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other states) is a violation of Article IV, section 1 of our Constitution; as such, all laws contravening it should be repealed or voided upon review.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

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...