31 comments

• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Randy, I hope you didn't have a problem with my question about why Sarah Palin hasn't proposed a federal ban on divorce. I'm genuinely interested in what you and your readers think about that.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  Actually, most evangelical Christians would love that (believe it or not, that is really a big part of Dobson's original reason for founding FotF, and preventing divorce is probably the thing that FotF spends the most time and resources on). The general consensus among most evangelical leaders is that, unfortunately, there is no way to get popular support for a ban on no-fault divorce. Nobody wants to get divorced, but nobody wants to give up the option, in case things get 'too bad' to keep going with the marriage. There is also the problem that there is no difference in Christian and secular divorce rates (if you look deeper into those stats that's not quite true, but on the surface it is) and so for Christians to attempt to do anything about divorce, they have to get their own house in order first.
  
  There is an effort underway to do this (spearheaded, as I noted, by FotF), through both educational and cultural methods. A recently notable example would be the movie Fireproof. Focus's efforts are extremely broad, and are guided less by the motto 'prevent divorce' and more by the motto 'strengthen marriages.' To that end they offer advice, retreats, conferences, books, podcasts, radio broadcasts, etc. that cover everything from finding a spouse to managing family finances.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  "the countries that consider same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages to be equal before the law represent a small percentage of the world’s nations."
  
  Also historically, no culture has ever had same sex marriage, except for a small portion of ours.
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  And that would be because any culture based solely same-sex marriage would ultimately lead the population extinction. Seems like common sense to me.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  I didn't say that there has never been a "culture based solely [on] same-sex marriage." I said that there has never been a culture that allows same-sex marriage. This is an important distinction, because the conclusions that can be drawn from the two statements are quite different.
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  Ok, I see what you're saying now. Either way, I think it (homesexuality) has had lasting negative effects on every society that either embraced it or at least permitted it. It is, in what I can see from history, a culmination of the worship of self, and therefore a contributor to societal decline. I think we're on the same page.. but if not, just let me know.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Could you list a few of these lasting negative effects? Do they occur only as a result of homosexuality? Are they worse than overpopulation, abortion on demand, and divorce?
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  Negative effects of homosexuality... well, let's see, it steers folks from the strength & security that comes from a traditional family, and then things go down hill from there. It consequently goes from the individual to the society. Sexuality is then viewed as a "however you like it" type of thing, which causes a long chain of bondage to sexual gratification... but the acceptance of it into society makes it acceptable to everyone, and so you have an increasing number of folks who degrade the sanctity and natural purpose of sex. I'd just like to say that procreation is the practical purpose of sex, but not the only one. I could go on and on... but ANY kind of sex outside the bonds of marriage leads to bad stuff. Adultery, incest, bestiality, polygamy, pornography, etc... And why would someone get involved in such things? Because sex is a means by which two people share the most intimate physical connection anyone can have. It's addicting. It's meant to be addicting. But being drawn to sex and then satisfying it outside of heterosexual marriage leaves a dark spot... and while it's even a bit awkward for newlyweds, it's nothing compared to the guilt that almost always follows sex outside of heterosexual marraige.
  
  Deep down, our hearts know it's meant for only one person of the opposite sex.
  
  However, you're absolutely right in that it's just ONE of the culminations of self-worship. The moral issue of Prop 8 is homosexuality... but I could go on and on and on about the woes of immoral sexual behavior at large.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Thanks, but frankly I was expecting something a little more compelling than "it leads to bad stuff." At least with heterosexuality, we can see specific ways in which "sex the way God intended it" has negatively impacted our world. God told us to be fruitful and multiply, and today we have more people than we can afford to feed. But the best you can come up with about homosexuality is "it leads to bad stuff."
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  Sorry to disappoint you Alex. When I have more time, I'll try to gather my thoughts better and give you a more compelling explanation. I was responding during a break, so had little time to 'put it together' so to speak.
  
  I will say this, though... as a Christian, a central core belief is that we obey God, whether we fully understand something or not. We grow in our walk with God, and often have moments of "Oh! That's why you said to do it that way". I think it's rather burdensome do demand an entire thesis over every commandment before acting in obedience. In fact, it would be an insatiable process, with a lot of pain along the way. However, I do think it's important to gain a thorough understanding of scripture to know HOW to obey God, and further that understanding along the way. In the end, we serve a loving God who is also just. But, back to the loving part... he provided a means by which we can be in right-standing with him, no matter where we are at, or what we've done. He has my best interests in mind, calls me "son", and has an incredible wealth of promises. He is Love. The very definition of it. That's the God I seek to obey, even if I mess it up sometimes.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Hi MD. I'm sorry you feel that being gay is the worship of the self. I understand that not everyone understands or agrees wtih homosexuality or same sex marriage, but I can say from a personal standpoint that calling homosexuality "worship of the self" strikes me as a shallow or limited understanding of the feelings, emotions, and attractions that are involved. You may not care to listen, but I'd be happy to give a perspective of what being gay means to a gay person. Not so I can convince you that being gay is ok, but more so I can help show that your understanding of what homosexuality is possibly off base.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  "the countries that consider same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages to be equal before the law represent a small percentage of the world’s nations."
  
  
  Also historically, no culture has ever had same sex marriage, except for a small portion of ours.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Obama and Biden appease conservative voters by saying that while they support equal rights for same-sex couples, they oppose redefining marriage. McCain and Palin appease liberal voters by saying that while they oppose redefining marriage, they support certain rights for same-sex couples. All of them are telling different types of constituents exactly what they want to hear. They're politicians, after all; pandering is what they do best (yes, even the great Sarah Palin).
  
  Although the governor was clearer than Biden on her opinion of same-sex marriage, I wish she had taken more time to explain what exactly she meant when she said, "No one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties." That doesn't sound like straight talk to me. What specific kinds of contracts is she referring to? By "parties," does she mean a Party A/Party B situation? These are important details that I think she should clarify.
  
  And let's not forget how quickly she dodged Gwen Ifill's follow-up question of whether there should be a civil rights distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  After I posted here yesterday, I read that Sarah Palin has come out in support of a federal ban on same-sex marriage. So that makes me wonder: if she is so committed to protecting marriage, why doesn't she propose a federal ban on no-fault divorce? Any opinions?
  reply
• 

  RThomasETC (Randy Thomas)

  8 months ago

  Right now I am guzzling water preparing to fight altitude sickness tomorrow and More Marriage Musings http://tinyurl.com/57ewm5
  reply
• 

  RThomasETC (Randy Thomas)

  8 months ago

  More Marriage Musings http://tinyurl.com/57ewm5
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Obama and Biden appease conservative voters by saying that while they support equal rights for same-sex couples, they oppose redefining marriage. McCain and Palin appease liberal voters by saying that while they oppose redefining marriage, they support certain rights for same-sex couples. All of them are telling different types of constituents exactly what they want to hear. They're politicians, after all; pandering is what they do best (yes, even the great Sarah Palin).
  
  
  Although the governor was clearer than Biden on her opinion of same-sex marriage, I wish she had taken more time to explain what exactly she meant when she said, "No one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties." That doesn't sound like straight talk to me. What specific kinds of contracts is she referring to? By "parties," does she mean a Party A/Party B situation? These are important details that I think she should clarify.
  
  
  
  And let's not forget how quickly she dodged Gwen Ifill's follow-up question of whether there should be a civil rights distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
  
  
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  And that would be because any culture based solely same-sex marriage would ultimately lead the population extinction. Seems like common sense to me.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  I didn't say that there has never been a "culture based solely [on] same-sex marriage." I said that there has never been a culture that allows same-sex marriage. This is an important distinction, because the conclusions that can be drawn from the two statements are quite different.
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  Ok, I see what you're saying now. Either way, I think it (homesexuality) has had lasting negative effects on every society that either embraced it or at least permitted it. It is, in what I can see from history, a culmination of the worship of self, and therefore a contributor to societal decline. I think we're on the same page.. but if not, just let me know.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Could you list a few of these lasting negative effects? Do they occur only as a result of homosexuality? Are they worse than overpopulation, abortion on demand, and divorce?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  Well, I am glad to see everyone playing nicely. I am having Internet connection issues so ... boo.
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  Negative effects of homosexuality... well, let's see, it steers folks from the strength & security that comes from a traditional family, and then things go down hill from there. It consequently goes from the individual to the society. Sexuality is then viewed as a "however you like it" type of thing, which causes a long chain of bondage to sexual gratification... but the acceptance of it into society makes it acceptable to everyone, and so you have an increasing number of folks who degrade the sanctity and natural purpose of sex. I'd just like to say that procreation is the practical purpose of sex, but not the only one. I could go on and on... but ANY kind of sex outside the bonds of marriage leads to bad stuff. Adultery, incest, bestiality, polygamy, pornography, etc... And why would someone get involved in such things? Because sex is a means by which two people share the most intimate physical connection anyone can have. It's addicting. It's meant to be addicting. But being drawn to sex and then satisfying it outside of heterosexual marriage leaves a dark spot... and while it's even a bit awkward for newlyweds, it's nothing compared to the guilt that almost always follows sex outside of heterosexual marraige.
  
  
  Deep down, our hearts know it's meant for only one person of the opposite sex.
  
  
  
  However, you're absolutely right in that it's just ONE of the culminations of self-worship. The moral issue of Prop 8 is homosexuality... but I could go on and on and on about the woes of immoral sexual behavior at large.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Thanks, but frankly I was expecting something a little more compelling than "it leads to bad stuff." At least with heterosexuality, we can see specific ways in which "sex the way God intended it" has negatively impacted our world. God told us to be fruitful and multiply, and today we have more people than we can afford to feed. But the best you can come up with about homosexuality is "it leads to bad stuff."
  reply
• 

  mdturner77

  8 months ago

  Sorry to disappoint you Alex. When I have more time, I'll try to gather my thoughts better and give you a more compelling explanation. I was responding during a break, so had little time to 'put it together' so to speak.
  
  
  I will say this, though... as a Christian, a central core belief is that we obey God, whether we fully understand something or not. We grow in our walk with God, and often have moments of "Oh! That's why you said to do it that way". I think it's rather burdensome do demand an entire thesis over every commandment before acting in obedience. In fact, it would be an insatiable process, with a lot of pain along the way. However, I do think it's important to gain a thorough understanding of scripture to know HOW to obey God, and further that understanding along the way. In the end, we serve a loving God who is also just. But, back to the loving part... he provided a means by which we can be in right-standing with him, no matter where we are at, or what we've done. He has my best interests in mind, calls me "son", and has an incredible wealth of promises. He is Love. The very definition of it. That's the God I seek to obey, even if I mess it up sometimes.
  
  
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Hi MD. I'm sorry you feel that being gay is the worship of the self. I understand that not everyone understands or agrees wtih homosexuality or same sex marriage, but I can say from a personal standpoint that calling homosexuality "worship of the self" strikes me as a shallow or limited understanding of the feelings, emotions, and attractions that are involved. You may not care to listen, but I'd be happy to give a perspective of what being gay means to a gay person. Not so I can convince you that being gay is ok, but more so I can help show that your understanding of what homosexuality is possibly off base.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  Well, I am glad to see everyone playing nicely. I am having Internet connection issues so ... boo.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  After I posted here yesterday, I read that Sarah Palin has come out in support of a federal ban on same-sex marriage. So that makes me wonder: if she is so committed to protecting marriage, why doesn't she propose a federal ban on no-fault divorce? Any opinions?
  reply
• 

  Alex

  8 months ago

  Randy, I hope you didn't have a problem with my question about why Sarah Palin hasn't proposed a federal ban on divorce. I'm genuinely interested in what you and your readers think about that.
  reply
• 

  Ellie

  8 months ago

  Actually, most evangelical Christians would love that (believe it or not, that is really a big part of Dobson's original reason for founding FotF, and preventing divorce is probably the thing that FotF spends the most time and resources on). The general consensus among most evangelical leaders is that, unfortunately, there is no way to get popular support for a ban on no-fault divorce. Nobody wants to get divorced, but nobody wants to give up the option, in case things get 'too bad' to keep going with the marriage. There is also the problem that there is no difference in Christian and secular divorce rates (if you look deeper into those stats that's not quite true, but on the surface it is) and so for Christians to attempt to do anything about divorce, they have to get their own house in order first.
  
  
  There is an effort underway to do this (spearheaded, as I noted, by FotF), through both educational and cultural methods. A recently notable example would be the movie Fireproof. Focus's efforts are extremely broad, and are guided less by the motto 'prevent divorce' and more by the motto 'strengthen marriages.' To that end they offer advice, retreats, conferences, books, podcasts, radio broadcasts, etc. that cover everything from finding a spouse to managing family finances.
  
  
  reply
• 

  My Favorite Prop 8 Blogs &#171

  8 months ago

  [...] Everyday Thoughts Collected [...]
  reply