SEX IS NOT THE SAME AS LOVE; LOVE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEX

I was young once. I was certainly a bit more ignorant. So I listened as another young man told me about his experience with sex. Since I had yet to experience sexual intercourse, I was curious. Since I had no wish to admit my inexperience, I was also silent.

What did he have to say? Well, young men have a tendency to brag about such things, but he did not. We were friends, and there was no one else to hear. His experience disappointed him. He had found sex unpleasantly messy.

We make jokes about bodily fluids, but during sex we share them. This sharing is quite contrary to our upbringing. In our modern, clean, antiseptic world, we sanitize our living spaces and confine bodily fluids to trash cans, toilets, and biomedical waste containers. We know sharing bodily fluids with another is just a way to spread disease. Yet my friend had discovered that sharing bodily fluids is a large part of the sexual experience.

Since I have five brothers and sisters, I knew there is more to sex than just sharing bodily fluids. If sex was so unpleasant, what inspired my parents to have so many children? What had my friend done wrong? I did not know. It was many years before I began to understand.

My friend’s confusion — my own — was nothing new. Today our ignorance seems quite commonplace. Therefore, to inform the ignorant, I would like to share this dialogue.

‘You don’t get to make up your own Jesus’

By Everett Piper – – Sunday, January 7, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Facebook Post of the Week:

Piper: It’s not about gay or straight, it’s about the definition of what it means to be human. Even Gore Vidal said, “there is no more such a thing as a homosexual person than there is a heterosexual person, these are behavioral adjectives.” We are not defined by our desires. It’s about our behavior. It’s not about our being.

Allen: This is moronic. Jesus and God could care not about who loves who — of this I am sure. Loving the same sex is not a sin I will pray for your bigoted, hypocritical and misguided soul.

(continued here)

What had my friend done wrong? He had had sexual intercourse with a young woman he did not love. Instead of sharing himself — instead of appreciating the gift that young woman was giving him — both he and that young woman had engaged in a purely animal act. Since we are not animals, he had discovered what that young woman was sharing with him was repugnant. He could see only the bodily fluids. He did not see someone with whom he wanted to share life.

What is love?

John 15:13 New King James Version (NKJV)

13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

If we are not prepared to lay down our life for another, we most certainly do not have a great love for them. If we are not ready sacrifice for another person, we don’t love them. We can negotiate a deal — we can make a material exchange — but we cannot share what is in our hearts. Thus, sex without love is just an exchange of bodily fluids. Yet love, even without sex, is glorious. God is love.

60 thoughts on “SEX IS NOT THE SAME AS LOVE; LOVE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEX

Add yours

  1. Your take on love and sex is a hard sell to today’s youth after being exposed daily to Hollywood romance films and porno.

    It is a sorry shame that today’s youth will someday look back and realize how they were influenced and used in their lives by Hollywood gala or otherwise productions.

    The real issue is who or what spirit is influencing Hollywood?

    Read and discern the Bible and you will know the answer, in my opinion.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As near as I can tell, there have always been people in the entertainment with a yen for exhibitionism. Because we live in a fallen world, nearly every gift we have has been corrupted. Therefore, those with a talent acting, storytelling, playing music, singing, and so forth have to be careful. Otherwise, they will take what seems the easy way and cater to the baser natures of their audiences.

      What about the audience? Doesn’t the audience have a responsibility to avoid trash? Yes, but too many of us have not educated our children responsibility. That includes by example, it includes what we have allowed them to be taught at schools. Churches are supposedly responsible as well, but the Bible makes parents responsible for such things, not churches.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Excellent Tom—I think so often for the young—the glamour of sex, which is portrayed through Hollywood, is never ever like the actual real experience—one that is indeed messy and to some after the fact, like with the friend of your youth, gross….
    There is a reason why God gave such an intimate gift for the sharing of a committed married couple—as two to indeed share much more than just a “good time” and why am I hearing Jack Nicholson hollering “you can’t handle the truth” ??? As so many who are young truly can’t…..
    Oh and I gave you a shout out today over on my day’s post—it has to do with education and I thought immediately of you when I was putting it together…..

    Like

  3. This is well said,Tom.

    Recently I picked up a porn bot, they spam you with words trying to lure you into taking a peek at their pictures. Really hurtful words, that play off of a guy’s insecurity, his loneliness. Messing with your head, I’d call it. “Are you lonely? Does nobody understand you? I can make you feel alive.” Somewhere in the process of trying to extricate myself, it struck me as how hurtful this all was, how close it comes to sexual assault. It is psychological abuse,it is exploitative and predatory. Brain rape really. Kind of heartbreaking and tragic. I never understood that aspect of it, what some guys can experience, being misled, being told what they want desperately to hear, not because it’s true but because they are being manipulated. What a hurtful thing, what a powerful betrayal. Especially awful if you are already lost, already feeling down.

    People as bodily fluids or flat two-dimensional porn-bots. That’s not what God had in mind for us, that’s not who we are, and sex without love is kind of cruel and nihilistic. That is not our identity, that is not who we were designed to be.

    Like

    1. @insanitybytes22

      People as bodily fluids or flat two-dimensional porn-bots. That’s not what God had in mind for us, that’s not who we are, and sex without love is kind of cruel and nihilistic. That is not our identity, that is not who we were designed to be.

      That is taking my shallow thoughts to a far deeper level.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Yes, indeed Tom, sex and love are not the same thing. Fulfilling lust without love is not without victims just as all forms of greed and gluttony are not without victims, even when it is all between consenting adults.

    Assuming we all agree on this, it begs several questions:

    1. Who gets to judge what is acceptable sexual conduct between consenting adults assuming that the committed love that you describe is present?

    2. When should said consensual sexual conduct be just considered immoral and when should it be illegal?

    3. Should we allow people who are not truly in love to get “legally” married? Once married, should we allow them to get “legally” divorced?

    4. What are the differences between the marriage commitment that is sanctioned only by the state and the commitment that is sanctified by God through His Church on Earth?

    5. Should the State force the marriage sacrament on persons who are having sex without commitment? Should the Church? And alternatively, should the State deny the right to a “legal” marriage contract to persons that the Church judges as either morally (ie. marrying only for money) or physically (unable to actually procreate) incapable of making the proper commitment?

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      1. Who gets to judge what is acceptable sexual conduct between consenting adults assuming that the committed love that you describe is present?

      Well, it appears that wise old men and women, judges in black robes who can find words in our Federal and some state constitutions that no one else can see, have taken this responsibility upon themselves.

      2. When should said consensual sexual conduct be just considered immoral and when should it be illegal?

      I think the problem here is defining what constitutes consent. Have you tried asking any snowflakes this question?

      3. Should we allow people who are not truly in love to get “legally” married? Once married, should we allow them to get “legally” divorced?

      How can you tell who is truly in love?

      4. What are the differences between the marriage commitment that is sanctioned only by the state and the commitment that is sanctified by God through His Church on Earth?

      Each religious sect has its own beliefs about marriage. If you want to know what the God I worship thinks about marriage, please read the Bible.

      With respect to marriage, you can start here.

      Genesis 2:18-25 New King James Version (NKJV)

      18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

      21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

      23 And Adam said:

      “This is now bone of my bones
      And flesh of my flesh;
      She shall be called Woman,
      Because she was taken out of Man.”

      24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

      25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

      What about the state? Why does the state need to be involved in marriage? Until we seriously consider and answer that question, how do we know what we are trying to accomplish, whether our goal even makes sense, and what steps need to be taken to accomplish our goal?

      5. Should the State force the marriage sacrament on persons who are having sex without commitment? Should the Church? And alternatively, should the State deny the right to a “legal” marriage contract to persons that the Church judges as either morally (ie. marrying only for money) or physically (unable to actually procreate) incapable of making the proper commitment?

      When a woman has a child out-of-wedlock, she can force the man who impregnated her to pay child support. That is akin to shotgun wedding. Can’t you guess the reason why the government compels a man to pay child support?

      Since you know I support the First Amendment, why the questions about churches forcing people to get married or denying people the right to marry? Church membership is voluntary, not forced. Members in Christian churches participate help spread the Gospel and for fellowship. Christians support each others marriages through Biblical instruction and by providing moral support.

      In addition to reading the Bible and thinking about why the state needs to involve itself in marriage, here is another suggestion. Please consider the definition of marriage. If it is not a marriage, what is the point of calling whatever union suits our fancy a marriage? I can take ten pennies, stack them, and glue them together. Is that a dime? If you try to stick that ten penny stack in a vending machine, what do you think will happen?

      What makes a marriage sacred? Why do we as a society need to protect marriage as an institution, that is, why do each couple’s family, friends, and neighbor need to come together and provide support and encouragement? When the government protects marriage, for whose sake does it provide that protection?

      Like

      1. Tom, with regard to each of your answers:

        1. That’s not really a serious answer so much as complaint. SCOTUS didn’t proscribe sex or love so much as they protected each consenting adult’s freedom to decide for themselves from those you might call “busybodies” who wanted to stop them.

        2. Sorry, I don’t get your answer here other than just to throw in a faddish pejorative for effect.

        3. Exactly. How can “you”?

        4. Let’s assume that practically every American is familiar with that section of the Bible, and that other Christian denominations (yes, even Catholics) have biblical scholars at least as advanced as you. Let’s assume that we all share a common idea of what makes a marriage sacred to God. Let’s even assume that is similar to exactly your biblical interpretation. What is the difference between the State’s legal role in marriage and the Church’s sacred role?

        I can tell what I think the State’s role is based on my knowledge of the law. Yes, it is to enforce a commitment to the children of the marriage and to spousal support when there are reasons for this. Yes, it is to provide for an equitable distribution of property in the case of divorce. Yes, it is to provide, enforce and arbitrate a long list of rights and responsibilities that are automatically implied by the legal marriage contract. These rights and responsibilities are not listed on the marriage contract but they are contained in a record of juris prudence and state legislation that goes back centuries and includes everything from inheritance laws to medical authority.

        Given that, what is the difference between what is legal and what is religious?

        5. If you don’t think the government should enforce religious belief to make people get legally married then why do you think government should enforce religious belief to stop people from getting married? Your religious belief does not define it as a marriage – for you it’s like calling a rock an apple. Under the same logic, divorce does not actually dissolve a sacred marriage either, so divorce is also a misnomer. However, marriage is not just a religious term; it is a “legal” contract. Those legal contract rights and responsibilities can be defined at law and legal divorces can be granted. From a practical standpoint the have been done and they are being done everyday.

        I get that there is no clear and perfect distinction between religious morality and state law. I’m not so ideologically blind as to assume that we can drastically change the legal institution without affecting the religious institution and vice versa. That does not change the fact that to say that certain people cannot legally get married or have sex or get divorced strictly based upon a religious viewpoint is to have the state establish a religion. It is to deny the right to freedom to a legal contract based on one religion and thus to use the state to infringe on another person’s differing religious beliefs.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          You never said it, but you are obviously trying to argue for same-sex marriage. If you can somehow demonstrate I am being unreasonable, you think you can show you are right. Yet it is the LGBTQ crowd, Liberal Democrats, that are trying to force their beliefs upon others, not the other way around. Nobody is trying to force traditional marriage on anyone by forcing bakers, florists, and the like out of business.

          Consider your strategy here. Marriage is a word that means something. Has nothing to do two people of the same sex. Marriage refers to two people of the opposite sex, and that is important because only two people of the opposite sex can produce children. So what do you do? You muddy the waters. Instead of adding clarity, you try to destroy it. Even it you have to so much obscure the meaning a word until it becomes useless, you won’t stop.

          If I love my dog, and my dog loves me, can I “marry” it? Did you know the Emperor Nero “married” a handsome boy after he had him castrated? No doubt he loved that boy too. Sex perversion is not a new problem. It is an old one. It is just becoming respectable again.

          Even abortion is not new. If the ancient Romans did not want a child, it was legal to leave a newborn outside to die. The Roman did not believe those babies were human.

          If government exists to protect the rights of the people, then its primary role in marriage has to be about protecting the rights of children. The LGBTQ alphabet soup crowd has no business even being around children. Are some of them decent people? God knows, but their behavior is warped, and their relationships have nothing to do with marriage or children. It is just a pornographic fantasy to pretend otherwise.

          Like

        2. House of Mann, an erotic gay clothing line, now uses a nine year old transgender model for advertisement. Much like the Afghanistan Bacha bazi dancing boys. The child’s stage name is Lactatia. according to the media “his parents support it”….but I’ve never seen a father in the picture, just the mother.
          Conservatives who have stood up to this disgusting enterprise. They’ve rightly mentioned this is exploitive…and the response from liberals is essentially, “Conservatives are bullies”. At least they’re predictable.

          http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/08/erotic-gay-clothing-line-features-9-year-old-boy-dressed-in-drag-as-covergirl/

          You probably could’ve lived a happier life not knowing this is out there…but, sorry, it’s out there and seems pertinent to the topic so I thought I’d mention it. This is the sort of disturbing environment parents are up against now.

          There was a time when I was truly naive enough to believe homosexuals only wanted tolerance. I’ve learned an awful lot since. No tolerance about it, they’re pushing a poisonous agenda one step at a time. And they are fans of fatherlessness (unless the fathers either dress in drag or are openly and flagrantly homosexual). We have an elementary school in the area with 83 percent of the children have no father at home. A good portion don’t even know who their father is.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I should add, for clarity: “We have an elementary school in the area with 83 percent of the children have no father at home. A good portion don’t even know who their father is.”

          I know these statistics because they are attempting to find mentors for these fatherless kids at the base. People who can (in our case, military members) volunteer a couple of hours a week, more if feasible, to provide a positive roll model for those children. It’s a crushing reality and the result of political policies that have gone toward creating this situation.
          The worst thing is, the same folks who created this situation claim it is all out of “love for the children”.

          It’s madness. What happens is, habits form. That’s why a girl born into an abusive situation will typically find an abuser…and continue the cycle. Children from unwed mothers will usually go on to be unwed and have babies from multiple fathers too.
          We are our habits.

          I’ve heard the same said of love.
          A bishop (don’t remember his name) noted that a lot of marital problems happen when “love is no longer an adventure, but a habit”.
          I think this is very true, the reason the statement stood out to me and I remember it.
          In the context of matrimony, there is nothing more fulfilling and wonderful than establishing a “love habit” in one’s marriage. Far too few people do.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. And I should clarify again….
          “A bishop (don’t remember his name) noted that a lot of marital problems happen when “love is no longer an adventure, but a habit”.
          I think this is very true, the reason the statement stood out to me and I remember it.
          In the context of matrimony, there is nothing more fulfilling and wonderful than establishing a “love habit” in one’s marriage. Far too few people do.”

          Problems happen during the transition because people have become accustomed, in this age of instant “ME ME ME” gratification to believe that love is always supposed to be a form of “entertainment” (aka adventure). It’s all very new and exciting. Not to overstate the obvious, but if your spouse is still surprising you on the regular with his/her behavior ten years after marriage, you’re probably in an unstable situation. The transition to habit is natural, and good.

          Like

        5. @anon

          Thanks for your comments.

          Your reference to the formation of habits, especially during the time we are growing up is especially important. Unless we make every effort to raise children properly, we can easily slip back into barbarianism or worst, a state of degeneracy.

          Unfortunately, we cannot just pass laws and give children the moral upbringing they need. Such a responsibility is too important. We can only trust the people who love the children. That should be the parents. Therefore, when we have so many fatherless homes, that should alarm us greatly.

          Like

  5. I was talking about sex in general, but, because it was included in your post, yes I am referring to homosexuality as one form of consensual adult sexuality.

    Whataboutisms and broad derogatoriness seem to be the preferred distractions when someone does not have a real argument. What about beastiality? What about pedophilia? These things have nothing to do with a particular religious belief imposing that belief on consenting adults through the force of law. That is just being the exact form of busybody that you claim to find abhorrent when it come to imposing liberal moral views on economic problems through the force of government.

    I’m not arguing with your right to have a differing religious view and not have someone else’s religious view forced on you. That’s another issue. The question is legality, and you still have not addressed it. And if you can legally enforce a particular religious view through government in the case of homosexuality or premarital sex, why not divorce?

    Like

      1. @tsalmon

        Whataboutisms again? I heard Liberal Democrats have a new buzz word. Disagree with an idea? A relevant fact? Just a notion that you don’t have the right to what you want? No problem! Just say your opposition is spouting “whataboutisms”. Relevance doesn’t matter. What matters is having the latest in cool terms and expressions.

        I’m not arguing with your right to have a differing religious view and not have someone else’s religious view forced on you. That’s another issue. The question is legality, and you still have not addressed it. And if you can legally enforce a particular religious view through government in the case of homosexuality or premarital sex, why not divorce?

        No. You are not arguing or seriously debating. You are just demanding the right to have the government stifle the free exercise of religion.

        You say the question is legality. Well, our divorce laws used to be a lot stiffer, and that was because people took marriage more seriously. That was in fact because of their religious views. Children have a right to have two parents in their home.

        Since most states have relaxed their divorce laws (in the 1970’s I believe), I don’t think your concern about divorce, whatever it is, has been tested. Sort of dumb, anyway. All laws are based upon morals. Because of our Christian heritage all our laws used to be based upon Biblical morality. You don’t think so? That’s because you don’t know the Bible. Effectively, the same is true of homosexuality and to some extent premarital sex.

        The laws of every society are based upon shared moral values. So the founders of this nation created laws that matched their Christian heritage. Unfortunately when they put the government in charge of educating their children, the people of this country did not realize the problem it would create. They did not realize that they had just begun the process of secularizing the education of our nation’s children. They did not realize they had just created a system that would slowly undermine our nation’s values.

        Initially, education was a local concern, the province of small communities. Because the population grew and became urbanized, those small communities disappeared. Because power gravitates towards the central government, education gravitated towards state government and is now moving towards the Federal Government. As a result, most of our nation’s children are educated in large bureaucratic institutions over which parents have little control.

        Because our government is a secular institution, the Federal Government in particular, our government demands the exclusion of Christian content from education. Hence, a school system that once had a rich Christian curriculum no longer has any such thing.

        Because this process took many decades, people like you think this is just the way it is supposed to be, but it isn’t. Parents are supposed to be in charge, not politicians. In a republic, the People must establish the moral character of the nation. When the politicians can connive to dictate morality, the People lose control. We no longer have government by People, for the People, and of the People. Instead, we have whatever the elites can convince us is for our own individual good. In a degenerate society, who worries about what is good for their neighbors? And that degeneration is exactly what we are seeing today.

        What we are seeing today is a degeneration in the shared moral values of our society. The family in particular, is under attack. You don’t think it is deliberate? Read the Communist Manifesto.

        That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

        But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

        The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property-historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production — this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

        Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

        On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

        The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

        Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

        But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

        And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

        The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

        But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

        The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

        He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

        For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

        Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

        Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

        Marx, by the way, was a great fan of public education.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Your reply to tsalmon is spot on excellence Tom.

    Why and how government took over education, and dismissed religious morals in favor of secular whims and fantasies, in my opinion, needs to be addressed. It is a new time in Washington, perhaps a time to correct the misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Ggood timing and great post. I just added your post as a Source link in my post which will be published posted in a little while titled.

        King Solomon, Church and State Wall World Declaration.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Education is the root of all evil again. Nothing bad ever happened and we were a perfect Christian society until public education went and spoiled it all. You’re sort of a one trick pony on this, aren’t you good brother? Reductionism on reductionism.😏

    There is not straight line in something so complex as our thousands of years’ history of juris prudence, but the basic purpose of the law in this country is and has been to keep the peace of societ, not enforce anyone’s notion of Christian Sharia Law.

    Yes, divorce got easier. Why did it change? Aren’t you in favor of individual freedom?

    Easy no fault divorce has done more to break up families than any nonsense you can imagine about the evils of gay marriage, and yet you’re not screaming about the law allowing that freedom.

    If your religion says easy divorce is a moral abomination, then preach it, live it. Dont get divorced. If your religion says gay marriage is an abomination, don’t get gay marriages. No one is making you.

    Ultimately, the only real objection that can be offered to prevent the freedom to divorce or to marry who one pleases is religious (and there is some religious disagreement about both morality of divorce and of gay marriage).
    And yet you don’t see any inconsistency in being a moral busybody in inflicting what is basically one religious belief on your fellow citizens with regard to marriage and divorce, but not with regard to economic issues such as enforcing Christian charity? 🙃

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Why do Liberal Democrats attack their opponents so caustically? It is because they cannot make a logical argument for what they want to do. All you can infer is that because I am a busybody (supposedly) you can be a busybody because you want to be a nicer busybody.

      Same sex marriage is not marriage. No one can logically argue that it is. So advocates argue Christians must be busybodies because they are against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Supposedly, same-sex marriage is harmless and benefits the “couple”. Well, it is not harmless, and it doesn’t benefit anyone. Sex-sex marriage is just a sick oxymoron.

      When government does something, it should have something to do with protecting our rights. Same-sex “marriage” has nothing to do with protecting the rights of children or anyone else. It is about legitimizing sexual perversion. You don’t consider sodomy sexually perverse? I do and so do many others. What is the point of involving the people who detest such nonsense when they want nothing to do with it? Yet that is the consequence of forcing people to acknowledge that two people of the same sex can marry.

      Listen to you. You want the legal pretense of same-sex marriage. Then you pretend that that legal recognition has no consequence. That is a LIE! But you want it both ways.

      Instead of dealing with the consequences, all Liberal Democrat want to do is speak about the supposed sufferings of homosexuals and how it must end. OOOOOOOOHHHH we are such sorrowful victims! WE ARE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS! Government exists to give us whatever we want!

      Are there jerks who make fun of other people just because they are jerks? Yes, and they come in every color, creed, and sex, but two wrongs don’t equal a right. Homosexual jerks are just as bad as heterosexual jerks.

      If we want to protect our rights, then the LOGICAL thing to do is to keep the government small and limit its capacity to impose the “rights” of a group of jerks upon everyone else. Yet you won’t even admit that is an issue. You should know better. If you cannot point to a right that is being protected by government, not given by the government, then don’t pretend there is any necessity for what you propose. There isn’t.

      Like

  8. I don’t mean to be “caustic”. If you view “busybody” as a “caustic” term which stifles civil debate, then quit using it. My repeating your use of it above was exactly to demonstrate that such silly and generalized ad hominems degrade the debate. I’m glad you now seemingly agree. Now perhaps we can work on the caustic and unproductive effect that unsubstantiated dripping sarcasm has on civil debate.🤔

    Who said that gay marriage does not have “consequences”? Everything government does or allows has consequences. No fault divorce has had consequences. Getting rid of Jim Crow laws in the South had consequences. Allowing people to spend their earnings frivolously on legalized gambling or drink or extravagant consumerism has consequences. I’m saying that all these social consequences must be weighed against the rights of the individual to voluntarily do the right thing (not get divorced, not gamble, not be a glutton, and even not get gay married if it really is immoral) without state coercion. You constantly preach that it is not the job of the “nanny” state to enforce religious economic responsibilities to “the least of these” or even coerce individuals to provide certain public goods and services to the community, no matter what the drastic “consequences” the deprivation of those public goods and services may have to certain individuals and to the community as a whole. No, you say, damn the social “consequences”; it must be voluntary. I ask this sincerely and with all civility, you don’t see any logical inconsistency in this?

    On the other hand, I believe, as do the courts, that consequences should absolutely be weighed. However, as SCOTUS has historically reasoned, when it comes to certain fundamental rights, the governmental infringement must be looked at with “strict scrutiny” and the public consequences must be proven to be “substantial” and/or the infringement on the actual individual right must be insignificant. It’s the reason that the state can punish someone for yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and it doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment. “Consequences” are weighed at law constantly.

    What you and those arguing against gay marriage in court have never been able to prove is that the “consequences” substantially outweigh the freedom to make ones own choice.

    As for gay marriage not being “marriage” I’m not arguing that it isn’t a religious reality (even though I’m unconvinced that it can’t be); I’m saying that it is a “legal” reality, just as divorce is a “legal” reality even though it is denied as a religious reality (I think quite rightly) by my church.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      I did not attack you personally. Would you like me to cite some of your personal attacks on Donald Trump?

      I attacked your ideological beliefs. They are unsound, but all you and your party can offer in defense is gobbledygook. Busybodyism is the substance of Socialism.

      Subjects Liberal Democrats avoid.
      1. Trying to justify how we can rightfully call a same-sex “marriage” a marriage. Do you know what a “legal reality” is? It is threat to punish somebody with legal sanctions if they don’t obey the government. If I am a dictator, and I start calling the Jews a threat that needs to be disposed of, that is a legal reality. Or I can force People to acknowledge the “legal reality” of same-sex “marriage.”
      2. Trying to explain how we can trust politicians to “give us” our “rights” without corrupting our government. The same people we trust to protect our rights are also going to give us our “rights”? That is absurd. We already know they are going to use our “rights” to buy our votes. That includes forcing the People to acknowledge the “legal reality” of same-sex “marriage.”
      3. Trying to explain how politicians can “give” some people their “rights” without actually violating the rights of others. Where do these “rights” come from? That includes forcing people to acknowledge the “legal reality” of same-sex “marriage.”
      4. Trying to explain where the wisdom to “balance” the “rights” government gives some groups at the expense of the actual rights of other people is suppose come from. Who made you or the people you vote for God? Listen to the way you talk about Trump. Half the time at least you are not going to think the people in charge are qualified. That includes forcing people to acknowledge the “legal reality” of same-sex “marriage.”
      5. The 10th Amendment. The people we have elected have to violate their oath of office to do what you want them to do. That includes same-sex “marriage.”

      Tactics Liberal Democrats practice.
      1. Trying to get everyone to feel sorry for the “victim”. Like homosexuals.
      2. Calling privileges “rights” and “entitlements”. Like same-sex “marriage”.
      3. Straying off into ten directions. Admittedly, you are not as bad as some.
      4. Elevating feelings to the point of the absurd. Just because same-sex “couples” want to feel married doesn’t mean anyone has to take their feeling seriously.
      5. Diminishing the consequences. The consequences of empowering those who rule us don’t just pertain to one thing, like same-sex “marriage”. Every time we start promoting some “right” the government is supposed to give us we further empower our leaders. They are not suppose to tell us definition of marriage. Nature has already defined it. What other “legal realities” do we have to entrust to people nobody in their right mind would entrust if they did not have to do so?

      Like

      1. You go off in about 8 different directions with grievances of all kinds, and still manage to miss the point.

        Who says that you personally have to accept whether or not two other people are actually married? My church doesn’t accept the “legal reality” that people can have a no fault divorce. However, our moral compliance is not required. I don’t believe in no fault divorce so I don’t get divorced. You don’t believe in gay marriage so then don’t get gay married. However, just because I and my church don’t believe in no fault divorce, do I have the right to use government to force my religious beliefs in this regard upon others who hold differing religious beliefs about divorce? Is that not the definition infringement and establishment in the 1st Amendment?

        No one is forcing you to marry a guy Tom just as no one is forcing me to get divorced. I know that a big part of Trumpism these days is to claim to be aggrieved constantly but your only grievance here seems to be that you want the law to bless your condemnation and use the force of law to bring down your religious judgement of someone else’s sex practices.

        Why not bring legal stoning back for adulterous behavior while we’re at it? What did Jesus say about that practice?

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          The purpose of the marriage ceremony and the legal recognition of a marriage is to establish within the community and by law the bond that two adults of the opposite sex have formed. Marriage establishes a family.

          Who says that you personally have to accept whether or not two other people are actually married?

          You used the expression “LEGAL REALITY”. Legal recognition of a same-sex marriage establishes a “LEGAL REALITY”. If this “LEGAL REALITY” has no significance — is of no consequence to anyone — why bother with it? Because it doesn’t have any effect on anyone? And you are trying to make fun of someone with that? Have you figure out how to eat a cake and have it too?

          I listed the points you refuse to discuss. And what do you come up with? Ridicule that is dumb as a brick.

          You don’t believe in gay marriage so then don’t get gay married.

          You believe in gay marriage? I guess that means you want to marry a guy? Is that suppose to be my clever response?

          If you cannot debate seriously, why are you bothering? If you cannot logically defend your position, then it should be obvious to both of us that your attachment to your position is purely emotional. If so, that is your problem, and I have nothing left to say about it.

          When you bring up divorce, you are demanding that we compare apples and oranges. You are also being foolish. Since neither of us has paid child support or alimony, I suppose your lack of experience in this area is forgivable. However, since you are a lawyer I did not think I would be the one that has to point out that even as decadent as our society has become we still frown on divorce.

          Like

        2. I’ve tried to follow the argument here and am a little lost.
          It seems you are asserting that, as “no fault divorce” is a problem homosexual marriage cannot be? Or perhaps you are arguing one problem is greater so no one can object to one if they object to the other?
          Let me be clear here: We should have fault based divorce. There.
          No fault has most definitely resulted in some very poor societal outcomes.

          Earlier you mentioned other “immoral” activities like “gambling” and so forth. I’m not sure of the connection to marriage there. Gambling is recognized as a public menace, not a social “good”. That’s why it is regulated and taxed. Unlike marriage, which is recognized as social good (one of the ingredients that leads to stronger and more stable and happy families which leads to stable and happy communities, ect). Therefore marriage is incentivized.

          Same sex marriage legislation is about forcing a public declaration that same sex relationships are a public good.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. “When you bring up divorce, you are demanding that we compare apples and oranges. You are also being foolish. Since neither of us has paid child support or alimony, I suppose your lack of experience in this area is forgivable. However, since you are a lawyer I did not think I would be the one that has to point out that even as decadent as our society has become we still frown on divorce.”

    Neither one of us has been divorced, but only one of us has successfully sued a father for an increase in child support. Only one of here has actually studied and practiced marriage law. “Lack of experience” on the issue? Hardly.

    We frown on divorce and adultry so much that we elect presidents who unrepentantly, even proudly, do both. Ya, sure we do.

    Because we are talking about legal verses religious distinctions, I think divorce and adultry are apropos to any discussion of marriage, fidelity and sex. To my knowledge, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, but He had quite a bit to say about divorce and adultry. And yet condemnation of gay legal marriage, rather than the legalization of adultry and no fault divorce, is the cause celeb for certain elements of the religious Right. Unlike gay marriage, divorce and adultry are actual areas where the religious person is forced to participate. The law can force you to divorce your spouse no matter what your religion says. The law also won’t allow your business to discriminate against divorced persons. Why? Because the law grants them a legal “right” to a divorce.

    Furthermore, unlike unsubstantiated claims that gay marriage substantially harms the marriage institution and society as a whole, legalized no fault divorce, as well as decriminalized adultry and premarital sex, really provably do direct harm to the marriage institution and to society as a whole.

    It seems that if we want to be in the business of legally throwing stones, we would focus our limited pile of rocks on the worst offenders. On the other hand, maybe legalized rock throwing isn’t the best way to promote a religion of love. Maybe when condemnation is particularly a religious condemnation we should err on the side of personal freedom and voluntary compliance, even if that freedom is to violate God’s will. Tom, as you have said in other posts, God gave us this freedom, and the voluntary nature of our compliance is a basic Christian principle. I heartily agree with you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @tsalmon

      I have been trying to figure out why you insist upon conflating divorce with homosexuality. At this point it appears you think that just because our lawmakers have made one mistake that they should make a bunch of others. Why stop at sexually stupid things? Why don’t we just fire all our policemen, shut down the courtrooms, and empty our jails?

      To my knowledge, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, but He had quite a bit to say about divorce and adultry.

      The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is God. At the beginning of the Gospel that bears his name, the Apostle John referred to Jesus as the Word. The Bible is about Jesus. Because He inspired it, Jesus is the author of the entire work, not just the words the Bible records Him speaking.

      The law can force you to divorce your spouse no matter what your religion says.

      It is not the law the causes a divorce. Divorce occurs when one spouse refuses to keep their marriage vows. Whether they are legally divorce or not, when one spouse leaves another, if the other tries to force the fleeing spouse to have sex, that is rape. Awkward to prosecute, but rape is what it is.

      Like it or not, it makes no sense to use the law to force two people to stay together. Consider.

      Matthew 19:3-12 New King James Version (NKJV)

      3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

      4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

      7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

      8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

      10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

      Jesus Teaches on Celibacy

      11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

      When one or both of the partners in a marriage decide to divorce, there is not much the government can do about it. The problem is a hardness of heart. Government cannot make us love each other. God could, I suppose, but He doesn’t.

      Same-sex “marriage”, on the other hand, just requires the government to say: “No. That does not fit the definition of a marriage.” And you have yet to make any effort to show that it does.

      Does homosexuality harm society? Yes. Just the mere act of sodomy poses health problems, and that should be blatantly obvious to anyone. Before you start spouting more nonsense, you need to study this issue with more care.

      I wrote a series on this issue in 2010. Starts here => https://familyallianceonline.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/homosexuals-in-our-military-the-health-consequences/

      Since I have not updated the series, I expect many of the links are broken, but it is a place to start. Also, in our politically correct world, I would not be surprised if some the documents are now buried. People do that, as Al Gore would say, with inconvenient truths.

      Like

  10. @anon

    When we “legalize” any vice, whether it be gambling, adultry, no fault divorce or just plain selfish greed, to some extent we make a public declaration of some sorts. (One of the most popular forms of gambling in the country is state run lotteries).

    Howevrr, in a liberal society (and I mean that term in the classic sense), we give people the maximum freedom possible to make even the wrong choices. And in the case of no fault divorce and gay marriage, there is a good deal of disagreement as to whether each is indeed a wrong choice, disagreement even within the Christian community. I will defend your personal religious choice not to divorce or not to marry a girl, but don’t you see that, because that these are particularly religious views, we should not use the law to impose them on people who have differing religious beliefs?

    Like

    1. I’ll take these two statements and answer them together:
      1)When we “legalize” any vice, whether it be gambling, adultry, no fault divorce or just plain selfish greed, to some extent we make a public declaration of some sorts.
      (snip)
      2) I will defend your personal religious choice not to divorce or not to marry a girl, but don’t you see that, because that these are particularly religious views, we should not use the law to impose them on people who have differing religious beliefs?

      To your first point, note that homosexuality is legal.
      Legalizing homosexuality did not make it a sanctioned activity.
      Long ago, our society viewed homosexual acts as a crime. Over the course of 40 years or so a lot of folks have campaigned to make it lawful. They succeeded.

      Now then campaigned to force their moral view that it is equal to hetersexual sex as a moral good on the rest of us, and it should be a sanctioned and incentivized activity. The one’s attempting to shove their morality down the throats of others are the gay activists and their allies.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It is worth noting that civil unions can be formed via private contracts from the people who claim to be disadvantaged if their activity isn’t sanctioned as a public good.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @anon

        You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I don’t agree with your assertion that you are not totally unaffected by the legitimacy that legalization gives to gay marriage. It will indeed be increasingly harder for those who disagree with same sex marriage to express their religious condemnation as legalization normalizes the institution. The problem is, even if, for the sake of argument, I completely agreed with the religious point of view that gay marriage is an abomination before God, I still have to come down on the side of allowing gay marriage. Why? Well it is a matter of balancing competing harms and liberties:

        1. On the one hand, your right to have what is essentially mostly a particular religious point of view enacted into law verses the right not to have one religious view enforced on those who differ.
        2. On the one hand, your right to freely condemn a perceived evil verses the gay person’s right to be left alone to love, have sex with and contract to marry whom he or she pleases.
        3. On the one hand, the actual rational negative effect the legalization will have an straight people and society as a whole verses the positive effect that promoting liberty has.

        Like

        1. “On the one hand, the actual rational negative effect the legalization will have an straight people and society as a whole verses the positive effect that promoting liberty has.”

          I must state again the obvious distinction between making something “legal” and sanctioning the activity and incentivizing it as a public good.
          On the one end, homosexuality might be illegal and the private activity strictly punished. In that case one might make the argument that private liberty outweighs the gains of curbing it via legislation.
          One cannot reasonably argue, on the other hand, that publicly sanctioning and incentivizing an activity (via tax advantages, et al) is in the interest of “private” liberty. This should be particularly obvious when we’re speaking of fundamentally altering a traditional institution that has been in place, and considered an integral part of society and community, for millennia.

          Like

        2. @tsalmon

          Must be wonderful to be so above it all.

          Why don’t we:

          Help addicts get their drugs? Wouldn’t that help reduce crime and prostitution?

          Allow child marriages? If the pedophiles want to go to poor nations and bring back their “spouses”, would that alleviate some of the starving in this world?

          Allow polygamy and polyandry? If that is what people want to do, where is the harm?

          Allow minors to use alcohol and pot? Then their parents can monitor them and show them how it is done.

          Allow human sacrifice? If the victims are willing, raised from birth to accept the glory of their death on alter to their god, what is the problem?

          Give equal credence to the theory the earth is flat?

          Like

    2. @tsalmon

      You are using state-run lotteries to justify same-sex “marriage”? You do realize our politicians justify this legalized vice by claiming that the profits are used to fund education. If that doesn’t tell you what those people think of public education…….

      Your idea of a Liberal society and the Founders are as far apart as the east is from the west. Don’t you grasp the difference between allowing people the freedom to make mistakes if they are willing to bear the consequences of being wrong and enabling stupidity and sinfulness?

      There is a difference be

      Like

      1. Actually, I brought up state run lotteries to show that I understand and sympathize with anon’s basic premise that substantial harm to society can and should override personal liberty, but you have to prove substantial harm first. And in the case of a fundamental rights, such as the right to marry and the right to not have someone else’s religious beliefs imposed upon you, that proof of harm must be even more substantial. The criticism of gay marriage is a peculiarly religious criticism, and also critics of gay marriage have been unable to give much rational evidence that the harm is that great.

        I wrote a paper on legalized gambling in law school for a class on the economics of the law. To my surprise, economists were in amazingly concerted agreement that legalizing gambling, especially state run lotteries, was very harmful. So ya, I’m with you. It’s a dumb way to find schools.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          When something has been labeled as a vice for thousands of years, there is a reason why that is so. Instead of relying on the news media, perhaps it would help if you wrote a paper on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

          One of the thing I have discovered as I blog is that it forces me to think about what I read.

          Like

  11. “When something has been labeled as a vice for thousands of years, there is a reason why that is so. Instead of relying on the news media, perhaps it would help if you wrote a paper on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.”

    LOL. I’ve basically just done so here.

    I don’t know about the evil media. Perhaps you should start by reading the holdings of a majority conservative Supreme Court.

    Like

    1. I don’t think the Supreme Court has been around for thousands of years. I also think it quite obvious Framers of the Constitution would not approve of their abusive use power. The notion that there is a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” base upon what Framers wrote 200 years ago is ridiculous. If that is what you been reading, you need to do some research of your own.

      Consider is that 2000 years ago the Greeks and Romans did not label same-sex relationships as taboo. Because of the Bible the Jews thought opposed same-sex relationships, but there relatively few Jews.

      Christians opposed sex outside of marriage, and those Christians established what we now call traditional marriage. In the process of overthrowing the idols the Romans and the barbarians worshiped, they also managed to convince almost everyone that sexual relationships were proper only within the confines of traditional marriage. That in and of itself was a highly revolutionary idea. Yet because traditional marriage works relatively well, the people accepted it and supported it.

      Like

  12. Lots of institutions have been around thousands of years that we don’t agree with in the US today (child brides, slavery and polygamy come to mind). But that is once again sort of besides the point. No one in the case was arguing for getting rid of marriage. They were simply arguing for recognition of marriage between same sex partners. The best arguments against this are the ones that you are making – basically religious ones. So that brings us back to the state unconstitutionally imposing one religious viewpoint.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      You are not getting rid of marriage, just trying to make it impossible to properly define.

      I have already brought up plenty of issues you have not addressed. Your basic position is that same-sex marriage is a right because YOU don’t see the harm.

      That is problem with all government-given rights. The are all defined and justified that way.

      Southerners enslaved blacks because they refused to see the harm. That’s why government-given “rights” are so wretched. Because we often don’t have the wisdom to see and acknowledge the harm, we have no business forcing some people to give to other people what they don’t want to give.

      Because the rights of children and the parental rights of their mothers and fathers deserve legal protection, our government licenses traditional marriage. You have no reason that even comes close for justifying same-sex “marriage”. In fact, you just have a bunch of twisted excuses for unconstitutionally distorting the law. That by itself should be enough to alarm a lawyer. Moreover, your best excuse for same-sex “marriage” is what’s the harm? Well, why don’t you try figuring out what homosexuality involves? What are the health concerns? What are the ethical issues? What does calling something “marriage” that clearly is not do to our language? It is a lie from the get-go.

      Like

  13. I’m not giving you “my” reasoning, Tom; I’m basically explaining the reasoning that the Court historically uses, that it uses for all constitutional cases involving fundamental rights, and that it used in other marriage rights cases such as Loving vs. Virginia. This is not about “me”. I’m not even gay. (Gratefully, I’m just not that interesting or aggrieved in any way).

    “we have no business forcing some people to give to other people what they don’t want to give.”

    As I said before, I understand, sympathize and acknowledge this argument. It was the same sort of argument that was made in the Loving case – people should not be forced to acknowledge interracial marriages, something that many otherwise moral and religious people in Virginia sincerely believed at the core of their being was morally wrong. They made the same argument that it would harm the children of the marriage. Did it? Perhaps. but, as in this case, Virginia simply could not substantially demonstrate that the harm caused was substantial enough or that the interracial marriage that the disapproving people of Virginia was forced to acknowledge overcame the Loving’s fundamental right to be married.

    Just as in the Loving case, these cases involve real people with real stories. I empathize with your position. Not too long ago I might have made the same arguments that you are making. Two things changed: (1) I studied the Constitution and learned constitutional reasoning; and (2) I’ve tried to understand and empathize with the sincerely held positions of people on all sides.

    Even if the other side is wrong, and the Court’s reasoning was unsound, we have to open our hearts to their sincere ignorance and understand how the Court reasons before we can mount a convincing argument in opposition.

    Like

    1. A few other issues you say that I have not addressed:

      1. Legal Definition of Marriage. I thought that I had. Nevertheless, you will have to first explain how your marriage has become less legally defined since gays started marrying? I’ve been married to the same woman who has tolerated me for going on 38 years. For better and for worse, it seems about the same, both legally and religiously, as it was before Bruce and Steve got to “enjoy” the same institution.

      2. Children. Legal marriage has many rights and responsibilities besides just protection of children: inheritance rights, property distribution rights, medical power of attorney rights, and many more. Besides, in case you haven’t heard, modern medicine and the law allows same sex couples to have children whose rights are still best protected through a legal marriage.

      3. Sex. As you said in your post, it’s a messy business in any event. All forms of promiscuous sex carry the risk of STDs. The best counter to STD’s is fidelity to a single partner in a committed monogamous relationship (ie. marriage). As for the types of sex that you may disapprove of and find unnatural, you do know that heterosexual couples practice all the same forms of sex that gay couples do, don’t you? Do you want to invade their bedrooms too? Nuff said about that.

      Hope that about covers it brother.

      Like

      1. @tsalmon

        1. Legal Definition of Marriage. Whoa! I did not say legal definition of marriage. Nature defines marriage, not the law. The fact this definition is in the Bible does not make it any less valid.

        Think about this.

        Genesis 1:26-30 New King James Version (NKJV)

        26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

        29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

        And it was so. Doesn’t this passage tell us more about what is than how it came to be?

        2. Children? Technology has not changed anything. The union of two people of the same sex still does not produce children. Technology just makes it easier to delude ourselves. Given the nature of the “couple”, a same-sex “couple” will be totally incompetent to model the role of either the father or the mother. So why would we want to encourage two people of the same sex to have children? Where is the need for this experiment? How does it benefit children?

        3. Sex. As Jesus pointed out, we would be better off celibate, but very few of us can do that. Because marriage is sacred, and we cannot be trusted with this gift, we would be better off refusing it.
        How sacred is marriage? The Bible uses marriage to illustrate the nature of the bond between Jesus Christ and His church. When it works, marriage is very good, but as you no doubt already know, it requires much work and sacrifice.

        Homosexuals argue that their sexual confusion is genetic. That is, they are born as homosexuals. Effectively, they justify themselves by claiming they are helpless to control their inclinations. Using this supposed fact as an assumption, even though it is the focus of their own argument, it makes no sense to call sexual union between two people the same sex a “marriage”. Because nature “designed” two people of the opposite sex to complement each other, not two people of the same sex, homosexuals have biology working against them, not for them. Whatever the reason, their so-called marriages don’t last. So it is that when society endorses same-sex relationships it is just promoting fornication and the spread of STD’s, and that’s foolishness!

        Like

        1. So once again, Your entire argument is peculiarly religious and semantics.

          Your biblical argument is even denominational, but even if it were not, it does not withstand the 1st Amendment’s establishment and infringement clauses.

          The semantics argument is even more frivolous as you still are unable to show how you and your marriage are substantially harmed by the expansion of the definition.

          That marriage is strictly for procreational sex defies the reality that people do get married where one or both parties are unable to procreate, and people also marry and stay married long past the age of procreation as a couple. With modern birth control, married couples may choose to have sex without procreation. Sex renews bonds of affection that affirms the marriage contract.

          Finally, you assert that gay marriages don’t last in higher numbers thaan opposite sex marriages, but you give no authoritative data. However, even if you had data, what would it prove in so short a time? If a higher incidence of divorce were the reason to not allow marriage, then straight marriages would have been banned long ago.

          This was the problem with what was presented before the Court – lots of broad assertions that were peculiarly religion based but no actual proof of substantial harm to those wanting to ban gay marriages.

          Like

        2. @tsalmon

          I suppose in your world quoting the Bible is a legalistic sin. Don’t particularly care. Genesis 1:26-30 states what is. Self-evident truths.

          Men and women are made in Gods’ image. We are thinking creatures. We know the difference between right and wrong. We are male and female. When compared with any other creature, we have dominion over the earth, and we have been fruitful and multiplied.

          Unfortunately, Genesis 1:26-30 predates the Fall. So we live in a fallen world.

          When we design something, we design it for its primary intended purpose. Do some people use the things we design for other purposes? Yes.

          Similarly, even though marriage is not our creation we use the marriage relationship when we engage in relationships that do not produce children. However, this is done out of respect for the institution, not to subvert it.

          So it is the couples who may not intend to have children marry. Because they could produce children, without marriage their relationship is seen as highly irresponsible. Even the elderly usually marry when they live together because to do otherwise would be to set a bad example for the young.

          What about same-sex couples? Are their “marriages” a sign of respect for the institution? No. If you believe that, you are kidding yourself. If a man married a dog, child, or seven women, would that be a sign of respect for the institution of marriage? At best, what any of these “marriages” would be is opportunistic. As it is, same-sex “marriage” is not a “legal reality”; it is a fantasy that is legally enforced.

          Like

        3. “That marriage is strictly for procreational sex defies the reality that people do get married where one or both parties are unable to procreate, and people also marry and stay married long past the age of procreation as a couple.”

          The fact that people who cannot produce children in every marriage does not indicate that children (and the corresponding familial connections) aren’t the primary reason for state sanction of the marriage contract. Of course it is. Per the “Love” verdict, the demographic represented in that case is a key demographic that rejects the comparison, and finds it insulting.
          I was required to get a rubella vaccine when I applied for a marriage license. Why do you think that was? Your argument would support the claim that there is no basis in anti consanguinity laws either. If a man can marry a man, why can’t he marry his brother or sister?

          Liked by 1 person

        4. The courts were extremely arbitrary about defining same-sex “marriage” as a right. Suddenly, state legislature could not regulate something they had been regulating for hundreds of years just because some unelected judges decided they could not.

          Like

        5. “Suddenly, state legislature could not regulate something they had been regulating for hundreds of years just because some unelected judges decided they could not.”

          The Loving case, used as a precedent, is particularly annoying. I’m sure it’s hard to look down from the Ivory tower to see why us simple folk might take issue with: “Hey, if a white man can marry a black women…then, by golly men might as well be able to marry men too!”
          Case in point they married when she became pregnant…so whatever arguments might theoretically apply against inter-racial marriage being bad for the children are nullified when bastardy would be worse.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. @tsalmon

      First you are grateful you are not a homosexual. Then you insult blacks by comparing same-sex marriage with interracial marriages.

      Race is not a behavioral issue. It is demonstrably a genetic issue, and most would observe that the differences between individuals far exceeds the differences between the races. What has confused the matter is that culture and race usually have a high correlation. Since many people see their own culture as superior, they often see other races as inferior.

      Homosexuality is a behavioral issue. No one can demonstrate otherwise. Even if the inclination towards homosexuality could be demonstrated to have a genetic basis, because we are human beings made in God’s image, we still have a choice. We don’t have to engage in fornication, which messes people up both physically and emotionally.

      As to the Supreme Court. The courts had no legal basis for overturning existing laws. You know it, and I know it. When the courts over time and over a series of unrelated cases construct a supposedly logical chain of reasoning, they risk creating the legal equivalent of a Rube Goldberg machine. People like you may be able to see and admire the clever twists and turns, the artful devices and contraptions, but people like me just look at the Constitution. We expect decisions from the Supreme Court to square both with precedent and with the Constitution.

      Since the decision on same sex marriage does not square with the Constitution, people like me wonder why the Supreme Court saw such a crying need to endorse sodomy and such? We wonder what dung hole they pulled that decision out of?

      The Supreme Court has an obligation to uphold the spirit of the law. When the courts start using the law to engage in social engineering, that is legalism. That is what Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. Instead of making their obedience to the Bible about the glory of God, they glorified themselves. Instead of upholding the words of the Preamble, too many judges on the Supreme Court are using the Constitution to foist their own views on the rest of the country. Instead of serving the nation, they are trying to rule it.

      Like

      1. Tom,

        You make broad assertions and accusations about constitutional law that are not based in actual knowledge of the law or its history. This seems to be based less in facts and logical legal reasoning than it is in outrage, outrage that the decision in this particular case does not conform within the closed loop of your particular religious ideology.

        You think that I don’t understand your reasoning, but I get it. The foundations of truth for me are also religious and ideological, but I don’t believe in closing the loop. An infinite God is bigger than anybody’s small circle of religious, rational or metaphysical knowledge. People have done hateful things based upon sincerely held religious dogmas. Our job is to figure out how best to fathom an infinite God’s will starting from the humility (that you have yourself argued) that perfect understanding and compliance is impossible. I think we both agree, however, that God has told us to love and all judgement must begin and end with compassion and love. Love is Infinite and true, although our small understanding of its infinite power, as well as our power to love, is finite and evolving. This is why we sin; our fallen nature causes us fail to love as perfectly as we should. This is why we all need Christ’s redemption – we cannot do this on our own.

        From a theological and metaphysical viewpoint, you have made good arguments that other authorities in these areas disagree with. Since neither you nor those authorities can claim an absolute knowledge of the infinite mind of God on this subject, it should make us humble about defaulting to absolutist outrage and condemnation. I’m am not condemning your religious position that homosexuality is always sin. I don’t claim to know for sure, but I find your arguments unconvincing.

        On the other hand, I think that we can both agree that the metaphysical origin of justice is Love, including its manifestations in mercy and compassion, and not in hate with its manifestations of condemnation and dogmatic prejudice.

        We have both made our best arguments, whether or not we each have chosen to fully understand each other’s arguments. We are now circling back to repeating the same arguments in the hope the other person will finally understand. We are therefore at an impasse. The best that we can do as loving Christians at this point is to amicably agree to disagree. Be assured, however, that I will continue to contemplate and study your position for greater enlightenment. I still have much to learn.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          Broad assertions?
          😆

          Since most of the Federal budget is spent outside what the Constitution authorizes, I think I can be forgiven for making broad assertions. Just show me where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to spend money on health, education and welfare programs.

          Do I think you don’t understand my reasoning? No. I have said you do. Some years back I wrote this post => https://citizentom.com/2008/07/07/i-stand-corrected/. When we do something wrong, what is one of the things that make it wrong? Don’t we have to know it is wrong? Read the post.

          As James Madison observed, men are not angels. So we need a government to keep us from exploiting each other. Unfortunately, when we create a government, we also have to be careful that we don’t allow those who would exploit us to get in control of the government. What further complicates the problem is that any of us can be tempted by power. In addition, as if the preceding were not enough, each of us can be tempted to elect people who offer us other people’s money. So it is that the checks and balances in the Constitution just delayed the inevitable.

          Have I said anything you didn’t already know? I doubt it. You are at least as well educated in these matters as I, probably more so. So what is the difference? Perhaps it is the fact that when I went NASA and saw how the Space Shuttle program was being run I was heartbroken. Our government was trying to launch Socialism into space and failing miserably. So it is that when Ronald Reagan took NASA out of the business of launching commercial and military satellites I cheered. I walked away from NASA and never looked back.

          What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? What you would like to believe is that some Christians want to force their view of marriage on everyone else. As I have explained and explained and explained, that is just not true. And I believe you know it is not true.

          Same-sex “marriage” is plainly not marriage. Government does not have any good reason to license same-sex “marriage”. It does not solve any problems or protect anyone’s rights. It just puts us in the position of endorsing perverve sexual relationships, including absurdities like sodomy.

          You feel sorry for homosexuals? Well, that is your prerogative, but you really don’t have the right to force others to adopt your feelings.

          Like

  14. http://basicconceptuality.blogspot.com/2016/06/when-all-that-you-need-is-love_3.html

    The above link is about all the different emotions and stages one goes through when he or she falls in love … Including the steps, you should take care of while talking to a crush and lastly it concludes with the paragraph that deals with the re-ignition of love in the relationship.

    the link below is about sex education and masturbation it concludes with the myths and real concerns about infertility in men…

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Musings Of An Imaginary Billionaire

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Christians in Motion

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: