Faith and Values


The London Times thinks marriage is “dated, discredited, and deeply ungroovy.” In fact, according to the online edition, the “marriage comeback” (the recent increase in married couples) cannot be explained by anything logical.

“Marriage is also — whatever spin you put on it — the final frontier in the relationship game. Nobody has come up with a more definitive statement of a couple’s commitment. Having a child, or buying a house together, has far greater consequences, and yet you only need to talk to people who have done both, but avoided the m-word, to know that marriage is a declaration in another league. Despite the “it’s only a bit of paper” argument, the relative ease with which you can get unmarried, the apparent meaninglessness of the marriage vows in a world where 40% are revoked, it still represents something wonderful, or terrifying, depending on which side of the fence you fall.”

It’s fascinating to watch how minds that simply believe marriage to be an odd creation of a lonely society can become so incoherent in their marriage musings. The Times cannot explain why marriage survives in the 20th century, let alone grows. Perhaps the secularist view of marriage leaves something out that might explain something: GOD.

The Los Angeles Times believes that gays deserve rights. So do I.

The problem is that the LA Times is muddying the issue. The rights gays to practice homosexual behavior has not been in serious legal question for years. The rights of gays to vote or hold private property has never been questioned. So what rights are the Times referring to?

Answer: Gay marriage. Thus the LA Timesdeceivingly delivers same-sex marriage propaganda under a guise of rights enumeration. But the right of a very small minority to radically change the definition of a human institution which has possessed an intrinsic definition for thousands of years is not quite so black and white.

But for the Times, as it is for gay marriage enthusiasts in general, the significance of marriage compared with the significance of the absolute autonomy of the unbridled individual is minute at best.

A public school in West Virginia is being sued by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for having a portrait of Jesus in the halls. The groups say that the picture essentially makes the school out to “endorse Christianity as it’s official religion.”

Question: If federal buildings display their signs in English, does that mean the US endorses English as the official language of the country? Of course not. The First Amendment only addresses legislative respecting of religion, not passive mentions or images.

The ACLU continues it’s streak as paranoid, sue-happy and people ignoring think tank for the Democratic party.

New theory on BBC about why certain are “born” gay.

I find it interesting that the homosexual advocacy groups are now willing to say the homosexual traits are the results of biological error before they say that it just may be a social development/choice. In other words, gay men wouldn’t exist in a biologically ideal world, but since they do, they must not by choice but by birth. Interesting, and not completely coherent.