Kiddie condom capital is also queer capital

provincetown gay lesbian.png

A couple updates on my June 23 post about the Provincetown, MA, Public School System's decision to give kids as young as 5 or 6 condoms upon request, at the same time disallowing parental approval.

I heard on WLS radio's Don and Roma Show this morning that the seaside town of Provincetown is also a homosexual harbor. Sure enough, according to Wikipedia...

leater weekend.png

In the mid-1970s members of the gay community began moving to Provincetown. In 1978 the Provincetown Business Guild was formed to promote gay tourism. Today more than 200 businesses belong to the PBG and Provincetown is perhaps the best-known gay summer resort on the East Coast....

Other notable festivals during the year include... "Mate's Leather Weekend" [photo from website gallery above right], "Women's Week" ["the quintessential lesbian vacation destination"],... "Single Men's Weekend" ["enjoy the off-season charm of Provincetown with 400-600 other gay men"]....

In October, Provincetown sees the arrival of transvestite, transgender and transsexual people for the annual Fantasia Fair [photo below]. Started in 1975, it is the longest running event of its kind in the USA.

fantasia fair.jpg

In fact, according to About.com, Provincetown is the "top gay and lesbian vacation destination" in the US, even ranked above San Francisco.

gay marriage.jpgAlso, "Since the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts in 2004, Provincetown has earned the distinction of 'the place to get married,' issuing more than 2k marriage licenses to date." (Photo left via Provincetown.com.)

I now have a clearer understanding of the impetus for the Providence Public School System's new kiddie condom policy. The morals are looser in this town and/or there is the concern "of passing around sexually transmitted diseases or the possibility of contracting HIV-AIDS might be to a child." The writer of that quote was a kiddie condom supporter.

Turns out Provincetown was considered an "AIDS enclave" in the 1990s. In 2002 author Michael Cunningham wrote, "Provincetown has been widowed by the AIDS epidemic. It will never fully recover...." The AIDS Support Group of Cape Cod (formerly the Provincetown AIDS Support Group) writes of forming in Provincetown in 1983 when "hundreds of people living with AIDS arrived seeking acceptance and compassionate care.

So not only do people contract AIDS in Provincetown, those inflicted with AIDS come there for treatment and solace. Either way, Provincetown is apparently an HIV/AIDS mecca.

It all begins to make sense.

The other bit of news is Gov. Deval Patrick has intervened, and the school is reconsidering its policy. According to ABC News, June 24:

No major news outlet is mentioning the potential backstory here.


Comments:

Sorry I've been away guys. Been running 8 miles a day and working out 2 hours a day, 6 days a week getting in shape to walk my beautiful daughter down the aisle on August 7.

What's happening in P-Town is a result of the 50 years of dereliction in the pulpit in not preaching God's word. There is no fear of the Lord in our culture. "Without vision the people cast of restraint".

Got to go run.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at June 25, 2010 10:20 AM


The use of condoms is a MORTAL SIN !! Sex is bad reallly really bad

Posted by: john at June 25, 2010 10:34 AM


What does this have to do with pro-life issues?

I'm so proud that my generation acknowledges equal rights for all: including the unborn and gays/lesbians. Both support for life and marriage equality are on the rise and Americais better because of it.

Posted by: Abe Lincoln at June 25, 2010 10:41 AM


I've heard that at one time Provincetown also attracted Pilgrims. Oddly, news outlets don't to be mentioning that backstory, either.

Posted by: len at June 25, 2010 10:52 AM


That would be Gov. Deval Patrick. HTH!

Posted by: Cygnus at June 25, 2010 10:57 AM


The horror. The horror. Part Deux.

Posted by: Hal at June 25, 2010 11:04 AM


The Bible demands DEATH for homosexuality

Posted by: john at June 25, 2010 11:08 AM


"Sorry I've been away guys. Been running 8 miles a day and working out 2 hours a day, 6 days a week getting in shape to walk my beautiful daughter down the aisle on August 7."

Phil, Must be a really long aisle! (: I've missed your words of wisdom.


"The use of condoms is a MORTAL SIN !! Sex is bad reallly really bad"
Posted by: john at June 25, 2010 10:34 AM

john, what exactly is your definition of sex? Seems the definition is a bit broader for some in Provincetown.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 25, 2010 11:11 AM


Posted by: Abe Lincoln at June 25, 2010 10:41 AM
--------

You're so proud of your generation and so courageous you can't use your real legal name.

If you really think a naturally sterile couple has the same value to a culture as a naturally fertile couple (marriage equality), then you're incredibly short-sighted.

I contend you can't be both truly pro-life and pro-gay marriage. These are mutually exclusive.

I can prove this both logically and empirically, however, I've yet to find anyone who holds that to be true to be intellectually honest enough to logically refute my arguments.

Most bail out or stand by a complete falsehood, regardless of the evidence refuting their understanding of equality.

Like abortion, eventually the valid argument is rejected and sheer force is used to silence or squelch the opponent.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 25, 2010 11:13 AM


Posted by: john at June 25, 2010 10:34 AM

Gee, what a surprise... someone spreading inaccurate stereotypes.

I'm a Christian, and I think sex is GOOD... VERY, VERY GOOD.... between a man and a woman who are married to each other! And we use condoms, *gasp*! (Until BCP's are proven one way or the other with respect to causing early abortions, I don't prefer to take the risk... even pro-life OB's differ in their opinions of the BCP/early-abortion link.)

Posted by: army_wife at June 25, 2010 11:14 AM


Well a_w, there's two ways to handle birth control pills.

1) Until the Pill is proven to NOT cause an early abortion, I will not take the risk (of killing a child).

2) Until the Pill is proven to cause and early abortion, I will take the risk (of killing a child).

Choose wisely.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 25, 2010 11:23 AM


Phil, congratulations on your healthy lifestyle and the upcoming wedding of your daughter. I wish each of you a long, happy, and healthy life.

Posted by: Hal at June 25, 2010 11:27 AM


I hope the governor's office is looking into the policy's compliance with mandated reporting laws for sex involving a minor who has not reached the age of consensual sex.

PS- Congrats to you and your growing family, HisMan!

Posted by: Fed Up at June 25, 2010 11:42 AM


Another major mistake, Jill! The governor is Deval Patrick, not Patrick Duvall!

Posted by: LS at June 25, 2010 11:49 AM


Hi Phil,

Walking would be just as beneficial and much easier on your joints and feet. Don't fall for this horsepuckey that you have to run your body ragged to achieve any benefits.

Posted by: Mary at June 25, 2010 11:50 AM


"The use of condoms is a MORTAL SIN !! Sex is bad reallly really bad
Posted by: john at June 25, 2010 10:34 AM"

Sex outside marriage is a mortal sin. Use of condoms is just a serious sin.
Sex is amazing and awsome gift from God to married couples that allows them to grow closer and have children.

"The Bible demands DEATH for homosexuality
Posted by: john at June 25, 2010 11:08 AM"

Don't forget the Old Testament demands death for almost every serious sin. But at the same time Jesus brought salvation and forgiveness into the world and that's what we need to concentrate on, because we can only be saved through Jesus. Homosexuality in itself is not a sin, only a homosexual act is a sin. Just like being an angry person in itself is not a sin, but verbally or physically abusing someone while angry - is.

"I'm a Christian, and I think sex is GOOD... VERY, VERY GOOD.... between a man and a woman who are married to each other! And we use condoms, *gasp*! (Until BCP's are proven one way or the other with respect to causing early abortions, I don't prefer to take the risk... even pro-life OB's differ in their opinions of the BCP/early-abortion link.)
Posted by: army_wife at June 25, 2010 11:14 AM"

Where I agree about sex being good in a marriage, I must disagree on condoms. God has given us other, natural means for birth control and with a modern technology it is made even easier (take a fertility monitor Persona, which tells you when you are at risk of conception and shouldn't have sex). We're not animals that we couldn't control our sexual urges, a woman is only fertile a few days a month, by Gods plan. Extreemely good read on the topic is "Theology of the Body" by John Paul II, makes a very clear point how any contraception (including condoms) is against God's will.

Posted by: Vita at June 25, 2010 12:02 PM


This law firm condemns this policy, the people who passed it, and the agenda behind it. What do you think? Should a public school district be allowed to provide condoms to first graders whether their parents like it or not? Please vote: http://www.businesslawpc.com/blog.htm

Posted by: EyeOnTheLaw at June 25, 2010 12:43 PM


Nice to have another lawyer on this site, even one who I would apparently disagree with on about 95% of the issues discussed on his blog.

Posted by: Hal at June 25, 2010 2:35 PM


Okay, a few things:

Phil congratulations on your daughter's upcoming marriage, and good for you for getting into shape!

Regards to Sex and Condoms: Sexual activity between a husband and wife (man and woman married to each other) for unitive and open to the possibility of children IS VERY good. Even if you're avoiding pregnancy by not having sexual relations in the most fertile time of the woman's cycle, if you understand and agree that every child is from God and would take in and give life and love to that child, then you're still open to the fact that a possibility of getting pregnant always is there. (Although the possibility percentages are lower).

Here's the problem with artificial birth control (condoms, birth control pills, et cetera) in regards to all this is:

The couples using these methods are absolutely against the possibility of pregnancy. They are doing everything UNnaturally possible not to have children, instead of working WITH God and the information He provided us (regarding how our bodies work) we're saying "NO, we do NOT trust You, God, so we're using these methods."

Natural Family Planning is the ONLY method that works WITH the woman's cycle and God's plan for marriage instead of AGAINST.

The hormones in some of the artificial methods can really screw a woman's system over big time. (I know a lady who when she got off birth control pills her attitude became WAY MORE positive than it was when she was ON them). Aside from all the physical risks (just read the warning labels) there's the whole emotional effects (artificial hormones only do what they're engineered to do, they don't work with the body).

As to condoms, same idea as I said...not being open to God's plan for marriage, which IS the possibility of children. (Granted, there's some couples who cannot have children for whatever reason, but I'm speaking in terms of the 2 main purposes of the marriage bed: 1. unitive and 2. procreative).

In respects to Abe--I wouldn't crow too loudly lauding today's society. Granted, we have made significant strides in research and rights that benefit people in GOOD ways, but there's plenty of darkness (abortion being one) that in my mind, doesn't make us so fabulous. I'm not sure Lincoln would've approved homosexual marriage, but then again, I'm not him, so that's something you'd have to time travel to ask him about. You're probably thinking more along the lines of Tchwosky (spelling?) the composer of "The Nutcracker Suite" who, from what I hear, was actually homosexual.

Unless there's research to prove otherwise, I'm not sure whether or not Abe Lincoln would've approved of homosexuality.

In any case, in light of understanding Provincetown's homosexual flaboyancy the whole little children getting condoms makes morbid sense, UNFORTUNATELY.

Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 25, 2010 2:47 PM


I am frustrated and tired of the bickering and homophobia within the pro-life movement. Sexual identity doesn't have anything to do with protecting the unborn and not only diverts away from the issue, but also causes division within the pro-life movement.

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 25, 2010 3:56 PM


Homophobic articles and discussions such as these contributes to the misconception that we pro-lifers are only about moralizing and policing sexual practices or punishing those who participate in non-traditional sexual practices and that we oppose potential life-saving practices such as using condoms.

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 25, 2010 4:01 PM


"A couple updates on my June 23 post about the Provincetown, MA, Public School System's decision to give kids as young as 5

or 6 condoms upon request,

at the same time disallowing parental approval."

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


So if I incorrectly mis-understand this statement the Providence Schools are offerring me my choice of kids as young as 5 years of age

or

6 condoms

upon request

without consulting or even informing the parents.


Having already raised 5 of my own children to adulthood I believe I will opt for the 6 condoms unless there are some unknown details about the 5 children (like sole surviving heir to the Walmart or Microsoft fortune?)that would sweeten the deal.

Any specifics on the 6 condoms?

(Glow in the dark, colors, scented/flavored, emblazoned with the presidential seal and autographed by Billy Boy Clinton, female condoms [with or without the meat hooks]?)

I am latex intolerant so I would use them to make piñatas, water bombs, or fill them with methane gas and make floating fireballs.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 25, 2010 4:15 PM


I will have to observe that my children and their friends are much more at ease about 'homosexuality' than my generation.

My children all know someone who is a self avowed homosexual.

My children do not mistreat or ridicule homosexuals. They offer them the same courtesy and respect they do anyone.

But if you asked my children about homosexuality, they would tell you it is an unhealthy lifestyle, it is a 'sin', and God loves sinners.

I am not interested in attempting to placate 'politically correct' people in the misplaced hope that they will join me in numbers large enough to make a difference in the mission to end abortion on demand.

Homosexuals are welcome to join us in the struggle but I am not willing to surrender the truth in order to keep them in the fold.

To me it is just as wrong to trample the truth concerning homosexuality as it is to trample the truth to legitmize murdering pre-natal children.

I refuse to bless that which the ONE who gives us all breath and life did not, is not and will not bless.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 25, 2010 4:57 PM


Totally agree with your entire post, Ken.

Posted by: Pamela at June 25, 2010 5:56 PM


Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 25, 2010 11:23 AM

Why do you think I don't take BCP? Because I don't want to risk inadvertently causing an early abortion.
---------------------------
Posted by: Vita at June 25, 2010 12:02 PM

A woman might only be fertile a few days each cycle but you also have to take into account that sperm can live in the female reproductive tract for several days after being deposited there.
---------------------------
"Here's the problem with artificial birth control (condoms, birth control pills, et cetera) in regards to all this is:

The couples using these methods are absolutely against the possibility of pregnancy. They are doing everything UNnaturally possible not to have children, instead of working WITH God and the information He provided us (regarding how our bodies work) we're saying "NO, we do NOT trust You, God, so we're using these methods." "

Don't be too quick to judge others based on your assumptions of what they're thinking/feeling. I'm not "absolutely against the possibility of pregnancy". Using these methods does not carry an inherent statement that says "I don't trust God". Condoms carry a ten-year failure rate of 80%, if I'm not mistaken. I'm aware of this. Why are we using them? Because we prefer not to have any more children at the moment, but don't want to risk early abortions caused by hormones messing with my body. And no, I do not choose to use NFP/FAM. Denying your spouse sex even for those few days is a sin in and of itself in my opinion (it's in the NT of the Bible). If I ever were to use the NFP method, I might be aware of a fertile window in my cycle but if we chose to have sex during that time we would probably use a barrier method at least for that period of time. I'm not a Catholic, I'm a protestant, and I don't think there's anything sinful about using non-abortifacient birth control within a marriage.

I think more than anything, this is a heart-issue. My husband and I both agree that even though we're using a barrier to try and prevent conception, if we do have a "surprise baby", we'll both welcome the baby with open arms. Between God and I? I've surrendered the issue to Him, although you may disagree with that. He knows that I trust Him, and if He chooses to circumvent our barrier BC and cause me to become pregnant anyway, well, then He knows best, doesn't He? Yes!

"Regards to Sex and Condoms: Sexual activity between a husband and wife (man and woman married to each other) for unitive and open to the possibility of children IS VERY good. Even if you're avoiding pregnancy by not having sexual relations in the most fertile time of the woman's cycle, if you understand and agree that every child is from God and would take in and give life and love to that child, then you're still open to the fact that a possibility of getting pregnant always is there. (Although the possibility percentages are lower)."

This IS our attitude towards children, so why is it OK for Catholics to have that same attitude while avoiding pregnancy via NFP, but not for me to have that same exact attitude while using a barrier? Seriously, I respect your opinion, but that doesn't make sense to me.

I am aware of the story of Onan & Tamar in the Bible but I disagree with the Catholic interpretation of it.
-----------
Posted by: Rachael C. at June 25, 2010 4:01 PM

That's why I posted here that I am a Christian and I don't see a moral wrong with condom use between a husband and wife. We might be brothers and sisters in Christ, but I know some here don't agree with me... that's OK and it's for each of us to work out between ourselves and God. I don't have a problem with condoms being legal and widely available, I don't think we should require proof of marriage to buy them necessarily, I just object to them being handed out by schools to children and encouraging children to participate in premarital sex.

Posted by: army_wife at June 25, 2010 6:16 PM


Posted by: Rachael C. at June 25, 2010 4:01 PM
------

It's pretty sad that you cast everyone here as being homophobic - using a guilt by association meant to be divisive - akin to calling someone racist.

Maybe you missed the basis for this article, which is about distribution of condoms to 1st graders, along with explicit instructions not to tell their parents?

I live in the area, and there is a sense of outrage in the community over this from parents. People have had it with the games and demands foisted upon their children.

At the very least I believe you're either quite naive about how homosexuality/gay marriage relates to defending life, you're very ill-informed, or there might be other reasons for your behaviors.

Sexual identity has everything to do with life, with defending life and promoting a culture of life.

As for non-traditional sexual practices - tell me - what do you know about the Folsom St. Fair?

Is that acceptable?

If so - should that activity be allowed all across the US in every city or town?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 25, 2010 8:43 PM


Armywife at 6:16

Just because you don't agree with the Catholic interpretation of the story of Onan in Genesis does not make you right. Wouldn't this be your interpretation? All your Protestant Reformers agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching up until the Lambeth Conference (I think 1929?)that contraception is a grave offense against God. Have you read some of the scathing remarks that Luther and Calvin wrote about contraception? It does not matter what you or I think is right. Who are we to think we know more than God? This is from a former contracepting Catholic, by the way.

Posted by: Doe at June 25, 2010 9:43 PM


Homosexual activity has always been condemned in the Bible. It is why Sodom and Gomorrah was disintigrated. It is a devient activity, not of God. For those suffering this tendency, it is a cross to overcome, and in doing so in order to remain in a state of grace, Our Good and Merciful God will reward them. There are many devient behaviors that some people have a tendency toward, for a variety of reasons. But, in order to be a reflection of Almighty God, these tendencies and temptations must be fought with frequently receiving the sacraments, prayer, and humbly realizing the need to constantly rely on the Mercy of God and asking for His assistance to avoid the near occasion of sin. Homosexual behavior, as with any sexual behavior outside of the sacrament of marriage, (which of course can only happen between a man and a woman), is abhorrent to God and displeases Him. The marriage act is to be open to life and to always include the Author of life. How could we ask God to participate in an act which He abhors, an act which is anti-life?

Posted by: dbond at June 25, 2010 10:56 PM


So many factual errors in all of the above cloud serious debate. I have lived near Provincetown all of my 63 years. I recall seeing gays and transgenders moving onto town in the 1950's, not as late as the 1970s. By then it was already known as the gay mecca.

This does not result just from lack of preaching. The series of Catholic pastors in Provincetown, and dedicated parishioners, have not supported tihs aspect of their town. Nor would they have supported the Pilgrims in 1620. Indeed there was capital punishment for priests who dared come into colonial Massachusetts, thank you Pilgrims and Puritans.

It is of no surprise to me that our local history, warped by Puritans into all manner of odd sexual mores, has and still does produce crackpots like those who would ignore parents and those who would condomize grammar schools.

Morphing over the centuries from intolerant pilgrimas to intolerant sex libertines has been a smooth transition.

Posted by: tom ryan at June 25, 2010 10:56 PM


Army,

Actually condoms and NFP are NOT the same thing, not at all.

NFP affords a couple the ability to plan the family either in favor of having more children or avoiding pregnancy but for SERIOUS reasons such as health.

You say a woman should never deny her husband sexually? Okay, so what if the husband wants to have sex and the woman's ill? Or what if she just had a baby and she's been advised to avoid sexual intercourse for awhile? (I believe women are told 6 weeks, if I remember correctly from when I had my child). A man might desire sex, but if he loves his wife, he'll understand there are times when it's more loving for him to control those desires rather than give into them.

How are condoms much different? Here's how: You're putting a barrier between you and your husband. That's not FULL giving of one self and FULL acceptance of each other.

Here's what you're saying (even if this isn't your intention) when you use a condom (or other means of artificial birth control):

"I accept everything about you EXCEPT your fertility."

Sexual intercourse is meant to be a full expression of the marriage vows spoken with the body. This means accepting EVERYTHING INCLUDING one's fertility.

This is where NFP comes in handy during the fertile times (when avoiding the possiblity of pregnancy). It helps the couple determine when the woman is MOST fertile and LEAST fertile. Conservatively following the rules, the chances of conception goes down WITHOUT any artifical means...therefore, during the times of sexual intercourse the couple is free to accept one another fully and without any barriers.

There are serious reasons for avoiding sex. It's not about "denying" one's spouse, it's about recognizing that there are times where avoiding is what's best for the couple (such as natural child spacing / health and those kind of things)

The other thing is, if God chooses to give children, NFP recognizes that His will is part of factoring in the couples' family planning.

Granted not every married couple is a theist or a Christian, but even then, they can thoughtfully plan out their family based on health, and that sort of thing.

Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 26, 2010 1:40 AM


"Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 26, 2010 1:40 AM
"

Thank you so much!!!! I wouldn't have said better! This is EXACTLY how me and my hubby understand God's plan for families and sexuality. You expressed it just right, can't add anything else :)

Posted by: Vita at June 26, 2010 4:49 AM


"If you really think a naturally sterile couple has the same value to a culture as a naturally fertile couple (marriage equality), then you're incredibly short-sighted."

Does that apply to married straight couples who can't have kids? Because I can't quite imagine you going up to a straight married couple and saying, "Hey, John and Jane? You know how your doctor said the two of you can't have kids? Well, that means you're not as valuable to a culture as people who can have kids. Bob and Betty next door, the ones with four kids? Way, way more valuable to a culture than you two."

"I contend you can't be both truly pro-life and pro-gay marriage. These are mutually exclusive."

You know, you're free to disagree with other pro-lifers about gay marriage, but do you really want to risk losing allies by telling self-professed pro-lifers that they can't be pro-life? Do you think people saved from abortion really care what the person or people who saved them thought about gay marriage? Do you think this is a movement that can afford to alienate people?

Because, while pro-lifers who keep dragging gay marriage into an unrelated issue will never stop me from being pro-life, sometimes they do stop me from reading various websites or trying to form a sense of community with other pro-lifers. I never bring up gay issues on abortion-related websites. As far as I'm concerned, they're separate issues. But when people start throwing around hyperbole, untruths, and divisive rhetoric, I respond because not only are you making me frustrated, but you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm also getting really sick of, "hey, you know about this over-the-top, highly publicized gay event that focuses on promiscuity? Do you agree with that, too?" That's like claiming that people who support heterosexual marriage approve of Girls Gone Wild. People acting like sex-crazed hedonists in public is not the same thing as two people wanting a loving, committed relationship.

"Homosexual activity has always been condemned in the Bible. It is why Sodom and Gomorrah was disintigrated."

Here's my sincere question about Sodom and Gomorrah. Okay, so these men in Sodom show up at Lot's house and want him to send out the angels so they can rape them. Lot says no, don't do it, it's bad. Then he offers them his virgin daughters instead. How exactly does this make Lot a good guy? If Jim the mailman in Indiana has a bunch of guys show up at his door demanding he send his male houseguests outside so they can rape them, does God smile if Jim says, "Here, take my virgin daughters Madison and Amber instead"?

Also, what does gang rape have to do with sexual love?

"Sexual identity doesn't have anything to do with protecting the unborn and not only diverts away from the issue, but also causes division within the pro-life movement."

You said it, Rachael.

Posted by: Marauder at June 26, 2010 6:41 AM


Posted by: Doe at June 25, 2010 9:43 PM

I don't know more than God. The Catholic Church isn't God, and doesn't know more than (or even "as much as") God either. Just because the Catholic church (or any other Christian denomination) teaches something, doesn't mean it is automatically true.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about condoms and NFP for now. :-)

Posted by: army_wife at June 26, 2010 9:44 AM


I will not get into an argument about this but as a Protestant my viewpoint regarding contraception has been moving more toward the Roman Catholic theologic position over the years however I do not condemn those married couples who do use non-abortifacient contraception. I just encourage these couples to pray and search the scriptures for Godly wisdom regarding the use of B/C.

Regarding the homosexual agenda, I just finished reading "Marriage Under Fire: Why We MUST Win This Battle" by Dr. James Dobson, very interesting read. He gives the history of the Same-Sex Marriage Movement and quotes a July 2003 Washington Post editorial from liberal columnist Michael Kinsley "Abolish Marriage: Let's Really Get the Government Out of Our Bedrooms" Kinsley writes:

"The solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let'em...If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant."
Otherwise, the author warns "it's going to get ugly."

"Judith Levine, writing in the Village Voice offered support for these ideas in an article titled "Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn't Radical Enough" She wrote, "Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the 'repeal of all legislative provisions that restrcit the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit and the extension al legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.'

Dr. Dobson rightly concludes in his book "The homosexual agenda is NOT marriage for gays. It is marriage for NO ONE. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definately NOT monogamous."

My questions are: Do you understand why "marriage" is under attack? Why is it so important to redefine "marriage"? Why is it so important that you and your children be indoctrinated in this new definition of "marriage"? What happens to our society, our nation and our entire civilization when the status of marriage becomes meaningless? What will happen to those who speak up for the Biblical standard for marriage and families? (Look at what has happened to ministers in Canada and the UK some have served jail time for "hate speech"). Will Christian pro-life, pro-family people be willing to pay the penalty that will be levied against us? The scriptures say "Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people". "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." "For lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" "For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright." May God help the United States of America.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 26, 2010 1:15 PM


Prolifer L, I think it's only fair to take the different motivations people can have into account. You and I both believe in free speech, but people believe in free speech for different purposes. You could have someone advocating for free speech because they wanted to spread the message of Jesus and someone advocating for free speech because they want to promote genocide. I don't know who Judith Levine is, but she sounds like a radical nut. I wouldn't equate her with all gay marriage advocates any more than I'd equate the Westboro Baptist Church with all Christians.

The government already has jurisdiction over what constitutes legal marriage. That's why you can't legally marry your brother or five wives or your favorite couch. Speaking Biblical standard for marriage and families, what is that, exactly? Jacob getting tricked into marrying Leah, later marrying Rachel, and then having kids with both of their maidservants? The FLDS would argue that THEY are the ones who are "doing it right" by Biblical standards. Obviously, loads of people disagree with them.

Gay organizations have changed a lot since 1972. I think most gay couples who want to get married want to do so in order to have the legal protections straight married couples are granted by law. If Britney Spears can drunkenly elope and have the legal protections that come with marriage until getting an anullment less than four days later, why can't a committed, monogamous gay couple who's been together for forty years have them?

Although anything is possible, I don't think various religions are going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for couples if those ceremonies go against the principles of the religion. Catholicism has been refusing to marry people with living, un-anulled spouses for centuries, and no one's demanding that they be forced to legally change that.

Posted by: Marauder at June 26, 2010 2:23 PM


Hi Marauder. How are you? Your post is interesting don't have the time to address it at this time but will try to get back to you tomorrow. I think you have a nice, rosey picture of what "gay marriage" is really about but I do appreciate your opinion here. I hope to get back to you tomorrow. There is much more at stake here like there was much more at stake when Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973. God bless you. Got to go.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 26, 2010 10:04 PM


ArmyWife,

As a Catholic, I must believe what the Church teaches is true. I cannot cherry pick what I want to believe and not believe. I may struggle (i.e. as I did in the past about birth control) about some doctrine, but the gist of it is I must trust in the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Catholic Church),Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Oral Apostolic) Tradition. The Catholic Church was given a mission by Jesus Christ to teach, govern, and sanctify. Obviously, as a Protestant you do not have to believe this. You sound as if you're trying to live a very godly life and that's wonderful. Mother in Texas is right on regarding NFP and condoms/coitus interruptus not being the same thing. The Couple to Couple League has a great book on NFP and how it can be done successfully. Also, just for clarification, I'm not sure if you were stating in your post that Catholicism is a denomination. It is not a denomination. Denomination means "comes from a name.", i.e. Protestant. All the Christian churches following Luther's break off from the Catholic Church are denominations. Peace.

Posted by: Doe at June 26, 2010 10:58 PM


Posted by: Marauder at June 26, 2010 6:41 AM

Well, Marauder, Lott and his family were the best out of all of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is why they were spared-so I suppose that kind of sums up the rest of the folks in S&G, now doesn't it?!

Posted by: dbond at June 27, 2010 12:14 AM


Posted by: Marauder at June 26, 2010 6:41 AM
------

I find your response interesting.

You casually reject my assertion that to be truly pro-life requires opposition to gay "marriage", then ask: can the cause afford to lose supporters if it upheld that view?

Why ask about a short term consequences, while avoiding the longer term consequence?

Do you really not see the relationship among these issues and the necessity of upholding marriage as preeminent in the continuation of a culture?


Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at June 27, 2010 7:43 AM


Posted by: dbond at June 25, 2010 10:56 PM


"Homosexual activity has always been condemned in the Bible. It is why Sodom and Gomorrah was disintigrated."

-------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Marauder at June 26, 2010 6:41 AM

"Here's my sincere question about Sodom and Gomorrah."

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

Maruauder,

First ask and answer the question about homosexuality.

What does the 'book' inform us about homosexuality?

Please cite the passage in the 'book' where homosexuality is sanctified and is no longer a 'sin'.

I have questions about Sodom and Gomorrah myself.

The 'book' indicates Lot and his family were NOT spared because of 'their' righteousness, but because a righteous man, Abraham, intervened on their behalf and GOD was moved to show them mercy.

The teachable moment is what happened next with Lot and his daughters. Though Lot and his daughters were removed from the sinfilled place, the 'sin' was not removed from them.

We are redeemed in an instant. Salvation and restoration are a continuing process. It takes time.

(Clue to self: It is good to have friends whom GOD considers righteous.)

My 22 year old daughter Leah wanted to have some friends over for dinner recently. She asked me if she could invite a friend who is a male homosexual.

I had to think about that for a few seconds.

I asked her if I had met this person previously and she said yes and she told me when, where and who he was.

If he was Leah's friend and I had met him and nothing about him caused me concern on our previous meetings then I was comfortable with his being in our home.

Then Leah asked if he would be alright with me if his 'partner' accompanied him to dinner. It seems Leah's friend had not yet fully come out of the closet. He had not yet told many people, including his family, that he was a homosexual. I suppose this was a step in that process.

(A longer pause as I ran through a level one self diagnostic about my 'feelings' concerning this additional variable to the equation. [My liberal sister had once asked me if I had any friends who were homosexuals. I said, "No, but I have a few friends who are former homosexuals. Not the answer which she was expecting.] With my sisters question in mind, I said to Leah it would be alright with me if his partner accompanied him and I would be on my best behavior. Meaning I would be careful not to say or do anything to give offense. [By the way that attitude works both ways.]

A bunch of people showed up for dinner that night, but these two men were not among them.

I do not know if I passed the 'test', but though I was uncomfortable with the thought of two men holding hands, or other open displays of affection between the two, I was willing to show them the same hosptitality that I extended to all the other guests.

[Remember Peters vision of the 'unclean animals' and his response to being told to 'rise, kill and eat'. Peter was CHALLENGED big time. Then the next thing you know he has to go to a gentiles home, an uncircumsised GENTILE and tell them about Jesus. Then horror of horors these GENTILES all received Jesus and were babptized in/with/by Holy Spirit and began to manifest the same gifts that Jewish believers in Jesus had manifested.

We are talking a sudden and dramatic attitude adjustment of biblical proportions. (You paying attention Sabra?)

Then Peter was saddled with the responsibility of delivering this 'good new' to his fellow Jews.]

Being 'gentile' is not a sin, though the 'book' indicates 'gentiles' were cut off from God in some respects.

(Get a concordance and search it out for your self.)

Jesus reconciled us to GOD and Holy Spirit baptized us into the body of Christ with believing Jews. We all have equal access to God the Father through Jesus the Christ.

Homosexuality is a sin. GOD has agape and phileo for sinners.

How does GOD want 'me' to demonstrate his agape and phileo to homosexuals.

I will get back to you on that when I have the answers.

You might want to ask HIM the same question.

In the mean time, I will not bow to 'political correctness' and equate homosexuality with heterosexuality or being left handed or being black or male or female.

Homosexuality is a dysfunction and a symptom of a wounded soul. There is nothing 'gay' about it.

Truth makes judgements.

If the subject comes up I will openly speak the truth about homosexuality and I will do it as lovingly as I am able.

ps: It is a source of pride for me that people genuinely like my daughter Leah and her gentleness and kindnes makes them so at ease that they can reveal their secrets to her without fear of being judged.

The LORD revealed to me that Leah would leave her mark on the world and the world would leave it's marks on her, but not to worry for HE was able to make her stand without spot or wrinkle.

In fact HE said HE wanted Leah to bump into the world so hard she would leave her/HIS mark on it.

I believe that is GOD's plan for all HIS children.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 27, 2010 12:17 PM


Here's what I know, Chris: if my life was in danger, I wouldn't care if the person who saved my life was a drug-addicted porn star who thought the earth was flat. Would I approve of their drug use, career, or nonsensical geographic beliefs? No, definitely not. Would I be glad that person had worked to save my life, and would I owe my life to that person? Yes, I would. Because even if I disagreed with this person on all sorts of things, I would be grateful as hell that they'd saved my life and I wouldn't want to tell them, "You can't really work to save other people's lives. You're a drug-addicted porn star who thinks the earth is flat." If I ran into them on a website about whether drugs should be legalized, I'd disagree with them openly. If I saw them on a website about life-saving techniques, I'd think to myself, "You know, this person may be a drug-addicted porn star who believes the earth is flat, but when it comes to this issue, s/he's got the right idea. Even if I discourage him/her on other issues, I want to encourage him/her on this one because s/he's got the right idea here." My philosophy of life is that you encourage the good and discourage the bad. You don't look at a person you believe to be a mixture of good and bad and say, "You can't be partially good because you're also partially bad."

Gay marriage isn't going to make straight people turn gay, or stop having kids, or stop wanting to have kids. If you want to work against legalized gay marriage, that's your right and you should go ahead. But telling people they can't be for gay marriage and against abortion is divisive, and as both the Bible and Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The "house" of the pro-life movement can stand with disagreements. It cannot stand with divisions, and when you tell people who believe in the inherent worth of every human life that they're not "in the club," you're being divisive and working against what you're trying to work for.

You're also reducing a complex set of thoughts, beliefs, and motivations into one thing. According to you, someone could have opened fifteen crisis pregnancy centers, testified before Congress about the horrible aftermath of abortion, written ten books about why abortion is the taking of a human life, adopted twelve children, and devoted their whole life to the pro-life cause, but if they think Stan and Stu down the street should be allowed to get married, well, who gives a damn about the other stuff. You don't want them on your side.

Posted by: Marauder at June 27, 2010 12:33 PM


Ken: I'm glad you were willing to be hospitable to the gay men who were invited to your home. That's a commendable Christian attitude, and I appreciate it.

Point taken about Lot and Abraham's intervention. Still, I don't see how Sodom and Gomorrah shows that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. How men raping other men is a sin, yes, but not consensual homosexual relationships? I'm not seeing it.

And if someone goes into the man lying down with another man/abomination thing, from what I understand, "abomination" in this case means ritually unclean for Jews, not sin. No one expects anyone to follow Leviticus about eating shellfish, shaving, or wearing clothes made out of more than one type of fabric.

Posted by: Marauder at June 27, 2010 12:46 PM


Ken,
Thanks for sharing that story. I love the name Leah- backwards it spells "heal". Peace.

Posted by: Janet at June 27, 2010 2:16 PM


Ken,
Well, kinda.....

Posted by: Janet at June 27, 2010 2:17 PM


Yor Bro Ken:

What a magnanimous gesture! Is Jesus also instructing you to spew bigoted, illogical conspiracy theories across the blogosphere?

I'm sure your queer dinner guests would've arrived with rainbow-striped jello and satchels full of GMHC condoms. Good thing they had the sense to steer clear.

Gays are actually a godsend for pro-lifers. More and more gay families are choosing to adopt, often out of foster care:

http://www.urban.org/publications/411437.html

But I'm sure you think it's better to be a ward of the state (bankrolled by taxpayers, mind you) than in the hands of perverts, right?

Posted by: Megan at June 27, 2010 6:29 PM


Also, typical of Jill Stanek commentary, this post fails to discuss the METHOD of condom distribution in the elementary school. Will the goods be hanging in a basket next to the front door? No. The kid will need to speak to a nurse, and she/he isn't mandated to even give them to the student. I can't imagine a first grader even being interested in sex, let alone soliciting information from the school nurse. But if a kid is curious, then she/he will be able to speak, in private, with a professional.

Also, this could be a great opportunity to identify potential abuse, either through student disclosure or the nurse's observations. This policy will create a safe space for kids to discuss sex--and which kid isn't curious? Parents today have already demonstrated how incapable they are of doing home sex ed, so I say this could take the burden off mummy and daddy to have that awkward ice-breaker sex "talk."

Posted by: Megan at June 27, 2010 6:43 PM


Megan,
The facts of this story are in the links.


"The kid will need to speak to a nurse, and she/he isn't mandated to even give them to the student. "

Sure he/she is. Where did you read otherwise?

"Parents today have already demonstrated how incapable they are of doing home sex ed.."

What do you base this statement on? I know many, many parents fully capable of doing home sex ed. It's the parent's responsibility, not the school's to usurp.


Posted by: Janet at June 27, 2010 7:31 PM


Hi Marauder. Just got a chance to look at your post. You are indeed a kind, trusting person but I think very naive regarding the true motivations of the "Gay Rights/Marriage Movement". You may choose to believe that Judith Levine is a aberration or a "radical nut" of the Gay Marriage Movement but those who have followed this movement for years and it's legal implications would disagree with you. Alan Sears, a pro-life, pro-family attorney for many years documented this in his book "The Homosexual Agenda". Your assumptions about gays practicing monogamomy are also not borne out in the Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium which have legalized and embraced gay unions for 10 years, giving it equal status with traditionsl marriage there is a relatively small number who have taken advantage of this "freedom", (I have read less than 20% of homosexuals marry there, will check for the exact number and get back with it). Regarding monogamy "Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90% if the relationship endures over five years". (book by Joseph Harry "Gay Couples). The numbers for lesbians are not as bad but the numbers of sexual partners is 4-5 times more than the majority of heterosexual women.


Regarding the Biblical standard of marriage I would NOT take the standard for Jacob whose name means "supplanter, trickster or deceiver" who stole his borther's birthright and was getting some of his due justice in this Bible story or the LDS. I would take my Biblical standard from God and Jesus Christ, his son, who said in Mark 10: 2-12 "And the Pharasees came to him and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorecment and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation GOD made them MALE AND FEMALE. For this cause shall a MAN leave his FATHER AND MOTHER, and cleave to his WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BE ONE FLESH: so then they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore GOD HATH JOINED TOGETHER, let not man put asunder."

Please note the words of Jesus regarding the genders and numbers of people that were to be "married", he and his father God did not make a mistake, did not mince any words and they knew that marriage was anatomically, physiologically hormonally, emotionally and spiritually the joining or "becoming one flesh" of 2 different reproductive systems and sexual organs, a male penis and a female vagina. No amount of anatomic stretching, implements used, sex toys or manipulations of male and female anatomy can substitute for what God created. It is unhealthy and dangerous. Read the articles I gave you the links to previously please.

Once read a book by Dr. Myles Monroe a minister who wrote "If you want to know the purpose (and proper use) of a thing (or in this case someone) go to the manual of its Creator or designer." Read the manuel, The Bible it is really good advise. I will indeed pray for your eyes and heart of be opened. God loves you and so do I.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 27, 2010 8:20 PM


Sorry, I meant to write I would not take the standard "FROM" Jacob whose name means supplanter, trickster or deceiver who stole his "brother's" birthright. I probably have a couple of other typos that I missed.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 27, 2010 8:50 PM


Posted by: Megan at June 27, 2010 6:29 PM

"I'm sure your queer dinner guests would've arrived with rainbow-striped jello and satchels full of GMHC condoms. Good thing they had the sense to steer clear."

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

Megan,

Judging from your comments it seems the rules are same for liberals when it comes to discussing homosexuality as they are when it comes to discussing racism.

It is perfectly acceptable for you to toss around terms like queer, faggot, queen etc just as it is perfectly acceptable for densely pigmented people to toss around epithets like nigger.

I do not ackowledge your right or authority to dicatate which terms may or may not be used in the debate.

You also presume that the two mens failure to share a dinner with my family in our home was their 'good sense'.

It could just have easily been their good fortune or conversely their bad fortune.

It is bitter, angry intolterant reactions like yours that give homosexuals and homosexuality a bad name.

Charm school might be advised.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 27, 2010 10:25 PM


Posted by: Marauder at June 27, 2010 12:46 PM


"No one expects anyone to follow Leviticus about eating shellfish, shaving, or wearing clothes made out of more than one type of fabric."

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

Marauder,

If I extrapolate your logic about old testament law then it would follow that none of the forbidden acts are 'sin'.

You cut and paste for us the parts of the 'law' that prohibit homosexuality and then cut and paste where that law against that 'sin' has been repealed.

Jesus fulfilled and satisfied the 'law' for us but HE did not give us a license to go on willfully sinning.

Use a concordance and seek it out for yourself.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 27, 2010 10:38 PM


yor bro ken,

I don't want to delve too much into the politics of naming, but gay individuals typically prefer the term "queer" to "homosexual." Why would it bother you for a marginalized group to re-appropriate a name? Does it make you nervous, O White Patriarch?

And my post WAS angry. Religion should be about love, yet people scour antiquated texts--translated and re-translated over the centuries--for reasons to hate. Let's hope that none of your grandkids turns out gay--the terms of your pro-life consciousness might just take a different shape.

Posted by: Megan at June 27, 2010 11:04 PM


Posted by: Marauder at June 27, 2010 12:33 PM

"but if they think Stan and Stu down the street should be allowed to get married, well, who gives a damn about the other stuff. You don't want them on your side."

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

Marauder,

Whether or not Stan and Stu are on my side has nothing to do with the 'rightness or wrongess' of a particular act or behavior.

Gen 14:10-15:1

10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of slime or bitumen pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, they fell (were overthrown) there and the remainder [of the kings] fled to the mountain.
11[The victors] took all the wealth of Sodom and Gomorrah and all the supply of provisions and departed.
12 And they also took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods away with them.
13 Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew [one from the other side], who was living by the oaks or terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshcol and of Aner — these were allies of Abram.
14 When Abram heard that [his nephew] had been captured, he armed (led forth) the 318 trained servants born in his own house and pursued the enemy as far as Dan.
15 He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and attacked and routed them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.
16 And he brought back all the goods and also brought back his kinsman Lot and his possessions, the women also and the people.
17 After his [Abram's] return from the defeat and slaying of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him,

the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh, that is, the King's Valley.


18 Melchizedek king of Salem [king of peace] [later called Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine [for their nourishment]; he was the priest of God Most High,

[note:God has always had a priesthood in the earth. This incident predated both the Mosaic and Levitical 'law'.]

19 And he [Melchizedek king of Salem] blessed him and said, Blessed (favored with blessings, made blissful, joyful) be Abram by God Most High, Possessor and Maker of heaven and earth,
20 And blessed, praised, and glorified be God Most High, Who has given your foes into your hand!

[Notice whom Melchizedek credited with the victory.]

And [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek king of Salem] a tenth of all [he had taken/recovered from the plunderers]. [Heb 7:1-10.]

21 And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons and keep the goods for yourself.

[Notice who is arriving late to the party after having getting his butt kicked and is attempting to dictate how the spoil will be divided. Sound eerily familar to a certain person abiding in the white house?]

22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand and sworn to the Lord, God Most High, the Possessor and Maker of heaven and earth, 23 That I would not take a thread or a shoelace or anything that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich.

24[Take all] except only what my young men have eaten and the share of the men [allies] who went with me — Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.


15:1 AFTER THESE things, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram, I am your Shield, your abundant compensation, and your reward shall be exceedingly great.
AMP

I am not saying that the King of Sodom represented homosexuality, but he represented something that Abram found so repugnant that he eschewed anything the King of Sodom might offer him.

It was 'after' this that GOD came to Abram. You should read for yourself the following verses.

I challenge you again to find the place(s) in the book where God has sanctified homosexuality.

It would also be instructive for you to do a word search on the word 'sin' in both the old and new testament. I believe that you may not fully understand what the word and the concept mean.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 27, 2010 11:13 PM


Posted by: Megan at June 27, 2010 11:04 PM

I suggest you consult a dictionary to determine the meaning of the words 'queer' and 'homosexual'.

Not everyone who is 'queer' is a homosexual, but according to your understanding everyone who is a homosexual is 'queer'.

Queer and gay used to mean odd and happy respectively.

Homosexuals are free to choose whatever term suits them, but I am not obligated to change my language to suit their preferences or yours.

Homosexual is not, nor has it ever been a pejorative or derisive term, though some may have chosen to invested it with that kind of animosity.

Homosexuals preferring to being known as a 'queer' is as self deprecating as choosing to refer to oneself and others you identify as like you, as a 'nigger' or spic or kike or wap or pollock.

The term homosexual is emotionally neutral and it refers to either gender equally and appropriately.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 27, 2010 11:32 PM


Megan: It's your comments that make me think that no matter how much a person who disapproves of homosexuality tries to be loving, people who think there's "nothing wrong with homosexuality" will always find fault no matter what we do. We're danged if we do and danged if we don't.

If we're loving in a manner in which we understand love to be, but still disapprove of the actions, then we're not really loving...even if by true definition of love we would be.

If we DON'T do anything but just disapprove, then we're still lambasted for our position.

It's a no win situation for yor broken (Ken) based on what I read in your comments.

General Statements:

It amazes me. People want tolerance and love, but many people I've come across both in person and online think love means approving of everything a person does no matter what it is, which simply isn't true. Even if someone (like myself or Ken) loves the person and hates the sin, we're still seen as hate mongers simply because we're not willing to just be like "oh it's all okay!"

Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 27, 2010 11:36 PM


Posted by: Megan at June 27, 2010 11:04 PM

"Does it make you nervous, O White Patriarch?"

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

Referring to me as 'Patriarch' may be premature.

I do not yet have any grand children of whom I am aware and in my understanding that would be a prerequisite for being a 'patriarch'.

I question your characterization of me as 'white'.

As the seasons change my skin gets darker and lighter. I usually identify with my Cherokee heritage though there is some Jew and English/British/German/caucasian DNA thrown in my genetic soup as well.

But I am not offended when someone identifies me as 'white', though it is not accurate.


Posted by: yor bro ken at June 27, 2010 11:42 PM


"Whether or not Stan and Stu are on my side has nothing to do with the 'rightness or wrongess' of a particular act or behavior."

That's not what I said. I said that, according to Chris's logic, someone can devote their whole life to the pro-life cause and not "really" be pro-life because they disagree with him about an unrelated issue.

Prolifer L: I have been following gay marriage and the legal implications for years. I still think that a committed monogamous relationship should be encouraged for both gay and straight people, regardless of how many of them fail to meet that standard. Way too many straight couples don't end up in lifelong monogamous romantic relationships, but I wouldn't want heterosexual marriage abolished because a lot of people have sex before marriage or cheat on their spouses or get divorced.

Legally, each half of a heterosexual married couple could sleep with a new partner every single night and still be married. Straight couples can completely fail to be monogamous and still be married in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, gay couples who have never cheated once in twenty-five years aren't allowed the same legal protections as the straight swingers next door, or the guy down the street who's on his seventh wife.

People failing to meet a standard isn't a justification for not giving them a chance to meet that standard. Loads of black boys never graduate from high school, but we don't expel the ones who want to graduate because their peers dropped out.

"I am not saying that the King of Sodom represented homosexuality, but he represented something that Abram found so repugnant that he eschewed anything the King of Sodom might offer him."

Okay, so he represented something repugnant. Why assume it's homosexuality?

"I challenge you again to find the place(s) in the book where God has sanctified homosexuality."

Nope, that's not how it works. Something isn't a sin because God doesn't say whether it's a sin or not - something's a sin because God says it's a sin, and no one has shown me any place in the Bible that clearly states that homosexuality in and of itself - not male-on-male rape, not temple prostitution - is a sin.

Posted by: Marauder at June 28, 2010 7:14 AM


Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 27, 2010 11:36 PM

Great post, and I agree!

Yor Bro Ken,
What percentage Native American are you, just out of curiosity? Although I identify as "white" because most of my ancestry is European, I am about one-sixteenth Native American. If I choose to hang out in the sun a while, my ancestry starts to show itself. Normally, however, I am pretty white. My eye shape has caused some Korean ladies over my adult life to either assume or ask me if I am Asian. My grandmother told me once that the tribe our Native American ancestor came from was Sac and Fox.

Posted by: army_wife at June 28, 2010 8:59 AM


"Even if someone (like myself or Ken) loves the person and hates the sin, we're still seen as hate mongers simply because we're not willing to just be like "oh it's all okay!" Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 27, 2010 11:36 PM

Thanks for your words Ken and Mother in Texas.

When I've spoke out against abortion I have been told I am a misogynist and a rape apologist. If I speak out against young women's fashions, I am told I am showing my age. If I talk against sex outside of marriage I get told I am anti-sex. When I speak out against homosexual behaviors I am told I am a hater and intolerant. When I've spoken out against the pill and condoms I have been told I just want women to be indentured slaves and to bow down to men.

I was guilty of some of the above sins myself and can see in hindsight how they negatively affected myself and those around me.

These choices all fuel each other and negatively affect our children and our society and they are not okay.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 28, 2010 10:24 AM


Mother in Texas:

Your attitude towards gayness is far more loving than Yor Bro Ken's. I agree with Marauder in that there is no good Biblical justification for discriminating against gay individuals. To each his own, though--at least your comments are not hate-filled. I reserve the right to be contemptuous of the angry and bigoted.

Praxedes:

Poverty and war is bad for our children. How about that?

Posted by: Megan at June 28, 2010 11:00 AM


That's not what I said. I said that, according to Chris's logic, someone can devote their whole life to the pro-life cause and not "really" be pro-life because they disagree with him about an unrelated issue.

Posted by: Marauder at June 28, 2010 7:14 AM
-------

The only one contending it's unrelated is you.

And, it's not merely holding a belief. Beliefs translate into actions.

I know an older woman who dutifully donated to pro-life causes since 1973. Yet every election she would vote for local and national candidates who were vehemently pro-choice. It made no sense whatsoever to send money to one, but them vote the other side in, who then put abortion in place and obstructed pro-life measures. She never connected one action with the other.

The issues of being pro-life and defending traditional marriage are completely related because only one institution (traditional marriage) upholds the possibility of benefically procreating the culture at large. (I'll discuss artificial means and adoption later.)

Culturally, same-sex marriage doesn't serve the same purposes as traditional marriage, because effectively same-sex marriage is naturally sterile. The probability of accidental conception is zero. This is not accidental as would be the case in a heterosexual marriage where usually medical or time reasons make children difficult to conceive. So the same-sex relationship is primarily recreational (affective/emotional) and not procreational (effective - which is the basis of much parental law).

Okay - so some heterosexual couples may take permanent measures to avoid children. They, along with most same-sex marriages, avoid the personal cost of children. Raising kids is costly, time-consuming hard work - yet without them the culture dies. While not an obligation, denying any possibility of children benefits sterile couples at the expense of those who have children. If you don't have kids of your own (adopted even) then you have absolutely no idea what this really means - really. None.

Our economy, lifestyle - the very culture are not possible without children. Imagine going to a hospital and not finding anyone there, because no one procreated. While that seems like a remote possibility, a more probable one is arriving to find you're unfamiliar with the language and procedural care because a different, more procreative people group has now replaced your own people group. Procreation has huge implications because sons and daughters are the primary defenders of our country. Yes - there may be gays in the military, but they are all children of a heterosexual union.

Infertile married heterosexual couples don't break the model of marriage, due to the accidental nature of their infertility.

To call same-sex unions "marriage" is offensive to those of us who have a marriage with children and know all that entails.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at June 28, 2010 11:46 AM


Megan,

Actually my stance is pretty much the same as Ken's. I just stated it differently than him.

Your comments put him between a rock and a hard place.

He was willing to say that his daughter's friend was welcome in his house despite his lifestyle choices. That he would even keep his mouth shut.

That's pretty much the same deal I have had with any of my homosexual or bisexual friends. I wouldn't condone or approve or support their lifestyle, but I would support their humanity.

No where did Ken say he didn't support their humanity.

It's his house. If he wanted to say no known-homosexuals were allowed, that would be his right as the homeowner. He didn't say that. He considered his stance, feelings and his trust for his daughter before he said anything. He recognizes his daughter's love for her friends. That's pretty dang giving if you ask me.

Which isn't too different than what I've done in my life. I've told homosexual friends of mine: "If you don't make a big deal out of it, I won't get on my soap box."

I have been criticized, lambasted and thought of as a hateful person simply because I wasn't going to support and approve of homosexuality.

I'd like to know WHERE it says in order to be loving or even a friend a person has to approve and support of absolutely everything their friend does. As far as I know, nothing in terms of friendship says this. Friends approve or disapprove other friends' choices, lifestyles, thoughts, opinions all the time.

I think Ken was pretty dang fair given how he feels and what he believes regarding homosexuality. He could've just said "No, they aren't allowed."

Whatever his daughter said to her homosexual friend regarding her father's feelings is her business, what he said to his daughter is that they could come.

You're lambasting him for exactly the right you want to have, which is the right to one's beliefs and opinions.

You laud me as "more loving" but fail to see how he was parenting his daughter based on how he believes and feels and the very fact that he was willing to put aside those feelings for the sake of having her friends over. He did NOT have to do that.

The fact that the friend decided not to come may not have had anything to do with him. It might've been a scheduling conflict, he might've had other responsibilities, his parents might've said no. We don't know everything that happened, so how could you know for sure Ken's thoughts/feelings/beliefs had anything to do with it?

Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 28, 2010 11:52 AM


Posted by: Marauder at June 28, 2010 7:14 AM
-------

In claiming any same-sex liason is not a sin because it doesn't say so explicitly - merely shows the condition of your own heart.

Here's a Hebrew word by word study of Leviticus 20:13 for you:

1st the NASB translation (which is pretty close):

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.


Paleo-Hebrew, as a semitic language, relies upon concrete verbs - not abstract concepts. It is also verb-oriented, not noun oriented. This means actions are the focus.

At issue is an aleph-yud-shin (ayish) which is definitely an individual male person (noun-masculine) who (aleph-shin-resh) he-the male, lies down (sexually connects with) (yad-shin-kaph-bet) this is a carnal act - akin to ravishing. The two letter root of this word basically means "like a thorn puncturing" The next word is et (aleph-tav) which connects the noun (ayish) via the verb yish-kav to the object of this puncturing which is a zakar (zed-kaph-resh) which is a masculine noun - a male. The two letter root indicates this to be an (innocent, upright) male. That's not a shrine prostitute or the like - it's a previously respected man.

The next word (mem-shin-kaph-bet-yud) means "lies with", but the two letter root of the word has strong connotations of sexual intercourse. The next word ashah (aleph-shin-hey) means an individual woman. If you saw the pictographic ancient Hebrew you'd clearly understand this to mean sexual intercourse.

You have a parallelism - a very common Hebrew technique used to draw similiarities - in this case a man "puncturing" another man which looks like a man having intercourse with a woman. In paleo-Hebrew, a woman is also known as a hole (pierced or punctured) - an indication of 1st sexual intercourse. What is being discussed here is not simply one man lying next to another man - this is describing anal intercourse.

Let's continue the verse. (tav-vav-ayin-bet-hay) morally detestable - abomination. Tav-vav - the root word for mark/sign is the word used to indicate banishment. This is the Hebrew word used for Cain's mark on the forehead. Without getting into a further discussion regarding Hebrew stems etc. the general meaning is the action committed is accursed, horribly perverse - so bad it is deserving of being permanently marked on the forehead with a sign or other like punishment.

The next word - shin-nun-yud-hey-mem - means two (both - the couple). Yikes - (mem-yav-tov) basically means put to death, and this root word is repeated again - emphasized. Like the Hebrew parallelism, a duplication of the word makes it pretty clear - neither party is innocent and a swift execution of both is expected.

Then (dalet-mem-yad-hey-mem) (bet-mem) blood-guiltiness - the shedding of their blood is by their own hand.

A few important things to note here. In Hebrew, sin is not abstract concept - it's a concrete verb - an action. Not doing the correct thing is missing the mark - wandering off the way (derek or path). What's indicated here is something that goes beyond merely wandering - it indicates a detestable failure so bad it deserves banishment and permanent marking (ala Cain). The punishment is clearly execution, but the guilt is accorded to both parties. In other words, neither man is innocent.

Both the Hebrew and Greek are clear about the sexual immorality and consequences of same-sex liasions. To say otherwise simply implicates the one making such a claim.

You're telling me I'm wrong, but it goes beyond that. Historically, culturally and logically I have every indication that I and others who believe in the full culture of life are not only correct, but must continue to stand against those who would undermine our Christian principles.

One can make all sorts of claims of not knowing, not seeing or hearing, but eventually you have to remove your fingers from your ears, uncover your eyes and face reality. You obviously have deep personal reasons why you believe the way you do. I'm confident in the consistency of my claims.

I also know followers of Christ are called to love people for who they are - not what they do. But we are not called to give up any ground, or moral righteousness.

May God love you,

Chris

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at June 28, 2010 12:44 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "s" in the field below: