I set up a web album with a few pictures from my graduation last month.

Ken’s Graduation 2008

This week the Pew Forum released part 2 of its U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. This study of 35,000 adults explored the religious affiliation and beliefs of Americans.  The results are rather interesting.

Read the rest»»

This week we have seen the beginning of a wave of same sex marriages in California. The couples who appear in the news all seem to have been together in a committed relationship for a long time, often for decades. But a Los Angeles Times article explains that the couples that appear in the public eye have been carefully chosen. For example, at 5:01 p.m. on Monday San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom officiated at the wedding of two women who had been together for over 50 years. The LA Times article comments:

The Martin-Lyon wedding on Monday, like other ceremonies held before today’s official launch of same-sex marriage, was strictly orchestrated. Martin and Lyon were married in a private ceremony in Newsom’s City Hall office, with only two news agencies — the Associated Press and the hometown San Francisco Chronicle — allowed to attend.

Many of the other early weddings in the state were also of long-term couples who could have been selected by central casting to appear both nonthreatening and mainstream. In many cases, news releases were issued and the media invited.

Gay activists have their eyes on the November vote on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They have been advising couples to appear as mainstream as possible, knowing that any outrageous behavior now would hurt their cause. If the measure fails, expect to see plenty of outrageous celebrating in November.

Based on what we see in the media we are lead to believe that gay couples are a lot like heterosexual couples, and that after waiting a lifetime they should have every right to be married. But scientific studies of gay couples provide picture very different than the TV images of happy couples in long term relationships. Studies have consistently shown that long term and monogamous relationships among homosexuals are extremely rare. For example,

• Only 8% of homosexual men and 7% of homosexual women have ever had relationships that lasted more then three years.
• 74% of male homosexuals reported having over 100 sexual partners during their lifetime, 41% more than 500 partners and 28% more than 1000 partners! Homosexual women reported much smaller numbers, with 60% reporting fewer than 10 lifetime partners.
• For the previous year, 55% of male homosexuals reported 20 or more partners and 30% reported 50 or more. (Yes, that is in a single year!)
• By comparison, a major study of sexual behavior in the general population revealed that in the previous year only 17% of men and 10% of women had had more than one sexual partner.

(These statistics are from Straight & Narrow? by Thomas E. Schmidt. Naturally, the results of different studies vary somewhat, but the general picture is quite clear. The book includes extensive footnotes that document references to the original studies so that you are able to check them out for yourself.)

The truth is out there for those who are willing to look for it. The reality of homosexual relationships is very different from the image portrayed in the media.

This week in California the state will begin approving same sex marriages. Since I am speaking on this topic this weekend at my church, I wanted to provide a list of resources for Christians who are interested in learning more about this topic.
Read the rest»»

Today I went to get my hair cut, and as usual while I was waiting I looked in vain for something interesting to read. Usually I bring my own reading material, but unfortunately today I forgot. In the waiting area there was the customary assortment of popular magazines, including women’s magazines, celebrity gossip rags, sports magazines and auto magazines.

Do people actually read this stuff? I really have zero interest in learning which starlet has gone into rehab again, and while I enjoy watching sports occasionally I am not enough of a fan to enjoy the level of detail found in sports magazines. I am not really into cars, and the occasional travel magazine seems targeted on retired people with lots of money to spend. It would be a little embarrassing to be caught reading a woman’s magazine. The few times I have been desperate enough to pick one up it seemed to be mostly about (1) looking good, or (2) improving your relationships. So what is there left for me to read?

Are these the sort of magazines that most men and women enjoy reading? I felt like a bit of a misfit in there, since apparently none of the magazines for ordinary people was the least bit interesting to me. Once in a while I get lucky and can at least find a news magazine (usually at least 6 months old), but not today. I’m not asking for a theological journal, but can’t they at least get a computer magazine or two? Maybe a lot of businesses get a big discount on the same package deal of boring magazines. It would be interesting to visit different waiting rooms and make a record of the titles that they carry, but I have more important things to do.

I wonder if there are other people like me who are magazine misfits. What has been your experience?

What does it mean to be a man? For centuries, young boys did not need to contemplate this question because there were commonly accepted rites of passage that let the community know when a boy became a man. But due to rampant gender confusion and a blurring of distinctions, today there are many men in their 20s and 30s who are still not sure that they are “men.”
Read the rest»»

A new movie opens today with Ben Stein titled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” This documentary explores the oppressive tactics used by the academic community to attempt to silence all discussion of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolutionary theory. The movie reportedly includes interviews with some well know evolutionary scholars and opponents of the Christian faith.

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I received a strong endorsement in a email newsletter from Christian screenwriter Brian Godawa:

I want to encourage you all to go see a great movie that opens this weekend on Friday.

It’s called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I’ve seen it twice and it is an entertaining and eye opening film about how Intelligent Design is being systematically forced out of scientific discourse by the bigotry and intolerance of the Darwinist establishment.

This is a powerful movie about the necessity of freedom of speech, and freedom of inquiry in science that is being lost through academic censorship and punishment of legitimate scientists who merely question the dogma of Darwinism.

It is hosted by a brilliant and funny Ben Stein and is the best documentary I have ever seen on the topic.

Anti-Christian crusader Richard Dawkins apparently crashed a private early screening in Minnesota. Some of those opposed to Intelligent Design have been very vocal in attacking the movie and trying to discourage people from seeing it. The National Center For Science Education has set up a special web site dedicated to discrediting the film. Apparently there are a lot of people who really don’t want you to see this movie. That just makes me want to see it even more!

The movie opens today, and depending on how many people see it this weekend it may or may not be around the following weekend. I am trying to figure how how to fit this into my schedule, because it looks like it will be well worth seeing. The movie website includes a theater locater.

Update on 4-25-08: I saw the movie on Wed. with my family. The theater was nearly empty, but it was a Wed. night. Apparently it did fairly well over the weekend. The film is still in theaters this weekend, so you can still see it. I think that this movie is well worth seeing. It does not deal primarily with the evidence for or against evolution, but rather with the efforts by those in power in academia to silence the debate and ruin the careers of those who dare to give any credence to Intelligent Design.