In light of the ruling from the Supreme Court about Gay Marriage, I knew it wouldn’t be long before:
- The name-calling and back-stabbing among Christians got worse (not better),
- Lawsuits began to fly between the right of gay people to get married and the right of certain religious people to not marry them
- A continued attempt by some to redefine (further) what constitutes a “marriage.”
I just didn’t think it would all happen so quickly… But I was wrong.
Christian name-calling over Gay Marriage
Calvinistic Pastor Kevin DeYoung wrote a post that went viral which used the “When did you stop beating your wife?” approach to ask 40 questions to Christians who support gay marriage.
In response, John Shore wrote a post of his own, showing that when it comes to asking loaded questions that imply guilt before they are even asked, two can play that game.
I laughed more when I read John Shore’s post, so … he wins.
Edit: At the recommendation from one of the comments, I read Susan Cottrell’s 40 answers to the 40 questions. She makes excellent points. Go read it.
Both bloggers were pretty tame when it came to name-calling, but expect this sort of back-and-forth rhetoric to continue by all sides of this debate, with the name-calling and finger-pointing only getting more and more angry and ugly.
This shows once again how well we Christians have learned to “Be one” (John 17:21).
Lawsuits: Gay Marriage vs. Religious Freedom
A Christian county clerk in Kentucky has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She cited her religious beliefs as the motivating reason for her actions. Two gay couples have filed a lawsuit. I suspect she will lose that lawsuit, because issuing a license in her capacity as a county clerk is quite different from whether she herself believes that gay people should be able to get married.
If she feels it is wrong for gay people to get married, she has the religious freedom to believe this. But as a person who holds a public office, she needs to follow the law and issue the marriage licenses. If she is unable to do this in good conscience, that is fine also, but in that case, she should quit her job because she is unable to carry it out.
The REAL issue is going to happen when a gay couple, who has been issued a marriage license, approaches a prominent pastor and asks him to perform the wedding, and he refuses. Will the gay couple sue? Maybe. Maybe not. If they do, will religious freedom win out, or will the right of gay couples to get married win the day? I suspect that in this case, religious freedom will win, but it all pretty much depends on how the pastor handles himself.
Remember, many pastors during the Civil Rights movement refused to let black people into their churches on the basis of the “religious belief” that black people were inferior. In such cases, the laws of the land won out over religious freedom (and rightly so, in my opinion).
It will be interesting to see how these court cases play out… but no matter what happens, we expect to see more vitriol from all sides of the debate…
What exactly is a “marriage”?
In the wake of the Supreme Court basically saying that two people can get married if they love each other, even if they are of the same sex, a Montana man and his two wives have requested to get legally married. He plans to sue the state if he is denied. And if he loses there, he might even end up in the Supreme Court.
It will be interesting to see if all those in favor of Gay marriage will use the same arguments to support a marriage between three people. Or four? Or twenty?
Hmmm … I wonder what sort of tax-break a “marriage” would get from the IRS if the marriage consisted of 100 people? It wouldn’t be “filing jointly” anymore … but “filing grouply” or “filing crowdly.” And imagine how many kids that family would have! There could be hundreds! The IRS would be paying them tens of thousands of dollars a year in “Earned Income Credit.” This could be a really good job.
I have heard some Christians argue that this “redefinition” of marriage will result in further redefinition (as with Nathan Collier). They could be right. The more alarmist groups say that it won’t be long before marriage is allowed between a man and an underage daughter, or a man and his dog. This is ridiculous, of course. Neither animals nor underage children are considered consensual adults.
But, I see no logical reason at this point for the courts to deny Nathan Collier to get legally married to two wives…
So … am I FOR or AGAINST Gay Marriage?
Some readers of this blog have criticized me in the past for appearing to support gay marriage. I have never come out in actual support of it. At the same time, I have never spoken against it. And I am not doing so here either. If you are curious what Jesus said about homosexuality, you can read that here…
I also really liked Chuck McKnight’s stance on the gay marriage ruling. Go read his post and let me know what you think.
So what exactly am I saying?
The only thing I am really saying in this post is this: “I knew all this was coming, but WOW that was fast!”
Jeremy,
I used to feel a certain connection to you, but your most recent posts have left me feeling quite estranged.
I did not regard Kevin DeYoung’s questions to be “loaded questions that imply guilt.” They are questions I have wondered myself when I have heard Christians who favor legalization of SS”M”.
Further, I saw John Shore as using humor to dodge serious questions. Moreover, it was humor that failed.
You decry the lack of unity among Christians on this subject, but how can there be unity if there is not serious dialogue between opposing sides? I have genuinely sought to understand the logic of pro-SS”M” Christians and have found their thinking rather shallow. Most of the rhetoric is the “Jon Stewart style insult” which offers no real logical content and poisons the discussion besides. This does not in and of itself make them wrong, but if they are right it certainly makes it harder to ascertain.
And how can Christians be in unity on the subject as long as the person who is calling for unity doesn’t even take a position on it?
Either homosexuality is a sin or homophobia is a sin. I don’t see how indecision on that point is helpful.
I am willing to engage in discussion on the subject if you are willing to tackle it seriously.
I understand why Jeremy does that – I also do not take a strong position against or for it, because Jesus was not explicit about it – and I believe Jesus is the word of God – so I trust what He says. What I do not understand is why people want gays to be greater sinners – all sins equal – so whether you took a coin from the ground – which does not belong to you – therefore stealing…… that is not determining whether you get into heaven – which most Christians do not understand?!?! How come there are gay people filled with the spirit if they are from the devil as some Christians say? I ask how would Jesus treat them and then try to do that! Most Christians send them to hell……
As I understand it, Jesus did speak out against Homosexuality. Is not Jesus a part of the Triune God? Is not His word – including the writing of the Apostles – inspired by the Holy Spirit? Well, if He is, then through the Holy Spirit, Jesus spoke against a Homosexual lifestyle.
Mike,
Two things.
1. Other than a link to what Jesus said about homosexuality, I did not mention homosexuality. My post is about gay marriage. One giant problem with the debate (on both sides) is that people confuse the two.
2. My lack of stance is because I am trying to follow the example of Jesus in just loving people and leaving their sin (or lack of sin) up to God. Yes, it definitely would have been nice if Jesus had taken a stance and had tackled the question of homosexuality and gay couples. But He didn’t. Why is that, do you think? Homosexuality certainly existed in His day, so we can’t say He was ignorant of it.
Why is homosexuality a bigger issue with people who follow Jesus today than it was for Jesus Himself? I think if we who followed Jesus focused on what Jesus focused on, this whole issue would fade away into inconsequence.
Jeremy,
1. You’re saying that except for mentioning homosexuality, you didn’t mention it. I don’t know how to respond to that. As for the difference between homosexuality and homosexual marriage, I recognize that there is one, but I don’t see how anyone can discuss whether or not homosexual marriage is right without first deciding whether homosexuality is right. If you do, then you do – but I don’t understand how you do it.
2. Why do I think the Scriptures do not record Jesus addressing homosexuality and homosexual marriage? Probably because there was no political lobby making an issue of it, as there is today. I think it’s incautious to use word count on a subject to decide how important Jesus thinks it is. Jesus did not address incest, but I can’t imagine He had an open mind on the subject.
Is it Christians who have made homosexual marriage a “trending” topic in our national dialogue…or is it those who want to normalize and legalize homosexual marriage?
The State cannot define marriage. It can only define who can claim the legal title and rights (priviliges ?). It was, and can only be, God who defines what an actual, true, marriage is.
Matthew: So true! So true! Only God can change the definition of marriage not matter how many time the Supreme Court attempts to say otherwise.
June 26, 2015, was the beginning, I believe of the downfall of the United States. God will not be mocked! He will act in His own time, but unless the people of the United States do not Repent, I feel this nation will suffer consequences beyond our greatest imagination.
“Even now, Come Lord Jesus!”
There are 3 states of marriage. Or 3 types of marriage to state it differently. 1. The physical state of marriage. Marriage is or can be an engineering/science term. The marriage of 2 parts. So with regard to physical beings, this marriage refers to the physical act of sex. The definition of which can vary widely lol. 2. The legal state of marriage which is for official records and statistics and tax breaks. Also the protection of children and the responsibility of their parents. 3. The spiritual state of marriage. This starts with the introduction of woman to man. Genesis. And works out from there with biblical guidelines. So can 2 men be married? Of course! 2 women be married? Of course! 3 people be married? Yes in the physical, technical in the legal and spiritually not accordingly to biblical guidelines. The new testament gives an example of being unequally yoked. This is worth a looooot of thought! In reality it is all about moving forward in an efficient and God ordained manner. Mankind has moved forward with the traditional concepts of man and woman marriage. Study has shown this to be most suitable for the evolution of mankind. For obvious reasons. But if 1 man wants to marry another I say go right ahead. They will have the 2 states of marriage in place but the 3rd state will bring it, s difficultys to bear. This applys also to a traditional man/woman marriage. No difference! A believer and non believer will also have it’s, s difficultys to bear. One more than the other? No idea! And I suppose we could even have unequally yoked believers to boot! So on that point I just plain give up. Do whatever you like. But do not cry tears if it does not work out. Just build your friggin bridge! Yours truly. Ecclessiastes.
The assumption most people seem to make is that God-ordained marriage as defined in the Bible is the same thing as the marriage title that is defined by the state. I would argue that these two things are different.
The state’s goal is to establish a safe, prosperous society. Sometimes this aligns with Christian values, but sometimes it does not. I have no problem with the state redefining marriage in order to achieve its goal; how the state defines marriage does not have an impact on our understanding of marriage as Christians. After all, when God first established marriage, there was no such thing as government.
When a marriage ceremony takes place at a church, there are really two things happening — there are the vows made before God and people, and there is the signing of the official government documents. Of course couples can choose to sign those documents at a registrar office, but I suspect most Christians doing this would not consider themselves truly *married* until they participate in the Christian marriage service.
Perhaps the battle of religious liberty will eventually strip the right for pastors to preside over and authorize government marriage licenses. And if that happened, it’s not as if churches wouldn’t hold wedding ceremonies anymore. I believe my marriage to my wife is a covenant relationship before God — nothing the state does is going to change that.
Finally, the United States (and, it seems, the American church) has already redefined marriage numerous times in its history — no fault divorce, for example. This is not a new thing.
>The State cannot define marriage.
The state has decreed the circumstances under which it will allow those who would otherwise be breaking the law, to obtain a license and thus not be in violation of the law.
> It was, and can only be, God who defines what an actual, true, marriage is.
And if you studied the Torah, you’d know that God said that governments are unjust, and immoral.
The in fighting amongst Christians is the worst part. We can expect the unregenerated to act like, and do things that the unregenerated do.
But it is a disheartening sight to see Christians celebrating sin.
Its not a matter of whether or not we all sin…we do. Its a matter of the fact of accepting sin as acceptable. We shouldn’t accept it in our own lives. Scripture teaches us to walk in the Spirit not after the flesh.
Scriptures teach us that the Christian does not “practice” sin. Yes, Christians sin. We have bad days and say things that are not “Christ-like.” But the Holy Spirit convicts us instantly of that sin, and we ask God to forgive us.
It is not for me to say that an acknowledged Homosexual cannot be a Christian. But if he/she is truly a Christian, they will cease practicing the Homosexual lifestyle. For the Holy Spirit will convict them that such practice is an abomination against God.
Not every Christian will like this but… the more the church tries to ‘own’ marriage (the concept/practice in the legal sense) the more trouble it brings to itself. Marrying in a church with all it brings may fulfill the godly elements but in reality the church has been handed a state-sanctioned legal function – more to do with probate/testate and inheritance (who owns what after death). That’s why those who marry are in-law and those who do not are out of law (common law); where the common law couples don’t inherit each others goods when they die.
Jesus was absolutely right in answering a legal question about marriage with ‘let no-one break up what God puts together’ and it holds now, sidestepping law with truth. Couples were betrothed, often from childhood, a ‘bridegroom cometh’ time was set and a feast (celebration) prepared for that time. It is God who puts couples together every time anywhere, not the church or the state, and society’s job is only to celebrate it and keep it alive.
The church can solve this problem by a ‘render unto Caesar’ approach by relinquishing the legal role that the state has lumbered it with, and gets back to the basics of celebrating who God puts together – which, as stated in the previous verse, was between a man and woman instinct-wise. In that way the church will effectively endorse by way of conducting/attending a feast (celebration) those who are deemed put together by God and immediately encouraged to go to the registry office to do the ‘legals’ (like, in Bible days, Christ sending the healed to the priest to be legally certified whole) – and for those who are deemed not put together by God the church cannot celebrate with them BUT in no way prevent them from doing the legals also.
But the church, in taking hold of the God part, seems to be making the error of owning the legal part also. Where the flexibility of the legal part is now showing its true (rainbow) colours, becoming a very hot potato for the church.
Separation of church and state demands that the government needs to be out of the purely religious institution of marriage. Government benefits are what it has become, nothing more.
The body of Christ, the church, and the state are two separate and very different entities in our country. We are a diverse people, ethnically, religiously, politically and in many other ways. Most of us do not want our government to be run according to the principles and beliefs of the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, White Supremacists (some of whom claim to be churches), etc. Nor do the members of those groups, and much of the culture at large, want our government to be run according to the beliefs and principles of Christians.
The state and the principles by which we are governed sometimes align with the beliefs of some or all of these religious systems and other times do not. I can think of numerous laws and systems of our government that I personally believe do not align with the teachings of Jesus. Ironically, some of these are supported by some or all of these religious systems.
Nevertheless, I choose to live in this country and try to abide by its laws, or lack of laws in some instances. I think it incumbent on me to do so. If I disagree with those laws, the way our healthcare system is set up, our care or lack of it for the poor and homeless, etc., there are avenues for me to contact my representatives and those whose voices are more likely to be heard than mine and plead my case.
SCOTUS has handed down its decision. Perhaps a future SCOTUS will upend that decision, but the dramatic shift in the opinion of the culture in a few short years would appear to make that possibility unlikely at best.
As those who follow Jesus, whether we agree or disagree we can do what Jesus calls us to do in all cases, love God with all our being and others as much or more than we love ourselves. As my mother once said “Throwing a hissy fit makes people think you’ve got a bad temper and makes them want to stay away from you.” I might add, “And they will totally disregard everything you say.”
If we disagree with gay marriage, then we ourselves should not marry someone of the same gender. When it comes to what other people do, do we seriously think they care about our opinions? They care about how we treat them and whether or not we care about them. Until they’re convinced we do, nothing we say means much to them.
Jeremy, Susan Cottrell blogged about Kevin DeYoung’s 40 questions and gave her answers: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/2015/07/03/40-real-answers-to-your-40-questions-to-kevin-deyoung-the-gospel-coalition/#respond Susan tried to give serious answers to the questions. Agree or disagree, you might want to read what she has to say.
Sam, thanks for the link to Susan’s answers. I read them all.
I am especially grateful for this link because I was so disappointed in the only other two responses I had seen to Kevin DeYoung’s questions: those of Matthew Vines and John Shore. Matthew dodged the questions entirely by responding with 40 questions of his own, and John dodged the question by giving sarcastic, mocking “answers” to the questions. While Susan’s answers were not devoid of similar rhetorical embellishments, she at least made some attempt to give serious answers to serious questions.
That said, I found Susan’s answers wanting in a number of ways. For one thing, she is judging the issue – and the Bible – by some non-biblical standard which she never identifies. I say this because in some places she appeals to the Bible as authoritative and in other places dismisses it as anything but. She misquotes the Bible in a least a couple of places, and misrepresents it in others. She clearly believes that patriarchy is a bigger sin than homosexuality – if she thinks homosexuality is a sin at all. Most of all, I was troubled by the fact that she oftened appealed to Jesus as her guide in these things – yet it was a Jesus who sounded more like an MSNBC anchor than the Jesus of Nazareth one reads about in the Bible.
“in a bit of cosmic irony—it (injustices we have perpetrated on LGBT people,’often carried out in the name of Christ’) played a significant role in galvanizing social momentum toward acceptance of gay marriage. ”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2015/june/gay-marriage-abortion-and-bigger-picture.html?paging=off
“Before we spend too much more time trying to straighten out the American neighborhood, we might get our own house in order.”
I think that was the ruling which took ALL respect I had left for this country away. I’m just sitting back and waiting for it to fall. People are slowly going mad, trying to push homosexuality as a positive, good thing and a means on which to build society. Let Rome burn and we will rebuild.
I think it is pretty obvious that the act is a sin according to the Law and Romans. That said, it is no reason to hate. On the other hand, it doesn’t mean one hates homosexuals if they see it as a sin.
Homosexual activists have abused the word “hate” to marginalize traditional Christians. It is a tactic and they have used it successfully to change public opinion, and I think not for the better. The media also highlighted questionable Christian groups such as the one in Kansas to further it’s agenda and silence other Christians. “Hate crimes” are stupid laws that undermine human value and freedom.
That Jesus never said a specific word about homosexuality is not surprising. The Law forbade such behavior and it was probably rare among Israel, but adultery and divorce were not. Back then (in Israel) only men and women could marry and consequently divorce.
Jesus as I recall did use Sodom and other ancient cities that were judged by God as an example of depravity to make an important point to the cities in his day that rejected him. He stated that if they had seen the miracles that he was performing that they would have repented. Isn’t interesting to note that God chose to destroy them. However, Nineveh was spared. Who can fathom the Mind of God?
have you ever wonder why the Gov./ when Dems had full control, did not change the law by dropping the word marriage?Just say if any two people joining in a civil union can have all the rights the Gov allow.
No one has mentioned the fact that same sex marriage may be equal under the law, but it is still different from other marriages. Biologically for instance, same sex is different from opposite sex marriage, same sex marriage is the addition of two individuals, whereas opposite sex marriage is the multiplication of two individuals, and opposite sex marriages are the only marriages that can reproduce within the marriage itself. No same sex couples can reproduce within the marriage itself. The reproduction multiplies the family until each child breaks off and forms a new family, then their is the addition to the family. Same sex couples can only add to the family from outside the marriage. In other words, when a man and a woman come together in marriage, they are multiplied as one times one. When a same sex couple come together they are added one plus one. This is why the family of man is multiplied in Adam and those in Christ. We are not added but multiplied as one times one. This makes all of us who believe one in Christ. Marriage in the Bible is always as opposite sex. No matter what the verses that are argued over in regards to same sex relationships, only the marriage of a man and a woman are given definition in the Bible.
I respect your opinion, Jeremy; but I am in no such quandary about the issue of homosexuality, because I do my very best to live the Word of God. Do I stumble? Most assuredly; however, what’s the difference between stumbling due to the inherent weaknesses of the flesh in a cursed world; and one who practices sin?
1 John 3:7,8,9, leaves nothing to be desired in understanding God’s perspective. Adding
1 Corinthians 6:10, shuts the door on trying to find clever speech to rationalize this practice of homosexuality.
(8) The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning…(9) “No one who is born of God practices sin.”
Clearly the present tense indicates continuousness. It the ongoing commitment to embracing sin that condemns a person. The prodigal son was not at peace in his vagrancy, and came home.
What’s going on today is the fruit of the seeds planted by the world, not by the Sower, as in Matthew 13. Three quarters of those who received the Seed abandoned God. One quarter constituted “good” soil, and were productive.
No one has to list the biblical passages condemning homosexuality, nothing could be more certain as God’s disfavor with practicing sin — far more unfavorable is calling sin good, and good evil.
I will not play this game, the stakes are too high. However, I do not hurt people — my friends who are homosexuals (one came to Christ) I have known a long time — before they chose that lifestyle. I refuse to reject him; yet he knows fully where I stand. But he loves my family, and has known them for decades.
1 Corinthians 8:, has an interesting set of circumstances.
“There is but one God, the Father from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled…
If someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrifice to idols?”
Much can be written about this passage; but I am here concerned about one’s conscience and how it affects other people. I see lots of ministers, these days, acquiescing to the pull of the world and going far beyond just compromising what ever conviction they had.
I have heard numerous in the homosexual regime using the support that clergy has given them to further their cause. Someone has blood on his hands.
This has been one huge Pandora’s Box.
“The more alarmist groups say that it won’t be long before marriage is allowed between a man and an underage daughter, or a man and his dog. This is ridiculous, of course. Neither animals nor underage children are considered consensual adults.”
Really? Google that. I read two articles last year (which I didn’t document, like you, thinking it was out of the question) about pedophiles making the exact same argument as the present day argument that homosexuals have taken from the cause of the Black people;
“they were born that way.” Polygamy is not quite as egregious. However, in the end it all falls within the same parameters.
If I owned a store that sold firewood; and someone came in and asked me for a few barrels worth — making it a point to tell me he wants to make a sacrifice to his god Molech, I would have to refuse, because he would be testing my convictions; and he wouldn’t be the first.
So, I don’t make this subject the thrust my ministry. We could just as well be grieved about the fall in the garden. All these things must take place. Racism has had far more devastating effects because it has been so widespread. When all of the men in a community have become feminized the devastation will speak for itself. God will act decisively before that occurs.
Many Christians tend to judge other people based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. That’s a big problem.
Contrary to popular misconception, the Bible is not “God’s word,” but “scripture inspired by God.” It is word OF God, word about God; not word BY God. The Bible was not written or dictated by God, but INSPIRED by God. In order for you to properly understand it and benefit from it, you have to first be inspired by God as well.
The two most inspirational biblical precepts that apply to this issue are the same that apply to any social issue:
1) Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.
2) Before you take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye, take the log out of your own eye.”
Most homosexuals will tell you that they did not choose to be gay. You’ll often hear from them that “God made me this way.” I see no reason to disbelieve them.
I don’t believe that God specifically and arbitrarily made Jack and Jill homosexual, while making John and Jane Straight. In other words, I doubt that genes have anything to do with it (though in rare cases, chromosomes and hormone imbalances might). But I think that sexual orientation is affected by many factors in one’s personal environment, probably even while still in the womb.
You would have turned out gay, too, if you had experienced exactly the same formative factors in your life as your homosexual neighbor.
Granted, a lot of people are now simply exploring and experimenting with “alternative” sexuality, but how much of that was simply a reaction to all the fuss and condemnation in the first place?
On the other hand, legal marriage is not a basic human right, but a social convention. The basic human rights – and freedoms – underlying this issue are the right to freely associate, the right to self-determination, freedom from discrimination, freedom from persecution, freedom of faith, and freedom of conscience. There could be other obvious ones that I’ve missed, but the point is that gay-rights activists may have been “barking up the wrong tree.” Instead of insisting on statutory recognition, perhaps the focus should have been more on exposing the violations of those rights that are truly fundamental.
My son probably summed it up best in his comment: “I’m in favor of gay people getting married, but only to other gay people.”
Lutek, Yes, we tend to come up with what we think is the literal meaning of the Bible, then place our interpretation on others like a bag of rocks on their back that we think they should carry. Notice that we place the load on their backs, not on our own. Then along comes another with his interpretation of the Bible and another load to place on the back of the same person. The strange thing is, our bags of rocks may look quite different. Yet we each expect said person to carry our bags, bags we filled for them to carry. Should we be surprised when said person chooses to remove the rocks from the bags and hurl them at our heads?
Loving God and neighbor looks more like us helping neighbor carry his load. Walk with neighbor side-by-side and lighten his load. Don’t we all remember forever those in our lives who walked along side us and helped us carry our loads?
I suppose we do not understand why some people are gay and some are not. Until we have a complete understanding, ought we not try to love our gay brothers and sisters? We may need friends someday and I know for a fact they make good friends. Their struggle becomes my struggle.
You son is right gay people should marry other gay people. Old farts like me have many stories of gay men marrying straight women, having children, and the marriage never worked out long term. One of our good friends who is 95 married a straight woman, stayed married to her for over 50 years and nursed her as she lay dying from cancer. He never told her he was gay. After she died, he found the love of his life, another man, and is now married to him to finish his days. I asked him why he married a woman all those years ago and spent his life with her until she died. He said that was the thing to do when he became marrying age. He honored his wife, then became who he thought he truly was after she had passed. I admire him. All the other gay men we know who were married to women no longer are married. They left their wives and families and say they should never have married a woman. They feel bad about what doing so and eventually leaving the wives and children did to them. Not so surprisingly, most of these fellows have little or no use for religion, based on the way they were treated by religion. We’ve heard few stories of religion trying make amends with those fellows.
The “bag of rocks” metaphor is right on!
My son’s comment was meant to be humorous, but I find that humor is generally based on a truth that is unacknowledged or unexpected. I fully agree with your observations.
And to those who are disgusted by imagining what homosexuals may be doing behind closed doors, I say you should reign in your imaginations.
Thanks for the mention and the link, Jeremy!
We would not have reached this place in culteral history had Pastors provided the leadership, had churches not become social clubs built under worldly principles, and had “Christians” been living with love and incluencing the culture around them. We have failed, and as a result the culture is living for secularism. Everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes.