For This Reason......

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 (NASB)

Well, there you have it. It's pretty simple really. Man grows up, man leaves home, finds a helper, ("It is not good for man to be alone."), becomes one with his wife, and eventually, (with a few exceptions), become father and mother and the process begins again. It is the way we were designed to interact with one another from the beginning. It is natural and it makes sense. Man and Wife fit together. They are uniquely designed to compliment and to enhance each others qualities by their differences, not in spite of them. Man and Wife become one in a way that no one else can; emotionally, physically, and spiritually. These bonds are described in detail in the books of Genesis, I Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians as well as other scriptures in the Bible. Nowhere, however, is there made a provision for any other type of family system and it is a perversion of the Word to press these natural functions into any other mold to suit a personal preference.

How can Man and Man or Wife and Wife become Mother and Father? How can either become one flesh? Neither one can compliment the other, because they are the same. It is not natural and it does not make sense. The notion that this is the result of a gene is simply preposterous. An entire generation is being deluded into thinking that this is somehow natural. It's being taught in many schools and our children are buying into it as well. But I have to ask how is this gene passed on? The day that a man and a man, (or woman and woman), reproduces, will be the same day that an evolutionist creates life from non-life. When that day comes I will post a lengthy apology on this same blog to all that I have offended.

If you have followed the news lately at all you will know that Miss California, Carrie Prejean, made quite a stir when she stood up for her beliefs on this subject recently. I will not extol the virtues of miss Prejean in this post, and I have no plans to begin living my life by her definition of moral value. I do not know where she attends worship, or even if she attends regularly anywhere. I do know that she claims to be a Christian and live her life by Christian values. I also know that she does or has done some things that I would consider risque or perhaps even immoral, but then, so have I. If she is trying to live her life as she claims, then she is, perhaps, no more a flawed follower of Christ than I myself am. Just because she, (and I, and everybody I know), makes mistakes, does not necessarily make her a hypocrite. What this post is about is the one character trait of hers that has clearly been on display that I wish more of us who claim to be Christian would show.

She was asked the one question that she hoped would not come up in the competition. Her answer many say cost her victory in the competition. (You can make up your own mind about that but, the asker of the question, a militant, gay blogger who was one of the judges, gave her zero points for that portion of the competition and surely that hurt her chances.) After being vilified by the press and numerous other threats she was asked if she regretted her answer. Not only did she not regret it but when asked if she had it to do over again replied, "I would not change my answer." She refused to set aside her principles for the "popular answer."

Today I read an article written by one John Tantillo titled "Miss California USA Should Quit or Be Fired", read it for yourself here http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/02/miss_california_usa-2/. His reasoning for this is marketing. You see, she does not represent herself or her own ideals but that of "everyone." I'm guessing that he believes that all of these beautiful women that parade around for our viewing pleasure are not allowed to have any thoughts of their own, but rather be just hollow shells that follow the establishment rule. He says:

Now, Miss Prejean is using the Miss California platform to promote her own beliefs and her own brand –not the state she is supposed to be representing. As a result she is not upholding the responsibilities of her crown. She is, after all, Miss California, a representative of a state and a people that are many things but unanimously anti-gay marriage is not one of them.

Her decision to star in a television ad campaign for the National Organization for Marriage should be the definitive last straw in the question of whether she continues as Miss California.

From a real marketing perspective both sides (the Miss California people and Miss Prejean) would benefit from a divorce. The Miss California organization could regain its brand identity and Miss Prejean could freely do what she seems intent on doing anyway: representing her own agenda.

I'm quite sure that for whatever reasons miss Prejean decided to compete, "using the Miss California platform to promote her own beliefs and her own brand," was not at the top of the list. As far as I can tell, from the vote of the people anyway, California is not unanimously pro-gay either. I just don't see that she is "representing her own agenda", I believe she was asked a question and she answered it truthfully and honestly. And, o my, has she paid a big, big penalty for that. But really now, is there anything at all that she could have said that wouldn't have offended somebody? It's just not possible, I mean there is a chance that a majority of people that read this post will agree with it, but there is a greater chance that somebody doesn't agree with my opinion on this and will be offended. Anybody's opinion on anything, stated or unstated, disagrees with somebody else somewhere. It's only her "agenda" because so many that have a loud voice in the media disagree with her. by that reasoning John Tantillo's article, from its title all the way down to the last period, represents an agenda, no doubt. If Carrie Prejean, (and by the way what a strange name that is, Prejean, what are Prejeans? Shorts?), had answered differently what would the outcome have been? I would imagine that all of these voices that have blistered her for the last couple of weeks would have been vocal in a much different manner, praising her for her forward thinking and holding her up as a hero for "gay rights."

Ridiculous.

I submit that God needs more of His children speaking out publicly in support of His Word, nevermind the backlash when everyone finds out that we've got flaws. Legalized immorality is still immoral. It's still sin. But if we don't start speaking out soon, it's going to happen. I for one am tired of my belief system and way of life being brutalized daily and replaced by new "normal" and "accepted" values and behaviors. There is only one pure and exact truth, and I will use it as my guide. It's time to tell the media to shut up.

--end rant--

Craig

Update:
Before I could finish writing this post, the Donald comes out in support of Carrie:

"Carrie will remain Miss California," Donald Trump said at a press conference Tuesday.

Trump, who owns the Miss Universe organization, praised Prejean for her "honest answer" when she was asked a "very tough question," noting that it was the same answer that President Obama has given.

Ultimately however, Trump said that after careful review, the pictures taken were "fine," and that while some were indeed risque, many were in fact "quite lovely."

Quite lovely indeed Mr. Trump, yes in fact, generally speaking, pictures of half-naked women usually are quite lovely. It's just one reason why pornography is such big business. I'll not comment here on the morality of President Barack (an obscure passage in Romans) Obama and how well he has stuck to his statements of belief publicly, (or privately). **sigh**

Well, hooray for the Don sticking up for his girl. And hooray for Carrie sticking to the truth and winning at least a small victory for morals. And hooray for, finally, the end of this post.

See you soon,

CD