Category Archives: LGBTQ
It’s love-40 and this is game/set/match for the U.S. military.
The Pentagon announced Monday that it will allow transgender members of the military to serve openly starting next year, marking an end to a long-standing policy that barred them from the armed forces.
In an echo of the Defense Department’s repeal of the ban on gays in uniform four years ago, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said he had directed the armed forces to devise new rules over the next six months that would allow transgender troops to serve, except in situations “where objective, practical impediments are identified.”
“We must ensure that everyone who’s able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so, and we must treat all our people with the dignity and respect they deserve,” Carter said in a statement. He called the military’s current regulations “outdated” and said they were “causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions.”
If the military had any moral fortitude, this will dissipate whatever remained. Will Christian parents encourage their sons or daughters to join the military now?
The SCOTUS Obergefell decision was a high water mark for the rainbow elephant crowd. And the SECDEF used that “dignity” term, fresh from the SCOTUS definition of it out of the 14th Amendment.
The American military is on the decline, and by its own choosing.
But he [Pres. Obama] admitted that on Friday night he took a moment to enjoy what he called a “gratifying” week as the White House was lit with rainbow-hued floodlights in celebration of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.
“To see people gathered in an evening outside on a beautiful summer night and to feel whole and to feel accepted and to feel that they had a right to love – that was pretty cool,” Obama said. “That was a good thing.“
Interesting it is that the White House was bathed in the rainbow. The biblical rainbow was a sign of God’s covenant not to destroy the earth again by flood, with particular emphasis in scripture.
I have placed my rainbow in the clouds. It is the sign of my covenant with you and with all the earth. When I send clouds over the earth, the rainbow will appear in the clouds, and I will remember my covenant with you and with all living creatures. Never again will the floodwaters destroy all life. When I see the rainbow in the clouds, I will remember the eternal covenant between God and every living creature on earth.” Then God said to Noah, “Yes, this rainbow is the sign of the covenant I am confirming with all the creatures on earth.” – Genesis 9:13-17 (NLT)
…but it curiously also recurs in Revelation…
After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads. After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads. Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say,
Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, Who was and Who is and Who is to come.
– Revelation 4:1-8 (NASB) [Bold my emphasis]
It’s ironic that homosexuals have assimilated the rainbow symbol into their own culture. Earlier in Genesis, prior to God’s rainbow declaration, it states, “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” (Genesis 9:1) It was clearly His intention, just as it was at the beginning (Genesis 1:22), to have man procreate with woman. That is the design of marriage. Instead we have not only the deviance of men and women thwarting the Lord’s intentions sexually, but they throw it back in His face, as it were, by assuming the protection of God’s rainbow. For now they live in an absurd cocoon fashioned by their self absorption. By the vision of Revelation, they will revisit the rainbow as a sign of their own undoing.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. – Proverbs 18:17 (NASB)
Some of the arguments people are making to support the legalization of homogamy sound plausible. On closer examination they don’t hold the proverbial water they should.
1) No one is going to make you be gay. Now that SCOTUS has finally declared that discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation violates their basic rights, they are not saying that you have to become gay now yourself. This approval of same-sex marriage at the national level does not mean that you now have to get gay married, okay? So let’s get that part out of the way first. It also doesn’t mean that you can’t teach your own children to judge other people for their sexual orientation. You’re still free to do that, no matter what. It’s your right. It’s a part of your religion (or at least of your particular version, just don’t ask the other people in your religion who don’t see it the same way), so the United States government is not going to take that away from you, I promise.
Making specious claims about the arguments of others will get them nowhere. Address the issue accurately. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Supreme Court Docket 14-556, addressed homogamy, not homosexual discrimination. The court in its magical way found homogamy in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution when nothing in the Constitution says anything about marriage, let alone homogamy or homosexual marriage. On the basis of this decision from the Supreme Court homogamy is now constitutionally protected. Suggesting that Christians are still free to teach our own children to judge on the basis of sexual orientation because “the United States government is not going to take that away” is being blind and deaf to the whims of not only the court, but of the other two branches of government as well as the education system. The powers that be want nothing more than to indoctrinate our children. To “promise” such a thing upon which one has no control is foolish and stupid.
2) Preachers will not be forced to marry gay people. Thanks to the same First Amendment that keeps your religion from taking over everyone else’s lives, those churches which do not approve of this move will remain free to disapprove of it—and to speak publicly about their disapproval—for as long as you still care about this issue. What’s more, that constitutional protection has enabled churches to refuse to marry anyone they choose despite every new national advance in the fight for civil rights. You don’t want to marry an interracial couple? That’s actually your right. Always has been, always will be. Your churches will remain free to reject as many kinds of people and relationships as you please. This is a well-established protection that will not budge no matter what those who disagree with you wish were the case. Even if somebody tries to take you to court over it in the future, they will fail because your constitutional protections overrule their personal views. That’s how this works.
John Adams, as many others have echoed, believed this to be a government of laws, and not of men. This guiding principle, like the failed Confederacy in Jefferson Davis’ words, died of a theory. The First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances“, and the Supreme Court’s enshrinement of homogamy into the constitution are on a collision course if only because homosexuality and Christianity don’t go together. If the court can conjure homosexual marriage out of a document which says nothing about marriage at all then it can compel pastors and the religious to sanction something labeled marriage for the clearly immoral. Anyone claiming “…that constitutional protection has enabled churches to refuse to marry anyone they choose…” is ignorant of a little SCOTUS case called Bob Jones University v. United States which was argued due to the university’s prohibition of student interracial dating or marriage. Yes, the constitution enabled Bob Jones University to freely practice it’s belief, but this case enabled the IRS to withdraw Bob Jones’ tax exempt status based upon racial discrimination. Money has a way of speaking louder than the law. The SCOTUS in this case found that “Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education.” If a similar case comes before the court it wouldn’t hesitate to use this case as precedent and eradicate sexual discrimination. A question in the minds of many is how long it will be before the first 501c3 tax exempt status is withdrawn by the IRS from a church on this basis. It’s been threatened on the basis of sermon content alone before. When the first homosexual couple darkens the doorway of a church to insist that their “marriage” be officiated by some reluctant curate we’ll know we’ve arrived.
3) It will not become illegal to be a Christian. Ever the opportunist willing to stoke the fires of evangelicals’ persecution complexes, Mike Huckabee continues to spout warnings that once LGBT folks are given the same rights as the rest of us the government will begin putting people in jail for openly disparaging this move. He continues to capitalize on evangelicals’ irrational fears that the Christian faith will soon be criminalized like it was back in ancient Rome under a completely different kind of government. Huckabee used to run the entire state of Arkansas, but I honestly can’t tell if he just really doesn’t get how the US government works, or if he’s being intentionally dishonest in order to whip his potential base into a frenzy just to get their vote. Either way, you shouldn’t listen to him because he’s misleading you.
Again, anyone foolish enough to imagine this to be a “completely different kind of government” and that a former state governor and presidential candidate “really doesn’t get how the US government works” doesn’t have a very good handle on reality themselves. Christianity can just as easily be criminalized tomorrow as homogamy was sanctioned in a day by a panel of 5 judges. Perhaps the only reason it doesn’t happen suddenly would be because it runs the risk of revolt. Yes, there are Christians who would revolt. No, it most likely won’t happen that way, but it will happen slowly, carefully and methodically. There may be enough of their atheist friends around to help make their dreams come true. That pesky law of unintended consequences, though, will bring about some very undesirable results in the absence of Christian moral restraint.
4) God isn’t going to destroy America. I can’t really tell if my Christian friends seriously think this will happen even though they use the rhetoric a lot. Most American evangelicals I know harbor a deep sense of exceptionalism which leads them to believe that God needs America in ways that would prevent him from wiping us out.
This is one Christian who knows that America isn’t standing in the way of God’s will, it’s unpleasantly coming to it. While the atheists, agnostics and all around ungodly merrily celebrate an America covered in rainbows, there are Christians wise enough to see the hazards and dangers ahead. Just because the destruction of America, just as illegal Christianity, doesn’t happen tomorrow doesn’t mean we’re not headed there. It’s a pity as well, for if their minds were of understanding they would realize, just as Christians do, that America’s time is drawing short.
While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. – 1 Thessalonians 5:3-5
A married Army general on Tuesday introduced his spouse at a Pentagon event that featured lots of top brass, including Defense Secretary Ashton Carter as the keynote speaker.
What made this seemingly routine introduction noteworthy is that Brig. Gen. Randy S. Taylor introduced his husband, Lucas.
“My husband Lucas is sitting up front here,” Gen. Taylor said of the man in the same row as Mr. Carter, Army Secretary John McHugh and other senior officials. He said Lucas has subjugated his own career to support the general’s frequent moves over an 18-year relationship.
There was a time when I might have encouraged young men, including my own, to serve in the military. No more. Cast a careful eye upon these lines and consider the state of the American military in the 21st century. Consider how DADT in 1993 merely provided a means of degeneration. This Pandora’s box of deviancy and evil is undermining the U.S. military, and it presents God-fearing Americans with a dilemma. When the military is morally compromised it can no longer be an effective deterrent to outside aggression. What then?
Also, notice another point in this rainbow narrative. Two males in a homogamous relationship, one being cast the “husband”, but curiously he “has subjugated his own career…” Now, it’s not always true that in similar circumstances the woman in a marriage relationship subjugates her career to the husband, particularly in these modern times, but it is a curiosity that Gen. Taylor would mention it. The question “why” comes to mind. The classic roles in marriage are that of one person in the subordinate, the other in the dominant. Homosexuals who wear the marriage facade are attempting to steal the glory of marriage through imitation.
They have no idea what they’re in for pursuing homogamy. Should the SCOTUS in their upcoming Obergefell v. Hodges ruling decide in favor of homogamy, look for the unintended consequences to come like an avalanche.
A woman who married her female partner last year without first divorcing her husband has pleaded guilty to bigamy and other charges in Virginia. The News Virginian of Waynesboro reports 28-year-old Keyshana Rae Childress was sentenced to two years’ probation.
To deny the obvious, all one has to do is transcend it.
“Every single system you have within your body — whether it’s your respiratory system, your excretory system, your muscular system — can be completed as an individual,” said Sean McDowell, a professor here at Biola University and a well-known Christian author and speaker. “But there’s only one system in which male and female have half and become a united whole, and that’s in reproduction.”
But God intended marriage to be about more than “plumbing,” [openly gay Christian activist, Matthew] Vines argued: “Marriage ideally should be about permanent, mutual, self-giving, self-sacrificing love.”
This is how the rainbow elephant crowd deprecates the uncomfortable truth and asserts their lies. How would any of them know what marriage is like at all when their ideal is so poor a substitute for heterosexuality? Notice Mr. Vines’ definition of the marriage ideal; it’s “about permanent, mutual, self-giving, self-sacrificing love.” Every point is a lie.
Homogamy can’t be about one or any of those things precisely because they can’t reproduce. Ask any parent who has raised their own children and they know the definition of the adjectives “permanent”, “mutual”, “self-giving” and “self-sacrificing”. Ask those same parents and they’ll give you quite a different definition of love than the self-indulgent homosexuals who try to imitate marriage. The joining of a man and woman in marriage produces offspring, and even in those rare occasions when it doesn’t result in children naturally a healthy marriage involves couples who have the mutual desire to adopt. This is the very centerpiece of marriage as it was at the beginning. In fact, the point is significant enough that God repeats the same command after the flood. Homogamy can’t and won’t reproduce itself except by spiritual and mental deviancy.
It is more than ironic that these deniers of reality are known as “gay”.
Benjamin Corey’s blog bio states he is a scholar in theology. Be careful of the “scholars” in society, for they want us to keep our minds idling while they imagine themselves to be able to think for the rest of us. His titular post “Why You’re Completely Unable to Judge Caitlyn Jenner (Or Anyone Else)” is anecdotal evidence.
Unfortunately, religious judgmentalism is the exact opposite of how we are called to respond to someone like Caitlyn– we are called to love, and love is not simultaneously possible while we are judging someone.
Really? The rapist we judge as a rapist we can’t love? James Holmes can’t be loved while judging him to be a murderer? I’d like this scholar of a theologian to explain how it’s possible for God to judge mankind in its sin and yet love humanity enough to send His Son to die in its place. That notwithstanding, what Ben here apparently doesn’t understand is the complexity of love. Now, he may have some unfortunate personal experiences with Christians who are quick to condemn others for their behaviour or words, as have I, but it’s a silly claim to make that love and judgment can’t go together.
Contrary to popular contemporary notions of love, it is not blind. The sort of sentimental affections displayed in media aren’t love. Love, true love, the sort of love which Mr. Corey should be addressing, is discerning. It never fails to amaze me how people in general and contemporary Christians in particular have tossed the scales of judgment out in favour of empty headed ideas of grace and love. God is love. Scripture declares it clearly. From scripture it is also easily seen that God judges. Jesus Himself practiced some “tough love” in judgment.
Either Jesus did or didn’t love even those Pharisees. Just as we love and judge our children when they sin, so too we judge and compel those who we love to repent. This is perhaps the proper approach toward someone such as Bruce Jenner. Jesus wasn’t some milquetoast sentimentalist. The amazing nature of the Gospel is that God loves us in His judgment, a quality that many like Ben fail to recognize.
Essentially, if being transgender is a sin, and you were to judge an individual’s culpability in that sin, you would need to have full knowledge of why they are transgender, and would need to be able to prove that they simply chose it. If there were even the slightest mitigating factors that influenced the issue of why, one would not be able to righteously pronounce her culpable.
Just as Mr. Corey’s understanding of love is skewed, so is his view of sin. Sin isn’t simply the act of being transgender any more than it’s the act of stealing or bearing false witness or murder. Actions proceed from belief. Essentially, there is only one reason why anyone sins, and though any Christian might love Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner even in judgment for his sin, we should pity him more. The nature of sin in the life of a human being means we commiserate with those who know its evil and judge those who indulge in it. It’s difficult to tell how Jenner might apply this to himself, but given his transgender candor it’s probably more the latter than the former. Jenner’s culpability stems from his indulgence, and it has much more to do with his beliefs and attitude than simply the scriptural command about men in women’s clothing.
Sin is evil. Sin is anything that is an affront to God. It’s remarkable how people like Mr. Corey push the envelope of love. Love has limits. It cannot and does not countenance sin. Rather, love judges sin and compels us to turn away from it.
The pure insanity that is transgenderism is just an extension of the deviancy that has been militant homosexuality, including homogamy.
A Massachusetts couple knew their child wasn’t happy. So they made the courageous and difficult decision to raise their daughter as a boy at his own request.
As he showed off his collection of rocks and dead bugs in his bedroom, Jacob Lemay also said how he hated his old name. “Cause it was the stupidest name ever,” Jacob said.
Four. A four-year-old. Not twenty four and in despair of life, trying to find herself. No. A petulant four-year-old girl achieving the lifelong, albeit a very short lifelong, dream that countless other four-year-olds only wish for, but never realize. Astute parents, particularly those with religious backgrounds, realize the machinations of a typical four-year-old and won’t submit to the manipulation. This child has managed to work not only the parents but a “family therapy team” into doing her bidding. It’s difficult to know who is the worse in this, the child for getting her infantile way or the parents who are duped to let it happen. Either way it doesn’t bode well for society and the American culture as this is probably a typical example of child raising Millennium style.
This is the nature of sin, pure and simple. If parents condone it out of a “who-am-I-to-judge” attitude then society is doomed. How will this Jacob/Mia function when he/she is 16 or 36? Suppose Jacob/Mia decides to get into the medical field. How can we trust him/her to work with people, diagnose their illnesses or even operate if they should become a surgeon? No, someone now should first take the parents of this Jacob/Mia and spank their posteriors like the children they’ve grown to become. Then tell them to go and do likewise.
These times in which we live are remarkable. It would have been hard to imagine some of the remarkable things that have happened recently just 20 years ago. It seems as if events are accelerating. Perhaps the end of all things is closer than we think? Or maybe it just seems that way to this Christian simply because common sense has become an anachronism.
Just when we thought gay marriage or as I prefer to call it, homogamy, was only something in the same realm of possibilities as unicorns and pots of gold at rainbow ends, along comes government to call those things into being which are not. Not only this, but to add insult to injury, the arguments before the SCOTUS in the Obergefell v. Hodges case to decide the legitimacy of homogamy seem to this Christian observer to be precisely backward. Consider the following quotes from attorneys arguing before the SCOTUS on each side of the issue. (Bold my emphasis)
The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity. Excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples. It did demeans their children, and it denies the — both the couples and their children the stabilizing structure that marriage affords.
Well, I — I — I’m not entirely sure there would be, but, of course, marriage is something more fundamental than that. It is an enduring bond between two people. – Gen. Donald B. Verrilli, Solicitor General for the US Department of Justice; arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for same sex marriage
Our answer number one is that the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology. Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution. Now, the — the marriage view on the other side here is that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that’s important, but the State doesn’t have any interest in that. If we’re trying to solve that social problem I just described, where there’s no marriage, we wouldn’t solve it by saying, well, let’s have people identify who they are emotionally committed to and recognize those relationships. – JOHN J. BURSCH, ESQ., Special Assistant Attorney General of Michigan; arguing on behalf of respondents against same sex marriage
Strange it is to consider that the homogamy proponents base their arguments using transcendental ideas like “enduring bond” and “dignity”, while those supporting hundreds of years of religious tradition accept the view of homogamy as being “all about love and commitment” offering “biology” as support for their claim of marriage. Strange it is indeed when the irreligious reach for the transcendent and the religious use but the mundane to support their arguments. This is with what the religious right is left. It supported the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It further wanted a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It voted for presidential candidates who would appoint conservative judges to the SCOTUS. It finally thought passing state initiatives and referendums on marriage would settle the matter. Virtually all those state measures have been overturned by federal circuit judges. DOMA has been emasculated by the supreme court in the Windsor case. Justice Kennedy, who will by many accounts be the deciding vote on the court and is expected to rule in favor of homogamy, was a Reagan appointee.
It comes down to one thing. Government is not the answer. It’s not even the question. Marriage was defined, not by some legislative body or court, but by divine fiat of the Creator God at the beginning of all things. Gen. Verrilli, et. al. have swerved by the truth as a testimony against themselves. Marriage is spiritual, not legal. One clear point to remember is that whatever government is allowed to define, it will legitimize. The court, by way of Justice Kennedy, eisegeted the transcendent concept of “equal dignity” into the 14 Amendment in the Windsor case. After reading and listening to the oral arguments before the SCOTUS in this “landmark” case it seems clear that this court, by oligarchical rule, intends to change an institution into something it hasn’t been for hundreds of years, and the sanctity of the marital love of a man and woman into a parody of itself.
Legal arguments such as these are slippery. The terms change as the times change to suit the participants. There is not only the direct issue at hand, but the indirect issues in consequence. Marriage won’t stop with two men or two women. If we accede to the idea of marriage being “all about love and commitment”, regardless of whether the state has an interest in it or not, it won’t be long before it will be redefined to include polygamy or pederasty as legitimate. Government will act as god, defining and redefining “love and commitment” to mean anything it chooses, granting “equal dignity” to those in decadence.
Justice Sotomayor made an interesting statement during the course of the proceedings.
But the problem is that even under a rational-basis standard, do we accept a feeling? I mean, why is — why as — and I think Justice Kagan put the argument quite clearly, with something as fundamental as marriage, why would that feeling, which doesn’t make any logical sense, control our decision-making?
This ironically seems to bring the discussion back to the point of it all. Does love not “control our decision-making”? Is marriage a just feeling? What is love? Hartley Coleridge’s Sonnet VII begins this way, “Is love a fancy, or a feeling? No. It is immortal as immaculate Truth…” Love can be many things to many people, but true love, the kind upon which marriages are built, is eternal.