Posted on 07/25/2004 1:39:37 PM PDT by familyop
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--My mailbox is deluged weekly with fundraising letters from pro-family organizations that invoke the threat of same-sex “marriage” being legalized by liberal judges in various states.
As important as it is to stand for the truth, these groups are tilting at windmills as long as American Christians continue to have a less-than-biblical respect for opposite-sex marriage.
That point was brought home to me recently with astounding clarity. A young lady who my wife grew up with decided to divorce her husband of two years, with a young daughter relegated to being tossed back and forth in a joint custody arrangement. There was no abuse or adultery, but since marriage is hard when two people are young and broke, she decided they made, in her words, “better friends than marriage partners.”
As far as I know, the young lady has never made a profession of faith, does not attend church and does not claim to know Jesus Christ, so to no one’s surprise she sees no problem with a quickie divorce when things have not worked out the way she wanted.
It’s time we quit being “huffy” when a pagan acts like a pagan -- what else do you expect?
What disgusted me was the response of the young lady’s mother and grandmother, which is symptomatic of how lightly modern American Christians esteem marriage. Both the mother and the grandmother claim to be Christians and attend church regularly. The mother said very little except to offer her daughter a place to stay. The grandmother, however, was bolder. “I don’t believe in divorce,” she said, “but sometimes it can’t be avoided.”
Well, in this case we’ll never know if it could have been avoided. No one tried to counsel the young lady or her husband or share with them what God has to say about marriage.
As a quick review for the sake of convenience, God said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NASB). Expounding on the theme, Jesus added, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, NASB). Jesus went on to add that Moses gave the exception allowing divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Therefore, the exception is not absolute and does not have to be followed.
God’s opinion on divorce of any kind is quite clear: Malachi 2:16 says that God hates divorce.
As God’s children, should we not also hate divorce? Of course we should, and we should seek to avoid it wherever and whenever possible. But the simple fact of the matter is that corporately we do not hate divorce, nor do American Christians avoid it any better than our non-believing fellow Americans. A 2001 survey by George Barna showed that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is “statistically identical” as the divorce rate among the general population.
When marriage means that little to the people of God, why should the broader culture care what we think about the subject?
The pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd is the one making all the noise and actually having the courage to stick up for what they believe, as perverted as it is. They understand that the first rule of getting what you want from the government in a democracy is to make more noise than the other guy.
There is really only one way for Christians to respond to this nightmare and silence the critics of traditional marriage and proponents of homosexual “marriage.” It’s not easy. It’s not always fun. It takes everything a person can give all the time.
It’s called staying married, even when times are tough and you want out more than you want another breath. Beyond that, Christians should seek to glorify not themselves but God with their marriages.
If the broader culture should see the divorce rate among Christians go through the floor, they would know that there really was something different about us. Who knows what kind of opportunities this radical strategy would bring about for evangelism and national revival?
Right now, roughly a third of Americans say they support homosexual “marriage.” But in another few years, homosexual “marriage” will be the law of the land if Christians – too many of whom see no problem with easy, no-fault heterosexual divorce -- have not recovered a respect for marriage beyond sending the occasional check to a pro-family organization.
--30--
Samuel Smith is a student and a news writer at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
They can "marry." They are not owed public recognition. No one is stopping them from holding a "wedding" that is not recognized by the rest of us.
All behavior deemed offensive to any group will be outlawed.
These behaviors include spanking, prayer, wearing of religious ornaments, use of opinionated or poignant bumper stickers, uppity black people supporting conservative causes, gun ownership, action movies, nudity (of womyn), heterosexual intercourse (see rape), marriage, motherhood (see white slavery), public opposition of marxism/leninism, consumption of fatty foods, smoking, Atkins, cheesecake, candies, Valentine's day, Father's Day, Christmas, Yom Kippur, Hannukkah, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, Capitalism, Entrepreneurship (see Capitalism), loud music, Sport-Utility-Vehicles, gasoline, CO2 production, breathing, passing wind, lumberjacking, camping, hunting, fishing, zoos, meat, animal husbandry, eggs, fish, poulty, fur, Roy Rogers, Huckleberry Finn, abstinence education, pastries, clothes with mixed fibers, plastic, glass, and the miniskirt.
I don't want to live in that world. If you do, kindly move to Antarctica and create it there.
10 AdequateMan
______________________________________
Why would you find it "amusing" that conservatives wish to conserve the definition of marriage that has been with this country since its birth?
And why, if you are hell bent on redefining marriage, would you limit it to two members of the same sex who engage in homosexual acts?
12 jwO7
______________________________________
Great lines, -- more than adequate, man.
A good test of effectiveness is the whining of the opposition.
You win, big time, on that score.
You got me on that one, except that public masturbation is indecency, which takes away a parent's ability to use public facilities with any expectation of comfort. There is really no substantial societal difference between public masturbation and fondling of other people without their consent. I believe what is being legislated with those particular rules is the affront to others with socially unwelcome behavior. This law is also particularly used and enforced where no general expectation of such behavior exists. For example, a public nudity statute would be unenforceable in a strip bar, as a general expectation of such behavior exists there, so it is unlikely that a person's sensibilities will be affronted. This doesn't exist for example, at McDonalds. There is a reasonable expectation that a visit to McDonald's will not result in the viewing of public fisting of a walrus. That's reasonable. If you had a sign in front of a business that said "Come in and witness the public fisting of a walrus" then such behavior would not run afoul of most statutes other than the animal cruelty. (Animal cruelty laws ARE inherently altruistic). So actually maybe you don't have me there. Most public decency laws actually are a reflection of expectation and are similar in wording to assault laws (not battery). Remember that assault is unwelcome speech or behavior which is delivered in a beligerent or impertinent manner, and is generally intended to hurt, cause discomfort, or offend another person. It is intended to cause HARM. Notice the similarities with decency law?
We the people have a right to define the foundational structure of our own culture.
17 The Ghost of FReepers Past
______________________________________
We have defined the foundational structure of our own culture.
It's called the US Constituion.
The fact that ~you~ think a majority of Americans find a non issue like gay marriage offensive and contrary to their moral standards is not a constitutional factor in our republican form of government.
The majority does not rule in the USA.
I find it highly offensive and hurtful when the government teaches my child that homsexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Honestly, I would rather run into a flasher than two men making out on the street. When everyone starts defining everything for themselves, when there is no community standard allowed, then one person's indecency is another person's right to free expression. At some point you've just got to allow the community to define what is decent for themselves. Unless a town has a population of 1, these things affect everyone.
So who does rule in America? Let's ask Thomas Paine.
Excerpt from Thomas Paine's Common Sense
"But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. "
The reason to protect marriage is not so that people who are radically committed to the "gay" agenda will like us. Those who hate religious or moral principles and people who espouse them are going to continue to hate, no matter what happens. The hate is in their hearts, it isn't justified. IOW, radical homosexuals or those who hate religious believers and their beliefs are going to continue to hate someone or something, even if conservatives all of a sudden agree with them. The hate will just go somewhere else. IOW, those who hate don't do so because the objects of their hate are hateful.
Look, I know it's hard- it's even in direct opposite from our own human natures- but we have to love those who hate us. We have to bless those who curse us.
If you love someone who is driving off a cliff, you might raise your voice, shoot out his tires, or put a road block up, which might damage his car. He might get mad, not realizing you were trying to save his life. Blessing someone (and I thought blessings come from God, not fallen souls) has nothing to do with approving self and other destructive behavior. In fact, Jesus Christ was blessing the moneylenders when he whipped them. He was showing them the truth, maybe some of them woke up.
But it is a SIN to allow our salvation to make us feel superior than another. It is a festering evil in the soul. It is called PRIDE and it happens whenever one person is given reason to feel superior to another.
Your statements don't really make sense. Pride happens whenever someone "is given reason to feel" superior? What on earth are you saying? Are you saying that no one should make judgements whether behaviors are sinful or virtuous, healthy or non-healthy? "Is given reason"?
Stay in your homes. Go ahead and raise your children in a saccharine world where evil does not exist. Surround them with those who sing only of the praises of God. Then watch them live isolated lives, never even attempting to witness to others.
Are you angry? Are you feeling a little superior to those who express disapproval or intolerance of homosexual "marriage" or behavior? Kind of looks like it to me.
You can't be apart from the world AND affect it in any way.
Are you saying that in order to relate to others the truth of God, a person has to be wallowing in the mire with them? So in order to relate to meth tweakers, we have to go tweak with them so we won't feel superior? Or not tell them that meth kills? I don't get your point.
But they were also consumed with their own piety, emboldened by their religious fervor to point out flaws in others' characters.
So you're equating those who are endeavoring to protect marriage from destruction with the Pharisee who wanted to kill Jesus. I find that rather offensive.
I thought Jesus came to deliver us from that part of us.
Jesus came to save us from our rebellion against God. Comes in many flavors.
Oh, those hideous picture. They shouldn't be allowed. Why, the children who made it through the gauntlet might see what happened to maybe a brother or sister or two. Or some of the mothers might be reminded of what they're responsible for.
Oh, the hideous pictures. What about the hideuos murders?
We the people have defined the foundational structure of our own culture.
It's called the US Constituion.
25 tpaine
Excerpt from Thomas Paine's Common Sense
"But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. "
27 'Ghost'
How strange of you to post some lines that prove my point.
Thanks.
The law defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Just thought I would remind you. You might re-read the portion of the Paine quote that you didn't put in bold.
The zealot was disturbing the peace with his pictures.
The soccer moms were about to 'disturb' HIM. -- He got lucky and the cops arrived in time to save his cookies. Justice was served.
Let the queers call their arrangements 'marriage'. Why should you care?
Calm yourself, you'll live longer.
Thanks for the advice but I am already calm.
Hey I'll talk to you later. I'm going to sign off. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring any response you give. Gotta go. Have fun.
Where is the "Love your neighbor" in this?
I suppose you could engage in his type of culture but I strongly recommend you don't.
I also recommend you take another look at "Love your neighbor" in its original context because it does not mean what you say it means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.