Skip to main content
In addition to reclaiming interesting phrases for the English language, join me in my quest to reclaim rainbows. [Side-Rant/Disclaimer: In no way does my lamentation over the hijacking of the rainbow for a cause mean that I hate homosexuals. On the contrary; stop by, have a beer, share some laughs. Provided, of course, that you are not a "d-bag"* as they say in the vernacular.] Remember when a rainbow was just a rainbow? I dare you to wear, display, paint, or draw anything rainbow-colored. You'll have a spontaneously generated meeting of the Triangle Coalition on your front lawn before you can say "Eric McCormack." Which I hate, because 1) I like rainbows, 2) I don't actually enjoy political discussions/heated debates/awkward meetings with church elders every 5 seconds. [Side-Rant #2, Subject: Homosexuality: Is the practice of homosexuality prohibited by the Bible, and thus, morally wrong? Yes. Get over it. Can the inclination to homosexuality be affected by genetic or environmental factors? Inconclusive. But a genetic predisposition toward anything does not mean that thing is determined. Do you favor gay adoption? Hesitant yes. I have not reviewed in depth, evidence suggesting that children raised by homosexuals suffer developmental harm, but am open to such empirical evidence, if it exists. But choosing between children as wards of the State (or worse) and kids raised by homosexuals is an easy call. Do you favor gays in the military? Emphatic yes. If you can shoot a gun/strategize/speak Arabic, etc. I personally am glad you're willing to help, and I don't care (in this context) with whom you have sex. What about gay marriage? Yes and no. The government(s) is not authorized under the Constitution to regulate the sexual behavior of individuals. The people in the several states may draft whatever laws they wish, subject to judicial review for constitutionality. The current state of the law (which allows states to refuse recognition to homosexual unions performed in other states) is a violation of Article IV, section 1 of our Constitution; as such, all laws contravening it should be repealed or voided upon review. But unions sanctioned by the several states are not truly "marriage" in the spiritual sense, whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such, Christians ought to be much more concerned about preserving the religious freedom to prohibit illicit unions (and to teach as they wish) than imposing upon the states' contracted unions a moral and spiritual meaning they do not possess.]

*criminal, unkind, or otherwise unpleasant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more