17 July 2003 
Nuptial Sense
There is much discussion these days, on the web and elsewhere, about the topic of so-called “gay marriage.” It is so-called because it doesn’t formally exist in the United States—yet. Heterosexuals have been reaping the benefits, financial and social, long enough, say the homosexual proponents. Why shouldn’t gays be allowed the same privileges as straights? Most homosexuals, as far as I can tell, are pro-gay marriage. It is heterosexuals, both liberal and conservative, who are left to deal with the problem, and there has been much debate. As best I can determine, the discussion generally falls into one of three camps.
First, there are those who say, “Go ahead, let homosexuals have legal marriage benefits, the same as traditional marriage.” Proponents of this view are either politically and morally liberal, siding with the gay rights movement, or they are conservatives who see that this is a battle that is imminently lost (because the issue is not going away), so this is a concession that must be made.
The second group consists chiefly of conservatives, both religious and political, who feel that allowing for homosexuals to marry each other subverts and threatens the traditional state of marriage and should therefore be banned. Many (cf. Rick Santorum) believe that the allowance of gay marriage is a “slippery slope” that will lead to a cornucopia of deviances to be permitted, such as polygamy, bestiality, etc.
The third group is an emerging one in the discussion that wishes to simply redefine marriage altogether, separating the religious and governmental spheres of the union. This group feels that traditional male-female marriage will be best protected if relegated to the religious realm. A much clearer articulation of this view can be found in this blog entry by Charles Murray.
As an evangelical Christian, I naturally fall into the second group. I believe the Bible to be the word of God, and the Bible clearly denounces the practice of homosexuality in every instance it is mentioned. Some have made claims that the Bible is neither for nor against homosexuality, but these theories rely on some pretty amazing feats of hermeneutical gymnastics and have more than adequately been proven false by both liberal and conservative biblical scholars. Appeals to scientific evidence have also been proven to be insufficient (most adeptly by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse in their excellent volume).
“But,” a pro-gay marriage supporter might say, “not everyone in this country is Christian, and the constitution of the United States shall make no law establishing a religion!” Whether I like it or not, many think that some things are not verified simply because the Bible, God, or my religion says it true. While that it is the strongest reason I have for opposing gay marriage, it is not the only one.
For starters, homosexuals have never in this country been denied the right to marry. The have enjoyed the same rights as heterosexuals. Yes, they can only rightfully marry someone of the opposite sex, but heterosexuals are restricted to that stipulation too.
What homosexuals want to change, then, is the entire perception of family that has been present since the dawn of civilization. They want to change what has been the societal recognition of a sexual union between a man and a woman to something completely different. What the homosexual movement wants, in effect, is to be heterosexual. It wants to emulate heterosexuality without going so far as having heterosexual sex.
I’m surprised more people haven’t picked up on this. Homosexuals, who have gone completely out of the societal norm to have sexual relations with their own sex, are trying desperately to legitimize their exploits by trying to look as much like heterosexual unions as they can.
In doing so, however, they are attempting to change a standard that transcends the current popular standards. Take, for example, the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent raises the child because not only is there a biological connection, but there is present a standard that defines that relationship. Another mother could not just take different children at random simply because she is a “mother” and the other children are “children.” Each position must be filled with one who is uniquely qualified: a mother is a mother only of the child she gave birth to, she is not the mother to any child she sees on the street.
Where am I going with this? I am trying to illustrate that because there is an inherent standard, a man cannot marry another man and it really be marriage. They can call it marriage until the cows come home, but it will never be so: the two parties are not uniquely qualified.
I fear that we may indeed see some sort of so-called gay marriage launched in the near future in the United States. But I do believe that the project will ultimately fail. It is destined to by its own design. Will it hurt the status of real marriage and real families? Probably so, but it remains to be seen. Should those of us who are opposed to the issue make our voices heard, damning the consequences of speaking an unpopular opinion? Absolutely!
16 July 2003
Night Shift
For those of you who have ever worked the graveyard shift, you’ll certainly understand the results of this new study. The article says that:
A new study from Lexington [Mass.] consultancy Circadian Technologies, which advises the nation’s largest companies on how to manage their extended-hours operations, estimates that maintaining the practice may be costing companies a steep $206 billion annually — $8,600 per worker.
It goes on to point out the numerous problems that graveyard workers encounter–such as higher divorce rates, higher accident rates, and more instances of disease and disorder. Excluding all-night study sessions (which surely count for something), I have worked the night shift only briefly. I do remember vividly, however, sitting down to eat lunch at 4:00 a.m. and thinking to myself that something was wrong..
15 July 2003
The All-Star Death of Baseball?
First things first, I love baseball. There are few other sports where one can sit back, relax, heckle the opposing team’s player if necessary, and watch without having to worry about doing the wave(I admit, I really dislike doing the wave). I attended a minor league game last month where the wave circuited constantly throughout the game. Recently, however, the wave is not the only poison to make its way into baseball.
In the past decade baseball has taken a nose dive and it continues to drive itself further into the ground. The 1998 McGwire-Sosa homerun duel breathed a short burst of fresh air into the beleaguered sport, but that bubble burst soon thereafter. Strikes, threats of strikes, high ticket prices, commercialization of ballparks, and now players attacking sausages have all contributed to the displacement of our national pastime.
This displacement reached the pinnacle when at last year’s All-Star game MLB commissioner Bud Selig called the game in the 11th inning because both teams didn’t want to tire out their players. Never mind the fans who had paid $100+ to see a game (remember, ties don’t happen in baseball).
Will tonight’s All-Star game be any different? It purports to be. The winner of the game will receive home field advantage in the World Series. As my father said, commenting on the new “incentive” offered to teams to play hard, “Yeah right! The American league players are all going to play hard so the Yankees can get home field advantage!”
I’ll probably watch at least some of tonight’s game. But still I doubt I’ll see anything like the All-Star game where Fernando Valenzuela struck out 7 of the 9 AL batters he faced. The days of the tough-as-nails athlete are dwindling. I suspect that there will be a lot of guy out there wanting merely to take care of themselves. Oh that guts would be brought back to the game…
10 July 2003
Show your colors
In case anyone was wondering what I’ve been doing at work, here it is: The George W. Bush Online Store. I’ve been working on updating the design–we also have many new products for those of you who like to show your colors. This is about as close to an advertising pitch as you’ll get on this site (unpaid, that is). Anyway, let me know what you think about the design.
Addicted to Data?
The New York Times has an interesting article this week (provided that they didn’t just make it up…). The article is regarding the ever-present nature of communications technology in our lives today. The author writes:
The ubiquity of technology in the lives of executives, other businesspeople and consumers has created a subculture of the Always On — and a brewing tension between productivity and freneticism. For all the efficiency gains that it seemingly provides, the constant stream of data can interrupt not just dinner and family time, but also meetings and creative time, and it can prove very tough to turn off.
I find it funny that people today feel helpless without their cell phones. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-technology (I have a weblog, for crying out loud!), but I find it freeing to go places where no one can reach me. I like to be “on,” but to be “always on” is frightening.
9 July 2003
Chick Watch
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Well, not exactly, but you wouldn’t know that by the show the Dixie Chicks continue to put on. They were seen recently at a Senate hearing whining about their freedoms being violated because radio stations nationwide turned them off. The article says that at the hearing, “Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., suggested Mr. Dickey’s [radio station executive] decision smacked of Nazism and McCarthyism rather than of free speech.”
The honorable Senator Boxer and her Chicks seem to forget that radio is a business, not a service of the government that guarantees free speech. If you’re a bad singer, you don’t get airtime. If you make a fool of yourself in front of the entire country, you risk not getting airtime either. Such whining demeans real issues of freedom of speech infringement, such as the censoring of Christian and other religious materials in public schools and textbooks.
Flick Watch
Since I’ve already blasted Hollywood for its poor lineup of films this summer, I thought that it would be fitting to acknowledge at least a few good DVDs that I’ve seen recently.
Antwone Fisher: (6.5 out of 10) This film tackles some really touch issues, and I like the fact that the ending is not too “hollywoodized.” There are some points where the movie waxes a little too sentimental for my tastes, but overall it’s a good film.
Punch-Drunk Love: (4.5 out of 10) I have to admit, I tried really hard to like this movie just because it was so weird. Eventually, though, I came to see that this film is too disjointed to make any sense whatsoever. It’s a postmodernist’s dream in that anyone can read any interpretation into the film that they want. The film is bizarre, but that’s about all it has going for it.
About a Boy: (6.5 out of 10) I was surprised at this film. Even with the ever-so-common Hollywood motif of lying to get into a relationship, and trying to cover one’s tracks as the relationship grows (which Hugh Grant’s character does in the film), I rated this film rather highly. There is much character development, and the film rightly questions valuing freedom and independence, and material gain over people, who are all in some ways messy and inconvenient.
Those are a few DVDs I’ve seen recently. It’s summer, so I’m sure there’s more to come.
2 July 2003
Feelings, Cults and Hypnotic Foolery
It’s me, Jared, back at the helm. I hope you enjoyed and were provoked in your thoughts by my wife’s comments below. If any of you have something to say or just rant about, email me and I’ll consider giving you guest blog privileges.
Speaking of guests, my wife and I had two rather interesting ones in our home last night. Elder X and Elder Y from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints paid us a visit. I had never really talked at length with Mormon missionaries before, so thought this would be a good opportunity to see what their “pitch” was.
After two hours, we had barely scratched the surface of Mormonism, and I was left with both anger and sorrow. I was angry that these people were out spreading this falsehood in such a manner (which I’ll explain later), and sorrowful that these two kids didn’t know any better.
My strategy from the outset was not to attack the book of Mormon or the Mormon religion, but to attack its claims of adherence to the Bible. The trouble with their presentation is that they try so much to sound like Christianity. To the untrained ear, we believe many of the same things. I had to press them for them to reveal differences. Their theology (when using the Bible) is based on some very liberal interpretations of a few abstract verses used, of course, out of context.
Many things they were at a loss to explain based on anything else–they simply said, “we feel like this is the way it is…”–with little basis. The strangest thing that happened last night was when Elder X quoted, from memory, an entry from Joseph Smith’s journal. He held up a painting of Smith, supposedly being enlightened, and spoke with a slow, rythmic pace. My wife said she thought that he was trying to hypnotize us. Following the quote, he asked us how we felt as he read the quote. I deferred the question to Lori to avoid saying it sounded rather hokey.
To summarize the whole event, I am thankful that I believe in a God who has left us something more substantial than mere feelings or sentimentality, which Mormonism seems to thrive upon.
1 July 2003
“Moore” on the Court
Russell D. Moore has a new article on the Lawrence v. Texas decision that offers an interesting perspective:
The gospel of gay liberation is everywhere—and it is increasingly adopted without question. For younger generations of Americans, a traditionalist view of marriage is the moral equivalent of a segregationist view of race relations. Legislation is important, but it will take more than retooling the laws to address this cultural shift.
Dr. Moore does well to show us the limits of the political nature of this issue. Read the entire article.
Guest Blog
Editor’s note: I thought it might be interesting to have a guest blog every once in a while, and today the perfect opportunity arose. My lovely wife Lori was passionately discussing what she heard on the John Ziegler radio show this morning, and I thought she might like to share it with TruePravda readers everywhere (all 3 of you). So, without further ado, here she is:
Today I was listening to John Ziegler discussing the drop in our nation’s birth rate and for the first time Ziegler infuriated me. Usually, I agree with his opinions but when I heard him say that he doesn’t see a reason for anyone to have more than two children, I got very angry (not something I like to do while driving). Anyway, he took callers only two of which I got to hear. One was a lady who has had 6 children and was also angry with another Ziegler comment, he said that the wrong people are having too many children. She and her husband apparently planned their children and took care of them very well. Now, this woman’s children are also having big families. Another caller was a man who said he and his wife are both professionals and have decided to only have one child so they can give her everything she wants.
You may be wondering why I am so angry, let me explain. In our society the acceptable way of life is to go to college, get married, start a career, buy a house and two cars and then and only then start to TRY and have children. The main problem with this ideal is that by the time we are “ready” to have kids, the women are getting too old. Thus we have such a thing as fertility insurance. I don’t disagree with women who want to do all these things but for the women whose greatest desire and aim are to be mothers, we are criticized and even penalized. How dare we put off college for a family. How dare we “waste” our degrees and stay at home just to raise kids. We are considered irresponsible if we can’t buy our children the best of everything. (Although children remember love more than items). And oh what a terrible thing not to be able to secure their college education by the time their 3 years old.
Ziegler also said we end up paying for the irresponsible choices of those who have to many children. To clarify, I must agree that every man and woman should consider the timing of a family based on marriage and security but not to a ridiculous extent. But I want to say that yes we do pay for the single moms with six kids but don’t we also pay for the women who wait until their thirties and increase our insurance premiums. And do we not pay in taxes for every family with any amount of children? We pay for schools for most of the children in our nation.
I do not propose that every family change their course of direction and have as many children as possible, all I ask is that Ziegler and others allow those of us who want a family more than careers or status to be able to do so without scrutiny or criticism.