Focus on the Family’s Mike Haley has written a new book on homosexuality: ‘101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality.’
There is a question posed to Haley by the interviewer Trish Amason, assistant editor of Citizen Link.

Q: There are so many ways that the church has tried to respond to the homosexual. From total acceptance of their lifestyle, to complete judgment. Why do you think the church has such a tough time responding to homosexuality from a right perspective?
A: The two things that constantly need to be kept in balance in dealing with homosexuality are truth and grace.
What I mean by that is, if you get a church that is extreme in truth then what they are going to do is they are going to become a legalistic church, they are going to forget the grace component of it. But if you get a church that is so geared and off base when it comes to grace, they get sloppy and they get permissive in that grace.
But when you balance grace and truth and you remember that homosexuality is indeed against God’s original intent, it’s sin, but you balance grace with that — that Jesus died on the cross as much for that person who struggles with homosexuality as He did for whatever your sin is — if we balance those two, then I think the church will stay very solid.

I agree with this statement, to a degree! I take issue with his position against homosexuality because it is against God’s original intent. Is it? Yes, but so is heterosexuality against God’s original intent as we experience it in this fallen world. We will never be holy as God is holy. That is what grace is all about – despite the fact that we will never be as God intended, we are still brought into relationship with God through Jesus Christ. We live in a fallen world where we have to understand that life lived will never be as God intends, so what then?

Continue reading →

This from CitizenLink Update from Focus on the Family.

“***In Congress, yesterday, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., testified about the need for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
“Gays are not excluded from the benefits of marriage by others,” Musgrave said, “they are excluded by their own choices. Marriage is and — for the entire history of mankind — has always been, a relationship between persons of the opposite sex, and the primary function of marriage has always been to provide a legal context for procreation and child rearing by fathers and mothers.”

Can we say, “Blame the victim?” I do not accept the “victim” label, but Musgrave has simply gone too far. We do not enjoy the commonly held benefits of marriage because we choose not to. Never mind the examples of men and women marrying an opposite gender spouse due to social or religious pressure when they know the marriage is a sham. Never mind the pain and confusion straight spouses goes through because they cannot understand the lack of passion, or the depression, or the distance of their spouses who hide or attempt to deny the fact that they are gay. Never mind the broken families that result from when spouses hiding their homosexuality simply cannot go on with the charade any longer, often because of the love and respect they have for their straight spouses. Never mind the tremendous guilt gay spouses endure when they know they cannot love their wives or husbands in the way they desire and deserve. Never mind the gay spouses profound disappointed and disillusionment when the promise of the ex-gay movement and the Religious Right that God will turn them into heterosexuals if they just make the right steps in faith so that God will honor their faith and make them into heterosexuals. Never mind all that, because now they can enjoy the benefits of marriage just like the heterosexuals! Being a homosexual is not a choice. Engaging in sex is, but simply engaging in heterosexual sex does not make anyone a heterosexual, and visa-versa.
I am so disappointed to hear Musgrave make such an idiotic statement, such an ignorant statement, such a calloused statement. Regardless of whether you agree with gay peopleÂ’s longing to be married or not, to say homosexuals can enjoy all the benefits of marriage simply with a choice to act like a heterosexual without regard to the feelings and wellbeing of their supposed marriage partner is irresponsible! For gay people to heed her call to take straight men or women as their spouses would only add another nail in the already fragile state of good marriages. If you want to save the institution of marriage, do not demand that gay people marry straight people so that they can enjoy the benefits of life-long, monogamous, and mutually loving relationships with all the civil benefits accorded straight people.