A group of judges took it upon themselves to re-define marriage in Iowa. Within the year, a new definition was given to the Holy Family in my neighboring town of Cedar Falls, IA., when two women posed with Baby Jesus in their congregation’s “living” Nativity.
We used “the youngest baby in the congregation to play the role of Jesus,” said Rev. Linda Butler, pastor of St. Timothy’s United Methodist Church in Cedar Falls. “The parents just happened to be two women.”
“What we emphasized was that this was two parents,” she said, “and this is our baby and this is our story.” Butler continued, “It does fit so well biblically,” noting that Jesus had a human mother, but Joseph was not the Savior’s actual father. “If He was born of a virgin, then Joseph is not the father. He’s not part of the conception.”
In an interview with WND (WorldNetDaily), Butler explained that her church welcomes all sexual orientations and gender identities. In his article for WND, Joe Kovacs quoted from Butler’s sermon of December 26:
“In the midst of this Christmas joy,” she said from the pulpit, “when God appears to us in human form, the gospel reading reminds us . . . we have to shout at church actions . . . that do not affirm God’s holy work among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We have to shout [that] the government shifts money away from the prevention of AIDS and HIV to abstinence-only policies . . . We have to increase our efforts to strengthen LGBT youth who come out, and are thrown out of their families so depression and suicide do not become their modus operandi. We have to advocate against local schools . . . that have attempted to eliminate books on multi-dimensional families from curricula and libraries.”
Kittredge Cherry, who calls herself a lesbian Christian author and minister from Los Angeles, promotes her own style of “gay” Nativities on YouTube. “What if the child of God was born to a lesbian couple or a gay couple? Because, after all, love makes a family.” Cherry admitted, “Obviously this is not about historical accuracy, but I believe that [it is] true to the spirit of the Christmas story in the Bible: God’s child conceived in an extraordinary way and born into disreputable circumstances. Love makes a family . . . including the Holy Family.”
God’s Word, the Bible, never once describes or mentions same-sex “marriage.” The opposite is true. The Old Testament, rich with the history of civilization, records warnings against homosexuality, calling it an “abomination” and a “sin.” God’s Word in the New Testament is consistent. Romans 1:26-27 explains that the “unnatural relations” and “shameless acts” of sodomy bring dire consequences.
Ms. Butler doesn’t want depression and suicide to become the modus operandi of young people. Nor do I. But, for that not to happen, two things must take place.
First, we have to expose the modus operandi of those who deceive young people. GLSEN and other LGBT advocates work feverishly to mentor girls and boys because, as Dan Savage (founder of the “It Gets Better” anti-bullying campaign) writes, “. . . Gay activists want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality” because “our future depends on it.” (Salon magazine) Daniel Villarreal is just as candid as Savage in his article that appeared in the homosexual blog Queerty in May. He wrote, “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach and expose children to queer sexuality.” So who, Ms. Butler, is putting young people at risk for depression and suicide? And, for what reasons?
Second, God loves all of His creation. Each one is precious in His sight. In a fallen and sinful world, however, we struggle against our own passions. We desire to do the things we shouldn’t and fail to do the things we should. But, once again, God’s love appears for our benefit. In Jesus Christ, we have an advocate before the Father. In Jesus, we find strength to leave dangerous ways behind and, with the help of caring parents and community, move patiently forward on a safer and more hopeful journey. God is not cruel. He does not create people to be homosexual or lesbian and then laugh because they don’t “fit.” Can’t procreate. Are at higher risk for anal cancer and HIV/AIDS. No! God wants all of us — those tempted by homosexual or heterosexual sins — to practice self-control. Turn away from the cliff of despair and toward new beginnings. Leave old ways behind and shed burdens at the foot of the Cross.
Ms. Butler, we prevent HIV/AIDS by helping people abstain from sex apart from real marriage. We show compassion not by tolerating harmful behavior and calling it “good,” but by involving ourselves in the lives of young people and leading them away from deception, predators and profiteers. Young people rarely ask to be restrained. But, responsible adults do it anyway – for the sake of the boy or girl. As a Methodist in your position, Ms. Butler, you serve your people best with God’s Word rather than improvised words of your own.
And, Ms. Cherry, contrary to what you may think, love doesn’t make a family. God makes a family. He uses the love of a man for his wife in the procreational act of sex to bring new life into the world. That is a family. In His Book, it always has been. Always will be.
My appreciation to Joe Kovacs and WND, 8-5-11
Ezerwoman's Blog 
Sexual Menu?
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged children, faithfulness, future of marriage, generations, harm, infidelity, Iowa, man, Mercatornet, monogamy, New York, parenting, same-sex marriage, sexual menu, social trends, suffering, woman on July 16, 2011| Leave a Comment »
I disagree. So does Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet. In his article of July 11, he asks: “Anything else on the menu?”
He offers three reasons why the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will, indeed, affect our culture. All come from authors featured in the New York Times. First, Michael Cook notes the commentary of Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. She confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? Cook quotes professor Franke, saying as far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security.”
“One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships?” Cook asks. “How long is the menu?”
Cook offers a second reason why legalizing same-sex “marriage” will impact society by highlighting another article in the Times by Ralph Richard Banks. Banks is a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay “marriage”? Banks “puts his money on polygamy and incest” because legal prohibitions on either practice are losing strength. Society forbade them in the past because they were seen as “morally reprehensible;” therefore, society felt “justified in discriminating against them.” I follow Banks’ reasoning. Just as homosexual advocates are working hard to shift our thinking and normalize the behavior God calls a sin, so will advocates of polygamy and incest.
Two more behaviors, Cook notes, are added to the “menu of [sexual] options.”
The third reason why legalized same-sex “marriage” will have a domino affect on the culture is voiced by Dan Savage. The Times describes Savage as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist.” He is syndicated in at least 50 newspapers. Here’s what Cook writes about Savage. “Savage, who claims to be both ‘culturally Catholic’ and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. ‘And it’s been a disaster for marriage,’ he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling — as long as partners are open about it.”
Cook continues, “Traditional marriage — well, actually real marriage — is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry ‘for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.”
Cook believes that legalization of same-sex “marriage” will most assuredly “affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now . . . it will be one of a number of options . . . they will have different expectations . . . marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.”
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” in New York say it’s good for marriage. Cook concludes:
“In a way, they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”
Amen.
Mercatornet: Navigating modern complexities
Check it out!
Read Full Post »