(This is continuing a series of posts in support of ‘Yes on Proposition 8′ in California)
From the Rock Church Fine Line Rally held October 1, 2008. Pastor Miles and panelist Sean McDowell answer the question posed: “Same Sex Marriage Doesn’t Affect Me. Why should I be against it?“
In this discussion, Sean McDowell uses the phrase “social re-engineering of marriage” as my new favorite phrase which means redefining marriage. Social scientists who’ve studied marriage have written articles regarding the harmful effects of changing marriage to accommodate marriages such as same-sex marriages. After reading several articles which I will list at the end of this post, there are many similar conclusions. These are as follows:
- Will impact education - We have already seen with the David Parker case in Massachusetts how with same-sex marriage being made legal there resulted in the teaching of same-sex marriages as okay to children WITHOUT even the consent of parents. Since it is mainstream and legal, and since marriages are taught to grade-school children, then same-sex marriage is automatically included without any special need to notify parents.
Update (10/21/08): video of Robb and Robin Wirthlin’s Story about the book titled “King and King” brought home by their second grader on marriage between two men. It wasn’t part of their curriculum, but had to be taught without any notice to parents. It’s not a part of sex education so no opt out was needed. This is said to be a lie of many Prop 8 Opponents, but it is quite the truth.
- Marriage identity words changed - Words such as bride and groom, and husband and wife are now altered to accommodate the same-sex marriages. In California, the marriage licenses were changed from bride and groom to ‘party A’ and ‘party B’ but this was recently changed to add ‘bride and groom’ as an option. Other words replacing husband and wife are ‘partner and spouse.’
- Children will be harmed - According to social scientists, “research indicates that children thrive best when raised by both biological married parents, as long as the marriage is not high-conflict.” (Child Trends Research Briefs and Mapping America). So not just any kind of marriage, but a HEALTHY marriage.
- Gay marriage is harmful to society - marriage and families are the foundation for a healthier society. Our society is already experiencing the effects of unhealthy heterosexual marriages and breakups. Introducing gay marriages just adds to the instability that already exists in marriages.
- Tramples on religious freedom - see my post for more info: Gay Unions don’t affect religious freedom? Think again!
Below features an article found on Christianity Today dated 2/1/2004. After the article is a list of other websites and articles on the same topic.
_______________________________
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn’t, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing “gay unions” instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. “Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds,” Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. “There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses,” Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. “We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can’t marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there’s no deception.”
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their “monogamous” relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and “polyamory” (group marriage) “morally neutral.” She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be “more receptive to [marital] units of three or more” (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to an article in Child Trends, “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.” While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is “chic” in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not “fulfilling” to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.
Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public Theology Project. Viewpoints published in “Speaking Out” do not necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today
____________________________________________________
Additional reading material:
A Further Betrayal of Children - a LifeSite Report
Sacrificing our children for same-sex ‘marriage’ - (WorldNetDaily.com)
A Gay Christian Movement Watch Exclusive: A Letter for Parents of Homosexual Children - (a deadly consequence of homosexuality)
Mapping America - Statistics that demonstrates,through data from major surveys, mainly U.S. federal surveys, that the intact married family and even unmarried two-parent biological families fare better than other families (single parent, same-sex parents, and etc.) (added 10/27)
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ - Marriage between two biological parents is what’s best for children. (added 10/27)
Why Preserve Man-Woman Marriage - an incredible compilation of 20 reasons why marriage should be between a man and a woman. (added 10/29)
wow, this is a lot information. thanks for compiling it all.
but it seems to have the feel of discrimination because it’s weird/different and wanting to scare people into opposing gay marriage. like “aghhhh the world’s going to end and our children will be corrupted if gay people can get married”.
even though u’ve provided to facts to back up your reasons for opposing gay marriage, i think some of these reasons:
- could apply to heterosexual marriages (mainly because divorce has a negative effect on society)
- are a bit extreme (being gay has a negative effect on health because some people want crazy sex lives???)
i also disagree with your article on how gay marriage will “trample on religious freedoms”. it’s all dependent on how gay marriage is enacted in your state and how churches/religious organizations fight for the freedom to respond to gay marriage.
i don’t support homosexuality b/c the Bible says that it’s a sin but i don’t think that all gay people want to have uncommitted relationships and wild, AIDS-filled sex lives. while there are some people who might feel that way, the gay people that i know are interested in the same old committed relationships that heterosexual people have, even if they end up with the same chances of divorce.
this article definitely has the feel of freaking people out so they oppose gay marriage.
By: Kayla on October 13, 2008
at 11:36 am
Kayla, you said:
Kayla, I don’t know if you’ve just missed the news lately, but our religious freedoms have ALREADY began being taken away! Massachusetts is a great example of a state where gay marriage is already legal and Christians lives are turned upside down as a result of gay marriages being made legal. Just catch up on the David Parker story.
So “scary” as these statistics may be, they are true. If I’m giving the appearance of scaring folks away from approving same-sex marriages - you betcha I am!
God didn’t make homosexuality a sin for no reason, He did so for our benefit - as with any sin He’s listed in His word. Science just puts an exclamation mark on what God has already warned us about.
By: Carlotta on October 13, 2008
at 3:03 pm
I had so many thoughts in response to what you said in this and other articles that I wrote my own.
http://www.notyourmamasreligion.com/articles_view.asp?columnid=3202&articleid=50472
The gist is that we shouldn’t base our decisions on whether we’ll face persecution. If Jesus had done that, He wouldn’t have come to Earth or started His ministry here.
By: Kayla on October 14, 2008
at 8:55 am
Kayla, I looked at your website and you appear to be ignoring all the articles written on what’s going on with Christians as a result of the acceptance of the gay lifestyle as “moral.”
For example, you wrote that with education, just working with the schools would bring some type of solution. Did you even read where David Parker in Massachusetts had NO CHOICE in his child’s education? The homosexual agenda was being taught in his child’s school WITHOUT parental consent because gay marriages are an acceptable lifestyle legally. He had no other choice BUT to homeschool his children. For taxpaying citizens, that is totally unacceptable.
You are ignoring what is already happening. If Christians thought that gays living their lifestyle wouldn’t affect them in any way at all, then sure, it wouldn’t matter how we’d vote on anything.
But you aren’t being realistic regarding what’s really happening right now and you need to sit down and take a few moments to catch up with todays current events.
By: Carlotta on October 14, 2008
at 9:12 am
I’ve read your articles and I know that that guy decided to homeschool his kids, but the fact of the matter is that Christians aren’t the only people in the world. There are other beliefs and lifestyle choices, and we won’t always agree with them.
Sometimes our kids will have to learn something in schools that goes against what we believe. But this a free country and people have freedom of speech and opinions. When schools were teaching creation and not evolution, I’m sure there were a lot of non-christian parents who weren’t happy that their kids were learning something that they didn’t believe in. So they fought and got evolution taught in schools. And then christians fought and got them both taught as theories.
Yes, there have been and will continue to be situations where churches and parents and religious organizations don’t get to have things happen exactly according to what they believe. And in those situations, they should fight to have their beliefs recognized just like everyone else’s. But (like what happened to that guy), we won’t always get what we want and we have to figure out how to compromise because our belief system is not the only one. And, if we want other people to respect what we believe, we have to respect what they believe.
Like I said in a previous post, we shouldn’t base our decisions on whether we’ll be persecuted. Jesus was persecuted more than we could ever imagine and he still did what he came to do - show love, teach compassion, be the final sacrifice. But note, that he didn’t force anyone to follow him and he didn’t demand that the government change their laws to be in accordance with his teachings. He lived his life in line with what he was teaching and encouraged others to do the same, giving them the FREEDOM to make their own decisions.
I’d rather be persecuted for allowing gay marriage and have my gay friends and family members see that I love them (and more importantly, God loves them) in spite of the fact that I see that aspect of their lifestyle as sinful, and have them be brought closer to God …than to spare myself and other christians persecution and have them be pushed so far away from God that they don’t even want to consider Him as an option in their lives.
Maybe you’re the one who needs to sit down and think through what your real goal as a Christian in this world is. It seems like you’re more focused on saving yourself than saving others.
Maybe you won’t post this but I know you’ll read it. God loves gay people in spite of their sins just as much as He loves you in spite of yours.
By: Kayla on October 14, 2008
at 12:29 pm
Um, okay Kayla. You’re a sister in Christ so I won’t be any harder on you. I’ll respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that.
By: Carlotta on October 14, 2008
at 12:43 pm
yo, my bad. not trying to start a fight. i’m a little upset, clearly.
no hard feelings…
By: Kayla on October 14, 2008
at 12:54 pm
It’s okay Sis, you’re cool with me!
I still think you have a pretty cool site - great work!
By: Carlotta on October 14, 2008
at 1:00 pm
Carlotta–you keep saying: “Did you even read where David Parker in Massachusetts had NO CHOICE in his child’s education?” He did have a right! He had the right to take his kids out of school. He and his wife had the option of not accepting the bag of books that came home–they seemed to be unaware of what was going on in their child’s education. That isn’t the fault of the school–that is bad parenting. Clearly the Supreme Court saw this and refused to act. That alone should tell you something about the truth of what happened in Mass.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 15, 2008
at 4:18 pm
Kevin, let me explain to you what type of choice parents want in school - the choice to opt out if any objectionable material is covered.
This is as well as the choice to homeschool, private school and etc. But in David Parker’s case, he had no other choice but to take his children out of the school since they would be taught homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, especially since gay marriages are now legal in that state.
Opting out of the books that their children were already seeing? No, to opt out from that would have meant that their children NEVER brought them home to begin with!
The truth of what happened in Mass. was the fact that gay marriages are legal and now they are treated as equal to any other marriage - a fact that we Californians are taking notice of and also showing in the TV ads of what can happened if we legalize gay marriages as Mass. has already done.
David Parker’s incident just gave notice to the whole state of Cali. of what can happen once gay marriages become legal.
And no, that is not bad parenting at all!
By: Carlotta on October 15, 2008
at 5:34 pm
The fact that social research says that children do better when they have strong traditional families (e.g. a dad and a mom) should close the deal. yet, our “post-modern” mentality corrupts our thinking.
By: Edgar on October 20, 2008
at 7:50 pm
Great post!
“He and his wife had the option of not accepting the bag of books that came home–they seemed to be unaware of what was going on in their child’s education.”
That is a cop out. The child already had the books in his possession. Go ahead and try to convince me that the schools won’t push this on the kids and not even send the books home.
A teacher in California recently made this comment on my site in response to the 1st grade field trip to an oxymorinic gay wedding: “Well, Neil, I’m a public school teacher here in California and I will take my students to a gay wedding whether it is legal or not.” That is the mentality we are fighting here.
“It seems like you’re more focused on saving yourself than saving others.”
That seems like a rather odd “Christian” response. I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where it is loving to affirm people’s sinful behavior. And you seem to only focus on gay people. Yes, we should treat them with love and respect, but we shouldn’t affirm sinful behavior in anyone, including ourselves. And we are called to protect others, including the children who will be subjected to perversions being labeled as normal.
—
Gov’t recognition of these unions makes the church an enemy of government. It is a logical consequence.
By: Neil on October 21, 2008
at 6:09 am
Thank you and well said Edgar and Neil!
By: Carlotta on October 21, 2008
at 11:07 am
Thanks Carlotta for including the link to the story of Lowell and Carolyn Groff. I would have one change though. Its not negative consequences, its deadly consequences. If not natural 100% of the time, then certainly spiritual 100% of the time. For the wages of sin is death…
By: gcmwatch on October 22, 2008
at 1:58 pm
Pastor DL, consider it done!
By: Carlotta on October 22, 2008
at 2:16 pm
Carlotta, I enjoyed your blog today! I have been surfing around seeing what everyone has been saying about this issue. Have you seen this article? I liked it so much I put it up on my page:
20 Reasons to Vote Yes on prop 8
The issue over legitimizing gay marriage is not one of equal “rights” – because California law insures that “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses”. (California Family Code §297.5.)
It is, instead, a question of equal “dignity”. Proponents of gay marriage do not want homosexuals to feel like “second-class citizens” as a result of not being allowed to use the familiar and highly favored designation of “marriage”. (Again, being treated like second class citizens is not the issue – there are plenty of legal protections to keep that from happening. It is the feelings of gay couples that are the concern.) Proponents of gay marriage believe that civil decency (and Jesus) requires us to be compassionate, loving and tolerant of homosexual relationships, which they say requires us to extend to them full acceptance, equal dignity, and identical status.
Virtually everyone would be willing to grant “equal status” – if it did no harm. The problem is, there are devastating consequences for doing so, which proponents of gay marriage refuse to consider. For them, “feelings trump consequences.” The following material will evidence that granting equal status to gay marriage will irreparably damage: marriage, families, parenting, children, morality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, majority rule, separation of powers, states’ rights, and America . We cannot allow this effort to “not hurt people’s feelings” lay waste to so many institutions, principles and rights.
The rest of it is too long to post, but answers a lot of the questions I had about the consequences of prop 8:
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/why-preserve-man-woman-marriage/
By: beetlebabee on October 29, 2008
at 12:10 am
Beetlebabee, I also enjoyed your blog after I found it on “Lez Get Real’s” website hit list of Prop 8 blogs! I enjoyed it so much I had it added to my list of blogs to see for Prop 8!
I hadn’t seen that article and I am adding it to this post for additional reading - a must read!
Thanks so much for sharing that!
By: Carlotta on October 29, 2008
at 8:04 am
Trampling on religious freedoms?
Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t trample on ANY freedoms! It makes a gay couple legally married in a state! Any church can still oppose letting gays marry.
And we already tried “separate but equal.” Remember how that turned out?
Instead of lynchings we now have gay bashings.
Instead of Jim Crow laws we now have unequal treatment to the gay community.
We aren’t looking for anythings special, we are as much a part of this country as you and are just as capable, if not MORE so, than raising a family in a healthy environment.
It’s obvious you have no idea what you are talking about and I hope all of your children are born gay just to teach you some tolerance.
By: Shilo on November 25, 2008
at 9:53 pm
Shilo, you obviously haven’t read this post, or, you truly don’t believe the videos with the actual evidence of lost religious freedoms.
Really? How can you compare gay bashings to the lynchings of the past? Your comparison doesn’t even come close. Try again.
Really? So gays have had to fight ….
…for the right to register as a voter?
…the right to use public facilities?
…the right to get a fair hearing in court?
…the right to send their children to a public school?
…the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment?
Have gays been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?
Gays form one of the wealthiest “minorities” in America and your comparison of gay rights to racial civil rights is just pure ridiculous as is anyone else’s attempt in this feeble and desperate comparison.
And yes, I did edit your *f— you* ending out of this ridiculous comment.
By: Carlotta on November 26, 2008
at 9:17 am
Honestly, I’m not even sure where to begin. I guess I’ll address the source. This post showcases fear gone mad.
Issue: Children do better growing up in a hetero family.
This is simply not the case. There are plenty of hetero households where the father molests the daughter, adultery is committed, divorce is running rampant, children are beat and abused (wives are as well), and so on and so forth. In these situations no one ever says this is why children shouldn’t be raised in a hetero household! no one looks at sex/gender when things go wrong then. Why Not? Let’s take a peek at hollywood, shall we? How often are actors and actresses divorcing one another? Madonna is the latest…Liz Taylor…Doald Trump…Russell Simmons…come on now. Let’s talk about how sacred marriage is with heteros…Is this what you’re begging DOMA to protect? Looks to me like the ’sacred’ness of marriage ISN’T EVEN SACRED TO ALL HETEROS. Does this mean heteros should be banned from marriage?
Issue: same sex marriage is a threat to religious beliefs.
I don’t know of any gay person that sites wanting to tear religion apart as a reason for marriage. When straight people decide to get married, I don’t immediately start worrying about how they’ll raise their children or how this will damage my church. I think awww, isn’t it nice when two ppl that love each other can be together without being stressed out the wazoo about it
If anything, they deserve the same rights and priviliges allotted any other adult in this country wanting to be with the person they love for the rest of their lives. This isn’t about stopping christianity. Christianity is like roaches, it’s survived through wars, famine, disease, and everything else…so you can unclench your cheeks, it’s here to stay. This is about people being denied equality. The same way blacks were denied being treated EQUALLY. NOT seen as demons. NOT seen as inhuman. NOT seen as raging sexual addicts (what in the heck? black men were depicted in this manner for ages…still are. snatching purses and raping women) Have ALL blacks run rampant since being given equal rights (well sort of equal rights lol)? No. Was christianty or any other religion sent under because black were allowed to eat at the same counters as whites? No. So, rest your fears. Actually, if you look at the world as a whole, religious beliefs have been more of a threat to humanity than anything else. I’ve never heard of same-sex wars or homosexual crusades, but I do know of catholics and protestants leaving bloody trails in the name of God. People being burned at the stake in the name of God and women being burned alive for the same foolish fears. Wars in the name of Allah and even christians practicing polygamy. If homosexuals want to marry, they should be given the opportunity…and here’s a HUGE reason why THIS country SHOULD PROTECT THAT RIGHT: THIS COUNTRY WAS NOT FOUNDED FOR CHRISTIANITY! The very foundation of this country is FREEDOM. The freedom to worship allah, christ, buddah, even satan (although I wouldn’t recommend it). So, laws shouldn’t be based on the frantic religious fears of one religion or another. If this be the case, why use the bible? why not the koran? Why not the beliefs of Scientology? Here you have the freedom to declare fake terrorism wars where you bomb CHILDREN (since we’re so worried about the children) and still pass laws against abortion because life is so sacred! (*about to faint*). Many of the articles of evidence to support your claims are just plain uninformed and illogical. If I were to say that all black ppl are gangsters and listen to rap music, that would be stupid. To say that all whites want to keep blacks in slavery would be stupid. So, why would I open my mouth to say that all homosexuals are harmful to society. O.J Simpson is straight. Sarah Palin: straight. George Bush: straight. Saddam Hussein: Straight. Jospeh Stalin: straight. Hitler: straight. Ted Bundy: straight. Seems to me were not dealing with sexuality, we’re dealing with CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS THAT LACK BRAIN STEMS. There are straight and gay killers, theives, priests, nuns, presidents, bus drivers, teachers, pastors, athletes, etc. The problems plaguing this country can’t be scape-goated onto one race, sexuality, age group, or religion. Please, I beg you, stop terrifying yourself and others with psuedo-facts.
has anyone been watching the news? have belgium, norway, canada, spain, or south africa been blown off the planet by homosexuals being able to MARRY? Are the children being delivered to satan in handbaskets? This doesn’t even require anyone to open a bible. All you need is a cerebral cortex to figure this out. The world is full of good ppl and bad ppl of all shapes, sizes, and colors, so let’s not let our fears override our common sense and humanity in this or any other issues.
I was driving through an alley one day and passed a planned parenthood clinic. There was a christian rep that asked me to stop so he could speak to me about how abortion is wrong in the eyes of god, how life was sacred, and life begins at conception. He continued saying that as a christian, he knows the bible. The bible speaks out against this cruelty and so on. I asked him if he was a vegan or a vegetarian….he said no. I asked well what about the millions of lives being CREATED JUST TO BE CONSUMED BY US. He said but those are animals and these are humans. That’s not as important. *I almost died and went up to heaven to ask jesus if he could come down here and slap this guy for misrepresenting Him like this*. Now I’m confused…the same caring, loving, fighting for ‘right’ spirit that’s speaking against the loss of unborn human life, could care less about literally millions of animal lives being bred on ranches across the world for human consumption. Is that what all christians think? Does God only care about human life? Is that in the Bible? Now, i’d be a fool to sit and think that all christians had such a bass ackward belief system…so I let this man continue with his half-decent crusade and bid him peace and blessings.
peace and blessings,
spirit
By: Spirit on December 10, 2008
at 2:27 pm
Spirit, I appreciate your comments but I do want to encourage you to take a look at the statistics given by social scientists in the links above. True, there are heterosexual parents that are bad for their children, but for the IDEAL living situation for children, is with both biological parents.
Please refer to my post titled: “Gay Unions don’t affect religious freedom? Think again!” Clear examples on how this gay debate is affecting religious freedoms.
The concern is not over “fears” but very real life situations which have already occurred and have been documented.
What’s most important is not where you stand with Prop 8, abortion or animal rights, but where you stand with Jesus. Your relationship with Jesus Christ is what will shape what you will support or not.
Spirit, do you know Christ as Lord and Savior?
By: Carlotta on December 10, 2008
at 8:35 pm
To be clear, then, you’re not saying that it is “gay marriage” that affects religious freedom, but “the gay debate.”
We could, for example, have legal gay marriage and yet still have _no_ impositions on religious freedom.
By: Phil on December 17, 2008
at 6:13 pm
You know, a lot of researchers say that 53% of marriages end in divorce. Obviously 53% is a big enough majority to strip away rights, so why not take away heterosexual marriage? We’ll finally have stability in marriages!
By: Louis on December 24, 2008
at 12:22 am
You know Louis, that point was brought out by our pastor when he preached on marriage during the Prop 8 campaign, and he and many others are also saying that marriage needs to be strengthened. In fact, more sermons are preached on marriage than they are on homosexuality.
Heterosexual marriage is necessary for the foundation of any community so no, it should never be taken away.
By: Carlotta on December 24, 2008
at 7:32 am