Tag Archives: redefine
What strikes me about her comment is her realization that her emotions were not trustworthy. Anna seems to recognize that true love is not about feelings but choices. In our current culture love is an emotion. It’s something people feel, and, therefore, can un-feel. So it’s no surprise that people fall into and out of love. But this show a misunderstanding of what true love is. The reality is that love is a verb. Love is the decisions we make each and every day.
Anna is right that what she is going through is a betrayal, and it’s hard. But she is also correct in that if she were to react according to her emotions she would surely make a “mess” into a “disaster.” So often people turn a mess, a fixable mess that could be overcome, into a disaster. Often that disaster is permanent and cannot be overcome. They do this by reacting emotionally rather than making choices consistent with a proper understanding of love.
Let’s use this example to illustrate what I’m talking about.
Anyone who has sought to support traditional marriage over the last few years has no doubt heard of Ryan T. Anderson. Perhaps no other voice in the debate over what marriage is (and is not) has carried more weight in recent history.
Though he is only 33 years old, Anderson has achieved a level of fame (and notoriety) that most his age don’t even know exist. As a professing Christian, PhD. Holder, editor of a highly successful online publication, and senior fellow at the highly respected Heritage Foundation, Anderson has risen to credible levels in a short time.
With the notoriety and influential voice comes a price.
For Anderson the price is the target on his back each and every day simply because he opposed same-sex “marriage” and argued for traditional marriage with inexhaustible vigilance. And though Anderson has established a reputation for being civil and respectful in his discussions and debates with his opponents (no matter how vile they treat him) he is attacked relentlessly for his views.
But it’s not his position that concerns me, after all, as a Christian I hold to the biblical complimentarian view of marriage and sexuality the same as Anderson. Rather, it’s the position of those that oppose him that concerns me most.
In case you didn’t know, there is an effort to redefine marriage. One of the most deceptive and false narratives in this effort is that the redefinition will stop with homosexuals and same-sex “marriage.” For several years now many of us have been issuing constant warnings that if marriage is redefined for homosexuals it will have to be redefined for any other group, person, or group of people that want to be “married.”
My typical warning goes something like this: If the government redefines marriage to include same-sex “marriage” it will have to continue redefining marriage to include polygamy, polyamory, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. There will be no logical, moral, or political reason not to continue redefining marriage. If the government does not continue to redefine marriage for these groups it will be guilty of the same “discrimination” it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of.
Professing Christians that attempt to “love” their neighbor by supporting their sin and advocating for marriage redefinition will, in the end, either limit their support to homosexuals – thereby becoming guilty of the same “discrimination” they now accuse traditional marriage supporters of, or, endorse any and all forms of “marriage”; including polygamy, polyamory, et. al.
If these Christians that now support redefining marriage for homosexuals end their support of marriage redefinition there, they will have a hard time explaining their position using Scripture; or logic. The reality that many will broaden their support to include polygamy and polyamory is an easy conclusion given their existing ability to twist and stretch Scripture to support same-sex “marriage.”
I don’t even feel like saying “I told you so.” Back when same-sex “marriage” was gaining steam and people were lining up to support it so they wouldn’t be called names, many refused to compromise and withstood the onslaught of attacks. One of our main concerns was that if marriage was redefined to include homosexuals, what legal or moral ground would there be to refuse redefining marriage for polygamists, pedophiles, and anyone else that wanted to get married?
One of our greatest concerns has been realized.
This case, this 18-year old girl, will be the catalyst for the movement to normalize and then legalize incestuous relationships. The slippery slope is getting slipperier. In the exact same way that homosexuals first normalized and then legalized same-sex “marriage,” this girl and her father are taking pages right out of the LGBT playbook.
The girl, unnamed at this point, was interviewed by New York Magazine, a rather lengthy interview that details how the relationship began. While most would assume some abuse must be present, the reality is that this girl was estranged from her father for 12 years before being reunited. The girl, at age 16, spent a week with her father and his live-in girlfriend, during which the two went from getting reacquainted to kissing, making out, and eventually having sex; which was the girls first time.
What is marriage?
That appears on the surface to be an easy question to answer. Perhaps you already have a clearly defined answer at the ready to share with anyone that might ask.
But if we go deeper in this discussion we will inevitably arrive at the root question of “where did your definition of marriage originate?”
Did you get your definition of marriage from your parents? Maybe it came from your church? Perhaps it comes from your understanding of social order and function. Regardless of where it came from we can be certain that our definition of marriage is influenced by its source.
The Supreme Court has rejected appeals form five states, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, regarding the issue of marriage. This, effectively, legalizes same-sex “marriage” in those states. Some believe the issue of marriage is destined for a ruling from the Supreme Court and this appeals rejection could signal how the court will rule. Up to this point the court has stopped short of legalizing same-sex “marriage” for all 50 states, but this appeals rejection opens up speculation on what the court will do in the future.
Besides legalizing same-sex “marriage” in the five states seeking appeal to the Supreme Court, this decision will effectively legalize same-sex “marriage” in at least 6 other states in those appeals court jurisdictions, including West Virginia.
Concerning this decision by the Supreme Court ChristianNews.com recently wrote:
I’ve spent some time lately discussing whether or not homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. The very fact that this needs to be discussed at length, that others are pondering this thought, indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of what marriage and the man-woman relationship is truly all about.
I don’t want to be juvenile or crude here, but the obvious answer to the question “are homosexual relationships exactly like heterosexual relationships?” is, no.
By not wanting to be juvenile or crude I mean that I want to point out the obvious…er…um…plumbing problem, without going into detail. Phrases like “you can’t put a square peg into a round hole” come to mind and I think you get the idea. But to begin and end the discussion with the sexual aspect is the problem.
Part of the success of the LGBT movement has to do with their ability to separate marriage and sex. For years sex has been downplayed in our society as just another recreational activity. Everything from television to movies made sex nothing more than a decision for consenting adults: have sex on the third date or the fourth? Now they don’t even wait for the third date, entire services and websites are devoted to helping people hook up for “casual sex.” And we’ve all seen social media posts of people in bed with someone they don’t remember, or recognize after a one night stand. There’s no shame. There’s also no morality.
And now that sex and marriage have been successfully separated the uniqueness of the male-female relationship and the need for traditional marriage is also in question. After all, if sex is just another recreational hobby, and who you have sex with is just a matter of personal preference, why does traditional marriage need defended and preserved?
The question is, “Do you know what that gay rights agenda is?
In an article for WND, pastor, writer, and human rights consultant Dr. Scott Lively has explained in great detail exactly what the gay rights agenda is, and how it is being accomplished. And he’s done so using their own writings.
Take for example the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. This platform was adopted in 1972 when more than 200 homosexual organizations met in Chicago to write and adopt it. Why should it matter to you? Because nearly every plank in this platform has been achieved. A platform that is more than 40 years old has been implemented with surgical precision. Check for yourself, read the platform and check off how many of their goals have been accomplished.
1) Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.