I don't know what you are referring to Lee, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego may well have been adolescents. The Biblical context only indicates that they were among noble youth that were taken away to be hostages and palace-pages(and probably eunechs). Adolescents would have been the best pick for this. Certainly when the Ottomans formed the Janisaries they picked adolescents.

Tina, dear sister in Christ, you may wish to read 1 Kings 19, particularly verse 18, as well as Daniel 3, particularly its verse 18 also ("But even if he does not, [. . .]").

http://www.amazon.com/God-Is-Able/dp/B001KWSIOW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363964116&sr=8-1

(And yes, Jason, before you say it, I'm well aware that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were not "children" at all, but rather were governors over enormous numbers of people within Babylon. So we adults can relate to the pressures they faced in standing up - literally - for their beliefs.)

OOPS!!! I must have accidentally put that in while writing. So sorry!

My other cynical prediction is that legalizing polygamy will be next. Followed by legalizing pedophilia.

And while we're at it, why can't I marry my son?

Hope that the tide will be turned is not a necessity.

I admit it: After hearing today that the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out in favor of same-sex marriage, I have lost hope that the tide will be turned.

It seems that EVERY organization that is not overtly Christian has thrown its weight behind same-sex marriage.

The people and groups that support one-man, one-woman marriage are ridiculed, called homophobes and bigots, and ground into the dust until they holler "uncle" and cave in, or rendered impotent and irrelevant so no one can or will listen to them.

The SCOTUS *will*, in my opinion, rule in favor of gay marriage. They will be bullied into finding a "legal" way to do so. Just like they found a "legal" way to support ObamaCare.

I can't write on Facebook what I think because I will be bashed there. I can't write it on my blog for the same reason. My best friend can't write about it in her newspaper column because it would "cross a line", and she's also said she might lose friends over the issue. (To be fair, while her column tackles politics, that is not the entire scope of what she writes about.) There are only a very few places where I can share my opinion, and they are fading fast.

Do recall Ben, that Dominic Flandry was also on the wrong side of history. That did not mean readers were supposed to delight in the coming of the Long Night.

Ben, worrying about what side of history you are on is power worship, and it is often gotten wrong anyway. Do remember that Mussolini was on the side of history.

Fred, anyone who changes his principles because suddenly it's *his* son being affected deserves at least a little scorn. Heck, see this article just posted here at ThePoint, which also discusses the lack of principles demonstrated by Portman:

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2013/03/19/even-if-your-child-is-gay-n1538069/page/full/

Well, "lack of principles" is one take on it. The other problem regards the lack of empathy - that Portman couldn't imagine what it was like to have a gay son until he actually had one, and that this experience changed his mind. But even if his principles were indeed wrong, why didn't he figure this out a long time ago? Could he really not imagine what it was like to have a gay son, until he actually had one?

Whether his principles were right or wrong, the reasons he gave for changing his mind are most definitely wrong, and they indicate either a lack of principles or a lack of empathy - not what you want to see in an elected representative.


To me, the most fascinating aspect of the entire (gay marriage) issue is the generational gap. I can't imagine how it feels to have your grandchildren perceive you like an Archie Bunker, and I wonder if this is what it was like when other big moral/civil issues were changing (slavery/women's suffrage/secularism).
And it's weird, because in 50 years - if not sooner - this will be a complete non-issue. There will be almost no one around who still opposes gay marriage, and, looking back, they'll mostly wonder what the big fuss was all about, and chalk it up to backwards religious thinking (and maybe a lack of good civics education).

The idea of being "on the wrong side of history" is both scary and fascinating. It's like seeing an extinction - you're the last of your kind. Even most of the Christians in the future won't believe as you do.
Kinda dark.

@Gina Dalfonzo

I came across this article over at Twitchy.com

No gay-lo for Rob Portman: Many libs lash out at senator for ‘evolving’ on same-sex marriage:

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/16/no-gay-lo-for-rob-portman-many-libs-lash-out-at-senator-for-evolving-on-same-sex-marriage/

Like so many Christians before him, Senator Portman is learning the hard way that the world will still hate you no matter how many of your biblical principles you sacrifice.

Please keep the senator in your prayers and hope God will grant him to courage to again stand by his principles no matter what.

If we lose this and I agree we are going to, it can not be overstated the detrimental effect it will have on everyone. This has been truly slouching toward Gomorrah for some time ( most of my adult life and I am now 56. It started back in the late '70's as I recall, when gays just wanted everyone to allow their sexual preference. It was nobody's business what two (or more) consenting adults did behind closed doors. This issue makes the case for the slippery slope argument. Ultimately, as believers, we can't lose and everyone will be affected negatively because although God is patient, He won't ignore this forever. As Billy Graham once said "if God doesn't judge the United States, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." If those of us who speak out for God's truth continue to be shunned, ignored, ridiculed and marginalized, we must remember we are also being separated unto Him.

Jason, I wonder as well how long we can continue the political battle in any practical sense. As I stated here recently, I think we've probably lost this one.

It's possible that at least part of the reason our religious liberties are being threatened is because the SSM issue is currently so contentious. Perhaps if it became more settled, people would lighten up and let us say what we want and let the churches do what they want. Looking back at when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws (quite rightly, as such laws are an outlandish invasion), that didn't end up meaning that we can no longer express our opinions about sodomy.

I really don't know. What I do believe is that first and foremost, churches need to be teaching on this subject more from a Biblical standpoint. There's a danger in losing credibility if we stray too far from that and too frequently sound like a political rally.

Rolley, you DO have a gift! :-)

(Someone once said to me, "Kevin, you're such a card!" And I thought wryly, "yeah, a Joker...")

The reason for this in your face non-stop push for re-defining marriage at just this point in time is John Roberts. Since he was so stalwart in his defense of constitutional government in the Obamacare case, you know he'll stand firm against re-defining what is not open for re-definition.

.
Only wish someone had (pun alert) wrung the Bell earlier. Once you start down that slippery slope...
If Armageddon was stock I'd sink my 401K in futures.

“Calling All Angels”
.
Dorcas: Nimrod, what's the correct pronunciation of e-v-a-n-g-e-l-i-c-a-l? Is it 'EVVangelical', or 'Eevangelical'? Long E or short E?
Nimrod: Long E.
Dorcas: 'EEvangelical'?
Nimrod: Yep.
Dorcas: You sound pretty sure of yourself.
Nimrod: I am pretty sure of myself.
Dorcas: Oh? And how can you be so sure yours is the correct pronunciation? I've heard it used both ways by people who should know.
Nimrod: Because I know the theology behind it.
Dorcas: Theology? What's theology got to do with the way you pronounce 'evangelical'?
Nimrod: Simple. Using the pronunciation I indicated, if you take the 'angelic' out of 'evangelical', phonetically speaking, what does that leave?
Dorcas: 'Evil'.
Nimrod: I rest my case.

Maybe we have, for instance, spent to much time getting political support for ourselves? After awhile, making emphasizing the political rather then the theological aspects of homosexuality seems rather like sending reinforcements into Verdun.