED BROADCAST: "How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?

Part 1" Speaker: Joe Dallas, Focus on the Family.org, March 18, 2008The Bible tells how the prophet Jonah had great disdain for the people of Nineveh - he resisted God's command to preach a message of judgment to the Ninevites, and he became angry when God compassionately held back His wrath after the people of Nineveh repented. Author and counselor Joe Dallas says many Christians are afflicted with the "Jonah Syndrome," meaning they hold homosexuals in contempt and resist demonstrating to them the love of Christ.

Dallas - a former homosexual - calls on the church to repent of its sin and to reach out to the gay community with a message of grace that is compassionate, consistent and clear."I believe as we address the issue of homosexuality that God would call us to repent of whatever hostility exists within the church .. and recommit ourselves to bold love." -

Joe Dallas RELATED BROADCAST: "How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?

Part 2" Speaker: Joe Dallas,Focus on the Family.org, March 18, 2008

Most Christians have heard the phrase, "hate the sin but love the sinner." Unfortunately, many homosexuals feel like evangelicals hate them as people because of their behavior. How has the church gone wrong in responding to the gay community? Author and counselor Joe Dallas cites examples as he admonishes believers to repent of their hostility towards homosexuals.

Dallas also describes how Christians can achieve a proper, balanced approach of showing Christ's love to gays and lesbians while still declaring the biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin."The gay and lesbian community is looking to the church for some verifiable evidence that we love them as we say that we do ... [that we] value them as people, not just as objects to be converted." - Joe Dallas

March 20, 2008 8:00 PM

--- SRF Response ---

Real Proposal Magazine,

Thank you very much for your inputs. Your points are well taken that Christians so often want to throw out the sinner along with the sin. My personal dog in this fight has to do with the credibility of the scriptures. I understand that gays and former gays have an exceptionally difficult nature to deal with, and their sacrifice is greater than most of us have to bear. I'm looking to see how God has provided for them, as He promised He could.

Thank you for your timely information.

-SRF

About God Hating Shrimp

You've probably heard it before. It's one of the pettiest arguments on the internet and it says God Hates Shrimp. The gay rights advocates dumb down the Bible again, like Eve in the Garden of Eden. As you may recall, she said "God said" touching the forbidden fruit would kill you. She was hoping the fruit would bring her wisdom she obviously lacked.

So what about the seafood buffet a-la-lipitor?

According to the Old Testament of the Bible, these are the offenses which may have merited the death penalty for those living under the Jewish covenant and the Mosaic law.

Murder (Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:15)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Disobedience to parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
Juvenile delinquency - incorrigibility (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Bestiality (Leviticus 20:15)
Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13)
Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
False witness in a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:16-20)
Fornication by daughters of priests (Leviticus 21:9)
Failure to abide by a decision of the High Court (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
Cursing someone (Leviticus 24:14)
Negligence resulting in death (Exodus 21:29)

I'm sorry, but shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, and mussels are NOT on this menu.
Neither did mixed fabrics make the list of capital offenses.
Looking over the list again -- these things look pretty bad, and same-sex sex is on the list.
God hasn't changed His mind about these things either.

In Leviticus the God of the Bible said certain meats weren't fit to eat. His people could still eat food though.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

And doctors warn their high-cholesterol patients to avoid shrimp, lobster, pork, and shellfish. That doesn't make doctors the bad guys does it? But then, gays won't listen to health professionals about AIDS either.

I kind of hate ignorance, myself.

Comments

Q: "One question, just for the record, the last time your child disobeyed you in any way, did you in fact kill them in accordance with Scripture?"

A: No, I did not fulfill your idea of the Mosaic law by violating two more commandments of the same law -- the commandment of due process (Deut 17:12) which gives the court the authority I don't have to execute someone, and the commandment against murder (Ex 21:12). Taking matters of the law into my own hands also violates the New Testament commandment that Jesus gave us -- which is to love and to forgive. A loving parent would not kill their own child. Jesus said that loving other people the way God intended it, fulfils ALL of God's laws, hence by default, homosexuality is not an appropriate form of Christian love, just like the other capital offenses on the list.

Jesus DID NOT command us to love sin, however, and I see no good thing in the list of capital offenses presented here. Do you?

Q: JB said...
"(The Jewish attitude towards Torah laws is that if G-d had wanted to be more specific, she would have been; therefore, where G-d doesn't say how something is to be done, the sages got to decide.)"

A: The Jewish attitude toward God has never been in the feminine gender. Consider that God created man first in "His" own image as stated in Genesis, then from man God created woman as a complement to man, to be equal in all respects. Consider that Jesus was born a male child. Also consider that Jesus will marry His bride "The Church" as mentioned in the book of Revelation. Jesus will not be marrying another Jesus.

Q:Dieppe said...
The irony of it all is that the Laws in Leviticus (well the Torah and Talmud) are Jewish Civil Law. As such, beyond the "10 Commandments", these "Laws" really don't apply to Gentiles. Even Gentiles of a Christian faith.

A: This really boils down (no pun intended) to two issues: 1) What is moral conduct? 2) What is the eternal penalty for doing wrong? Shrimp and mixed fabrics (dietary and dress code violations) received little if any penalty whatsoever, yet murder(a moral code violation) received the death sentence -- an eternal consequence. Even under the Mosaic laws it would be reasonable for a starving person to eat unclean food or a naked person to wear mixed fabrics if there was nothing else to wear. However, I see no reasonable excuse for any of the capital offenses presented on the list. I personally see no good thing on the list. You tell me which ones God changed His mind about.

For example: Did God think Jews deserved an eternal punishment for murder, whereas it was acceptable conduct for gentiles? Ask the same question for all the other items on the list: Was infant sacrifice wrong for jews but ok for gentiles (Lev 20:2)? How about bestiality? Kidnapping? Gay sex? Adultery? Negligence resulting in wrongful death?

Q: I believe that "God Hates Shrimp" is trying to show the ridiculousness of applying ancient law to modern life. Do it if it makes you happy, but stop trying to apply it to everyone else who don't believe the way you do.

A: I've pointed out what the "Bible says" about this issue, and it does not agree with your disrespectful view of the Bible. This blog is here to present the scriptures truthfully and in love. It appears that the "God Hates Shrimp" web site pulled a few verses out of context at the expense of the rest of the Bible, and twisted those verses unsuccessfully to justify their views about gay marriage. This seems to be a rather common ploy by gay-advocates, and apparently it is the only way they can argue against the scriptures -- making Eve's mistake -- allowing a serpent to dumb up God's word for her and then re-inventing the scriptures to justify herself.

Q: Ryland said...
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If something doesn't merit a death penalty, it's OK? It says in Leviticus that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, and in Deuteronomy it says it's unclean. Is that not a prohibition against eating shrimp? Or are they just, you know, letting you know? "You can go ahead and eat shrimp, but FYI, it's an abomination"?

A: We know shrimp, lobster, and shellfish contain cholesterol which can be a root cause for heart attack and stroke -- so, no it's not necessarily "OK." These probably aren't the healthiest foods, and God wanted only the best for His people. According to the Bible, the foods restricted by Jewish dietary code are now cleansed for human consumption (ref Acts 10: 10-16). On the other hand, gay sex continues to be unclean moral conduct as reiterated in the New Testament of the Bible.

Q: songofsongs said...
This is what Paul meant about 'the wages of sin is death'. The Lord revealed to me some months ago, that there were two types of penaties to the Mosaic Laws: death penalty which required death by stoning and the sin offering such as the grain, meat, oil and wine offering which is self explanatory. Your articule "About God Hating Shrimp" is spot on.

A: Thanks song of songs. Here's a point I made on another forum, along the lines of your thought process:

"In the day of God's final judgment explained in the Bible, can you imagine what it is going to be like for a righteous, fair, and just God in that day? This is a God that is no respector of persons and treats all men equally in judgment.

To the OT Jew that was stoned to death for having gay sex, God tells him to depart to an eternal burning hell, and gives him all the penalties for breaking His commandments. To the New Testament gentile God says well-done thy good and faithful servant for living the gay lifestyle the way I created you.

Does this sound like a righteous, fair, impartial, and just God to you?"

Q: The boy with the green tambourine said...
No. Nor does the God who ordered the massacre of the Amalekites. Or the one who killed the Egyptian firstborn. Or the one who slaughtered forty children. Or the one who required Jeptha to perform human sacrifice, and Abraham and Isaac to go through a disgusting masquerade.In fact, your God's a pretty nasty person, all told.

A: Well I'm sorry you feel that way about the God of the Bible. All He's ever done for me is give me blessings that I never deserved.

Q: Dieppe said...
This is the point of "God Hates Shrimp". You pick and choose the Bible verses that you are okay with, ("God Hates Man on Man Sex") but discard that you don't agree with (Unclean meat, PROPER Sabbath observance) because it fits your needs! And yet you are too blind to see it! Has Satan blinded you, or is this just pick and choose of your own doing?

A: Thank you very much for your response. This is a typical example of how people promote sin in the church body -- how it is spun, rationalized, and justified until nothing is sin anymore. And now we have a whole group of gay people counting on a petty dietary law to justify themselves before God. It's sad, really and it's a shrimp-sized excuse. It's like me pleading that a traffic code revision somehow justifes murder now.

In your list of counterpoints you mentioned the observance of a proper Sabbath. Personally I would be quite willing to observe Saturday as the Sabbath if the rest of the church body would like to change their day of worship. Historically the church adopted Sunday as the new Sabbath in celebration and remembrance of our Lord’s resurrection. This change occurred in biblical times, and I respect this decision made by our church founders. Whatever the case might be here, I really do think people should observe their Creator on a Sabbath. I also believe our Lord is most interested in the right heart when believers come to worship Him -- that was really His ultimate request in the Bible regarding worship.

In addition, grace trumps the law for believers that received God's grace through repentance as revealed in the New Testament of the Bible. Unbelievers have not received God's gift of grace through repentance and they are still under every part of the Old Testament law as Paul explained. That is why Jesus came, to fulfill the law, and die for our sins, so we could be forgiven for our transgressions of the law through personal faith that brings repentance.

With all that said, tell us why God supposedly loves gay-sex now, but Jews were stoned to death for gay-sex under God’s commandments to Moses. In addition, explain what God should do with those He sent to an eternal hell for their violations of the law -- now that God has supposedly changed His mind about gay-sex and God really made people that way all along (according to the Gay Christian Movement).

The Sin of "Gay Christian" Doctrine

On a Christian forum I was confronted by a gay so-called Christian that promotes "loving monogamous gay relationships." He said nobody needs to repent because Christ died for everyone's sins. He argued in favor of same-sex sex in the lives of so-called "gay Christians." He said it does no harm to other Christians, in particular the ex-gay ones. I present his questions and my answers:

Q: What proof do you have that same sex sex was "harming them" (ex-gay Christians)?

A:
[1.0] The damage is spiritual according to some of our (ex-gay) brothers and sisters in Christ by their own personal testimonies. Their personal (ex-gay) testimonies belong to them and not to you. You can not speak for them.

[1.1] It's not about what you believe, or even who you are, it's about what struggling Christian brothers and sisters believe as they try to live for Christ.

[1.2] You believe you are living for Christ, and so do other gays. I'm not debating that, but if I must choose (and I feel that I must), then I choose the group that makes the greatest personal sacrifice for Christ. That group is obviously the ex-gay group, and they are my Christian brothers and sisters that are being hurt by gay rights advocates.

[1.3] Case at point: Ex-gay Watch and Truth Wins Out. Apparently many gays that call themselves Christians are siding with these monstrous groups of hate-mongers headed by men like Wayne Besen (the head of Truth Wins Out). God have mercy on anyone that calls himself/herself a Christian and joins this persecution against believers. (Rev 1)

[2.0] I bring a Christian brother's testimony as a witness:
"I am a Christian man who has struggled with same sex attraction. I am not a practicing homosexual because I know that homosexuality is wrong, know that it is a sin, and know that the Bible is very clear in teaching that it is immoral. I do not try to spin it, rationalize it, or conveniently reinterpret the Scripture. Marital Status: Married."

[2.1] It is sin for a fellow-believer to go against the weakness in another-believer's life, as they have done on the forum on many occasions.

[2.2] On more than one occasion this ex-gay brother said his conscience was offended by his so-called "gay Christian" brothers on the forum. They said God made him gay and it was disobedience for him to refrain from the way God created him. He was supposed to participate in God's ordained gift of gay-sex according to these "gay Christians."

[2.3] Regardless of what you or anyone else believes about sin, it is wrong conduct to offend his weakness.

[3.0] I bring Ist Corinthians 8:12 to witness:

And when you sin against other believers[a] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.

Q: No proof that gays and lesbians aren't your brothers and sisters in Christ.

A:
[3.1] It is incumbent on ANY believer to prove THEY ARE a believer in Jesus Christ. That is their job, not mine. So your objection is irrelevant to the point being made about gay-affirming doctrine, which is sin by definition in I Cor 8. Your objection is a non sequitor.

[3.2] Besides, I think your claim is irrelevant to Christianity anyway: Is someone my brother or sister in Christ simply because they are gay? Faith in Christ is the basis for Christianity.

[3.3] My point is that the gay-affirming doctrine is an open invitation for struggling Christians to go against their own conscience. The gay-affirming proponents claim to be Christians and this is a violation of conscience for the struggling group of ex-gay believers.

Q: "The kind of God you believe in" must be an arbitrary one, if one must obey an arbitrary rule.

A:
[4.0] I believe in a Holy God that brings life to ALL believers. The spirit of same-sex sex kills the spiritual life of ex-gay Christians according to them. The same spirit blesses the spiritual lives of so-called "gay Christians" according to Katherine Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA that ordinated the openly-gay noncelibate bishop Gene Robinson. This can not come from the spirit of Christ, otherwise Christ Himself is a contradiction -- slaying the spirit of one believer and blessing the spirit of another. Therefore, the spirit of same-sex sex can not come from a Holy God.

[4.1] I call the entire ex-gay movement to the witness stand. Regardless of what you believe about them, they are making a tremendous sacrifice to please God, and frankly I think they are trying a lot harder than you are.

[4.2] By their own testimonies they can not be in a same-sex sex relationship and serve God too. That fact alone is sufficient proof, regardless of what you believe about sin.

[4.3] I'm sorry, but God does not have two standards for Christian conduct. You really have no debate as far as I see it.

[4.4] The SIN epitaph for "gay Christian" doctrine, ironically, is the lack of love for struggling believers in Christ that are ex-gay.

The apostle Paul explains it far better in Ist Corinthians 8 regarding Food Sacrificed to Idols (reference New Living Translation):

1 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church.
2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much.
3 But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.[a]
4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God.
5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords.
6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.
7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated.
8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.
9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble.
10 For if others see you—with your “superior knowledge”—eating in the temple of an idol, won’t they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been offered to an idol?
11 So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer[b] for whom Christ died will be destroyed.
12 And when you sin against other believers[c] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.
13 So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.

[5.0] So in the end:
- [5.1] it doesn't matter about sin definitions.
- [5.2] it doesn't matter what anyone believes about the gay lifestyle.
- [5.3] it doesn't matter about monogamous loving relationships.
- [5.3b] it doesn't matter that someone feels their gay relationship is without sin, because ex-gay Christians can not live that way and serve Jesus Christ too as they have attested.
- [5.4] it doesn't matter about bible translations.
- [5.5] it doesn't matter about who wants to call themselves a brother or sister in Christ.
- [5.5b] it doesn't matter if ex-gay therapy is a total failure and a fraud.
- [5.6] it doesn't even matter about sex at all.

[5.7] What matters is the body of Christ, and the spiritual damage caused by this so-called "gay affirming Christian" sin-pandering doctrine that says gay sex is not sin. Some Christians that struggle with their Christian beliefs are confused and tempted to go against their conscience. As long as any Christian brother or sister struggles with this issue it doesn't matter about those that don't struggle with it, or those that failed and then returned to same-sex sex.

[5.8] The whole "gay Christian" argument can be defeated with OUR Christian love for brothers and sisters in Christ that are being hurt spiritually by this doctrine that says gay-sex is not sin. The gay affirmers can argue all they like. It's done. The proof is iron-clad.

Summary

"Gay Christianity" is incompatible with Christianity, because it violates the conscience of brothers and sisters in Christ that left same sex-sex to serve Christ.

If that isn't enough proof then consider the following points:

1) God is the perfect creator and author of love and life. If gay-sex were His intention then why did He give gays the physical ability to reproduce, but not with each other in monogamous loving relationships?

2) No reputable translation or translator of the Bible says gay sex is ok -- period.

Revisions

(1) Section 1.3 revised per the first comment.

Comments:

GCMWatch,

Thanks for your information. Curiously, Wayne Besen calls his movement "Truth Wins Out", implying that people can't change, while in reality there are ex-gays that have changed or became celibate. The supposed "immutability of sexual orientation" wasn't supported by Alfred Kinsey, the father of modern sexuality theories:

"Kinsey himself avoided and disapproved of using terms like homosexual or heterosexual to describe individuals, asserting that sexuality is prone to change over time, and that sexual behavior can be understood both as physical contact as well as purely psychological phenomena (desire, sexual attraction, fantasy)."

Even the APA tip-toes around the facts, saying that no therapist should treat same-sex orientation under the a-priori assumption that it needs to be changed, however it's common knowledge that people have changed sexual orientation. Take Anne Heche as just one example of many.

By the way are you associated with the Gay Christian Movement Watch? I see you are. Thanks for the link up.