My values have not changed. It is sad to see the Boy Scouts considering a change in their position on gays, even after they spent all the money to take it to supreme court, and to win in their rights/beliefs. I have contacted the scouts with my thoughts, and will cancel my two subcriptions to the Boys Scout Magazine, if they change their policy on gays.
In light of the news that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is considering reversing its long-standing ban on allowing practicing homosexuals as members and leaders, General Superintendent George O. Wood issued the following statement, urging the organization to hold to the biblical principles that it has maintained for over 100 years.
“The Assemblies of God is committed to ensuring young men grow up with strong values.
Since 1962 our Royal Rangers program, designed for grades K through 12, with 250,000 members across 87 nations, has sought to sharpen character and develop leadership skills in this critical age group.
We are saddened and disappointed to hear that Boy Scouts of America (BSA), an organization long devoted to biblical values, is now considering loosening the principles in which it was founded.
Homosexual behavior contradicts biblical teachings and God’s created order for the family and human relationships. We pray BSA will give careful consideration to this matter and hold firm to the beliefs that have made it a strong and influential organization for more than 100 years.”
Dr. Wood's statement was later picked up in an article by the Associated Press. To view the full story, including comments by Dr. Wood, click on this link: http://s2.ag.org/scouts.
Please pray for the BSA and our nation as the enemy continues its assault on biblical values.
General Superintendent’s Office
The General Council of the Assemblies of God
I think Jenny Tyree says it better than I can say it, (and I think the Bible says it best.) . I would like to post what Focus on the Family already has stated below;
Focus on the Family’s Position Statement on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions by Jenny Tyree
Marriage is a sacred, legal, and social union ordained by God to be a life-long, sexually exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. Focus on the Family holds this institution in the highest esteem, and strongly opposes any legal sanction of marriage counterfeits, such as the legalization of same-sex “marriage” or the granting of marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, or any other non-marital relationship.
History, nature, social science, anthropology, religion, and theology all coalesce in vigorous support of marriage as it has always been understood: a life-long union of male and female for the purpose of creating stable families.
History and Marriage
Marriage is not an American invention. It has existed as an institution since the beginning of civilization, and thus supersedes our modern laws. Every society at all times has viewed the social norm of marriage as a union of male and female.1 Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society weakens the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates.2
Nature and Marriage
Even a casual observation of nature reveals the vital distinctions between male and female and the need that each has for the other. Gender distinctions are not simply an artificial social construct. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Marriage is the means for melding the two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole. Thus while marriage has intrinsic value of its own, a primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Marriage is the best means for producing and raising a healthy and productive next generation. Marriage is also the way societies protect women from predatory males and socialize men.
Children and Marriage
The optimal environment for raising a child is one in which the child’s mother and father are married to each other. Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child’s best interest and is never compassionate. But this is what every same-sex family does for the sole purpose of fulfilling adult desire. On average, when compared with children raised by both parents, children deprived of mothers or fathers fare worse in virtually every measure of well-being.3 The sparse research regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in well-being to those in single-parent households.4 In addition, children raised by homosexuals are significantly more likely to develop a homosexual orientation themselves.5
Men and women are distinctly different. Each gender brings vitally important – and unique – elements to a child’s development. Thousands of academic studies reveal that the presence of a father in the home increases children’s cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health.6 Our hearts and a wealth of research tell us of the power and importance of the mother-child bond.7
Discrimination and Marriage
We elevate marriage in our laws over other relationships because marriage has proven over millennia to be an obvious societal good. Society provides benefits to natural marriage because natural marriage uniquely provides necessary benefits to society. Marriage law does not discriminate. Marriage is open to any two individuals provided they meet certain criteria regarding age and blood relationship, and provided the individuals are of the opposite sex. All are free to marry under this universal and age-old definition of marriage.
Homosexual activists seek not to end discrimination because laws do not preclude homosexuals from marrying. Rather, they seek to completely redefine – and thus undermine – the foundational institution of marriage. And no one has the right to do that. Indeed, some prominent gay activists have gone so far as to state this as their goal.8
This powerful, advantaged, vocal special interest group is seeking not to be left alone, not to be simply tolerated or even respected, but to force its views on the rest of society. They are asking each of us to radically change our understanding of marriage and family. And this new definition of marriage and family will be force-fed to our children at every grade level. Groups like the ACLU will force churches to perform such “weddings” in order to maintain their tax-exempt status.
Those who would redefine marriage often insist that the only necessary qualification for marriage is “love.” Yet if one accepts that rationale, then there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage; any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as natural marriage. What about bisexuals? Won’t they ask to marry members of both sexes at once? While love is vital, it is not the definitional element of marriage. We love many people we do not marry.
Religion and Marriage
The five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold the natural, heterosexual understanding of marriage. By contrast, these religions teach that homosexual behavior is sinful or wrong.9
The Bible and Marriage
Marriage is the first institution ordained by God and has served from the beginning as the foundation for continuation of the human race. Genesis tells us that shortly after the creation of the first man, God acknowledged Adam’s incompleteness. God then created Eve as Adam’s partner, his completer, and blessed their union.10 Jesus underscored the importance and sacredness of marriage in His own teachings.11
The apostle Paul taught that the marital relationship is to be an ongoing demonstration of the sacrificial love that Christ showed His church. In contrast, the Bible clearly proscribes any form of homosexual behavior as sinful.12 As such, it is not and cannot be the basis for a sacred marriage relationship.
Marriage is unquestionably good for individuals and society. It deserves respect and protection. Any efforts to redefine marriage destroy the institution – and ultimately – civil and healthy society. Thus we oppose any government recognition or endorsement of marriage counterfeits, including same-sex unions.
1Suzanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective on Human Sexuality, (New Haven, Conn: Human Relations Area Files Press, 1985); Edward Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, Vol. 1-3, (New York: The Allerton Book Company, 1922); Helen E. Fischer, Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery and Divorce, (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992); George P. Murdock, Social Structure, (New York: Macmillan, 1949).
2 See J. D. Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior (London: Williams & Norgate, 1933).
3 See, for example, Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997); David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996); D. A. Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-being,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53:573-584 (1991); Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405..
4Ellen C. Perrin, MD, “Technical Report: Coparent and Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, Vol. 109 No. 2, (2002) p. 341. F. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 (1995).
5Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, 66 (2001) 159-183.
6See Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997); David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996); David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America. (New York: Basic Books, 1995). See also, Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherneed. (New York: Free Press, 2000).
7See for example, B. Hunter, The Power of Mother Love. (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 1997).
8See Michelangelo Signorile, “I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO,” OUT, May 1996, p. 30; Stanley Kurtz, “Beyond Gay Marriage,” The Weekly Standard, August 4-11, 2003, p. 26.
9 “Major World Religions on the Question of Marriage,” Marriage Law Project, April 2000, at (http://marriagelaw.cua.edu).
10Genesis 2:24.
11Matthew 19:6.
12Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; I Corinthians 6:9-11.
Definition of TOLERANCE: the allowable deviation from a standard
"Same sex marriage is newer than Google and the iPod, and the first nation to ever codify didn’t do so until the year 2000. I’m told that I need to get on the right side of history and support the marriage of two people of the same gender. I respectfully believe I am on the right side of history, because the history is pretty long on marriage between a man and a woman; not so much for other versions. Despite the frothing of the advocates to the contrary, I’m neither a homopho...be nor a hater. I am simple enough to believe that a marriage of one man and one woman not only is the only biological combination capable of creating the next generation, but in the context of a monogamous and committed relationship, it’s the best context for children to learn how to replace their parents. If we are determined to change the definition of marriage to accommodate how people feel and what they wish to do because of their mutual consent, then we should immediately release those incarcerated for practicing polygamy or bigamy, and frankly, let’s make all consensual adult behaviors legal, whether prostitution, assisted suicide, or even drinking 16 ounce sodas in New York City." -Mike Huckabee
No comments:
Post a Comment