I made this comment at Denny Burk’s blog.
This video with John Piper and Eric Metaxes – is very, very good !!
All the pro “gay agenda” people who read this blog (Denny Burk’s blog on the article about the New York Times Article on “Young Conservatives that Defend Traditional Marriage”) and comment here should watch the whole thing – they talk about Bonhoeffer and meaning of Romans 13 and submission to government, his theology, Nazis co-opting the church in Germany, plot to kill Hitler, relation to racism in the 50s-60s, abortion and so “called same sex marriage”.
Piper was clear, “so called same sex marriage does not even exist” and “we have trained a generation to be afraid of being looked down on and being thought of as mean and ‘right wing’ (the raised eyebrow”) – we are afraid to speak out because we don’t want to be thought of as “right wing”/mean/bigoted/ ugly/ not cool / like what lot’s of people thought about the late Jerry Falwell, etc.
Eric was so clear that if same sex marriage goes through and becomes the law of the land; then Christians are going to be forced to not even give our opinion in public that it is always sin and always wrong. That has already happening in Australia and Canada.
He pointed out how our government right now is just forcing businesses to comply with the abortion / insurance issue with “Obama Care” – they say, “tough; we are fining you and stomping on you like an Elephant”. That is exactly what this is coming to. (What our own government is doing to “Hobby Lobby” is unjust and wrong. Shame on you, President Obama, and all who are enforcing that on them!)
Another good book is A Queer Thing Happened to America, by Michael Brown (a Messianic Jew) and his web-site and web-cast. (the line of fire with Dr. Brown)
Just reading through many of the comments at that article at the New York Times was really sad. Most poured out their hatred and distain for the these young people (and people like me) standing for the true definition of marriage with “don’t they have a job?” and “they are racists, like the old view in the South in the 50s (same as Matt Martin’s view above) that inter-racial marriage was wrong” and comments like, “I don’t understand what affect is has on them; or your church, etc.” and “if heterosexuals want to defend marriage, then work on the divorce problem and adultery problem”, (as if Christians did not speak out against that stuff; but the media shut us off as “nut-jobs” and cruel back then, and now 50 years later use those as examples against Christians, etc. One commenter said something like, “one word for this position = CRUEL” (to deny homosexuals the right to get married).
It is actually cruel to not say, “no, this is wrong and sin”.
The whole thing is very sad. It is the end of decent civilization as we know it; because it will open up the flood gates for bi-sexual marriage (3 persons); polygamy (Mormon groups and Muslims will use the same arguments that the gays are using now); man-boy lover marriages, incest marriages, and other things too weird to mention; and persecution of anyone who brings their disapproval of this stuff into the public square.
There is no basis for stopping any of that, with the way it is going now. The gays and atheists and skeptics and total secularists/Darwinian materialists/ leftists (like a few examples that are prominent in our culture – The Huffington Post, MSNBC, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins) have no moral basis for any morality at all.
The Biblical view, Matthew 19:1-7 – Jesus quoted from both Genesis 1 and 2, and affirmed a. God as the creator b. the creation of male and female – one man and one woman c. The two – one man and one woman shall become one flesh. (Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27-28 / 5:2 and 2:24 and alludes to Genesis 1:1)
No one should say, “Jesus never talked about homosexuality” and no one should let anyone get away with that statement, without at least pointing out that by quoting from Genesis 1 and 2 on “male and female” and “the two shall become one”, Jesus did say something that directly affects the issues of so “called gay marriage”.
Some reasons why I think, many give up defending Biblical / tradition / correct marriage is that
Reason 1. It takes a lot of time and energy to actually argue the points without being called a bigot or racist or homophobe. They (the left and gays) usually shut down rational debate with those charges. (just like the photo above (at Denny Burk’s blog that Matt Martin linked to; and Matt Martin’s comment seeks to do.) It is not a good argument since Moses married Zipphorah, a Midianite; and his second wive was black, a Cushite (Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia); and Rahab was a Canaanite but became a true believer in the God of Israel and is in Jesus geneology (as is Ruth, Tamar, and Bathsheba) Ruth was a Moabites and Bathsheba married “Uriah, the Hittite”, etc. – that the Bible has examples of people who married other races/ethnicities proves that the view of 1950s photo is wrong and not biblical; and yet there is no example of homosexual marriage in Scripture. All the OT prohibitions against marrying other cultures was not because of their race, ethnicity; rather it was because they were unbelievers/pagans. There was no problem if someone converted to the true God. So, the bible assumes that Zipporah (like her father Jethro – Exodus 18- became a believer in the God of Israel). Ruth clearly became a believer. (Ruth 1:16) and Uriah, the Hittite, apparently also became a believer in the God of Israel, as he rose to be a top general in Israel’s army and his character with David’s attempts to get him to compromise are exemplary and noble. (2 Samuel 11-12)
2. It would force us to have to show that the issues are Biblical and require getting into the details of the Bible; and they have liberal scholars who have been distorting the Bible passages for a long time. (an example is Obery Hendricks recent article at the Huffington Post – what a ton of eisegesis and just wrong interpretation); also it requires the understanding that the same sex act (and fantacies/ lusts) are wrong and sin by nature. If they adopt children, it is wrong by nature to the children, no matter how more kind and loving they are to the children and sometimes possibly better than some heterosexual marriages that have fighting, anger, divorce in them that negatively affects children.
3. It forces us to say that same sex acts are by nature perversions and wrong and even gross; and perversions against nature; and that those desires are perversions of the mind and soul; and people don’t want to talk about the details of that stuff, except those gay activists who are now writing blogs and describing all their details and trans-gender issues, bi-sexuals, etc. – I tried to read a trans-gender person’s blog after she/ (originally a he); made a comment at my blog and it is really weird – the details of describing their lives are really just weird.
Addendum (added March 23) See also my previous article, “Negative Effects of Same Sex Marriage”
Apologetics and Agape 
Ken writes: “Eric was so clear that if same sex marriage goes through and becomes the law of the land; then Christians are going to be forced to not even give our opinion in public that it is always sin and always wrong.”
He’s wrong.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in some states in the US for years. Yet, the Supreme Court recently found in favor of Westboro Baptist to preach their disgusting so-called “Good News” near funerals. As such, I think free speech is safe in the States.
“Reason 1 … ”
You do realize that while you seem to fear that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy somehow, you nevertheless pointed out that Moses had several wives. Abraham actually had three wives simultaneously (one of them his half-sister). Are you saying that these men were “perverts” and wicked? They are the fathers of the faith you claim to uphold.
“If they adopt children, it is wrong by nature to the children, no matter how more kind and loving they are to the children and sometimes possibly better than some heterosexual marriages that have fighting, anger, divorce in them that negatively affects children”
If a child lives in a home where they are being beaten or – God forbid – molested, or where they are surrounded by mistreatment and hostility, so long as the parents have opposing sets of genitals, this is preferable to even the BEST gay couple? I must confess, I don’t understand this at all.
“people don’t want to talk about the details of that stuff”
Do you want to discuss the intimate details of the sex you have with your wife such as position, discussion, etc, or would you find such discussion “tawdry”? Don’t confuse modesty with shame.
“Jesus did say something that directly affects the issues of so “called gay marriage”.”
He said a lot about divorce, too. Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9. He gives one allowance for divorce: infidelity. How do you repent of divorce and “turn from sin”? By marrying your mistress? No. You either reunite with your first spouse or remain celibate. Should this be the law of the land?
I agree that Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church are disgusting and evil and a cult.
But since most all other Christians and the secular world non-Christians all agree that they are reprehensible, they will probably be shut down from social pressure, and legal pressure if the Supreme court rules in favor of the gay agenda and hate speech laws.
It might not happen immediately, but it will grow over the next 20-30 years, just as the “gay agenda” has grown so much over the last 30 years.
The push to shut down our opinions will come stronger later.
The scenario about Moses probably went like this: Moses first wife Zipporah (a Midianite) died, then he married the Cushiste woman. Nothing wrong with marriage again after a spouse dies.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The abuse of children by heterosexuals is wrong; but that is not a reason to replace that with something that is also wrong, although in a different category of subject. That is a non-sequeter argument; it doesn’t follow.
many gays and trans-genders are going into all the details, not me. I had an argument with a guy on line and he forced the argument to go into lots of details.
I think it is enough and self-evident that two male plumbing parts cannot work or transfer water; 2 female plugs or male plugs cannot work in electricity, etc. it is obvious. Screws and bolts are designed for each other. A certain electrical piece forced into the wrong place causes a short or explosion. Anal sex is always wrong. The rectum was no created for that.
There is no doubt that many divorces are unbiblical and wrong. I remember when young, most divorces were by Hollywood types. (Elizabeth Taylor as a classic example of that.) Many people don’t even believe in marriage anymore. When Christians spoke out against it; they were ridiculed by the liberals. Now that homosexuals want “marriage”, to throw the divorce argument out there doesn’t seem to be sincere.
There is another case for divorce – Abandonment by an unbeliever – 1 Corinthians 7:15.
Also, I hope you will listen to the whole video with John Piper and Eric Metaxas.
Oh: one other thing. You mentioned something about the unkind speech directed towards opponents of gay marriage.
This goes both ways, you realize. One commenter on MSNBC wrote:
Steve-452464
“If your a frickin gay you won’t have to worry about anything in 40 years you sick maggot cuz, you’ll all be dead from aids.”
People leave all sorts of comments that are not so nice … and often the story doesn’t even have to be about anything controversial. It could be about the weather, yet folks will say the most unbelievable things when they know they can remain anonymous and suffer no repercussions.
I wouldn’t take blog comments as a sign of being singled out for persecution.
Its not really “persecution” per say; (but it could come to that – arresting people for “hate speech” only because they say it is sin and wrong and that people can change and repent if they want to be free from their same sex desires and actions) – but it is shutting down good and scholarly Christian explanation of our position without the evil hatred side of folks like Phelps of Westboro, and the goofiness of many of the statements of folks like Pat Robertson. The Media and Liberal comedians contribute to the frustration by only showing the most negative and anti-intellectual proponents of guarding traditional marriage.
the comment by Steve- 52464 is indeed bad. But no one gives any respectability to that. But the media types and other side, when they are on TV or media, call us racists, homophobes, and bigots, even if they are kind and reasonable. The did that to Dan Cathy and Tony Perkins.
Thanks for your interaction James. You argue your points in the right way. Did you see my responses to you and Clare at the other post?
go there and look if you have not.
I did read your responses.
I don’t think your concerns about gay marriage opening the door to *any* type of marriage are warranted.
For example, just because men can marry women doesn’t mean men can marry women of any age. You must be 18 in most states. The law isn’t even a religious one: orthodox Jewish tradition permitted minors to marry and occasionally even permitted adult men to marry younger women. It’s a societal standard and guideline, but one that would require a great deal of effort and reason to change.
The laws against incest are based on cultural taboos (partially based on religion), it is true, but we legislate other things based on cultural taboos that have nothing to do with morality. It’s not legal to cook dogs and eat them in some states, even though it’s legal to kill and eat the much bigger cow. To make it illegal for a man to marry his sister only means you’re excluding one woman out of millions of women. He still has options.
Keeping gay marriage illegal means you’re giving gay men and women *no options* whatsoever. Sure, they could marry someone of the opposite sex, but would YOU marry a woman who was primarily interested in and attracted to her own gender and was only marrying you as “fire insurance”? Do you really suppose that would be a successful marriage?
The problem is you are using “same sex desires” as an identity. Biblically, we reject that as an identity. There is really no such thing as an inborn identity as “gay” or “Lesbian” or “bi-sexual” or “transgender”, etc. These are perversions and rebellions and mental and emotional troubles that have been allowed to be exalted to “natural identities” or “inborn characteristics”.
We can say they are people who struggle with same sex desires and attractions, but it is not an identity that one is “tapped in”. It is a perversion of the way you were made. If you are created male, then you are supposed to have sexual attraction to females.
The options are:
a. Be homosexual but keep your actions and activism in your own house and your own bedroom, without fighting for marriage and trying to force society to accept it as something that is ok. It is not ok, but you are free to do what you want in private, and you can set up contracts that will your property, etc. to your partner. (But in my opinion, no homosexual should be allowed to adopt children, that was a great mistake for society.)
b. You can repent of this sin and turn to Jesus Christ in faith and trust and spiritual growth, and find healing from these perverted desires and actions. “Perverted” is not meant as a personal insult, but an objective description of it.
“Biblically, we reject that as an identity.”
Question: is one’s religion an inborn trait (like skin color or gender), or is it “chosen”? What should the response of the government be towards those who opt for a religious affiliation that you believe to be false or heretical (such as Mormonism, Catholicism or others)? Should the government sanction the free exercise of these religions and acknowledge them via tax exemptions?
“You can repent of this sin and turn to Jesus Christ in faith and trust and spiritual growth, and find healing from these perverted desires and actions.”
Statistically, this is false. Even the most dedicated gay Christians who seek to “become heterosexual” have found little to no success. Alan Chambers of Exodus International is quoted as saying:
“The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction … The vast majority of people that I know will experience some level of same-sex attraction.”
This isn’t to say that one cannot live without sex. What seems clear is that one’s basic orientation does not change.
I didn’t mean that a former homosexual would never be tempted any more or have any more feelings of those past inclinations or desires. But Christ has the power to change people’s basic nature.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality [active or passive – the old word “effeminate” was for the passive homosexual who played the female role],10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
“were” is key! God has the power to change a person and give them a new heart. See also Ezekiel 36:26-27 – I will give you a new heart and take away your heart of stone and cause you to walk in my commandments.
An “orientation” is a man -made term. It is labeling something as “in born” and “hardwired”, as if God approves of it, and as somehow “natural” or “by nature” or “from creation”; etc.
I think his statement was unwise and some of it unbiblical. In my opinion, he should have said/written:
“The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction … The vast majority of people that I know will experience some level of same-sex attraction.”
That is the proper understanding of sin and temptation. Same goes for people who struggle with gluttony, anger, pride, jealousy, laziness, alcoholism, drug addictions, etc. In that sense, all sin is genetic – we inherited from Adam – Genesis 3, Romans 5:12; Psalm 51:4-5; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 13:23; 17:9; Psalm 58:3.
As a Christian, he should have left out the phrase, because it is an unBiblical category of understanding humans and men and women.
“experienced a change in their orientation or”
The way he describes desires and temptations is right; but the whole “orientation” thing is wrong from the start.
But Christ has the power to change people’s basic nature.
In case you may want to jump on this phrase as somehow indicating that same sex attractions are by nature and an orientation, etc. – let me clarify –
Everyone’s basic nature is “sinner”; everyone is broken sexually since the fall; everyone has some kind of perversion – most men lust for every pretty woman they see or get feelings of attraction to them, especially when they dress sexy and provocatively. (that is my problem, I confess) – and Matthew 5:28-30 and many other passages speak to that issue.
No Biblically informed Christian is saying we are better than you or any homosexual. Sexual fantasies, lusts, pornography, adultery, fornication (sex before marriage), prostitution – all of these things are wrong and sin. As are most divorces now a days.
Romans 8:19-25, especially verses 20-21, “futility”, “bondage to corruption”, “groaning” describes this brokenness as part of the fall of man:
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
The best option is repentance and trust in Christ – Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30-31; Romans 10:9-10; John 1:12
But, the second one – What’s wrong with the option of just living together and keeping it private and stop trying to force society to accept it?
The root of the whole thing seems to be trying to force endorsement of society as “ok” and even “good”, etc.