Are gays moral?

What does God say?

Born that way

Definition of Marriage

Why redefine the word?

The true evil

The Atomic Family

Neanderthal thinking


News and views that Americans should think about but are not reported on or discussed by the American mainstream media.

Gay "marriage"

Before reading this, I would like the reader to keep in mind that it doesn't matter what I think about this subject but what God has to say about it. If you have a beef with what God has said then your beef is with what Him - not me. I am simply trying to be faithful to what He has already said. If it were up to me, I'd rather say nothing because I don't like confrontation.

Is discrimination against gays ok?
Absolutely not. Discrimination against anyone by man is not acceptable. God can discriminate all He wants to because He is God. However, men are called to love one another. By that, I don't mean sexually or to constantly flatter, but to care for them (their physical and spiritual needs and emotional needs where they do not conflict with the previous needs). I do not treat gay people, people of a different race, people of a different religion, atheists, etc. any different than I would treat anyone else.

Are gay people moral?
This is a question that is probably at the heart of the matter. Man's morals are far different than God's. There is a lot of overlapping. For instance, both man and God regard murder, rape, stealing as immoral (at least for the most part for the majority of people), but God goes way beyond what many people nowadays consider immoral. God considers adultery, lying, worshiping gods other than Himself immoral just to name a few. God also clearly considers homosexuality (practicing a gay lifestyle) immoral as seen in the verses from His Word below. Clearly there are probably a lot of gays that do more kind deeds and appear more moral to men than I will ever appear. I am not denying that. You could also say that gays are not harming anyone by being gay. That is debatable, but let us say that this is true for the time being. One could also say that everyone is immoral based on God's standard and I would have to agree - we have all sinned before Him (Romans 3:23). However, sins have degrees in grievousness. Worshiping a god other than the God of the Bible is considered a very large sin by the Bible (see my article on intolerance). This is a sin that is likely considered as no big deal by modern man's morality as it is not hurting anyone is it? If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then the person that is being hurt the most by this is the one who is worshiping the god of his choice who is not God. He also hurts his family in the process by leading them away from God and hurts society in general in the same way and ultimately inviting wrath upon it. You could say the same thing about abortion or adultery. Both could be considered by many in our day as not hurting anyone and therefore it is moral by man's standard but God's view of them are vastly different than man's. Homosexuality is not singled out from the rest. It is one of many sins that men have to repent of and Christians are calling for men to repent. Are Christians perfect? Obviously not. But, true Christians seek to know what God wants from them and strive to obey what He has commanded. Their attitude is not to flaunt their sins before men, but to repent of them. Even though the actions of a Christian may not always reflect a repentant heart, if they are a true Christian, they will fall, but always get back up and strive to align themselves with God and strive to help others do the same.


What does God have to say?
Before we get into any more of my words and opinions on the subject, let us see what God says about it. The following are not verses taken out of context and there are no verses to be found that directly contradict these. I believe that I need to list them here because there is a woeful ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches in our day. Not everything in the Bible is love and forgiveness. Most of the Bible is actually about warnings and wrath. Unknown to most people nowadays, Jesus spoke much more about Hell than He did about Heaven. God is love, but He is also just and will dispense His justice one day. Keep in mind that this is God speaking, not me:
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Gen 18-19
Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Ki 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: [and] they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

The Old and New Testament both speak the same language about this issue.


Born with sinful tendencies.
We are all born with sinful tendencies that we have to fight. There are those born prone to alcohol addiction, lust for power, lust for the opposite sex, envy, laziness, jealously, anger, bitterness, etc. A certain segment of people are born with a tendency to sexually pursue a member of the same sex, but that does that mean that they should act on this tendency? Does that mean another segment should give in an become alcoholics? Does it mean that they are not responsible for any consequences for their propensity to alcohol? We all suffer from sin tendencies of one form or another. One that would be easy for me to avoid may be extremely difficult for someone else to and visa versa. Just because we are born with a tendency does not mean that we are free to act on it. We need to look to God to see what is acceptable and what is sinful and He has made them pretty clear in His Word. He (not me) has said strong things about practicing a gay lifestyle. It is just one of many in a list of sinful tendencies that men are called to repent of and they can only do that through the strength that is found in Christ, Himself - only turn to Him and He shall set you free (Joh 8:36).


The traditional definition of "marriage".
Before the recent attempt to re-define what the term meant, it always meant a union between a man and woman (i.e. husband and wife). What is the meaning of husband? Merriam Webster has not changed the definition of this term yet. It is still "a male partner in a marriage". If there are no males present in a union (lesbian/lesbian union), can there be a marriage? - not according to Webster yet. Likewise Merriam Webster still defines a wife as "a female partner in a marriage " - therefore where there is no female, can there be a marriage? Obviously no. In the same manner Merriam Webster has not changed their definition of matrimony yet, but still defines it as "the union of man and woman as husband and wife". So, they have been politically pressured to change their definition of the term marriage, but someone seems to have forgotten the others associated with it. What does the mean? Simply that the attempt to change the definition of the word is a recent political attempt to normalize gay relationships and make it look like it has been an accepted form of "marriage" since the term was invented.

Why not call the gay union something other than the word marriage?
Words are invented every day. Why not call a homosexual union something else than what it is not... make up a word. Words like tweeting, googling, and many others are invented daily. Invent the term "egiarram" (marriage spelled backward) where the union would be between a dnabsuh and a efiw or between a wifband and a hube. The laws could then be changed to specify that those engaged in a gay union (an egiarram) have the same "rights and privileges" as those in a traditional marriage without changing the traditional meaning of a word. Congress likes to change laws and this will give them something to do besides raising our taxes. Aren't equal "rights and privileges" what is desired? While I don't approve of such unions because God does not, there are a lot of laws in our society that I don't think God approves of. In this case, if the government wants to change the laws, let them include this new word instead of redefining a perfectly good word. However, I don't think that that would be good enough. The desire is to redefine the term "marriage".


Why the desperate attempt to redefine?
This is the real question that should be asked because it reveals what I believe to be the real motivation behind the desperate attempt to change the meaning of the word marriage. Those who want to change the traditional meaning of the word want to normalize the gay lifestyle. That is, they want to be able to justify that their lifestyle is acceptable and normal for human beings, when it clearly was not considered acceptable or normal in previous generations and certainly is not what the vast majority of people engage in. The vast majority are heterosexual. But just because gays are in the minority does not necessarily make it wrong. Is living a gay lifestyle wrong then? Well, if you believe God, then yes, it is wrong. People may get away with changing the meaning of what we have always called marriage and thereby succeed in justifying their life style before men, but in the end, it does not matter what men call this union or what man thinks of it - what really matters is what God would think of it. If the meaning of this term gets redefined by men, it still does not change the fact that the lifestyle is a sin in God's sight. It would be like a child covering their eyes when scared by a monster. Desperately, they try to cover their eyes and hope that he will go away only to find out that when they open their eyes, he is still there - they could not wish him away no manner how much they wanted it so. People cannot wish God away.


The true evil of this.
To use the favorite phrase of our current president, "let me be perfectly clear", I do not have anything against gays. If they wish to practice this sinful activity, there is nothing that I can do about it. My problem with the whole movement is that they want to push this sinful activity down the throats of the nation to accept it but also to teach our children to not only accept, but there are those who seem to want to encourage them to practice it. And herein is the rub: they want to turn not only the children of this nation against God's commandments, by want to teach my own children and grandchildren that what God has said is sin is not really a sin before Him. This is the true evil of this movement.
Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
Mat 18:3 And said, Truly I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whoever shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:5 And whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me.
Mat 18:6 But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of stumbling blocks! for it is inevitable that stumbling blocks should come; but woe to that man by whom the stumbling blocks come!

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!


The Atomic Family
I was recently talking to a young person about this whole issue. She used the term "Atomic Family" to describe a family with a man and woman who are married and have children. What she was describing is what some people would refer to as a typical family from the 1950's. If you are familiar with the show Leave it to Beaver, this would be what she was describing. However, she used the term in more of a derogatory sense. Meaning that it is an outdated old fashioned concept. Today's family in her opinion had a lot broader definition and could be an unmarried couple, single parent, gay union, with or without kids, transgenderes, etc. She gave me the impression that most of her generation referred to the Atomic Family in this way. What she doesn't realize is that someone has taught her to use the term "Atomic Family" because the underlying sense of using this term is that this type of idea was only around during the early atomic age i.e. the 1940's-1950's. What is implied is that this was an invention of the 1940's. What is clearly ignored is the fact that this so called "Atomic Family" is not only a 1940's-1950's model, but it is the model for families every since Adam and Eve. It would more accurately be described as the "Traditional Family" or God's plan for a family. It is only in our recent "enlightened" generation that we have come to recognize that a "Family" could be much more than this. This is complete rubbish. The God designed, time tested concept for a family is the correct view of a family and that children that come from this holy institution are a blessing from God. Children don't come from other modern concepts of "families".
By God's will, some married couples are not able to bear children. The married couple in this case is still a family that does not have the special blessing of children. This is entirely God's choice and who are we to question why. If the couple remains child less, it is not a sin.
Adoption is also a way for a married couple to not only enjoy the blessing of children, but also help the child in need.


Neanderthal thinking.
One will say "As long as it is not hurting anyone, it is none of my business". The reasoning being that unlike the alcoholic who could kill with a car, the homosexual is not hurting anyone. I could understand that argument if it weren't for what God says about it. In the verses above it is clear that God does not approve of this activity. He repeats it several times in several ways. He disapproves of it so much that He destroyed the ancient city of Sod. Sin has it's consequences not only for those who partake in sin, but for those who are caught in the nation where that sin takes place. He has a record of punishing those nations who snub His Word - especially those who even casually associate themselves with Him (in God we trust, etc.) but ignore what He says. By now you are surely thinking "How Neanderthal of him!". I'd rather be a Neanderthal who listens to His Word and has his hope in God than a progressive who has no hope outside of God. I'd rather be on the Neanderthal road that has withstood the test of time than on the progressive path to destruction yet unseen. If you don't believe in God, then I can understand how you believe that there is no harm being done. If you do say that you believe in the Christian God, then how can you believe that it is ok to practice or encourage this unless you do not believe what He has said in both the Old and New Testaments alike?


Do I hate homosexuals?
No, I don't hate homosexuals. I will be accused of hating them. Accusing people of hate is always the easiest and cheapest way of arguing. It requires no logical thinking nor reasoning nor even any discussion other than the word hate. It is very popular because it is so easy. Anyone can just dismiss any idea that they don't like by saying "you are wrong because you hate". Hate is an abused word nowadays. It is typically heard from those who cannot justify their position, but want you to be wrong and want you to go away. Either they have no sound argument against what you are saying or are too ignorant to have any argument so they just end up with what is essentially name calling. What is written here is not hate, it is simply witnessing to what God says. Does God hate homosexuals? I am not God so I can't answer for Him. However, He has severe language to any that work iniquity:
Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in your sight: you hate all workers of iniquity.
It does not matter what I think or what I say about this issue... you need to ask yourself "What does God think?" and are you willing to pay the consequences of ignoring it:
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.


©2018 ThinkonHisTruth.com. All rights reserved.