Gay marriage is the newest touchstone issue in society. An increasing number of heterosexuals are in favor of it and, barring a major revival, will undoubtedly continue to grow (I recently saw a sruvey that showed 98% of homosexuals in favor; are 2% of homosexuals really against having the right to marry? Weird).
At the same time that homosexuals are demanding the right to marry, heterosecual couples are increasingly living together without being maried. In 2007, the Census Bureau reported that 6.4 million couples were lving together without being maried. This represented 10 of all opposite sex couples.
If these trends continue, then in a generation or two the only people getting married will be Christians and gays. Very ironic.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Keeping Committments
Recently I said that I would never again talk about Carrie Prejean, but I was wrong. Yesterday she was fired as Miss California. Predictably she claimed that she was being fired for political reasons. The pageant said that she failed to honor her contract by not making appearances they wanted her to make.
If she indeed made the required appearances, all she needed to do was say so. Her failure to do so suggests to me that she probably did not make the appearances. Undoubtedly she decided that she had a higher calling to speak to anti-gay marriage groups than mall openings or whatever the Miss California people wanted to schedule.
Regardless, she did not perform according to the terms of the contract that she signed in case she won. Let's add this to the lies that she told to both the Miss California people and the public. And don't forget the topless photos she took for money.
I doubt that this will stop her sycophants from defending her. Defending Biblical marriage may indeed be a higher calling, but she did make commitments that she did not keep. Isn't being faithful a high calling as well?
If she indeed made the required appearances, all she needed to do was say so. Her failure to do so suggests to me that she probably did not make the appearances. Undoubtedly she decided that she had a higher calling to speak to anti-gay marriage groups than mall openings or whatever the Miss California people wanted to schedule.
Regardless, she did not perform according to the terms of the contract that she signed in case she won. Let's add this to the lies that she told to both the Miss California people and the public. And don't forget the topless photos she took for money.
I doubt that this will stop her sycophants from defending her. Defending Biblical marriage may indeed be a higher calling, but she did make commitments that she did not keep. Isn't being faithful a high calling as well?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Last Call
I promise that this is my final post regarding Miss California, Carrie Prejean. And actually it's not about her at all; it's about us and Christian celebrity.
Let's get these points out of the way:
1. Her answer (to an unfair question in that setting) was courageous. Not real intelligent-sounding, but it is off the cuff and she's not a scholar or public speaker.
2. She was and still is being criticized for her stand which is contrary to that of the mainstream media. Similarly, the release of her semi-nude and topless photos are to embarrass her and her position.
3. She did pose topless for some photos. She told the Miss California organization that none existed. After the first ones came out, she insisted there were no more. When the latest ones surfaced, she blamed the wind. She has not been truthful.
None of this is what really bothers me. What I find difficult to understand is the conservative Christian media completely defending her and making her into a celebrity spokesperson. Are we so desperate to declare our opposition to gay marriage that we will so willingly ignore all the problems with her character and use her to further our message? This is simply wrong.
Let's say she gave a less-than-definitive answer to the gay marriage question. Even though she is a Christian, would James Dobson still have had her on his radio show? Worse, if she said that she was a Christian who supported the right of gays to marry, wouldn't he have attacked her? And then, if the photos came out, he would have questioned her character and integrity and said that this is the kind of supposed Christian who would support gay marriage. Tell me I'm wrong.
Instead, because she gave the right answer, he and others have to downplay the other issues and build her up as much as possible. Not because she is a fellow-believer, but because she said the right thing. And because she is now a celebrity.
How sad. If it were not for her own complicity in seeking out the media (she could have said no), I might start feeling sorry for her. She is being used by people who, once her celebrity fades, will be content to toss her aside and ignore her. I can imagine that 15 years from now, when her star has long faded and she is going back to college to finish the degree she abandoned to chase the celebrity dream promised her, she will look back and realize that she was used.
Had I been her advisor after the pageant, I would have counselled her to make one appearance (Today show, perhaps) and issue a statement like, "Hey, I'm just a colege student and beauty pageant queen. I stand by my answer, but it is up to everyone in this country to search their hearts for the right answer." And then, I would have her go back to school and turn down all media requests.
But, of course, I would have advised her not to take the racy photos that she did in the first place, too.
Let's get these points out of the way:
1. Her answer (to an unfair question in that setting) was courageous. Not real intelligent-sounding, but it is off the cuff and she's not a scholar or public speaker.
2. She was and still is being criticized for her stand which is contrary to that of the mainstream media. Similarly, the release of her semi-nude and topless photos are to embarrass her and her position.
3. She did pose topless for some photos. She told the Miss California organization that none existed. After the first ones came out, she insisted there were no more. When the latest ones surfaced, she blamed the wind. She has not been truthful.
None of this is what really bothers me. What I find difficult to understand is the conservative Christian media completely defending her and making her into a celebrity spokesperson. Are we so desperate to declare our opposition to gay marriage that we will so willingly ignore all the problems with her character and use her to further our message? This is simply wrong.
Let's say she gave a less-than-definitive answer to the gay marriage question. Even though she is a Christian, would James Dobson still have had her on his radio show? Worse, if she said that she was a Christian who supported the right of gays to marry, wouldn't he have attacked her? And then, if the photos came out, he would have questioned her character and integrity and said that this is the kind of supposed Christian who would support gay marriage. Tell me I'm wrong.
Instead, because she gave the right answer, he and others have to downplay the other issues and build her up as much as possible. Not because she is a fellow-believer, but because she said the right thing. And because she is now a celebrity.
How sad. If it were not for her own complicity in seeking out the media (she could have said no), I might start feeling sorry for her. She is being used by people who, once her celebrity fades, will be content to toss her aside and ignore her. I can imagine that 15 years from now, when her star has long faded and she is going back to college to finish the degree she abandoned to chase the celebrity dream promised her, she will look back and realize that she was used.
Had I been her advisor after the pageant, I would have counselled her to make one appearance (Today show, perhaps) and issue a statement like, "Hey, I'm just a colege student and beauty pageant queen. I stand by my answer, but it is up to everyone in this country to search their hearts for the right answer." And then, I would have her go back to school and turn down all media requests.
But, of course, I would have advised her not to take the racy photos that she did in the first place, too.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Liar's Crown
We can now sleep easier at night. Carrie Prejean will be allowed to keep her crown as Miss California. Donald Trump accepted her explanation that her topless photos were just lingerie shoots when she was a teen-ager.
However, now racier photos were released that she earlier claimed did not exist. The new photos are not from behind, but clearly show her breasts and nipples (the news outlets that released them covered up the nipples). There is no lingerie being advertised here and it seems that she was 20, not 17 as she claimed, when she posed (before her breast enhancement).
Now I understand that she probably lost the Miss USA crown because of Perez Hilton's totally unwarranted response to her answer to the gay marriage question. And these photos may indeed have been released to mock her Christian confession.
However, the girl is a liar. She signed a form stating that no photos like this exist. 1st lie. Then she stated that there were no more shots other than the lingerie shot from behind. 2nd lie.
Why in the world is she being held up as some kind of Christian role model? She is attempting to make a living and a career, not on talent or ability or hard work, but on her looks--both natural and enhanced. Do we want our young girls to emulate her in strutting her body before talent judges or a camera lens? And do we condone her lies?
Let Ms Prejean return to the scrap-heap of obscurity where she belongs. Let her go back to school and finish her degree and become a teacher. And stop holding her up as a defender of the faith. Let's reserve that for people who are actually doing something for God out there.
However, now racier photos were released that she earlier claimed did not exist. The new photos are not from behind, but clearly show her breasts and nipples (the news outlets that released them covered up the nipples). There is no lingerie being advertised here and it seems that she was 20, not 17 as she claimed, when she posed (before her breast enhancement).
Now I understand that she probably lost the Miss USA crown because of Perez Hilton's totally unwarranted response to her answer to the gay marriage question. And these photos may indeed have been released to mock her Christian confession.
However, the girl is a liar. She signed a form stating that no photos like this exist. 1st lie. Then she stated that there were no more shots other than the lingerie shot from behind. 2nd lie.
Why in the world is she being held up as some kind of Christian role model? She is attempting to make a living and a career, not on talent or ability or hard work, but on her looks--both natural and enhanced. Do we want our young girls to emulate her in strutting her body before talent judges or a camera lens? And do we condone her lies?
Let Ms Prejean return to the scrap-heap of obscurity where she belongs. Let her go back to school and finish her degree and become a teacher. And stop holding her up as a defender of the faith. Let's reserve that for people who are actually doing something for God out there.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Skeletons in the Closet
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was pilloried by many for her stand on one man-one woman marriage. Her answer to Perez Hilton was clear and sensitive. I wonder why such a loaded question was allowed in the contest to begin with, but that's another subject.
No it turns out that Miss Prejean has some semi-nude pictures in her past. The first one that has been published was a lingerie modeling shoot and, while it shows a whole lot more than I want my daughter revealing, is a long ways from porn. The most recent report suggests that there are three more racy pictures. Until they surface, neither I nor anyone else can express an opinion on them. We will probably see if it's true and the nature of these pics over the next couple of days.
I am not surprised that she has been attacked an neither should she. Possibly she did lose the Miss USA crown over the answer, which is unfair. I applaud her for giving a truthful and morally correct answer.
She has reacted to the uproar over her photos by calling it an attack on her Christian values. And she is correct. When you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
But Miss Prejean shares some of the blame here. She posed for the photo (an possibly more--we'll see). Further, she was not content (nor was the Christian media) to just give her answer, lose the title, and then go on her way. No, she milked her 15 minutes of fame by appearing everywhere to defend herself and her answer. In so doing, she set herself up for attack.
I am against gay marriage and believe in the right of everyone to speak out. But what makes a beauty queen some kind of expert or role model? Why should she think that her opinion needs to be heard. By speaking out anywhere and everywhere she made herself a target.
Being a target would be okay had her closet been clean of skeletons. The particular photo is one that could appear in nearly any magazine in the country, but it is a morally questionable choice for a young Christian woman with stron moral values.
I am not saying that she should not have spoken out. But she also should have known that any photos that she took in the past would come out. If she is surprised, then she is quite naive.
James (3:1-2) said that not everyone should strive to be a teacher because they have greater accountability. The larger principle revealed by this statement applies to anyone who will dare to speak out in society. Make sure your own house is in order before you put yourself before the world as an example of morality.
No it turns out that Miss Prejean has some semi-nude pictures in her past. The first one that has been published was a lingerie modeling shoot and, while it shows a whole lot more than I want my daughter revealing, is a long ways from porn. The most recent report suggests that there are three more racy pictures. Until they surface, neither I nor anyone else can express an opinion on them. We will probably see if it's true and the nature of these pics over the next couple of days.
I am not surprised that she has been attacked an neither should she. Possibly she did lose the Miss USA crown over the answer, which is unfair. I applaud her for giving a truthful and morally correct answer.
She has reacted to the uproar over her photos by calling it an attack on her Christian values. And she is correct. When you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
But Miss Prejean shares some of the blame here. She posed for the photo (an possibly more--we'll see). Further, she was not content (nor was the Christian media) to just give her answer, lose the title, and then go on her way. No, she milked her 15 minutes of fame by appearing everywhere to defend herself and her answer. In so doing, she set herself up for attack.
I am against gay marriage and believe in the right of everyone to speak out. But what makes a beauty queen some kind of expert or role model? Why should she think that her opinion needs to be heard. By speaking out anywhere and everywhere she made herself a target.
Being a target would be okay had her closet been clean of skeletons. The particular photo is one that could appear in nearly any magazine in the country, but it is a morally questionable choice for a young Christian woman with stron moral values.
I am not saying that she should not have spoken out. But she also should have known that any photos that she took in the past would come out. If she is surprised, then she is quite naive.
James (3:1-2) said that not everyone should strive to be a teacher because they have greater accountability. The larger principle revealed by this statement applies to anyone who will dare to speak out in society. Make sure your own house is in order before you put yourself before the world as an example of morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
