Tag Archives: marriage

What Does Chastisement Look Like?


From Romans:

chastisement18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.


Reading this gives an interesting view of Chastisement.

I think our tendency in reading this is to focus on verses 26-32 and think about these things in terms of the target of God’s unhappiness with us – as the source of God’s wrath.   And certainly, these actions are noted as sinful and depraved so there is some element of truth to that.

Often enough, we see lamentations of the world around us – its immodesty and impurity, the continued degradation of social norms that were previously founded on Christian principles, but are now redefined by secular humanism, relativism, and liberal progressivism.   We view all these things and think that, surely, chastisement cannot be far behind.

What we are missing, I think, is that these things are chastisement.

Reading above, the real sin that brought on chastisement is:

  • those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
  • for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him
  • they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.
  • Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.


OK, so the last bullet point is a bit archaic, but the modern equivalence of it is money, self, and power.    It is also anything we spend our time on that detracts us from God and the responsibilities He has given us.   To some extent, we are all likely guilty of that.

A spiritual social decay does not start with sexual perversion or confusion.   It starts with a much more subtle turning from God.   It first starts by moving God out of the public square.   By discouraging prayer.   By being ungrateful.   By considering your own personal needs before the needs of others.   By greed.   By turning Sunday into a day spent on yourself with maybe some little sliver of time for God, or maybe not.

At some point, the relationship with God changes, but this change is a disaffection of the real valid relationship that we should have and becomes something of a fantasy.   When this becomes our own pervasive reality, we’ve lost our way.

Pretty soon, this whole thing morphs into either an unbelief, or some weird belief that what we do doesn’t really matter because God loves us and that’s that.   Our own “wisdom” in assessing our relationship with God is borne of just that – our own wisdom – and is not a reflection of the reality of what Scripture has to say, what the Church teaches is true, or from any study of the wisest of Saints that went before us.   We decide that God is Who we want Him to be.

This is the real sin that separates us and invites chastisement.   The question is, what does chastisement look like?

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Notice that in Romans 1, we don’t get into the sins of impurity until after the “Therefore.”    The chastisement God sends us is not typically fire and brimstone.   It is ourselves apart from God.   Until this time, Paul seems to be saying that God recognizes that we are weak and protects us against ourselves.   He knows what brings us emptiness, heartbreak, desolation, and loneliness.   He doesn’t want that for us.   So He helps us, blesses us, gives us the grace to deal with many of life’s temptations and disorders.   He loves us.

But when we do not recognize any of this, and we are ungrateful for it, this is a sin against the very goodness of God Himself.   When we decide that God can be secondary in our lives, we are not loving God back.   The more and more we send God the message that we really don’t care that He is an instrumental part of our lives and culture, the more likely He will be to eventually give us what we desire – as stupid as that desire may be.

Paul writes that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts.”   Paul does not say that God imposed those lusts.   God basically said – OK, you want to do things without me, then go ahead.

One of the first evidences of this abandonment of God to ourselves is homosexual activity.   We too often fall into the trap of judging those who are imposing the acceptance of the homosexual agenda as a major root of the problem in this country.    In reality, this is a fruit of the problems that led God to removing His blessings from us in the first place.  But accepting sexual impurity outside of marriage became the norm well before homosexuality became the social revolution of our time.   The latter does not happen without the former preceding it, so it’s hardly the case that we can start hurling stones only with the advent of the gay marriage agenda.   No, the sexual revolution led to weaker families, fewer children, abortion on demand, and the beginning of the end of a healthy and functioning society.  Having made that bed, God turned us over and gave us the direct evidence of His handing us over to ourselves with the acceptance and celebration of homosexuality.   To blame gays for chastisement without recognizing the sinfulness that brought is to the point of accepting it is like blaming the sinking of the boat on the last gallon of water that bubbled up through the hole in the side.

But it doesn’t end there.

They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

The push for acceptance of the gay lifestyle started in earnest less than two decades ago.   We went from most people believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman to the Supreme Court signing off on it as law of the land.   We put our stamp of approval on this “progress” when we voted for Barack Obama the second time after this agenda became perfectly clear.    Shortly thereafter, the rest of society followed with basically that entire list.

And note the last line:  “they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.”   Think of the way Christians are now considered bigoted for their beliefs, and how “courageous” the practitioners of different sins are.   We openly encourage gay marriage as a good thing, and even a Godly thing.   Those who are against abortion are labeled as haters of women, while those who support abortion are considered to be on the higher moral plane.  Having only one or two children is considered more moral than welcoming a larger family – I’ve actually been called “selfish” for daring to have nine children.

No, I hate to say it, but Chastisement is not on its way.  It’s been unfolding before us for some time.   And the unfortunate result is that God will not step in and save us until we ask Him to do it.    And while it may be true that many among us are asking, if the country as a whole continues to act in defiance of Him by the way we act and the people we elect to serve as the example of what we stand for, then God will continue to allow us to live under our own “wisdom.”  And do any of us see a sudden welcoming of God back into our lives on a collective basis?   We can pray and hope for a miracle, but as of this point there is no such indication.

How bad will things need to get before we come to our collective senses?   Unfortunately, there is every likelihood that we are about to find out.





8-1-2016 5-14-29 PM

There is a lot going on in the world.   But at the end of the day, all of us need to reflect on our blessings and give thanks.   Without God, we are nothing.    I mean, literally.   Without God, nothing would exist.   Which is weird to think about all on its own.   But because God is, so are we.    And He gives us creation and each other during this temporal life, and only He and those who have gone before us really knows what is waiting for us on the other side.

So, let me express my thanks publicly here.

My wife and I have just returned from a vacation.   just the two of us.   It is difficult for us to remember the last time we spent extended time together – just us.   Nine kids will do that.   We’ve also vacationed with friends in the past as well.   But this time it was just us.

We celebrated 25 years of marriage on July 27.   Time sometimes feels short and sometimes drags on, but it is almost overwhelming to consider what has happened in the last 25 years.

God has been remarkably good to us.   I humbly express my gratitude for having had consistent work and the ability to manage finances throughout the years.    I am awed by His goodness in bringing my wife and I together in the first place.   When I reflect on how that all happened, I see His hand in it, even if we didn’t recognize it ourselves.   He had a plan for us and it took us a few years to figure that plan out, and I’m not sure we ever fully got it, but we keep trying.

Had someone told me I’d have nine kids at this point in my life I would have snorted coffee out my nose.  Which is really something, since I don’t drink coffee!   But we have nine wonderful children ages 3 to 20, and while this heaps up a boatload of frustration and anxiety at times, I am so incredibly thankful for every last one of them.

As a Christian, it goes without saying all the big things I am thankful for.   Jesus sacrificing Himself for all of us – salvation – the big stuff.   But all that just seems to big it is sometimes hard to wrap ourselves around it.    I think God likes to give us smaller things (still big – but smaller than, oh, eternity in heaven…) that we can actually grasp with our little minds so we can have things a bit more tangible to give Him thanks for.   A sunset, nice weather, safe travel, a good family…  My goal, sometimes achieved and sometimes not, is to never take any good thing for granted and to give thanks.

But today, I thank God for my wife and my marriage.   I thank God for the financial ability to take this vacation to Maine.   I thank God for providing us family that was willing to help make this happen by staying with the younger kids.   I thank God for safe travel to, throughout, and back.   And I thank God that my wife and I still love each other and enjoy spending time together.   And I pray that we continue to be blessed on many of these regards, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

I offer my own well-wishes to any who might read this.   Take stock of your surroundings today and recognize God’s blessings, and say Thanks.



I know, I know…    I don’t run a blog the way I’m supposed to.    Well, if I made any money off the gig I’d be more inclined to follow the rules.   But I don’t – it’s a hobby.

So, where have I been?   Well, first off, I took a much needed vacation and completely unplugged from work as well as the internet in general.    Second, I then needed to catch up at my real job where I crunch numbers for a living and spend way too much time in meetings talking about the future numbers I need to crunch.

Then, I had to travel to NY for work, and quite honestly I’m not built for travel.   I am not energized by it, so even though I probably could use my time more wisely catching up on stuff in the hotel in my off time, I’m much more inclined to end up in a zombie-like state watching the news on the bed until I fall asleep.

That doesn’t mean the world around me has stopped, nor does it mean my opinions have dissipated.   So, here’s a random list of things I have been thinking about.   Some of these are blog-worthy and some are not.

  1. I still have no idea why someone chooses to ever life and work in New York City.   Sipping a beer by the campfire at home last evening at my rural home, surrounded by flowers, trees, and green grass and a couple friends is like a small piece of heaven to me.    To each their own, but I’m just not wired that way.
  2. Observing the thousands and thousands of people walking around Manhattan, whenever I take a moment to think about people in general I have a feeling of amazement.   Every single person is seeing the world through their own unique eyes.   They are all living a life unique and distinct from the rest of us.    Just seeing people walk around is a wonderment to me.    I don’t know what they are thinking and they don’t know what I’m thinking.   Their experiences are not my own.  And yet, God knows us all intimately.   It’s somewhat overwhelming to think about.
  3. There is a big blow-up rat that sticks out of the trunk of a car that can be found around NYC.   That’s my sight-seeing update.
  4. I love my kids – all nine of them.   But what a blessing that my wife and I were able to get away for three days and stay at our camper in Northern Wisconsin.    Rest, hiking, swimming, kayaking, and fishing – with a little bit of shopping and an anniversary dinner out.   What a relaxing time!
  5. Why does Def Leppard refuse to get on Spotify?    It’s annoying.
  6. I’ve been doing some reading, and I need to boost my Metabolism so I can be healthier.
  7. My wife and I have both set up accounts through a company called Karatbars so we can more readily buy gold in smaller increments.   My wife has decided to buy into the business package to help other people set up accounts to do the same.   I didn’t do that, because I have enough to do.  I just want the gold, but I do feel strongly that this is an important asset for everyone to try obtain, so I’ll help her out as I can.    So if anyone is curious about it at all just e-mail me.
  8. Moses is in our garden.
  9. There is always a lot to blog about:
    1. how I perceive the struggle in Catholicism balancing the tendencies of “liberals” and “conservatives” to try and actually attain the faith we are supposed to have
    2. My interest in a few specific prophecies:   Sister Lucia and how marriage is one of the final struggles against Satan; a guy named Charlie Johnston who has some interesting things to say, but requires a lot of discernment; this whole idea of the Shemitah (Jonathan Cahn) and the interesting observations and timing of that whole thing.
    3. Prayer strategy
    4. The Hitler rule in internet argument – pros and cons
    5. The 3% fallacy
  10. I really need to get more of my music up on Youtube and find time to record all the stuff in my head.

I hope you have all been well over the last couple weeks.    I’ll try to coordinate my thoughts and throw some stuff out here.

When I feel like it.

How Did We Reach a Point Where Disagreement = Judgment and Hate?


“Love won today!”

I saw this statement and claim made shortly after the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage.

A couple days later, my wife posted a video on Facebook.   The purpose of the video was to once again lay out the case for the traditional definition of marriage.   It was not in any way presented hatefully, but it was not apologetic, either.   It simply presented the facts about what marriage has been considered forever, why it was considered that way, and why same-sex marriage doesn’t properly fulfill the requirements to be considered marriage.

Responses to her sharing this were that it made someone “sad that you feel that way.”   In a followup response, once again the idea that “well, I just choose to love people” came up.

Whether intended or not, these responses and reactions have as a premise that if the Supreme Court did not rule as they did, then love would have lost.   Or that thinking about this issue in the traditional sense must mean you don’t love people – at the very least, you don’t love them as much as someone who supports redefinition of marriage.   They’ll say “oh, that’s not waht I mean, or what I’m implying.”   That’s a shallow retort.   You can’t make a statement about love winning and then backtrack and say that you don’t mean that others are haters, or at least not as loving as you.   It’s a logical impossibility.

This, of course, is poppycock.

It has long been a tactic of those engaged in policy, social, and moral debate to appeal to emotion and the impugning of character in order to advance an opinion or agenda.   And while neither side of any issue is immune to that temptation, I do think there is a definite difference in applicability of that approach.   In general, the more “conservative” position on an issue is an argument based on the logical or rational merits of an idea.  This may be to a fault in many cases, where the human side of things may not be fully considered, and it’s something that conservatives need to guard against.    That is not to say the right cannot get emotional and accuse others of this thing or that, but I would venture to say that the underlying view of an issue has more of a logical train of thought to it.   The more “progressive” elements try to paint their side much more as on the side of compassion and tolerance.   This is a very emotional plea – one of inclusiveness and love (except for those who disagree, anyway).   I am not saying there is never anything deeper to have formed their opinions, but the overriding element is feelings.

The gay marriage argument is really a very easy case study on this, and I’m sure people will disagree with me on it.   Well, it’s OK to be wrong, because this is about as simple as it gets.    The main argument that the progressives have on this is “we just want people to be happy and have a companion, and be recognized for it so they are not viewed differently and they can get the same benefits other people get.   Because we LOOOOVVVVVEEEEE them SOOOOOOOOO much!”   It really is that simple.   I have yet to hear any gay marriage supporters really even attempt to suggest there’s more to it than that.   “We want what you have” is pretty much what it was all about.

Those on the other side of the argument seldom thought all that much about the individuals enough to say that we love, like, dislike, or outright hate any given person or group.   The simple fact is, this has never been about emotional and personal feelings as much as it just simply doesn’t make one friggin’ bit of sense to us at any rational and reasonable and intellectual level.    It’s about a series of facts and observations:  (1) who do we think we are to redefine an institution that’s thousands of years old into something new? (2) Men’s parts are made for women’s parts by natural design or order or however you’d prefer to characterize it; (3) the sexual relationship is pretty much designed for one purpose – procreation.    Yes, it feels great, and we’ve turned its purpose into a self-serving thing of pleasure, but most people recognize that the entire reason there are men’s parts and women’s parts is so that there end up being more people.

Of course, morality and religion come into play, and it’s somewhat ironic that this generates protests from the progressives who claim that there should be no place in the debate for religion, when their entire platform is not actually based on anything of substance on any level.

Attempts to bridge this chasm usually do not go all that well.  Let’s focus on the Christians who have both purely rational reasons for believing what they believe, and also the affirmation of the good book to boot that really solidifies their position.  One of the problems that will occur on the one side of the debate is that, even though the root of the belief is based on sound judgment and logic, the emotional element does kick in for an entirely different reason than the progressive side.    It could be a few different reasons, but it’s generally something in this universe:   I love God so much and want others to love God, and this is so wrong that my head’s going to explode, and I JUST CAN’T UNDERSTAND HOW OTHERS CAN’t SEE IT!; or there are numerous reasons and examples already that create a fear/anxiety that my own religious liberty will soon be at risk; or it just flat out makes so much sense that anyone who can’t see it is completely rationalizing in their opinion for some purpose or another (likely to appease the conscience of a loved one, or they can’t bear to believe that someone they know or love may be sinning), or just flat-out stupid.    So, because we Christians are not impervious to sin, these emotions do move us past the “hate the sin, love the sinner” frame of mind and we become uncharitable.   And this causes all sorts of issues that make us sound like haters.

But before the progressives get all puffy, you’re at fault too.    Because you simply cannot tolerate dissent, or anything other than complete complicity in both thought and action, you are unable to have a reasoned and rational debate.    A Christian can be utterly loving and charitable, but let’s face it…   if we believe something is sinful, there really isn’t a way to say that, even in the most loving way, that isn’t a little bit harsh.   And a Christian can present this without talking directly about “you” and recognize that God alone ultimately judges, and can throw all the caveats under the sun in there, but once the word “sin” is mentioned, every other word that has been said is forgotten.   All the love, compassion, delicate weaving of the argument or opinion…  gone.    After all, we dare not use the word “sin” these days.    YOU THINK I’M SINNING?!!!!   (even though I never said “you are sinning”)   YOU HATEFUL BIGOTED CHRISTIAN LOOOOSSSERRRR!!!    JUDGER!   JUDGER!

Don’t get me started on the perversion of the “Though shalt not judge” scriptural reference, which has been transformed into such a meaning that it eviscerates Paul’s requirement that we admonish the sinner.    But that’s a digression I won’t get into right now.


As a Diatriber, I guess I’m a judger.

All we can do as Christians is continue to strive for our balance point.   We must love, yet admonish.   But we must admonish with utmost charity.    But we cannot judge, especially without looking at the log in our own eye.    We must not capitulate our beliefs and participate in something that is wrong, but we cannot discriminate against people unfairly in our day-to-day lives, nor should we withhold our assistance and generosity to them either.   We must stand firm, publicly if necessary, in favor of what is good and right, while not being unnecessarily confrontation and mean-spirited in the way we make our stand.

That is a tough balancing act, and most of us will stumble around – possibly our entire lives – trying to figure out how to get it right.

Straight Pride – What’s a Catholic to Think?


In the aftermath of the gay marriage decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, a lot of arguments and debates ensued.   While the dust has generally settled on this from the immediately emotional responses of each side, there will continue to be debate about the status of marriage in the United States forever.   Whether you are for or against this decision, it’s a simple fact that this was not legislated on a grand scale at either the federal or state level, nor was the Constitution Amended, which would have been a reflection of widespread approval for such a change.   The Supreme Court, like many state courts where it was already legal, deemed that a right existed on a Constitutional basis that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and it ruled this way across ideological lines by the narrowest possible margin.

While many want to move on and claim victory and that the debate is over, others do not.    And there is no reason to.   One can begrudgingly accept that the court ruled that way and understand that things have changed in a practical sense in how this now applies to the various elements of society where marital status matters, while at the same time utterly disagreeing with the decision itself.

On a moral basis, it’s simply silly and stupid to suggest that a 5-4 decision of an institution of law somehow changes the intrinsic morality of a certain issue.   Acceptance of something does not change the intrinsic nature of something.   I suppose if you don’t believe in God or any moral authority then you might live by a meandering and flexible set of rules, but if you believe in any higher authority that is a bit more important from a judgment standpoint than our human court, then there is no sense to be made of an argument that morality changes.   There just isn’t.

As usual, in trying to set the context of the actual point of this post, I’m rambling.   It’s what I do.


One of the predictable and somewhat logical responses to the decision was a sudden surge of straight pride.    Facebook posts emerged declaring that so-and-so is proud to be straight.    Predictable responses followed by those who argued that this is a statement of bigotry.   Really, overall, any such statement or post just devolves into all the same unwinnable arguments.   People get angry and upset and nobody is convinced of anything.

But I want to dive deeper into this and view it from a Catholic perspective or mindset.   The two sides of the argument would seem to be that this is something we should celebrate, we need to make a point, we need to stand up for traditional marriage, and there is nothing wrong with promoting “straight pride.”    The other side of the argument is that this is unnecessarily combative, that it is not charitable, that Jesus wouldn’t do it, and we shouldn’t make our point in this way.

From my perspective, I actually think both sides are right.   I don’t think this is black and white, and I think it comes down to what your motive is, who your audience is, how it’s presented, and all that stuff.

Suppose a person set up a “Straight Pride” sign in their yard.   For effect, it’s a white sign with a picture of a blue male and a pink female.   Maybe include the male/female symbols on wedding rings as a backdrop.

What is the motive with this?   What is a person thinking in their heart when they do it?    If the honest answer is “I want it to generate conversation and dialogue so I can present my side of the argument” then that is good.   If the honest answer is that you just feel so strongly about this issue that you want to make your voice known, and for whatever reason you just simply feel that this is the best way to do that, then that is good.   But the motive lies in your heart.   It’s not what you say the motive is.   If your real desire is to stick it to the other side, or to purposely be combative, or to tick off the neighbor down the road who is flying a rainbow flag, then your action is not good.

The simple fact is that you have to really be the harshest judge of your motives that you can be, and you really should also understand the response you might get.   Are you prepared for potential vandalism or angry feedback?   And if that happens, will you get angry in return, or will you forgive them and pray for them, and try to find a civil way to discuss what it is that is making them upset? If you are not prepared to meet resistance in a Christ-like manner, then it probably is not worth doing.   And that can be really tough.   But if you meet negativity with more negativity, you’re doing more harm than good with the stand you are taking.

I saw a debate on this issue on Facebook, and it was not lost on me that opponents immediately go to comparisons of “White Pride.”    There are a number of issues I have with this, and I find it the simplistic and convenient argument of an unthinking person who wants to simply shut down debate by painting anyone who thinks differently about things as a horrible person.  But these are the kinds of responses you need to be prepared for and have an answer to if you plan to engage in this type of symbolic approach to your opposition to gay marriage.

This is likely the main objection, so here are my thoughts on it:

  • A faulty premise stated forcefully and accusingly does not still make the premise true.   As vehemently as someone suggests you are a bigot, rather than try to argue nuances as to why you are not, you first of all need to completely disagree and dispute that premise and simply tell them that regardless of what they think, they are wrong, and you could go back and forth all day saying “Am not” “Are too” but you aren’t going to do that
  • Once you’ve established the complete disagreement with the premise, it then makes sense to have some reasons as to why this is different.   There are many:
    • The Supreme Court just declared different kinds of marriages equal.   If one group can be proud that they have a particular sexual proclivity, then it makes perfect sense for someone to be proud of theirs.   We’re all equal, after all.
    • I could argue about all the murkiness about the white pride/black pride issues as well, but let’s boil things down to a couple main points.   Whether you agree or disagree that “white pride” is racist, the simple fact is that blacks were once enslaved, were considered property, didn’t have the right to vote for a long part of the history of our country, were segregated, and so on.    Despite all these injustices, this was all rectified in the appropriate way (though not soon enough).    Laws were passed, and the Constitution was amended.   The same can be said of women’s rights.   Our country moved slow, but allowed the Constitutional process to play out.
    • Building on the previous point, while I am certain that gays can point to injustices (both real and perceived) they can’t hold a candle to the injustices suffered from the black community.   I’ll be perfectly honest, I am shocked that as many people in the black community have embraced the comparison as they have.   But the bigger point is that the Supreme Court seems to have decided that the processes of the past need no longer apply to the processes of today.   Instead of allowing laws and the Constitutional process to provide rights that society want to enumerate and grant, rights are invented and it’s not even hidden anymore that the Constitution does not really support the decision.   Instead, we are told that the Constitution really means what we want it to mean in the context of today.   By this logic, no Amendments need to be passed, ever, to positively define rights.   The Amendment process has moved from clarifying and expanding the rights of people to a process of restricting rights the Supreme Court granted that they have no business granting.   And they know that to do so is nearly impossible, or at the very least expensive and difficult.   So they can get away with it.    And this has offended people who disagree on this topic.   We feel that our own view has been trampled on, and the language of the Court automatically casts us in a negative light.
    • This all creates a very real difference.   When someone says “yeah, that’s the same argument people made against the civil rights act, or women’s right to vote” then you can actually even agree to a point, and then point out that even if they are right they are helping make your point.   One reason we are so upset is because the corrective actions taken against those injustices was properly done, whereas this wasn’t.   And because it wasn’t, you can’t just expect the masses to suddenly be happy about it and agree with it.
    • The granting of rights to blacks did not change anything about the nature of being white and human.   The redefinition of marriage is an entirely different animal, and any attempt to diminish that aspect of this and just make it about intolerance to gays is, again, an entirely false premise that needs to be combated at every turn.   Because of that, there is a very real fundamental difference between the two.

Having said all that, I will counter with a reason of my own as to why I actually don’t like the “Straight Pride” angle.    It’s because I have never, to be honest, understood at all why someone creates an entire identity around being gay.   Why is someone gay and proud?   Why is it that someone who has heretofore acted and talked in a way that doesn’t advertise to the world their sexual preference, suddenly morph into someone who changes his personality, speech, physical actions, etc. after “coming out?”    What is so wrong with just being gay without the world knowing it unless you mention your partner or whatever?    I have never understood it, and in fact, I think it is harmful and hurtful for anyone to have the primary identifying factor about them be their sexual preference.   We all have so much inherent dignity as a creature made in God’s image and likeness that any “pride” we have about just being us is a misnomer.   We owe everything to Him, and have nothing much to be particularly proud about, other than our own God Who loves us unconditionally.  Why the heck am I proud to be straight?   Why should anyone be proud to be gay?    I’m straight.   I feel blessed to be straight.   I think it’s a gift from God.   So, the whole “<Fill in blank> Pride” thing isn’t really my thing.

But if it is, I won’t judge.   Just be honest with yourself and be prepared at all times to respond in charitable and informed ways, without accepting premises that are imputed upon you.

A Couple Final Thoughts From My Most Recent Posts


OK, so basically I wanted an outlet to put down my thoughts on how the re-definition of marriage transpired.

I think I covered most things, but in re-reading and reflecting what I have written, there are a couple things that I want to add to wrap things up.

I’ve alluded to this general theme throughout, I guess, but I really just want to emphasize how critical it is that we tie the purpose of marriage together with what marriage actually is.   We need a triple-knot on this.   The entire idea of what people think marriage is meant to be directly affects what they think marriage should look like.

The current debate has almost completely normalized the idea, even among Christian folk who should know better, that marriage is an avenue of self-fulfillment.   Some may view this as just one aspect of marriage, but many view this as the primary purpose.   This is truly upside-down thinking, but it is the predominant view.

Thinking about Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles and then dying on the cross for His Church, marriage is supposed to emulate Jesus as the bridegroom and the Church as bride.   Are either side in that equation concerned primarily with self-fulfillment?   No.   Jesus died for His Church and the Church has suffered countless martyrs that were/are persecuted and even sent to death for Christ.

Yes, marriage is about love.   But not “Sleepless in Seattle” romantic love.    That provides a wonderful element to a good marriage relationship, but it is a byproduct of it and not the purpose of it.

All the things I wrote about, in one way or another, center around the transition from marriage as being about sacrificial love for another and instead to companionship and self-fulfillment.  This then directly leads to a complete abandonment of the idea that begetting children is a necessary element to marriage.

If this is what marriage is all about (or not about), it is no surprise whatever that people can come to grips with and accept gay marriage.   After all, it’s not about having kids, and each person just wants to be loved and have companionship and be happy.   And that’s all marriage is, so there you go.

I already discussed the evolution of acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle alternative.   Underlying this acceptance is either a real or perceived increase in people who are actually gay.   Some would argue that there is no percentage difference in the number of gay people, only that they are now more willing to be open about it, thanks to our newly open and progressive society.    I think there’s probably truth to the fact that people who are gay are much less likely nowadays to hide it or suppress it, but I also think there are factors that have actually increased the numbers of people who are gay from the viewpoint of genetic predisposition, as well as those who are steered that way due to a culture that almost seems to prefer that a person seek out every alternative than a heterosexual and monogamous lifestyle.

I already discussed one factor: fewer dads and less fatherly availability is directly linked as a factor in men being gay.   It could be entirely environmental, or it could be a factor in driving a person towards a genetic predisposition.

Another factor that has been studied and confirmed, and then basically suppressed as explanatory is the hormonal pollution of the water supply, particularly in more populous areas.   And what is the hormonal pollution from?   The birth control pill, primarily.   It is an interesting irony that one of the outcomes of a society that embraces the temporary sterilizing of itself is that it leads to more people who desire relationships that are, by their very nature, sterile.

There really are more issues that are ancillary to all of this that help fill in even more gaps.   The fact that we now procreate in ways that fall outside of the unitive act of marriage in turn devalues the family.   It is no longer from an act of unitive love, it is a scientific process.   Don’t even get me started on frozen embryos.

And then there’s abortion.   As if it isn’t enough to prevent the conceiving of a life, we somehow managed to convince ourselves that it isn’t really a human life after all, and we can just do away with it.   An entire class of people just dehumanized.    There is simply no way 50 million plus abortions can occur with it taking a toll on marriages and what people believe is true of marriage.

I’m sure more could be added to the list.   But I think I’ve said my piece.   I’ll move on to other things, or at least different aspects of this thing.

Catalysts that have helped lead to the Redefinition of Marriage


I’m probably about to step in it.   I’m about to discuss some issues that many people will thing “hey…   he’s talking about me, and I’m NOT <insert whatever it is you think I’m saying you’re doing>.”

So, I’ll just get to my point here, and you can go ahead and be mad if you want.

1) Dad is removed from the home for his work day:     This is something I struggle with all the time.   I grew up on a farm where I was blessed to have dad there all the time.   But in most cases, this isn’t happening, and it’s not for me either.   I think dad being away from the family 40-80 hours per week, depending on the situation, has taken a toll in a few different ways:

  • It created a whole lot more opportunities for dad to work closely with other people who may or may not be the best influence.
  • In the more modern work force, he will be working more closely with other women.
  • It greatly diminishes the time at home and participate in the raising of the children.
  • The entire idea that it is somehow good for husband and wife to be separated for most of the day and be free of the other is antithetical to the idea of service and sacrifice that helps cement the marital relationship.
  • In the context of the most recent rise and acceptance of gays , the gay lifestyle, and gay marriage, it has been shown that most men who have same-sex attraction also have a very tight – an unusually tight – bond with mom, usually at the expense of a similar bond with dad.   I’m not going to argue genetics and environment and all that here.   But if there is a predisposition towards something on a genetic basis, it still doesn’t necessarily manifest itself.  It would seem that there is both a predisposition, and an environmental element at play here, at least in many cases.   Dad not being around, I believe, is directly contributory to the gender identity issues of today.

All of these things are navigable, but create a difficulty in navigation that we all must be aware of.

2) Women in the workplace/traditional gender roles:   The increasing prevalence of women in the workplace goes beyond a simple desire for women to have a career.   There was a feminist agenda behind the promotion of women viewing liberation as having a career, while engaging in traditional roles as wife and mother and household duties as a form of slavery.    In the process, almost no respect was given to women from the very women promoting this concept.   Those who desired to forego career and stay home were scoffed at and derided.   It is perfectly clear that the desire of more and more women to pursue a career outside of the home had a number of effects on the modern-day family:

  • It blurred the gender roles that traditionally accompanied marriage.   The blurring of gender roles has eventually led all the way to no boundaries in gender identity with respect to who can get married.    This would not be possible had the traditional gender roles of male and female were not first made irrelevant.
  • This movement contributed to the idea of having children as a burden – they were in the way.   [NOTE:   THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF OVERALL TRENDS,  NOT A JUDGMENT OF ANYONE’S INDIVIDUAL SITUATION!]   This attitude increased the prevalence and acceptance of contraception as “necessary” for financial reasons, or other reasons.
  • Couples became dependent on dual incomes and material things became far more important than in the past.   The financial arrangement of the marriage was central to the relationship.    Financial stress is a leading cause in divorce, and much of that stress was caused either because people got in over their heads and now became slaves to career, or because they wanted to keep up with those around them, leading to one spouse thinking it “unfair” that he or she carries the financial load.
  • Many women outright delayed marriage, or never pursued it, who otherwise would have if career were not of central importance.

3) Increases in domestic partnerships/civil unions as the final stage of relationship:   Over the decades, more and more people have decided that there really is no reason for marriage.   Just live together, and if it lasts long enough you end up with a common law marriage.    Nothing special needed.   Some decide they want the benefits of marriage, and prior to everyone being able to marry anyone else civil unions were a construct to help validate the relationship for benefits or legal status.     The more this practice became acceptable between heterosexual couples, the more marriage was viewed as just one of many legitimate family options.    Since this isn’t marriage, it wasn’t a redefinition of marriage, but it further contributed to the view of marriage as nothing particular meaningful or special.

4) Children raised without a father:   Divorces, broken homes, or extra-marital relationships have led to so many kids being raised by either one parent, or splitting time, or multiple sets of parents that there is little question it has to completely distort the view of what marriage is with each successive generation.   At some point, the entire concept of marriage is simply confusing.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle:  Getting to the current issue, before marriage could be re-defined as something other than a male-female union, there needed to be widespread acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.   I’m not talking about acceptance and love of people dealing with same-sex attraction, or who self-identify as gay.   I’m talking about the acceptance, then actual promotion and celebration of the lifestyle itself.    Once the dam burst on this, it’s remarkable how quickly things went from viewing homosexual acts as a form of perversity to something beautiful.

It is my opinion that the primary mover on this was simple and pure moral capitulation by family and friends, and entire churches.   In the well-meaning attempt to love, not condemn, not judge, and reach out to people with same-sex attraction, suddenly mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc. suddenly knew someone who was gay.    Gay and proud.   Gay and, actually, really nice.   Gay, and deserving of love and companionship.    Suddenly, the moral view moved from “homosexuality is a sin” to “all they want is love, and how can that be a sin?”   Nobody wanted to speak of sexuality as a struggle, or as a cross to bear, or sinful and harmful as a behavior.   Whereas it was once acceptable to “seek help” the mere suggestion of it now became insulting and demeaning.   God couldn’t really, actually, find fault with this.   No, in fact, God WANTS everyone to be happy, and he made so-and-so that way.   The slope to where we are goes something like this:

  • Omigosh, Jimmy is gay
  • I love Jimmy – he’s my <son/nephew/cousin/friend/roomate/ice cream man>
  • But there’s this “sin” thing
  • But waitaminnit.   Jimmy’s really nice and just wants to be loved.   I’m so confused.
  • A lot of people are telling me I’m a bigot for thinking Jimmy is sinning.   I don’t want to be a bigot.  So I’m not going to say anything any more.
  • Whoa – now Jimmy wants to be married.  That ain’t right.
  • I’ve been thinking about this.   I can’t figure out why it isn’t right.   After all, marriage is just about companionship and love.   After all, people get divorced and some people don’t have children and they’re still married.
  • I don’t want to tell Jimmy he can’t get married.   he should.   It has to be OK.   I want him to be happy.   And if I start talking religion he won’t listen anyway, and actually I’m not sure why it’s wrong anyway now that I’ve been thinking about it.
  • You know, I don’t care what the bible says, I don’t care what the Church teaches, I don’t care about all the thousands of years of prior ideas of homosexuality as disordered.   I am, here and now, defining morality as I see it.

And thus, the self-appeasement and the appeasement to Jimmy is completed.   I think people honestly believe that if they just believe something is OK, then it actually is.   It is, of course, moral relativism.   But this one has a face.   Jimmy is a son , brother, cousin, neighbor, and friend to someone.   The discussion that was needed could cause division and hard feelings.   Who wants that?   it’s sad, yet understandable as well.

It became very difficult to get our collective heads wrapped around the idea that it is actually an act of love to tell someone that acting on disordered desires is a sin.  There should be no greater desire for us to love someone into heaven, even if it means saying something they won’t want to hear.   But we screwed that up through well-meaning meandering about the issue, and somehow the masses became convinced that trying to address the salvific aspect of this was hateful and bigoted.   Instead, the here and now, the temporal, was the consideration.   Disordered desires can now be acted upon with a free and clear conscience because – well – I don’t know why.   I guess it’s because God just goes with the flow and changes His mind as long as His teachings are violated for the “right” reasons.   Whatever those are.   It’s not so much that i can’t understand the people in this who don’t believe in God or a divinely ordained morality.   It’s that I can’t understand how easily Christians have rolled over on this.  Faced with the first real difficult circumstance in their life where they had to choose between God’s path and another path, they took the easy road.

And so, here we are today.

And it won’t end here.   It never does.   Let the capitulation continue.