Category Archives: Homosexuality

Bible Translation, Homosexuality, Queen James Bible, Transgender

Lies and Deceit in the Queen James Bible

1 Comment

The Queen James Bible has been around since late 2012 but it seems to be making the rounds again on social media so I’ll take some time to give a brief description of the lies and deceit it presents.

While I do have qualifications in Hebrew and Greek, I don’t plan to address those language issues in detail here. Rather, this is intended for a general audience so the analysis will be of the English texts with necessary reference to original language issues. If you wish to ask questions about the original languages I will be happy to field them but I would also direct you to this CARM site which has some original language discussion of these texts. The best and most thorough exegesis of these texts can be found in Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon’s massive tome, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.

The King James Version is a good, old translation which represents the original language texts well. The QJV follows the KJV closely with a few notable exceptions. The approach here will be to examine the texts in chronological order with a discussion of the differences and then compare these to a contemporary translation from the NIV.

What’s in a name?

The Queen James Bible’s name reveals a lot about its creators. It is intentionally provocative in that “queen” is typically used of a class of homosexual males. So the wordplay between King and Queen is intended to be affirming of male homosexuality and offensive to traditional Christians who understand the undertones behind it. So right at the outset this is a mocking, confrontational, and insulting title, ironically, representing a group that has begged for tolerance and acceptance from traditional Christians.

Genesis 19:5

KJV And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, “Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

QJV And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, “Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may rape and humiliate them.”

NIV They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

This is the first occurrence of a text that has homosexual overtones to it. In this story, Lot shelters two men for the night in the city of Sodom. Unbeknownst to him, these are two angels who have come to town in order to see if the city is as wicked as has been reported to God.

Ancient hospitality standards meant that Lot was to protect these men at all costs. When the men of Sodom approach the house at night they demand to have the men turned over to them. The question is what do the men want to do with these two strangers? The KJV says that they want to “know” them. This has always been understood to be a euphemism for homosexual intercourse. However, the QJV cannot let that stand so it changes the actual word into a three-word interpretation: “rape and humiliate”. The QJV has taken this step in order to remove homosexual acts as the actual sin. Instead they want the sin to be “rape” (because everyone agrees that rape is bad and it also happens between heterosexuals) and “humiliation” because this also frees the text of strictly homosexual behavior as sin.

Anyone who studies the whole of the Sodom and Gomorrah story will acknowledge that the cities were rife with all manner of sin. The Sodom story points out that one of those sins was to violate the hospitality codes and engage in homosexual activity with, and quite possibly the rape of, the two men. This is one of the least offensive changes made by the QJV and yet it is still deceptive as it tries to blunt the force of the homosexual activity and re-channel it into the directions of rape and humiliation only. The NIV preserves the sense of the text and the best scholarship by simply saying “have sex with them”. This does not imply that they necessarily intended to rape the men, although that is still a possibility.

Humiliation would be the natural outcome in the ancient world if the men were sexually used as women. These were classed societies and the passive male partner in sexual relations lost status in the eyes of such societies at this time. The QJV text mixes some truth about humiliation with some uncertainty on the issue of rape in order to present this text as being less about homosexuality as sin and more about criminal behavior and social customs violations.

Leviticus 18:22

KJV Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

QJV Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.

NIV Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

This is the first text explicitly on the subject of male homosexuality. As you can see below, the KJV has no qualifying phrase placing any limits on the sin of homosexual practice. It is simply “an abomination”. The first deceit that the QJV puts into the text is the phrase “in the temple of Molech”. This phrase does not exist in the original language texts of the Hebrew Bible. So why is it here? This is an attempt to limit the impact of the text so that not all homosexual practices are wrong, just those done in a particular religious context.

The attempt to deceive finds some ground based upon Lev. 18:2-3 where God tells the Israelites that they are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or the Canaanites. Among those practices is male homosexuality. This leads to the natural conclusion that both groups committed these, or at least most of these, sins. Verse 21 seems to be the only exception because the Egyptians did not worship Molech. In fact, they saw it as a detestable form of worship.

Molech worship included stoking fires inside the god’s bronze idol until its hands were glowing red hot. Then a child or infant was placed on the hands and allowed to burn to death. Priests would play musical instruments in order to cover over the sounds of the dying child’s shrieks of agony. The Egyptians did not do such things. Homosexual acts, however, were something the two cultures could have in common. It also makes sense that the acts were condemned outright as we know of no homosexual acts conducted during worship in Egypt. So there doesn’t seem to be any grounds to the idea of ritual worship much less Molech worship “in the temple”.

The text is also deceptive in that Jewish religious tradition has held that homosexual practice was a sin based upon this text and the next one and there were no limiting factors. The NIV gives a modern translation and it does not limit the text in any way. Simply put, the text says that male homosexual practice is a sin.

Leviticus 20:13

KJV If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

QJV If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

NIV If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

This passage also has the same phrase “in the temple of Molech” included. Again it is without any justification. All of the same criticisms can be leveled at this as the text above. Both texts seem to hope to have the reader infer that the text was in some way incomplete, misunderstood, or even covered up until now. While conspiracy theories may be appealing to some people, the text has actually been consistently understood to mean that male homosexual acts were sinful all along the translation history.

Romans 1:26

KJV For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against their nature.

QJV Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another.

NIV Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

This text has even more problems than the texts listed before it. The QJV has simply struck out part of the text of this verse, moved it to the next verse, and rewritten the rest. It departs from the KJV’s faithfulness to the original Greek text at this point. This is the most extensive change under discussion here.

Notice that the KJV line “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections” does not appear at all in this verse of the QJV. Also notice that the QJV adds men to this list, which is not in the Greek text at this point, and it includes the limiting phrase “in ritual lust” which is, again, not in the original Greek. All of this is again an attempt to limit the sin of homosexual practice to only pagan worship practices.

Romans 1:27

KJV And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

QJV Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

NIV In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

In conjunction with verse 26, this verse has also been significantly reworded. The missing sentence “for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections” has been moved to this verse and is modified. It removes the word “them” and inserts the word “idolators”. As before, this is not found in the Greek. Similarly, the words “pagan and” are included which are not in the Greek text. As in the previous verse and the Leviticus verses, the goal is to limit the sin of homosexual practice only to pagan worship. That would mean that all other homosexual practice is free and clear of any “sin” label.

The assumption underlying the use of “idolators” is that Romans 1 is only about pagan idol worshipers. In fact, it is about humanity at large. When human beings are left to their own devices they naturally turn away from God, His will, and His intentions. This is a rebellion in which God is abandoned only to be replaced by worthless idols and human sexuality is misused and abused through homosexual acts.

1 Corinthians 6:9

KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

QJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous,

NIV Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Here we are presented with an interesting case. Notice the three underlined sections. The KJV has the term “effeminate” which is a translation of the term “soft” from Greek. Two lines of thought have been proposed on this translation. One that retains the KJV translation is to understand the effeminate male as what we might consider a transgender or cross-dressing male. The other is to understand the pairing of the two words used here as the active and passive participants in male homosexual acts. This seems to be the best of the two arguments for reasons that are too lengthy to be discussed at this time.

Notice that the QJV has completely changed the translations of these words to their own peculiar choices. The effeminate male becomes “morally weak” and the “abusers of themselves with mankind” become “promiscuous”. These are very strained readings of the text at best but it serves the purpose of removing general homosexual acts from the category of “sin”. The NIV has followed what scholarship has come to conclude: that these are the active and passive partners in male homosexual acts. It has also gone a step further by not trying to draw the nuanced distinction for the English reader but simply combining the terms to say “men who have sex with men”. This covers it all for the modern English reader and there is a footnote to explain that this renders two Greek words.

1 Timothy 1:10

KJV For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

QJV For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

NIV for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

A look at the Greek text is almost required for this passage. The underlined words are only one word in Greek. The English text has more words in it than the Greek because it has to explain what is meant by the Greek whereas the Greek readers knew instinctively. The Greek word is a combination of two Greek words which indicate male homosexuals. It more literally means a “male-bedder” that is, one who “goes to bed with” a male. Used euphemistically, it has sexual overtones to it. Scholarship has improved the translation of this passage in two ways and they are both reflected in the NIV. The first is the phrase “for those practicing homosexuality” and the second is the change from “whoremongers” to “sexually immoral” as the Greek word covers a more broad range of sexual sins.

It is also worth noting that the QJV has omitted any reference to “mankind” in the underlined section. Notice the rather ambiguous phrase “for them that defile themselves”. This is more unjustified sleight of hand to fool the uninformed reader. Exactly what type of defiling is in mind is not clear from this translation. It may be an attempt to point to religious defilement of some sort, which would be somewhat consistent with the previous attempts to limit the sinfulness of homosexual acts only to those done in the context of pagan religious services.

Jude 1:7

KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

QJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

NIV In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Referring back to the Genesis 19 situation at Sodom, Jude raises some issues unlike the previous passages. Notice the adjectives change from the “strange” flesh in the KJV to “nonhuman” flesh in the QJV. The problem here is what nuance was intended by the word “strange” in the Greek. The QJV wants us to think that the men were sinful because they wanted to have sex with the two angels. However, the men never know that these two are actually angels. They think that they are simply two men who are visiting the city overnight. The QJV might also wish us to think that the story is told with the reader already having the knowledge that these two men are actually angels and that the reader would know that the real sin was the men wanting to have sex with angelic beings.

Of all the changes listed here, this is the only one that might be justified. The Greek word is literally the word “other” and not “strange”. In fact, it is heteros from where we get hetero-sexual. The Greek word homois means “same” and is where we get the word homo-sexual. In the latter case it means people of the “same” sex whereas in the former case it means people of the opposite sex. But some other observations need to be made in order to fill out the interpretation. Jews of the time knew that homosexuality was a sin. Nowhere is it indicated that the men of Sodom knew the two “men” were angels. So how should we understand the word “other”?

Modern translations have varied a bit in how they handle this. The NIV has again corrected the other two versions by changing “fornication” to “sexual immorality” based upon better scholarship. The NIV has also opted to say “perversion” instead of “strange flesh”. The combination of the two is clear enough for the informed English reader to understand that “perversion” is something beyond “sexual immorality” and thus has homosexual implications because of the story’s background. The ESV has “unnatural desire” while TLB has a more clear explanation, “lust of men for other men.” The NRSV simply has “unnatural lust” which is relatively clear based upon the context in the same way as the NIV.

At this point I would not side exactly with any of these translations. I would retain the NIV’s use of “sexual immorality” instead of “fornication” but I would opt for “other flesh” as a more literal reading of the text. Having said that, the intention of “other flesh” is probably to indicate the “nonhuman” or “angelic” flesh of Lot’s visitors. Jude uses stories about angels to make his point. He precedes this with reference to a story from 1 Enoch about angels who left heaven to come to earth for their own purposes; he follows it with reference to a story about the archangel Michael disputing with Satan over the body of Moses. In between he references the story of Sodom with its angelic visitors. By using thesestories as illustrations, Jude is telling his readers that certain ones have similarly improperly transgressed into the realm of angels since they “heap abuse on celestial beings” (v. 8).

Why, then, do other translations specifically indicate or allude to homosexual activity? The most obvious answer seems to be that they understand the term “other” to mean something like “other men not of the city; not of their ethnic group – strangers”. If the men of Sodom simply wanted homosexual activity they could have satisfied themselves with each other. Instead they went after the strangers who were “other” than them.

One other factor deserves some thought. Since the KJV says “fornication” and “strange flesh” it doesn’t have a homosexual overtone to it other than the background knowledge of Genesis 19 that the reader brings to it. So it is difficult to see how this change would lessen the sin of homosexuality, unlike the previous changes made in other passages. The only way it is possible is to understand “strange flesh” as a euphemism for “homosexual acts with strangers”. Based upon the context, this seems unlikely. The QJV may be reacting more to modern versions which retain the notion of homosexuality in them than to the language of the KJV since it is ambiguous in meaning anyway.

Much more could be said and has, in fact, been written on these topics. This is a selective, concise summary and evaluation of these passages. It is in no way to be considered a complete exegetical evaluation.

Church Discipline, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, same-sex marriage

Heresy, apostasy, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage

3 Comments

There is a purge going on in the Church and it is one that we should acknowledge, embrace, and encourage. No issue has divided the church as clearly as the issue of homosexual acceptance and its manifestation in same-sex marriage. This purge has been mostly a one-way affair in that theologically liberal denominations such as the PCUSA (my former denomination) have been stacking the political structure so as to favor liberalization trends.

Bad Moves

The PCUSA is not the only offender as it has been a popular trend among mainline denominations. This trend has caused people to leave for more traditional churches or for existing congregations to simply acknowledge the political realities of their denomination and affiliate with another denomination or start their own conservative branch. The PCUSA has lost 47% of its membership since 1967 and this article lists the decline and increase of other denominations. Being a minister in the Restoration Movement I’m always interested in the Christian Church, Church of Christ, and Disciples of Christ churches. The Disciples have been trending liberal for years and have suffered a 67% decline since 1965 (these figures are as of 2012).

As theological liberals have seized power their churches have been purged of conservatives as they flee the sinking ship of Politically Correct Theology. The liberal churches fail to recognize that their theology is built upon the shifting sands of public opinion and peer pressure. It is not founded upon historical, solid biblical truth. Thus, it has no staying power and no attractiveness to a world that seeks stability amidst the storms of life. PCT only offers acceptance to those who conform to the thought de jour. If the winds of PCT ever shift so that it becomes popular to to dis-affirm homosexuality then those churches are going to find themselves in turmoil again.

Bad Words

Apostasy. Heresy. Disfellowship. Excommunication. These are all dirty words for many in the church today. They inherently bear a concept of harsh judgment in them and our pop-culture tells us to “judge not” (which seems to be the only portion of the Bible that many of them both know and affirm). But since the beginning of the Church there have been lines of discipline that could not be crossed without repercussions. Sexual sins have been matters of discipline and even excommunication from the outset.

The Apostle Paul affirms that sexual sins will exclude a person from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor. 6:9) and homosexual behavior is among those sins. He affirms that homosexual behavior is a fundamental rebellion against God; that it is a “sinful desire”; that it is a “degrading” of the human body; that it is a “shameful lust” and that the acts are “shameful acts” (Romans 1:18-32). In short, human beings who are in rebellion against God on the matter of homosexuality are under God’s wrath and condemnation (Romans 1:18). This is exactly where the liberal churches find themselves. They affirm what God condemns.

In the Corinthian church Paul had to confront “sexual immorality . . . of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate” (1 Cor. 5:1). This was a heterosexual sin. The perversity of it was that a man was sleeping with his father’s wife (that is, his step-mother). Was the church in Corinth outraged at this? No. They were proud. Paul tells them that they should have “gone into mourning” and put the man into a state of disfellowship. The hope would be that he would repent so “that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord”.

Paul’s teaching on how to handle sexual immorality may not have been clearly understood by the Corinthian church as 1 Cor. 5:9-10 may indicate. So Paul clearly states what he expects when it comes to sexual immorality within the church: “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people” (1 Cor. 5:11, emphasis mine). In fact, Paul relies upon Scripture when he commands the church to “Expel the wicked person from among you” 1 Cor. 5:13 (cf. Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7).

Genesis sets forth God’s intentional creation of mankind as male and female with gender complementarity as the essential component. The union of husband and wife is for the purpose of reuniting the male with what was created from him so that the two can carry out the divine will of procreating, ruling, and subduing the earth. Jesus affirms this natural and customary form of marriage as well as limits it to only two participants in a lifelong and monogamous marriage.

Humanity crossed a line which had never been crossed before when it began wiping out male/female distinctions and deeming homosexuals as capable of being married. Not even the pagans had ever done such a thing in all of human history. But like the Corinthians, the liberal churches have crossed several lines that had never been crossed before in the church. They affirmed homosexuality; they approved of homosexual marriage; they ordained practicing homosexuals into their leadership.

Biblical Response

The liberal churches have been cutting off the conservatives for a long time. It is now time for the conservatives to turn the tables and do the same and even more, in accordance with Scripture. The lines of demarcation within the church are clear but they need to be made more distinct. It is time for all the independent churches and denominations that support biblical marriage to do what the Apostle Paul would have us do: disfellowship anyone who claims to be a believer but affirms homosexual practice and/or same-sex marriage. Those of us on the right side of the issue need to call this what it is: heresy. Those who support it have become rebels against God and arguably apostates since “. . . they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32). They have created a cult of sexual perversion and masquerade it as an acceptable form of Christianity.

It is only through boldness and a firm stance on Scripture that the Church can distinguish itself from the culture around it. Those people who refuse proper instruction and sound doctrine on this issue need to be cut off from their respective congregations until such a time as they repent. Churches and denominations that affirm homosexual practice need to be told “No. You are not Christian anymore.” Associations with such groups need to be severed.It is time to shun those who have created this cult of sexual perversion. Paul’s advice is harsh and it is intended to be harsh in order that it might shock the sinner into repentance. “Expel the wicked from among you.” Let the Church be purged of its heretics.

Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, same-sex marriage

The New Delusional Times

Leave a comment

Rational people are pulling their hair out over the same-sex “marriage” ruling by the Supreme Court. It defies all common sense and law. The one thing about marriage that has always been true is that the two getting married were not the “same”. While its supporters celebrate as if the matter is finally settled the truth is that it has not settled anything. In fact, it has only served to stir the pot. It has started a war. All groups supporting natural marriage, and Christian groups particularly, have been galvanized in a way not previously possible. Heretofore, there was a glimmer of hope in the minds of some that SCOTUS might do the right thing so the issue was mentally sort of set aside. Those who watch the Court closely predicted otherwise based upon Justice Kennedy’s past actions and the expectations of the four liberal-Democrat appointed Justices. With the reality of the ruling, there is now no middle ground on which to stand. You are either for natural marriage or for the unnatural mockery that the Court imposed by judicial fiat.

“Welcome to . . . the show where everything is made up and the points don’t matter.”

While all of the sound arguments have been and still remain on the side of natural marriage, the wave of irrational and emotional thinking among the movers and shakers supporting SSM has gained the upper hand at the moment. We live in delusional times when the coupling of two men can be considered the same as the coupling of a man and a woman. It is an absurdity that boggles the rational mind since it defies natural biology, all of marriage history, all of common law history, and the Constitution itself (see my previous article). Even the fact that the states voted 32-2 to support one-man-one-woman marriage and the fact that polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans still think marriage should be between one man and one woman it simply didn’t matter in the wake of the political and media emotionally-charged onslaught.

Argue Not With a Fool

In light of these facts, I would encourage my fellow Christians to not waste much time in debate with supporters of unnatural marriage. For them, it was never about doing the right thing. It was always about pushing a twisted agenda. Had they sought legitimacy they would have respected the democratic process and gained victories where they could until the groundswell was such that all the states adopted their position. But legitimacy was never the goal. The goal was to get “gay marriage” by hook or by crook. The will of the people be damned. That is exactly what was accomplished. It took bullying tactics, lies, propaganda, distortion, circumvention of the voters, and a corrupt judicial majority in order to win. There is nothing noble about that type of perverse and intellectually vacant victory but the supporters do not care. Because of that, it is simply ridiculous to argue with them.

Argue Where It Counts

There are a few people on the margins that really had never invested much thought in this matter until now. It has become a topic that our church youth group wanted to discuss. This is a great time to explain that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sins that lead to eternal damnation. It is a great time to talk about sexual restraint. That is a topic with which our world doesn’t want to deal. The world is all about sexual license, excess, and normalizing perversions. But the Bible teaches a very restrained form of sexuality. Sex is limited to only a husband and wife. Every other form of sexual encounter is considered “sexual immorality” and leads to the same sad fate as those who practice homosexuality. It is also a time to teach that God loves people with homosexual temptations and desires to redeem them along with everyone else. Homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin and the homosexual person should be allowed to join the church just like anyone else. This is a group with which the arguments can be persuasive and it is important to teach sound church doctrine on sexual ethics regardless of the SCOTUS ruling.

Similarly, there are immature Christians in the church who have never really faced this issue square on. Now they have to decide which way to go. Those are worthy conversations to have. But the guy with the rainbow flag; the lady who thinks it is about “equality”; the co-worker who says “love wins” or the Facebook friend who put a rainbow over their profile picture is not a good investment of your time and energy. The art of critical thinking and sound argumentation does not abide in such people. They are the emotional “sound bite” type who think with their feelings rather than their minds. In Transgenderism, New Coke, Snake Oil, and other Dumb Ideas I have suggested that other approaches are more persuasive to that audience.

Rational Solutions

Delusional times call for rational answers because reality is still real even if the population is deluded. A drunken man is in no less danger of death trying to cross a city street simply because he believes he is in possession of his faculties and using good judgment. We, the sober-minded adults in the room, still must attempt to constrain the deluded and shield as many as we can from danger. Like drunks, there is no doubt that they will continue to lash out at us as they have in the past, maddened with power, and emboldened now by their shallow victory. The truth is that those people engaging in homosexual acts are still engaging in sexual practices that are unhealthy for the body, mind, and soul. The Bible still labels it a sin, tells us it is the sign of a depraved mind, and it will end in divine condemnation. God made the human body and he has made his mind known to us regarding sexual activity. It is up to us to conform to his will. He is highly discriminatory and totally intolerant to unrepentant sin. That is truth. So remember that the next time you pray, “May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, Redefined Marriage

God, injustice, and gay marriage

6 Comments

God Hates Injustice

One does not have to read very far into the Bible to understand that God hates injustice. Humanity is warned in the second chapter of the Bible not to eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet, in the very next chapter the fruit is eaten and God imposes His justice.

The prophets are quite emphatic about justice. It seems that the rich and powerful were corrupting justice (imagine that!). Merchants were using scales set to rob their clients. The poor, the widowed, and the orphaned were exploited and robbed.

 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.

Isaiah 10:1-2

It is from passages such as these that we know that God hates the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage decision giving a veil of legality to the mockery that is homosexual “marriage”. This decision is in the category of “unjust laws” which Isaiah describes.

Against the Constitution

As the minority correctly noted, this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution. It was completely lawless. In fact, just two years prior the same court split the same way over the DOMA law (Defense of Marriage Act) where the majority argued that the Supreme Court had traditionally left almost everything about defining marriage up to the individual states. Had there been any consistency within the Court it would have dismissed this case as being unworthy of hearing on the grounds that the states have historically been left to define marriage on their own. In fact, 32 states had defined marriage on their own and decided it was between a man and woman. Two states recently had decided by vote to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. The process was at work.

This ruling is judicial activism at its worst (see Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon’s insightful comments). It usurps the democratic process put forth by the states and it usurps the development and passage of law through the congressional branch and the legislative branch. As such, it is” legislating from the bench” which is fundamentally unconstitutional. Such bad laws have been overlooked in the past, such as the Dred Scott decision. Abraham Lincoln acted as if it didn’t exist. The Supreme Court is only one-third of the government and yet in the 20th century it has been granted the imaginary power of supreme authority. It was not so in the beginning and never intended to be so by our Founders. This is simply an unconstitutional decision in abeyance of the law which was made for the purpose of pushing a social agenda.

Against History

In addition, there is no support for homosexual marriage in any country in all of human history prior to the late 20th century. It is one of the universal truths that marriage has always been between a heterosexual couple or in the case of polygamists between a heterosexual male or female and their heterosexual wives or husbands. In either event it was a coupling of heterosexuals together. Marriage was not created in the United States. It was not created by any government. It developed as an arrangement between parents for their children and was simply recognized by governments over time. The number of people and the age for marriage have been somewhat fluid across cultures but the fact that marriage was a heterosexual affair was never questioned. So to flout all of human history shows the arrogance of the majority and their complete divorce from the evidence of the universal worldwide precedence. .

Against Biology

Similarly, the Court proclaimed that there is no fundamental difference between males and females. A male or female marriage partner can be interchanged at will. The idea that anal or oral intercourse is the same as vaginal intercourse is bizarre. Only one has procreative powers. Only one provides gender complementarity. It is even more bizarre than Bruce Jenner claiming he has become female with a few nips and tucks, some makeup, and a new wardrobe. This decision is an abomination of the biology of the human body on par with a man claiming that he is a deciduous tree. In any sane world this would be considered crazy and its advocates certifiably insane. There is a basic biological component to marriage that has always existed. Couples married with the primary intent and expectation of raising a family and providing themselves as models for future generations. “I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad” is a line from a song but it expresses the way children learn from their parents and shape their expectations and goals for the future. Homosexuality is a dead-end street in this regard. There is no “next generation” without heterosexuality. Such “marriage” is removed from the possibility of naturally producing any children which means that legal benefits and selfish sexual lusts are the only reasons remaining to justify the marriage. So the Court decided, without any biological credibility, to proclaim a rural dead-end street the same thing as an urban super-highway.

Against Religions

Marriage has historically been valued across every major religion. Why? Because they have recognized that the family unit was crucial to sustaining society. This has been so widely agreed upon that we can call it a fundamental and universal religious tenet. The Judeo-Christian religions and their offshoots have held that it was the Divine will of God since creation for men and women to marry. Religions that recognized the New Testament as authoritative have even limited marriage to that of a single man and a single woman. It is upon this model that Western civilization has turned. To turn away from the sound advice of such broad religious history is ill-advised at best and diabolical at it worst. In fact, with this Court, it seems that diabolical is the best description because it contravened Western civilization’s fundamental religious doctrine that homosexuality should not be practiced, drew it up from the gutter, glorified it, and raised it to the same level as traditional marriage. When religious people across denominations and theisms agree that traditional marriage is a good and noble thing the Court should pay attention. But attention is the last thing in which this Court was interested. Had they paid attention to the religious community, to the biology, to the heterosexual nature of marriage, or to the Constitution they would have unanimously ruled to support traditional marriage. Instead, the majority decided to legalize perversion. It’s not marriage. It is a mockery at every level and the height of injustice.  “Woe to those who make unjust laws.”  God is not pleased.

Gay Marriage, Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, same-sex marriage

Of Wisdom and Foolishness

2 Comments

The realm of comedy for making political statements and shaping public opinion has long been dominated by the liberal left. It makes sense. Conservatives are more straight-laced and serious and therefore easy targets. But as Jay Leno demonstrated in the weeks before stepping down from the Tonight Show, heavily criticizing liberal politicians and social policy can draw exceedingly high ratings. So the sword cuts both ways; it is just that fewer people swing the sword leftward.

Comedic talents on the political right include Rush Limbaugh and his parodist cohort, Paul Shanklin, as successes but most other attempts have been weak or failed, whether they be in TV or movies. Nevertheless, it is a growing trend among those on the right to parody and poke fun at those on the left in an attempt to turn the tables to some degree. Where intellectual arguments are most often met with failure, the poignant punchline can prick the pickle, so to speak, sometimes.

Leftward logic and humor tend to be heavily dominated by mockery, derision, hostility, often lots of foul language, and a strong play on emotions. Shallow arguments based emotion and stirring rhetoric are called sophistry, a form of false wisdom. Rightward thinking people tend to use actual logic (like noting that men and women were made for sexual union and same-sex couples were not) but this escapes the leftward thinker. Rightward thinkers also tend to not play on emotions as successfully as leftward thinkers do, probably because they are less emotionally driven than their counterparts. We who engage in apologetics readily admit emotionally driven people are the most irrational we encounter. One person who commented on the cartoon below was happy to tell me that he hated Christians because of the Christian stance against homosexual marriage.  I asked him if he also hated Orthodox Jews and Muslims, but never got a response. Oddly enough, he said he was a Christian and somehow that allowed him to feel free to hate his fellow Christians.  Hate for fellow Christians isn’t a Christian value, but perhaps he’s not read the Bible yet. We can consider him logically challenged. His emotions clearly overwhelm his reasoning faculties.

So it is with so many who claim to be Christians and yet deny core church doctrines on marriage and homosexual sin. It’s doctrine à la carte day in Christianville!  “I’ll have a little sin please, but leave off the homosexual sin. I just don’t like the way it tastes. Too gritty or something.  A touch of adultery would be fine, though. And I’ll need a little drunkenness to go with that. Oh, and not too much Hell this time around either. Grace? Yes, I’ll have a heaping helping of grace! Pour it over the mashed potatoes and false doctrine, please.”

The cartoon below appeared on the Facebook page of a very liberal former student. It is sophistry.  It attempts to mock parental concern about homosexual marriage. The inference one is to draw from this is that children don’t care about homosexual marriage so no one else should care about it either. It is dismissed with a cookie as if the topic were utterly irrelevant. However, because a child finds things irrelevant doesn’t mean that they actually are irrelevant.  Thus, my muse was struck and I proposed a more witty and realistic follow-up conversation following the child getting a cookie. As a father of four, I have some experience in such matters.  But, shockingly, my liberal friend and his friends on Facebook (all but one) did not find my sense of humor all that amusing. Therefore, feeling under appreciated, as a humorist, I have posted the cartoon and my witty rejoinder here, where I trust it will be more highly valued (wink, wink) by a more general audience.

gay-marriageAfter the Cookie
Then, when the child gets his cookie he asks, “But how are babies made without a mommy and daddy?”

The biological father gets to answer, “Oh babies come from lots of places. Sometimes they’re found at a godless, secular adoption agency (because Catholic adoption services and those like them were closed since they had religious objections to homosexual marriage). Other times they are made in a lab test tube because gay marriage is unnatural marriage. It can’t produce children but sometimes people like to pretend there’s no difference! You’ve played pretend before haven’t you?”

The gender-specific-male child replies, “Yes! We used to pretend that there was a monster under the couch and it would eat me if I put my foot on the floor. But I’m too old for that now. Is it something like that, daddy?” to which the naturally male father who conceived the child with his naturally female mother says, “Something like that son. There’s also a cabbage patch option and a stork delivery system, too. But we can talk about that later. “

Glancing down at his cookie and 2% farm fresh milk from a cow naturally conceived by a male and female bovine, the son thoughtfully says, “But my friend Johnny says it’s wrong for boys to marry boys.” “Oh, really, son?” the natural father replies, “Why does he say that?” The young progeny replies, “Because his dad said that God says it’s wrong. And his dad says that God made marriage for boys and girls and that it’s a sin if you do it wrong.”

Dad (the male complement to a mom) replies, in his [note the use of the male pronoun “his” which is opposite of the female pronoun “her”] great wisdom, “Like I said, sometimes adults like to play pretend. Sometimes adults like to pretend boys marrying boys is the same as natural marriage – like when a boy marries a girl, the way Johnny’s dad said God designed it. And sometimes adults like to pretend that it isn’t a sin. That way they feel better about themselves.”

“Why don’t they feel good about themselves, daddy?” the boy asks. “Well,” says dad, “it’s because the Bible that Johnny’s dad reads says they will go to Hell if they don’t stop sinning.”  Puzzled, the boy asks, “What is Hell, dad?” “Oh,” adds the father, “it is a terribly hot place run by a bad guy and his army of bad people where people go when they die if they’ve not done what God said they should do. Kind of like, . . . Cuba. So if they pretend it’s not sin, then they can have all their fun and live guilt-free!”

The sexually conceived male offspring now replies, “I thought when you got big you quit playing pretend, daddy.” Wisely the biological father now says, “You should, son, you should.” The boy responds, “Gay marriage sounds dumb.” The conjugally married male parent responds, “I knew you’d figure it out son. Way to go! I knew your mother’s genes weren’t that bad. Have another cookie.”