Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Marriage: A Covenant Established by God

This morning, I read an article called, The Jealous God and three paragraphs, in particular, stood out to me.

*******
*Quote from article*:

"God is righteous and loving when he demands exclusive faithfulness from his covenant people. Because God rightly loves his own glory, and graciously loves us, he demands that we worship and serve him above all. In human history, God is most glorified by the undivided devotion of his redeemed people, and his ultimate jealousy for his glory demands this devotion. If he does not care when we love idols more than him, then he would allow himself to be dishonored and let us settle for less than we are intended to have from life. God’s jealous love demands the best of us and our relationships.

In Exodus 34, God gives Moses the central demands of relating to God as his covenant people — a covenant God compares repeatedly to a marriage. God is the husband of his people and we are his bride. This metaphor intensifies when we get to the New Testament. To worship any god but the true God is spiritual adultery, and any husband who does not care if his wife commits adultery most certainly does not love her.

Right at the heart of the laws of the covenant, God wants his people to know how permanent and exclusive is this covenant relationship. He wants them to realize that he is a personal God who is establishing a personal relationship with his people. As a result, He should be related to as he is — not as a more user-friendly god of their own making."

*end of quote*

*******

Since God has established His covenant as permanent and exclusive, and, this covenant is repeatedly compared to marriage (which He established, by the way), then we can see how any other type of relationship other than the kind (marriage between a man and a woman) established by God through marriage, can also be seen as a form of idolatry.

To Christian believers, the gay agenda onslaught to change the definition of marriage, (which is viewed as an exclusive covenant given to one man and one woman by God) involves much more than the opinion that homosexual behavior is sin. If allowed, it also destroys this unique covenant that God had exclusively given to men and women in such a union. Because of what the Bible says about homosexual behavior, such a 'marriage' would not only be regarded as a physical form of adultery, but also a form of spiritual adultery against God's laws which then, ultimately, leads to a form of idolatry (choosing a pagan form of god over the Lord of the Bible).

I intend to add more to this post later, but please feel free to add your thoughts in the comment section.

Let's keep it civil, O.K.?

I know that this particular post may anger some visitors who frequent this blog. That is not my intention. It is to show an additional reason why Christians (and Jews) may view the term "marriage" as more than just a title for a union of two persons. Because it was uniquely established by God in the Bible, the word should (IMO) not be used to identify any other type of union. Another word (or words) could be used (such as 'civil unions' in Vermont) but the term marriage should remain defined as it is now and always has been for over 2,000 years.


15 comments:

Thomas said...

Perhaps you would like to hear the thoughts of a man who was most definitely not a gay activist, but who nevertheless thought that marriage ought to be redefined. That man was C. S. Lewis.


"I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question -- how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one.

I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
(Mere Christianity, Chap. 6)

I think that Lewis' proposal is quite sensible. He was speaking of divorce, but I think his distinction between civil and religious marriage works quite well for gay people as well. Let the conservative Christians among us get married in church according the rules they choose to live by, and let the rest of us get married by the state or by whatever religious group we prefer. No more of this bossing each other around nonsense.

Christinewjc said...

Thomas,

No one is "bossing around" anyone. That's just plain silly to say.

It has more to do with tradition and a respect for the wishes of the majority than it has to do with bossing anyone around.

A quote by a man about divorce does not equate with the current 'gay' marriage debate. Such an idea was non-existent when he was alive and I'm sure he didn't mean for his quote to be twisted in such a way as you did with your convoluted contrivance.

Other kinds of relationships have always been named differently. Polygamy, polyandry, common law, etc. Why not monoGAYmy? Why does it have to infringe upon a term that has been sacred to the majority of Americans since our nation began? 85% of our country calls themselves Christian. Can't it be said that such a tradition should stand?

mamalicious said...

I don't think it's silly at all to say that there's "bossing around" going on. Christians are definitely the bully in this issue. I don't think it's about tradition...it's about the state making laws that don't have anything to do with religion. Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp? Why can't you deal with letting Christian marriage take place in the church and letting a state issued certificate of marriage - or union or whatever - take place in a state-sanctioned place?

Why not allow my children's parents the opportunity to hold a piece of paper that says their union is valid?

Thomas said...

No one is "bossing around" anyone. That's just plain silly to say.

Christine, I would never dream of trying to abolish your marriage by legal fiat. Yet activists on your side of this debate are trying to do exactly that to gay people who are married, or who would like to be married. You're calling on the government to interfere with the rights of consenting adults to freely draw up contracts between one another. Furthermore, in states where gay marriages already exist, conservative activists would like the government to declare those marriage contracts null and void. That is an arbitrary imposition by the state on people's constitutional rights. It's called called "bossing people around." The only time the state is justified in disturbing an individual's freedom is when that person is violating the rights of third parties. Does the marriage of Sally May Shuckleberry to Jim Bob Jones in Chickawaw, KY affect you in an reasonable way? I should hope not. Then why do you care if Jim Bob wants to marry Clayton Buckeye instead? If you don't know them, and they're not living in your bedroom, it shouldn't bother you.

I don't think I was taking Lewis out of context. The clear meaning of his words is that Christian voters and politicians should not "try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community." I made it clear (not that I needed to) that Lewis was speaking about divorce. Yet divorce is plainly a graver sin for Christians than is homosexuality. Divorce and religious hypocrisy were the major sins that Jesus denounced time and time again. He never mentioned a word about homosexuality. If Lewis can see no reason to make divorce illegal, it is a plain inference that the lesser sin of homosexuality should not be penalized either.

Lewis was clear-eyed enough to recognize that most Britons in the 1950's were not Christians, except in the most tribal of senses. 85% of Americans may call themselves Christians, but very few of them sign on to whole shebang. The vast majority of Americans are indifferent to the issue of homosexuality. The remaider are either gay, pathologically hostile to gayness, or in the queasy intersection between those two groups. The non-hypocritical loathers of homosexuality are therefore a minority of a minority of a minority. These are the people that should be legislating the lives of the rest of us?

I find it a bit rich that you make an appeal to the possibly mythical 85% percent of America that is Christian, when you make it clear that you call into question the faith of 90% of those Christians -- i.e., all the ones who disagree with you. Didn't I hear you say something about "false converts"? By your own criteria, there should be about 12 "real" Christians in all the United States. Some majority.


Speaking of majorities, do you really say that marriage is "a term that has been sacred to the majority of Americans since our nation began?" I'm sure that has to be a joke. You are talking about nation with a 50% divorce rate, institutional adultery, and Britney Spears. Americans have been cheating on their spouses ever since the days of the Pilgrims. It couldn't hurt to inject a little "monoGAYmy" into this sick patient, could it?

Clandestine said...

You said it yourself:

"Let's keep it civil, O.K.?"

Indeed. Let's please keep it civil. As in 'civil marriage.' I don't want to get married in your church, I promise. I don't care at all if your church acknowledges me as a married person. I don't care.

But, mamalicious's children should be able to feel that the GOVERNMENT respects their family as much as it respects yours.

I just don't understand what the problem is. I'm pretty sure your daughter won't be asking for my permission if/when she decides to get married. Why should I have to ask for hers? It doesn't make sense.

And, finally, there is a major problem with this argument. And that is that Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, Satan-worshippers, etc. can get married. So clearly, marriage does not mean Christianity. It's ridiculous.

I don't want a marriage that is going to get me into heaven. I want a marriage that is going to protect my partner in the event of my death. I want her to be able to inherit my property. I want her to be able to collect my social security spousal benefit if I die. I want to assume responsibility for my partner's debt and I think she should have to assume responsibility for mine.

I want the same rights that you have.

That has NOTHING to do with religion.

Christinewjc said...

My original post had to do, specifically, with the fact that the covenant of marriage was established by God. That is why my emphasis has been on the Christian opinion(s) on this subject.

Yes, there are additional arguments (secular in nature) that also give good reasons why the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman should not be re-defined.

First, I will post a really good article written by Dennis Prager. He goes into the fact that the gay activists goal is not really about civil rights, it more about the attempt to overthrow and destroy Judeo-Christian values.

Second, I will post a list of additional reasons why our traditional marriage definition should be upheld.

Third, I will post links to articles that show what the legalization of 'gay' marriage has done in other countries and the negative effects it has had on those countries.

******

*Prager article*:

Who supports same-sex marriage?

Posted: March 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Dennis Prager



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

In my previous column, I wrote that the unique Judeo-Christian value system that forms the moral basis of American society is under attack by two forces – the Islamists and the Left. As a prime example of the latter, I offered the movement to redefine marriage to include people of the same sex.

Two leading voices of gay rights, the national gay newspaper The Advocate and the prominent writer Andrew Sullivan, headlined that I equated Islamic terrorists with supporters of same-sex marriage.

I am used to being caricatured – "Far-Right Columnist Compares Same-Sex Marriage Advocates to Islamic Terrorists" – rather than have my arguments against redefining marriage responded to. So these reactions did not shock me – though Andrew Sullivan disappointed me, since we have a long and mutually respectful relationship: He published my writing in his book on same-sex marriage, and I have given him extensive time on my radio show.

So, for the record, I consider the great majority of supporters of same-sex marriage to be thoroughly decent people, and the great majority of supporters of Islamic terror to be loathsome.

But the fact that most supporters of same-sex marriage are thoroughly decent people with loving intentions, as opposed to supporters of Islamic terror who are filled with hate and love death, in no way denies my premise that both are waging war against Judeo-Christian civilization. And that was the subject of my article.

Any further insinuation that I morally equate the people who support same-sex marriage with those who engage in or support Muslim terror is either deliberate distortion or an indication of an inability to think critically.

In my view, proponents of same-sex marriage fall into three categories.

One is the secular Left – people who seek to end the dominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life. These individuals tend to be the leaders and among the most active supporters of same-sex marriage.

They are animated by their fear and loathing of Bible-based Christians (and Jews) whom they regard as religious fanatics. Destroying the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage is one part of the secular Left's assault. Every vestige of Judeo-Christian America is targeted: public celebrations of Christmas, the mention of God in public schools, "In God We Trust" on our money, the use of the Bible at inaugurations, and much more.

But the end of Judeo-Christian marriage would be by far the Left's biggest success in remaking America in its image.

A second group consists of many well-meaning Americans who are not leftists and who do not yearn for the end of Judeo-Christian values. They simply believe that same-sex marriage is either the right thing to do or, even if wrong, not a big deal.

You can get almost any policy approved by vast numbers of Americans by appealing to their goodness – which is what the cause of same-sex marriage does. When the average American hears the word "intolerance," he jumps through hoops to avoid being associated with such an awful thing. Moreover, it takes a great deal of thought to understand why tolerance has nothing to do with whether we should change the definition of marriage and family. One can tolerate gay couples, move next door to them, invite them over for a barbecue, love them as fellow family members or just as fellow human beings, and still fight for the preservation of marriage as every civilization has known it.

The third group of supporters of same-sex marriage is the religious Left. Their social values are generally identical to those of the secular Left, but they think of those values as religious. These Jews and Christians say they support same-sex marriage not despite their religious identity, but because of it.

Of the three groups, these individuals, whose sincerity I do not question, are the most confused. Those who wish to overthrow Judeo-Christian values are clear. Those who don't want to overthrow Judeo-Christian values but just want to be tolerant and open-minded are less clear. But those who claim that Christianity or Judaism demand redefining marriage and family are the least clear.

There is nothing in mainstream Christianity or Judaism that supports same-sex marriage. There is nothing biblically supportive – and there is much biblically opposed – and there was not one major religious leader or thinker in Jewish or Christian history prior to the present generation who argued for same-sex marriage.

Religious supporters of same-sex marriage have either substituted their own feelings for God, for the Bible, and for religious law or they have simply attached a cross or a yarmulke to their leftist politics.

Clergy and laypeople who stand the Bible on its head, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, are thoroughly distorting Judaism and Christianity. Intellectual honesty demands that they either support same-sex marriage solely from a secular standpoint or create a new religion from which to do so. If Judaism and Christianity do not stand for man-woman marriage and the father-mother family, they stand for nothing.

*End of article*

*******

*Reasons to uphold traditional marriage* -

Marriage is between a man and a woman.


"Marriage" should not be whatever the law says that it is. The covenant relationship of marriage predates the law and the Constitution.


"Love" and "companionship" are not sufficient to define marriage. (If this were true, minor children and adults should be able to marry each other.)


If homosexual marriage is legalized, the floodgates will be opened for other groups of people to marry. By the same logic, we would be forced to allow a man to marry three women (polygamy) or a brother and sister to marry each other (incest) or, ostensibly, we'd have to let a man marry his dog (bestiality). Recently in Australia, a man married his T.V.!


Denying same-sex marriage is not "discrimination." A homosexual person has the same right to marry as a heterosexual person, he/she simply has to marry the opposite sex.


The sexual union of a man and a woman is the only way to naturally reproduce children.


Studies show that children need both a mom and a dad.


"Gay marriage" is either anti-woman or anti-man. It embraces the concept that one of the sexes is not needed for raising children.


"Gay marriage" is not about what two people do in the privacy of their own home. It's about the public approval of radically redefining traditional marriage. A public embracing of same-sex marriage affects all of society.


Before society jumps to legalize same-sex marriage, the fact needs to be addressed that, on average, homosexual men die ten years younger than heterosexual men. Perhaps encouraging "gay marriage" is not good policy for health reasons alone.



"Gay marriage" is a social experiment. No civilization in history has ever legalized same-sex marriage.


Our children are the ones who are the "guinea pigs" in this social experiment.


Ultimately, "gay marriage" is simply an attempt by a sub-group of people, identified solely by their sexual conduct, to obtain societal approval of their sexual behaviors.


If we re-define marriage, we will un-define marriage and it will become meaningless.

*******

We do not need to speculate about what may happen in America if 'gay' marriage becomes legalized in every state. We can already see the negative influence and results since such an experiment has become reality in Scandanavia.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

Going Dutch?

Beyond Gay Marriage

Thomas said...

I'm too tired to really go into the arguments behind this inane article. All I'll say is this: what is this nonsense of "Judeo-Christian" civilization? Christians massacred and discriminated against Jews for two thousand years. Only in the last fifty years has Judaeophilia sprouted among the Christian right, and that is only because Hitler made anti-Semitism unfashionable, and the State of Israel gave Jesus a base of operations for when he comes back on his white horse.

BTW, were you convinced by my Darwinian chatter? I have many young minds to corrupt, and I want to know whether I'm making sense.

Christinewjc said...

Thomas,

I have been kept quite busy with this post so I haven't thoroughly perused your comment. While scanning through it, however, I did notice many of the same arguments I had encountered before. The typical one I often hear is the "evolution doesn't speak to that branch of science" blather whenever one is stumped for an answer to the question. If evolution talks about how life came to be on this earth, then why ignore the tough questions associated with it like abiogenesis? I appreciated your honesty here:

Thomas stated, "Well, that's a toughie! ;-) I'll level with you, Christine -- nobody knows. This is the question of abiogenesis -- the origin of life -- and it is separate from the question of evolution, although obviously related."

You are one of the first evolutionists who even admits that abiogenesis and the question of evolution are related! Most just want to stay in their evolutionary comfort zone and not even touch the subject, much less even admit that they are related. They want to stay in their little Darwin's black box of inquiry and avoid the big questions. You see, the hypothesis of ID goes beyond where evolutionary biologists want to venture and include these additional origin of life questions in the classrooms. The reason that the current 'scientific elitists' are so against ID has more to do with philosophy than science.

About the transitional fossils. You have been hoodwinked, Thomas. Read the "Icons of Evolution" to see how many times the public has been fooled into believing that transitionals exist; but they ALL have been proven to be fakes, doctored up in some way, and often a so-called 'transitional' was touted as 'real' for 50 years before the forgery was revealed!

The track record is not good and Darwinists say that ID isn't scientific or is dishonest?? Sheesh...they ought to look into the mirror and see the hypocrisy that has grown there through their forgeries over the past 140 years or so!!

Welp...I'm mixing up threads so I will end with those couple of paragraphs.

You never know, Thomas. Your encounter with the Creation proponents might change even YOUR mind, for the better, on some things!

I hope you will share your experience about it here. I'd love to know what was said and how it went for you.

I will make a prediction, though. I think that you will be treated with respect and kindness despite the fact that most will disagree with what you are sharing. You may come away from the debate pleasantly surprised by this.

Clandestine said...

I try so hard to not get angry when I read this blog, but sometimes it just doesn't work. Sometimes, I just wonder how it is possible that we are the same species. That's how boggled I am by all of this.

I cannot understand how anyone could say that they have the right to decide whom another person should marry. There are DISTINCT differences between polygamy, incest and gay marriage! It's RIDICULOUS for you to compare them. It's a tactic used to confuse people who don't think through arguments if someone they generally agree with supports the idea.

Gay marriage hurts NOBODY! Why on earth do you think it would affect your life if my partner, with whom I already live, and I get married?! There would be no difference to you!! I DO NOT understand. It makes NO sense. The only way it would make sense is, as I said before, you banned all marriages that weren't Christian, and also made divorce illegal. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it seems to me that I could go pick some random man off the street and go get married right now if I wanted to and yet I am not allowed (by the country or any other state) to marry the person with whom I have shared my life for over three years?! It makes no sense.

You live in the United States. And as such, you are free to believe and say pretty much whatever you want. Why do you think it's acceptable to make everyone else follow your religous rules?? You can practice whatever religion you want. But you don't think anyone else should be able to. It's absurd. Christine, you talk about Christians in other parts of the country who can't practice their religious beliefs. Why do you want to oppress other people the same way those people are being oppressed?

If marriage were solely a religous ceremony, that would be one thing. But it's not. It's a secular institution that guarantees specific rights and privileges and obligations. This baloney about it not being discrimination is baloney. Wouldn't you say you were being discriminated against if I told you that you were only allowed to marry a woman? Yes. You would.

I'm sorry that I am getting so frustrated, but when someone tries to convince me that it's okay for me to be treated as a second-class citizen, it tends to get on my nerves.

Christinewjc said...

Clandestine,

I am sorry that reading this blog makes you angry, feel like a second class citizen, boggles your mind, and gets on your nerves.

Welcome to my world! I often feel the exact same things when the gay rights agenda is being forced upon my Christian Biblical worldview which includes Judeo-Christian beliefs, morality and ethics by radical homosexual secular activists (please note that I am NOT equating the general population of gay people in this comment) whose intention is to completely silence ANY objection, religious or otherwise, to their worldview. Guess what darlin young lady...it cuts both ways. Can you at least admit that much?

Did you even go to the website links and read the articles? They were filled with SECULAR REASONINGS why 'gay' marriage would lead us down that 'slippery slope' to where marriage would become meaningless. SECULAR reasons are cited NOT religious reasons.

Lets dispell a myth you just stated. Gay people are not oppressed because of the marriage issue. They can marry just like anyone else. The definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Period. Has been for thousands of years.

Haven't gay people existed since the beginning of civilization? Why, after thousands of years, do they need to define their relationships as marriage now?

This is something that wasn't even an issue 30 years ago. It hasn't been front and center as an issue until about 10 years ago.

Also, your comment about gays being oppressed doesn't fit the profile these days. Gays are portrayed in favorable ways in popular T.V. shows, in movies, and in a positive light in education. They also have much political clout, own many clubs and have many organizations benefitting their causes. They are the social darlings in most of the media. They have very prominent jobs within the media. The list could be endless.

I will say this. I agree that gay people are hated by some in the regular community who dislike what is going on. But this has no place in the life of Christ followers.

I know that you may object to what I am about to say, but I have found many Christians who are brokenhearted over the gay people in their lives. Such brokenheartedness leads them to the desire to witness to them about Jesus Christ. Some may not do it as well as others, but the true believers who want to share the need for repentance from this sin are doing so for good reasons.

Unfortunately, those who handle it poorly are often lumped in with those who do not hate the people, but recognize God's law and the need for repentance of this sin or any other type of sin.

We were discussing this very thing on another thread but didn't come to the same conclusion. It's not whether I or you think it's sin...it's what God thinks about it and reveals in Scripture. I see it described plain as day in Scripture.

The only choices for those who would deny that homosexual behavior is sin is threefold. They either choose to deny what's written there in black and white on the pages of the Bible, or, they regard the Bible as 'myth', or, they twist the Scripture verses to mean something other than what the original writers recorded.

With all that said, I would recommend that you read the articles from the links in my last comment post. It may open your eyes to the fact that this is much more than just a religious battle and/or issue. The future of our civilization and what it will become is at stake. The articles will map out what such a 'social experiment' legalizing 'gay' marriage has done to some countries who have already allowed it. You may not like what you read, but it is the truth. Independant statistics such as these don't lie and the article is backed up with certain facts that are undeniable.

The future of my children and grandchildren are at stake. Those of the majority who agree with me on this issue see it for what it truly is. They don't all adhere to only the religious arguments, they also see the secular arguments against it.

Clandestine said...

I did read your articles, and I think they are ridiculous.

I don't understand how you can talk about how you don't like having your rights to practice your religion threatened, and then try to defend not allowing me to marry the person I want to marry. Every argument you could come up with can be dismantled by simple logic. I don't understand why that's not clear.

The secular arguments are an excuse. People don't like things they don't understand. People are afraid. But there is nothing to be afraid of. There will always be gay people, and one day, we will have the same rights and this argument will seem as ridiculous as allowing black and white kids to go to school together.

Using religion as an argument is ineffective because the Constitution clearly states that no law should be made to favor one religion.

Using children is ineffective because people who aren't married have children all the time. If you want to outlaw that, and take children away from people if their parents get divorced, and not let single people adopt, then okay. If you are going to require people to have babies when they get married, okay. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

Polygamy - well, it's clear to me that the rules for marriage limit it to two people. The genders of those people are at question, but not the number. Besides, this argument is like saying that people shouldn't have fought for interracial marriage because eventually, the gays would want to marry. Are you going to say that interracial marriage should be illegal? Probably not.

Finally, you say: "The future of my children and grandchildren are at stake."

What about the present for mamalicious's kids or any child of gay parents? I guess they don't matter?

"Those of the majority who agree with me on this issue see it for what it truly is. They don't all adhere to only the religious arguments, they also see the secular arguments against it."

No, they don't. They are afraid of what will happen if they allow gay people to have the same rights as they have.

And this whole 30-years-ago business. Well, in 1812, people thought slavery was fine. Thirty years later, some people were realizing it wasn't. Thirty years after that, more. Etc. It's called progress.

mamalicious said...

"Gay people are not oppressed because of the marriage issue. They can marry just like anyone else." Christine, I'm confused about this - could you explain these statements?

I'm frustrated, too. I fear for the future of MY children. I fear that people who believe that their way is the only right way will cause my children to feel that their family is not valid. I don't see why progress is bad.

I also read the articles and thought they were ridiculous. I think Clandy says it well - don't you see that limiting MY rights to live my life as I best see it might also cause your rights to be limited? I've put myself in your shoes - can you put yourself in ours?

Christinewjc said...

Thomas,

I deleted your comment for several reasons.

First, it was WAY off topic.

Second, we aren't talking about other oppression in other countries or the historic incidences of oppression.

Third, your comment was angry, unnecessarily derogatory in nature and on top of that, you indescriminately hurled vile comments in a lone personal attack against me.

Perhaps the term "oppression" isn't the right word for it, but the Anger, Hate and Rage by radical homosexual activists SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT CHRISTIANS INVOLVED IN EX-GAY MINISTRY is downright SCARY.

Gay activist terrorism may be the term that fits better to describe the foul and blatant display of INTOLERANCE towards a group that met for a conference at a Boston church.

Perhaps you don't like the reality that ex-gays exist. Perhaps you hate the fact that they are not going to hide in an 'ex-gay closet' anymore and are willing to risk the bashing and hate-spewing rhetoric of those who consider them 'traitors' to the 'gay' cause. They want, and deserve, THE FREE SPEECH RIGHT to speak out about their successful release from unwanted same-sex attraction, behavior and orientation.

The fact is that they are here, they exist, and they are sharing the saving grace and power of Jesus Christ to show others the TRUTH IN LOVE and that THEY TOO, can break free from the deception that is homosexuality.

Hmmm...it's interesting. Who are the haters now?

1Jo 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.

Jhn 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

Clandestine said...

holy cow.

i wonder what happened.

anyway, just to let you know, i don't hate anyone - gay, straight or formerly either.

christine, you're brave to open this forum to all opinions. i know sometimes it gets heated but please understand that i respect all of you.

mamalicious said...

Yikes is right. Sounds like things got a little out of control around here. The only thing I hate is the fact that we somehow can go beyond certain places in this conversation. It always ends in "who's hating now?" Why can't we get beyond it?