Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What gets me really worked up is the word "hate." I personally believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Does this mean I hate gays? No. I have extended family and co-workers that are homosexual. I treat them just like anyone else. I may not be as close to them (in the case of family - but I am not close to others in their same relationship either), but when I do see them, I don't treat them differently at all. But, I feel that marriage (one man, one woman) is best. And by saying that a same-sex relationship is the same, we are saying that they are equal.
After much thought, I have decided that civil unions should be allowed and with the same benefits. We can't force people to share our beliefs and live the lives we think is best. It is no different that alcohol, cigarettes, etc in my book. All are harmful to the individual, but it isn't the government's place to legislate them. And the main reason is that the relationship doesn't hurt others. It isn't infringing other other's well-being, so the government shouldn't step in. But, as the same time, I want the word marriage to remain what is has been in the past- the union of one man and one woman.
By saying any of this, am I being hateful? I don't think so. But I guess everyone has the right to say what they want...
And if people who support homosexuality don't want to eat at Chik-Fil-A, that is their right. I don't mind one bit! That is a freedom we have.
Monday, January 30, 2012
I think the answer is that we have been blessed by God without some of the problems some families face. But, I also think we have done some things that have helped us maintain a strong marriage.
First, we both were believers when we got married. Neither of us were super strong in our faith, but both of us had the desire to grow. This is important because the Bible says:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Second, we have learned to follow the roles God laid out. To an unbeliever, being a submissive wife might seem demeaning or "un-feminist." But, as a believer, I have found this to be very rewarding and not in the least bit demeaning. It first takes learning to submit to God. This I learned the best when I was pregnant with AJU5. Her pregnancy wasn't our plan at the time. I wanted to work full time longer (i had only been full time for a year). We were looking for a new house. We had plans. But, God had a better plan. I learned to submit to that over time. It took until Week 18 of that pregnancy to start submitting really, but I did. Putting our future in His hands made everything so much simpler. There had been times in the past we have put things in His hands - my husband's job during his senior year of college, finding our first home, etc. But, this one was the first time that I really had to submit and I couldn't do anything else. My husband had to learn to love me as Christ loves the church as well. To a woman, this seems easy. As women, it is easy to love. But, for men it is a lot harder. He has learned to nurture me. He has learned to support me when I need it. He has learned when to back off for a few minutes and let me settle down. Are either of us perfect in this? No. There are times I don't want to submit to him and rebel. There are times he isn't very loving. But, most of the time when we start to get close to a fight, I think both of us remember these verses:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Finally, we spend time together. We are home 6 nights a week. The night we aren't together we are spending time studying and learning about God. We probably should go to evening services at church more (there are two other nights during the week we could go), but since the end of AJU7's pregnancy it hasn't been easy. There isn't a kids' program those nights, so we are always distracted by them. And it runs right up to if not past their current bed time (7:30). But, those are excuses... Back to spending time together. We aren't going different directions every night of the week. We spend time as a family and as a couple, even though we don't go on dates. Most nights after the kids are in bed we do something together (normally watching TV for about 45 minutes). But, we also have played games, etc. I think this helps our marriage a lot because we have a chance to grow together both as a family and as a couple.
So, there it is. I count it a blessing we haven't had any big fights in about 5 years. We have had small ones, but we used to have a lot more fights for sure...
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
So, in the beginning, the "pill" was meant to prevent ovulation and conception. Personally, I have no problems with contraceptives that are designed like this. But, it turns out that the "pill" was not effective enough. The hormones didn't work for everyone, so they decided to change it. Now, the "pills" also affect the uterine wall, which prevents implantation OR promotes a very early miscarriage. This is were most Christians (including myself) have problems. I believe life begins at conception. I don't want to add something to my body that will promote the loss of life. I know it happens naturally sometimes, but that doesn't mean I want it to happen artificially. Some might take the stand that preventing implantation is okay (often the medical definition of life begins at implantation), but what the "pill" does now even would be a loss of life to those people. This goes for the mini pill too! Oh, and the IUD. And the patch, and well, pretty much all non-barrier contraceptives...
So, now to Santorum's point. I am not completely up on politics. I live in a state with a later primary, so I am waiting until things "thin out" to look too closely. But, I wonder if SOME of his point is that this should be a state issue - not a federal issue. Our federal government has definitely overstepped its rights recently. If you look at the rolls of the federal government, many of the things our current government handles it shouldn't. The states have a lot less power than our founding fathers planned/desired/wanted.
Now, with that being said, do I think all contraceptives should be outlawed? No. I personally have 0 problem with the barrier options. Condoms, etc I don't think should ever be outlawed. But, I think those methods of birth control that do increase the likelihood of an early miscarriage should, at the VERY LEAST, be only offered once how they work is fully explained. People need to know that it isn't that much different than the morning after pill.
Now for those that say without contraceptives women are going to have a ton of babies are also wrong. There are also natural ways to control when you get pregnant. NFP, etc are almost as affective when you have regular cycles. Now there are devices to help even those with irregular cycles determine when they are fertile, which means a form of NFP can be used (I don't know if they are available in the US just yet, but one article I read said they are in Europe and the FDA is working on approving them here). But, it means women have to do a little more than taking a pill a day, which I guess some people don't want. But, if it was the only option, I bet most would use it! Add in the barrier options, and I bet our birth rates wouldn't change much. I would venture to bet that the abortion rate (assuming it was still legal) would even drop because women would be more aware of their bodies, etc...
Monday, June 7, 2010
Yes, there is less garbage with cloth diapering. But, you use more water and electricity washing the diapers. So, it terms of impact on the environment, it is really a wash!
Xeroscaping obviously uses less water. And, you don't have to mow anything! But, they have found that having grass near your house reduces the temperature inside. That means if you live in a hot climate, you will use less electricity cooling your house. I don't know if it is a complete wash, but it isn't as close as they would want you to see!
I wonder if similar things will come out about hybrid and electric cars. I know the batteries may already be an issue (how do you dispose of them?)...
Monday, February 8, 2010
First, I think Pam Tebow had a choice. I think all women in her situation should have a choice. They should be able to know what the probability is that she would die, the baby would die, they both make it, etc and then make an informed decision. In almost every case, there isn't a 100% probability for any one of the outcomes, and the mom and dad have to decide what is best for them. I think most pro-life people would agree with me that if there is a very high risk the mom would die, then termination might be an option. If that risk is accompanied by a equal or greater risk of the baby dying, it becomes even more of a legitimate option in the minds of pro-life supporters.
But, what about if only the baby's life is at risk, like a baby with Trisomy 13 or 18? My question is what does abortion do for that family? MAYBE they won't become as attached to the little one, but since they already have pictures of the baby, I doubt that. Some of these kids live for years with the condition. Some lives for months. Some live for days. Some live for minutes, and some are born still. But, I don't see why so many people push to have these babies aborted. If they are going to die, why not let them live as long as they can first?
Okay, now for the "hot" topic - unwanted pregnancy. With the exception of rape, the woman who is pregnant had a choice BEFORE she got pregnant. She chose to have relations. She weighed the risks of that. I think that should be the only choice she gets. If you are going to have relations, you have to be willing to accept the "consequences" of such actions. We need to get back to living in a society where your actions have consequences! I think this would cut down on the number of STDs as well because people would be a little less willing to have relationships with people they are not committed to.
As for rape victims, I am not sure how I stand on this issue. I have read about people who were raped, had an abortion, and felt like they had been raped twice as a result. I have also read people say that it can cause emotional problems to have to carry a baby conceived in such a cruel manner. Personally, I would keep the baby because I believe it is a gift from God even if the act wasn't. But, I don't know if I could force my beliefs on that on others. It is a very sticky subject for sure.
So, that is my take on things. What do you think?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Now how could they be taken wrong? It comes down to evolution. Things like "Mommy's little monkey" could easily be construed as thinking we are just another primate. We are not. We are a special creation of God. We are made in His image, unlike the other animals. Yes, we have a lot in common with primates, but we also have almost as much in common with many other animals! This is all because there is a common Creator who, as one would expect, used some common templates.
So, it makes me think about what I should put on him. I know around close friends what he is wearing won't impact them. They share our belief, so they know he is just wearing things because they look cute. But, out in public it could easily be taken as support for evolution. Well, I wouldn't say support per se. So many people don't understand the debate at all. They just get fed evolution from birth and have no idea about any of the issues with the theory.
So, what do you think?
Monday, November 2, 2009
To abide by this bill, companies have to find a way to deal with the taxes, etc that will be imposed on them. And, for most of us, that means our coverage will change one way or the other. For some it will be a reduction in what is covered or how much is covered. For others it will be increased premiums. Regardless, it means your insurance won't be as good for the money you spend.
So, what do I think will happen in the long run? If there is a public option in the final bill, then eventually that will be the only option. Individuals and companies will realize that it is cheaper to go that route, and so they will. Then, insurance companies will fold because they don't have enough clients. In the end, there may be one or two insurance companies out there, but the majority of Americans will use the public option because it is really their only choice...