Bush & Gay Marriage
October 28, 2004

I'm not even sure what to make of Bush's most recent interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" where he spoke out in favor of civil unions, The San Francisco Examiner reports:

"Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush's tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people -- laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions."

How embarrassing. Is he now mirroring Kerry's stance? This was only one of the many things I took fault with in the President's interview. This election should be one for the books. My only prayer is that it goes down peacefully (only in a dreamworld).

Oh and Andrew Sullivan endorsed John Kerry as the "right choice for Conservatives"? How predictable. Yeah, sorry to say, but I called his bluff a few months ago. This stuff is so tired...

Posted by Ambra at October 28, 2004 1:44 AM in Politics
Bookmark and Share





Gay marriage and civil unions are an issue which I have really changed my mind on. I had neighbors, two gentlemen, who are partners for over 30 years. These were the two nicest people I have ever met. Before I met these two men I opposed the idea of civil unions etc. Now having met a commited couple who have the same love and relationship that I have with my wife-outside of their sexual relationship- I really have changed my mind on this issue. I do not see any harm in the STATE giving them the rights that heterosexual couples have. The rights of inheritance, contracts, medical care, hospital visits, etc. And I do not see how allowing them to enter into a legal union would corrupt or damage others. First of all its none of my business what other people do in their bedrooms etc, seeing two men or women together is not going to "turn" anyone into a homosexual, and I am of the opinion that if it makes you uncomfortable then too bad. I get uncomfortable looking at big butted hefers, what do i do? i look away. Living/working in NYC I have worked with and been good friends with gays and lesbians, and really outside of their sexual preference they are exactly like you and I. the radicals of ACT UP and the loudmouths you see on TV are not representative of the people I have met and known.
Anyhow those are my 2 cents on this issue. I won't go into the religious issues, becuase frankly I do not know enough about the biblical issues to make an informed comment.

Why I'm Voting Against My Commander in Chief
By David Thalheimer
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 22 October 2004

I have been a registered Republican since I first became eligible to vote. I've been an Air Force officer for 20 years, first on active duty and now in the reserves. I gladly voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and supported his battle to win the Cold War. If called to serve in Iraq, I would willingly do my duty for my country. You might think I'm a slam-dunk for the Republican ticket this year, but you'd be wrong. I backed John McCain in the 2000 primary, but I did not vote for George W. Bush and I'm even more opposed to him after seeing his performance over the past four years. I can't say I'm a big fan of John Kerry, but he's a smart guy and I'm willing to give him a chance because Bush has done such a bad job and shows so few signs of improvement that he doesn't deserve to get reelected. This letter explains why I'm voting against my Commander in Chief.

President Bush would have you believe that he is making hard decisions and doing what needs to be done to win the Global War on Terrorism. While I have no doubt that he is trying, his actions have shown me that his judgment is poor and he and his advisers aren't smart enough to figure out the right way to win this war. Taking out Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan was a no-brainer, but the invasion of Iraq was a huge diversion of resources away from the real sources of terrorism. Showing the world that we can and will "take out" any country we want may make puny countries like Libya quiver, but it isn't a smart way to beat the terrorists or our real enemies - it plays right into their hands.

Bush has made no real attempt to win the support of the large majority of Muslims who oppose terrorism. Instead, he has created millions of new enemies around the world - people who used to admire the USA - and these people are now more likely to be recruited by or support future terrorists. It is now more likely that they will overthrow their moderate, pro-US governments, such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and replace them with radical Islamic regimes. Far more dangerous to America than Iraq are the radicals trying to take over Pakistan (which already has nuclear weapons), the unpredictable leader of North Korea (which also has nukes), and Iran (which is allegedly working hard to get them). We are less secure today because we are creating more new enemies than we are able to kill or capture. There are smarter ways to track down terrorists and reduce the appeal of radical Islamic ideology, but Bush has decided to take the easy but wrong course of flexing America's conventional military might and intimidating the world rather than rallying our friends and allies around a grand strategy that has a chance of success.

American troops are doing the best they can to win in Iraq, but the decision to go to war and the lack of planning to win the peace were strategic political mistakes made by President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and the senior White House staff. The rhetoric coming out of the White House about what is happening in Iraq not only continues to mislead our citizens, but it has misled our own troops. It has caused them to misjudge their enemies and make fatal mistakes in dealing with the Iraqi population. Senior White House decisions also sent the message to our troops that they could get around the Geneva Convention when interrogating suspected terrorists - with disastrous results for the detainees at Abu Gharib prison.

President Bush says he has fully supported his troops, but he is really taking credit for good Congressional support and ignoring his own poor record. He has repeatedly submitted defense budgets cutting active, reserve, guard and veterans' benefits, including imminent danger pay, family separation allowance, and the funding of VA hospitals, only to have them protected by Congress. Attempting to pay for tax cuts by cutting military benefits during wartime is outrageous and damaging to our military families.

While national security is of my most grave concern, there are other domestic issues that also matter and can't be allowed to suffer through another four years of bad policy.

I was recently shocked to learn that President Bush, despite all his talk about love of freedom, has attempted to deny our most precious freedom to American citizens who oppose him - the right to free speech. On many occasions, he has used the Secret Service to keep legal, peaceful protesters quarantined in designated "free speech zones" where nobody (especially the media) can see or hear them. Pro-Bush crowds are allowed to get near him during speeches, but people with signs critical of him have been forcibly moved away or illegally arrested. I find this outrageous and intolerable. Some provisions in the Patriot Act are also dangerous to our liberty in the hands of an attorney general who is willing to jail citizens for months or years without any possibility of judicial review. Many American citizens have been jailed secretly, and while I am all for giving the FBI greater powers to investigate suspected terrorists, there have to be checks and balances to protect us from over-zealous government officials. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all Americans should be wary of any President who is willing to violate our most basic rights.

While I'm not a fan of extreme environmentalists who want to protect every endangered species around, I do care about the quality of my air and water and controls on toxic waste that could endanger all of our health. I'm willing to pay for healthy living conditions, and I don't think that such costs threaten the competitiveness of US companies against low-cost foreign companies that are allowed to pollute. President Bush has attempted to reverse environmental protections across the board and has given big business interests the ability to profit from the destruction of our natural resources. He forced the EPA to stop prosecuting Clean Air Act violators, attempted to increase the amount of toxic mercury allowed in our water, under-funded the cleanup of hazardous waste, reversed EPA bans on the sale of contaminated land, increased logging in our national parks, allowed giant pig "factory farms" to pollute the land, water and homes without having to clean it up, and ignored the threat of global warming. Yes, it costs money to have healthy living conditions and some countries don't want to pay the price. That's when the President has a duty to lead the world to negotiate good environmental treaties, not to refuse to participate, thus guaranteeing failure. He has a duty to protect American companies against unfair foreign competition, not give them a license to break the laws established to protect our own citizens. President Bush has failed to lead the world and protect our citizens from environmental hazards or unfair foreign competition.

President Bush also appears willing to sacrifice our national parks to the interests of oil companies, strip miners and loggers. Once these national treasures have been exploited, they will be ruined forever. Our parks belong to the people and I'm not willing to sell them out for a few bucks, most of which will go to private companies and the rest of which will go to support more government spending or tax cuts for the wealthy.

Finally, let me address the economy. I've never really believed that the President has much short-term influence over the state of the economy. However, I do know that cutting taxes and increasing spending is normally a great way to stimulate economic growth for a few years, while hurting us in the long-term when we have to pay off the debt. Yet, despite the billions in tax cuts and increased homeland security spending, I haven't seen any growth in jobs or spending. I guess that means all we get is the long-term debt. Finally - is President Bush willing to fix Social Security? No - but then again, I don't think anyone in Washington has the guts to do it.

The bottom line is this. President Bush had four years to show us what he can do. He has completely bungled our foreign policy and has been favoring big business interests and wealthy individuals over fiscal responsibility, the well being of our economy, and the health of our citizens. There is no way he's getting another chance if I have anything to say about it.

Sir, you are relieved of duty!

I'll be posting a longer piece this weekend-- but I consider myself a conservative. I don't think W deserves to be re-elected. But that's not the choice we have. Our choice is between 2 men--and W beats Kerry by a long shot. So I'll hold my nose & pull the lever. The shame is if he wins he'll think it's because we think he's done well-- when it will be because the Democrats have failed so miserably in giving us a viable candidate.

And as for gay "marriage" unions, whatever-- my brand of conservatism is perhaps more libertarian than Republican-- but I want the government (which is really all you guys) to take from my pocket only what is necessary, and to keep your nose out of my bedroom-- and I'll do the same. I think society is better off with strong family units, of whatever their makeup (and I don't have to remind anyone it wasn't too long ago or far away when inter-racial and inter-religeous pairings were banned). I'd rather a committed gay couple raise kids than Brittney Spears and her husband-of-the-hour.

I dont care what people say. Gods definition of family is what matters and stands. That is the truth of the matter we can pontiifcate and play relativist
definition advocates but. Lies are temporary while the truth is eternal it all goes back to the law of first mention. To populate the Earth you need a man and a woman. A child needs a mother and Father society can continue to propogate this false hope of
alternate families.
Gays are not to be equated with Blacks or the Civil Rights Movement. It is this type of thinking that stirs a mass of truth tellers to speak out against this foolishness.

The President is wrong on this issue as well as the fact that he equated Faith in Christ as just one road alongside of many other routes to God!
This is foolishness! I will continue to pray for him as he is our current leader. But I will not sit silent and act as if these statements are right when they are not!
For the sake of popular culture I believe that every person who calls themself a follower of Christ need not back down from the authority of scripture.
For we are in a time when people are looking for those that are not afraid to stand for the TRUTH!

Before we rush into changing a pattern of church and history, let's look at the census. Only a little over 1% are same sex households. Gays already have many rights to include their S.O. in wills, insurance, power of attorney, rent, utilities, mortgage, etc. etc., and they are not doing it. If 2 men, or 2 women, why not sisters, or brothers, or 3 men and 2 women. If it is only about getting certain legal rights, and not about trying to convince society that everything is normal and right and blessed by God in this relationship.

Here's the real deal: Everything said about gay marriage "threatening", "cheapening", "demeaning" a normal marriage is nonsense. Marriages stand or fall based on the two participants, not the two gays or lesbians down the block. If you can't hold your own marriage together, don't blame it on the queers.

Opposing the gay quest for "legal unions" has zip to do with "protecting marriage" and everything to do with keeping a class of Americans from obtaining rights to inheritance, insurance and legal judgements, etc. It's all about the money. So let a gay man be able to legally claim the body of his deceased lover of 20 years as "next of kin" and keep the condo- it will have nothing at all to do with why marriages fell apart; that's a problem for the partners in those marriages, and it's wrong, and dare I say, UnChristian, to shift the blame.

Advocate: " dont care what people say. Gods definition of family is what matters and stands. That is the truth of the matter we can pontiifcate and play relativist
definition advocates but. "

I agree with you on this point but only if we are dealing within a religious context, and I am under the impression that we are speaking in a more general context of secular/everyday life. In that case I am of the opinion that we have a responsibility to treat all of our citizens equally under the laws of this country. If a state wants to allow civil unions or gay marriage via legislation than it has that right. If the people do not want it then we are to use the electoral process to "throw the bums out". what I do not believe in and dispise is judicial activism. i want the ability to confront my lesgislators about their votes not some unelected judge.
I believe that this issue has some parallels to the civil rights movement. Were not people denied their rights based on their skin color? How is it that you would deny rights to people for something they do in their bedroom?

Back to my spreadsheets....

I am not a dualist. I believe the truth of God's world is wholistic for body, soul, spirit,and mind public policy health care and every other jurisdiction of human affairs.
As far as the connection to the Civil Rights Movement is concerned. No one is born choosing to be Black or Choosing to be the race that they are! It is something they have been marked with from their mothers womb.
So I do not entertain the false notion and assertion that it is all in the same boat because there is no plausible reason to believe that it is(besides a personal argument of course). A lifestyle choice being equated with race does not wash with me like comparing Apples and Oranges.
See it is more than just recognizing this union, what is on the table is that these lifestyles and oversexualized behavior is recognized as normal and equal with God ordained human relationships. It is being currently thrusted down the throats of our children in the public school system(6year olds being Taught "Heather has Two Mommies) etc, the juvenille detention school system(yes a seemingly forgotten population) as well as the mass media agenda.
So no I dont buy it wont accept it as ok.

advocate-You make some good points. And I agree with you about the media and school system. Good discussion!

WyoDave: Spam-pasting entire articles you didn't write into comments is bad form, you know.

Especially when the articles are spurious blathering.

Norma: Britney, Dennis Rodman, and J-Lo have already made marriage as cavalier and whimsical as it will ever be. And I've yet to run across sisters, siblings, or people and their pets who wish to unite in matrimony- so now fears on that end. Doesn't take much in most states to get a license (although many churches not only encourage, but offer counseling).

Okay, I'm with Advocate here Joe. I feared this would happen, but old Prezzy Beezy is becoming fickle on his stance.

WycoDave Say wha? Original thoughts please...

Norma you make good points. I DO think it's about acknowledging something bigger than just rights. If it was just about rights, we wouldn't be seeing this mass-movement to "humanize" the gay plight.

And Ben I have to disagree with you on the point that acknowledging the phony as the real does threaten marriage's authenticity. Still you're right in that it's up to the people who REALLY are married to set the standard against God can judge the fake.

Tony: Your hypothetical is interesting. In your given scenario, I'd take Britney Spears and her man of the hour raising a child than the other. Of the two improper representations, I'd say a kid stands a better chance of gaining some proper perspective in the latter. but, hey that's just me.

Joe, Norma and Advocate: Not long ago, the states of Arkansas and Virginia forbade interracial marriage on grounds that pastors such as Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell said were religious. Yet Black and white people fell in love. Siblings will not, nor will humans and pets (not Eros love, at any rate). Jesus said almost nothing on this topic, BTW, so the post about "...what God said about marriage stands..." is no help in terms of clarification. U.S. states have always defined marital age, marital qualifications, and marital pairing. Big government need not legislate here. One can interpret Leviticus and other books in ways that proscribe inter-tribal and bi-ethnic marriage. The government has bigger fish to fry.

All quotes from WyoDave

"Instead, he has created millions of new enemies around the world - people who used to admire the USA "

I hate to burst your reality bubble, but Europe was just as anti-american before the Iraq war and before Bush's presidency. The only difference is that it has now fully surfaced. Jordan really isn't all that pro-US and Egypt and SA are so full of ****tards who beat the crap out of women and, in the case of egypt at the very least, continue to traffic in slaves "unofficially", it's really not funny. I really don't care if we lose their support. Besides which, SA spawned the Wahabbis which is one of the biggest islamic sects advocating the destruction of the Great and Little Satans(The US and Israel, respectively). We can't go into NK right now because he would launch his armies at SK and they would be screwed over so badly it would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. Last time I checked, Iran was right next door to Iraq. So was Syria, two countries that we need to deal with. As for our supposed "friends" and "allies" I assume you mean the French and Germans, and possibly the Ruskies. Look at the key findings of the little wonder called Duelfer report and you might begin to understand why they didn't go to war with us.

Given this line "American troops are doing the best they can to win in Iraq, but the decision to go to war and the lack of planning to win the peace were strategic political mistakes made by President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and the senior White House staff." I am forced to come to the conclusion that you rely wayy wayy too much on the MSM for your info regarding Iraq. That and you don't know historically what timeframes that reconstructions and peacemaking would take. As a frame of reference, there is already more electricity and running water in Iraq and about 10 times more Iraqis connected to the 'net than pre-war. On the other hand they still don't have full electricity in Kosovo after 5 years, which is a UN led reconstruction. Right now the violence is mainly in the area called the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad. There is a major offensive being planned against Fallujah which is the place where Zarqawi is believed to be holed up.

Your stuff about "free speech zones" is true, but the dems are doing the same thing. There was one at the DNC as well as the RNC. Many parts of the Patriot act are currently being disputed in the courts and at least one case has gone to the Supreme Court and won. The parts of the Patriot act that are unconstitutional will be overturned. Besides which, I haven't seen any Dem proposals on repealing the thing or even changing it.

"Finally, let me address the economy. I've never really believed that the President has much short-term influence over the state of the economy. However, I do know that cutting taxes and increasing spending is normally a great way to stimulate economic growth for a few years, while hurting us in the long-term when we have to pay off the debt." First, this shows a shaky grasp of economics at best. Second, Bush has at least proposed trying to do something about SocSec, Kerry won't even touch it. Third, even with Kerry's tax rollbacks he'll end up driving us deeper into debt than Bush would at current projections.

Now, for my views on the whole gay marriage bit which I originally meant to comment on. Personally, I think that marriage shouldn't even be part of federal or state law at all. There should only be civil unions. The reason for such would be to provide a basis for wills and such. Marriage should be left entirely up to individual churches. The civil unions should be between any two consenting adults. No more, no less. If you allow more than two things would get very messy very fast, at least in theory.

"How is it that you would deny rights to people for something they do in their bedroom?"

until people stop reducing gay and lesbian people to what we do in our bedrooms, the whole notion of rights will get pushed aside and trampled on and arguments for civil unions, equal status under hate crimes legislation, protection in the workforce will fall on deaf ears.

but then, i guess i shouldn't be surprised that homosexuality has been reduced to bedroom activity, considering that heterosexuality has been treated the same way...

"If it was just about rights, we wouldn't be seeing this mass-movement to "humanize" the gay plight"

Funny, I thought that humanizing a people's oppression was an effective way of ending that oppression.

Humanizing the Jew's experience in the Holocaust worked to end it.

Humanizing African-American's experience as slaves worked to end it.

Matthew Shepard was just as human as James Byrd. Both were brutally murdered because someone didn't like something that was inherrent to their identity.

nappi- I wasn't trying to trivialize the issue or denegrate anyone. I just didn't articulate my ideas very well.

joe - i didn't think you were. your initial post i thought got to the heart of the issue - that your gay neighbor and his partner's relationship really wasn't that that different than what you have with your wife. my comment was just pointing out how easy it is to minimize gay/lesbian people to simply what we do in the bedroom.

it is easy to place the focus on to that which makes us different, rather than remembering the similarities b/t lesbian/gay and straight people, those things that make us human.

Nappi- I agree with your last comment 100%. Catch ya later. Have a good W/E.

Oh dearie me. Did you just try to draw some connections between the plight of being gay and the holocaust? Sorry, no comparison. And what happened to Matthew Sheppard is tragic and shouldn't be tolerated. But the humanization I'm referring to is not that. I'm talking about this oh so subtle movement towards trying to desensitize people into thinking that lifestyle is "okay". I don't agree with that.

Are there real people involved here? Yes. But I can't stand this push towards trying to get me to see that gay families are just like regular families. Sorry, no go bro.

And nappi, the reason homosexuality has been reduced to bedroom activity is because a lot of homosexuals do so themselves. I know you may argue this to be stereotypical only of certain types of people, but let me just say, what is largely portrayed in media centers on the sexuality issue, as it often does in a casual social atmosphere.

But I believe we've hashed over this before. I recall Joan making some good comments on this issue, so no need to go there again. You know where I stand.

last thing...

ambra, as a black woman you should know that how the media portrays people is not realistic and should be challenged and questioned. so, that doesn't fly with me as justification for not seeing gay folk for anything other than what goes on in the bedroom.

but, if you want to go with that line of reason, than black women are nothing more than hoes, and shouldn't be *humanized* beyond that!

Nappi, of course I realize that the media portrays things out of character. But the reality is, even in Seattle, a city with a huge gay population, that "cliche" is perpetuated. Even among those I know. The foundation of the lifestyle is deviation from natural sex so it's no mystery why much of the focus is on the sexuality of being gay.

In any case, I don't think you understand what I imply when I say "humanize". There's not a movement to humanize hoes, sorry. There's just a movement to satirize and exploit them.

But the "gay plight" holocaust, slavery comparison...yeah, that makes me nauseous.


don't let it get your blood pressure up too high... it's really not worth it...

RIGHT ON!!!!!!


so you think britney spears and her "husband of the hour" would make better parents than a COMMITTED gay couple... WOW! Now that's deep... and very revealing... it seems to me that heterosexuals have done far more damage to the sanctity of marriage than anything gays could ever do... but hey, why deal with the root of the problem when you can scapegoat a tiny minority.

by the way... massachussetts didn't fall into the atlantic ocean... i have family there... they said most of the opposition to gay marriage there, (which was pretty vigorous for a while, especially as it was whipped up by conservative Christian Gov. Mitt Romney) has already evaporated once they realized what a non-issue it really is...

Good points jab and nappi. And Selma, Ala. wasn't struck by lightning when it passsed integration laws. There is a broader range of sexual preference along the human cotinuum that "extreme" hetero and "extreme" gay. Some legally married men have had gay relationships. And as for the notion of "choosing" to be gay, that's like me saying I chose my preference of sweet taste over salty tastes, or my lack of ability to develop a taste for hard liquor. Why would someone "choose" to a preference that is often discriminated against, if they had a free choice in the matter. Humans, and peer pressured groups, trend toward conformity and acceptance, not banishment and bashing. The psychological spectrum of sexual tastes is as broad a continuum as it is for say- the range between introversion and extroversion, or preference for tall boyfriends or short boyfriends. No one "selects" shyness, or a bias toward bright colors.

Bijan based on your argument, we don't need a Savior. Because of course, we're just born a certain way and therefore must accept it. Sinful, whatever, it's just like that. I mean, why would anyone ever choose to be a criminal or molest children or steal or lie or cheat on their spouse? After all, those are all things that are looked upon negatively in society and for which you could be discriminated. I mean, it all just makes no sense....

"I mean, why would anyone ever choose to be a criminal or molest children or steal or lie or cheat on their spouse?"

I said that would be my last comment but...

Comments like this are precisely why I try my best to shy away from "discussions" about homosexuality with "Christian" folk. It is an insult to compare a gay person to a child molester, thief or a murderer. Not only is it an insult, it is faulty logic because by and large the majority of gay people do not do HARM to other people, as child molesteres, thieves and murderes do! A person does not deserve to be shunned because how and who they LOVE!

You may have a hard time understanding Ambra, that glbt people do more than have "dirty sex" behind our bedroom doors. We LOVE. The same way that straight people do. We COMMIT. The same way that straight people do. We build FAMILIES. The same way straight people do. Just because it looks different that what you think is "right" does not make it any less valid.

It pains me greatly when people, ESPECIALLY people of faith, hold on to their beliefs to the point where it dehumanizes and degrades other people. It is very difficult to have discussions about this topic with Christians because of the argument ends at homosexuality is a sin - period. There is great hesitancy to see the humanity of glbt people among "Christians" because to do so would challenge their belief system. It would mean questioning the beliefs that they hold so dear. It would mean taking of blinders and truly seeing the world that they live in.

I have no problems with "Christians" believing as they do or holding on to the principles they do. I have a HUGE problem when they use those principles do deny people their rights and humanity. That is what you "Christians" do when you malign and belittle glbt people; when you question the legitimacy of our relationships. All under the righteous guise of "Christianity".

It's disgusting!

Boo hoo!

God's ultimate desire for us on the Earth is that we might know His unconditional love for us. The ultimate expression of this came when He gave the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ on our behalf. Christians especially are instructed to be vessels of God's love on the Earth, showing His loving kindness in our actions and words. This is for many reasons, but ultimately because God's love for all people, his goodness and kindness is what draws men (all people) to repentance (to turn away from our sinful behavior- Romans 2:4).

We often have the mantra of "come as you are" into the presence of God which is absolutely Biblical. God has no standards for who is and isn't worthy of His love. He loves everyone and can use anyone in any condition, with any background. But he draws us in with His love so he can do a work in our hearts. What's not Biblical is "stay as you are". After we "come as we are", God expects something from humanity. He expects us to function at the quality of life that He intended for us. The scriptures make it quite clear that God's ultimate expression of A) Christ and the Church and B) the family, is via the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. There was never any other foundation established.

In fact God destroyed entire cities and passed judgment as a result of the people being caught up not only in adultery but also men laying with men and women with women. Thank God we are living under the atonement of Jesus Christ who bore our sins so that we might not live under the law as they did in the Old Testament. The scriptures make reference to homosexuality as a sin along with lying, stealing, adultery and all the other issues of the heart and flesh that plague humanity. There is nothing new under the son/sun. Humanity is in an identity crisis. Men are not secure in their identity as men because the very concept of manhood is being eaten away at by a society with declining moral standards. Boys are growing up confused about their sexuality and women, disheartened by broken relationships and improper representations of men in their lives are hurt so much to the point where they seek out the love of another woman to fill that void. God never promised that we wouldn't struggle against our sinful nature. But he is a just God in that He gave us a remedy, a way of escape and His name is Jesus.

We are all in need of a Savior. Every last one of us. When we acknowledge that we need Jesus, we acknowledge that we are unable to rise to the standard of holiness that God expects from us on our human will and independence. We need His grace (divine enablement).

As a Christian, I must stand firm on Biblical convictions that the homosexual lifestyle is in opposition to God's ultimate will for humanity on the Earth. It is not Truth as evident in both the ministry of Jesus Christ and God's blueprint for how we ought to live our lives. There is a higher quality of life God has intended for us on this earth. God desires that no one remain in their sin. God desires that no one be confused about their identity. I do not base my convictions on personal opinion, for if I did, I might be inclined to think otherwise. We are human and we doubt the finger of God at times because we cannot fully rationalize why He allows the things that He allows.

There are many studies and philosophies and ideologies swarming above our minds that can often lead us to think or rationalize ourselves out of what God has clearly spoken in the living Word. If we profess to believe this (which I do) It's not really deep or complicated. There is good on this earth, and there is evil. Evil would that humanity exist in confusion, living a sub-standard life caught in confusion, bondage, and lack of identity. Where do we form our identity? At a very young age. For this reason, I am adamant about how the culture is attempting to mold the minds of youth. There is a purity there that is being toyed with. As adults, what's even sadder is that the lie has been so dressed up, primped and preened to look like the truth, many of us walk around in a false identity, under the impression that we are "free" when true liberty can only be found in Christ. The lie is masquerading around as the truth and does it so well that many of us can't even tell the difference anymore.

This is the work of God on the Earth: to redeem humanity to Himself. God loves us so much that He doesn't desire for us to be caught up in a lifestyle and way of life that doesn't glorify Him. I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made in our perception of the "loving God" is that we don't equate correction or harshness or high standards with Love. But as a parent disciplines a child and doesn't allow a child to act a certain way, so is the Love of God that gently corrects us (and sometimes not so gently) and demands that we not remain appealing to our fleshly desires, but that we move in the direction of purity. There is a bigger picture for humanity beyond our opinion and what we think is best. It's not about us.

Aw man, you missed your chance!
{ Comments are now closed for this entry. }


Enter your Email



Why I'm Not a Republican Parts I, II, III, IV
Reflections on the Ill-Read Society
The ROI of a Kid
The Double-Minded Haters
Hip-Hop in Education: Do You Wanna Revolution?
Oh parent Where Art Thou?
Requisite Monthly Rant: the State of the Nation
College Curriculum Gone Wild
Walmart Chronicles
An Open Letter to American Idol
Gonorrhea and the City