Tag Archives: civil union

Uh, thanks but no thanks

In an obvious sp*m email to random bloggers, a man named Joseph invited me to link to a list of the top 100 “marriage equality” blogs on his gay dating site.  Here is my response.  It also goes out to the people on Facebook with the red equal sign pictures and anyone else who abuses words like equality.  Remember, the warnings in Romans 1 aren’t just for those who commit the sins listed there, but for those that give approval to those who practice them.

And remember to point out that even if their lobby wasn’t wrong on both “marriage equality” and adoption by homosexuals, they can’t put forth both arguments.  If gender is absolutely paramount for sexual relationships, how can it be completely irrelevant for parenting?

And here’s a list of things to mention to people who insist that “same-sex marriage” won’t hurt you.

—–

Joseph,

I’ll be glad to link to your site if you’ll make my blog (www.4simpsons.wordpress.com) one of your top 100 blogs. But I don’t think you’ll want to do that, because I respectfully disagree with your premise.

I know many gays and lesbians and am friendly and kind to them all. I would never condone harm to LGBTQ people. I am against bullying of all kinds. And if you have issues such as hospital visitation or estate planning I would support separate solutions for those (i.e., you should be able to have anyone you like visit you in the hospital, and estate taxes are ghoulish — the government should never profit from your death).

Having said all that, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron (“the same-sex union of a man and a woman”).

That isn’t unkind or hateful to say, it is the truth. Words mean things. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.

But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman.

2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages.

I realize the underlying desire of LGBTQ to feel affirmed and to silence any criticism of their lifestyles, but that is not a mature reaction.

Again, you are welcome to your relationships. You can get “married” in all sorts of false-teaching, anti-biblical “churches.” You can set up house together. I will never bother to get in the way of your lives.

But there is simply no reason for the government to get involved in your relationships. And government recognition of same-sex unions inevitably — and by design — leads to a loss of free speech and religious freedom and results in young children being taught things that are wrong.

You probably noted that the response above was free of religious views, which was by design. We don’t need religious arguments to explain why the government need not sanction same-sex unions. But out of kindness I should point out that there is a God who clearly and thoroughly revealed himself in the Bible. He is sovereign over all. He designed marriage and the ideal is one man and one woman, for life. Yes, heterosexuals break those rules too, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon all the rules. Everyone has rebelled against God and his created order but they can be forgiven if they repent and trust in Jesus. I highly encourage you to consider that. You don’t want to spend an eternity in Hell regretting that you spent this life in active rebellion against your creator. There is a better way.

Roundup

Answering the tough questions about opposing “same-sex marriage” – some simple and effective talking points: – Hat tip: that superior source for apologetics and pro-family information, the Wintery Knight

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

Some sample Q&A.  Learn these easy answers and stop being silent on this key issue.

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Sharks Are Not Misunderstood Dolphins, and Islam Is Not a Religion of Peace – Kevin DuJan from Hillbuzz is writing for the American Spectator now.

No matter how many times the delusional fools in the American media try to convince you otherwise, sharks are not misunderstood dolphins, and Islam is not a religion of peace.

I think that even the media knows this, on some level, because I’ve noticed that few journalists ever cover Islamic terror attacks the way they’d report on other murder sprees and tragedies committed by non-Muslims.

In the case of the latter, great effort is made to explain precisely why someone like Jared Lee Loughner picked up a gun, killed six, and injured a dozen more in his assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  His parents, friends, teachers, distant relatives, acquaintances, and kindergarten teacher, and a kid who sat next to him for an hour and a half on the ride to summer camp fifteen years ago, are all scrutinized for clues into his behavior, then blamed for being bad influences on him.  The media stokes an abusive outrage against these people — the parents in particular — for not catching the warning signs that could have prevented these murders.  Simultaneously, the media and the left join together in politicizing the tragedy, invoking Rahm Emanuel’s corollary to the Alinsky Rules for Radicals that no good crisis should go to waste.  This means that in addition to the people a murderer like Loughner actually knew, the entire conservative movement in this country must also be held responsible for this single man’s actions, including peopleLoughner never met, spoke to, or even knew much about, like Governor Sarah Palin.

When a Muslim commits an act of mass-murdering terrorism, in contrast, the left does not camp out in front of the shooter/assassin/bomber’s home and scrutinize every person he ever in his life came in contact with and blame them all for his actions.  Instead, the media personalities report on acts of terrorism the way they do shark attacks.

Obamacare wavier count: 729 organizations, including many unions, plus 4 whole states (that, coincidentally, the President needs to win re-election).  If the unicorn-rich bill was so swell, why all the waivers?  And is the media aggressively researching the connections to the politically connected companies and why they are getting waivers?

Joseph Smith, false prophet – Glenn has a great series on the many failed prophecies (62 at last count) of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism.  Failed prophecies = failed prophet, i.e, don’t follow him.

Pro-gay groups upset that supermarket “censors” US magazine with Elton John, his gay lover and their surrogate child – only they still sold the magazine, they just covered the picture to protect children.

I saw that at the grocery store last night.  How disgusting.  Deliberately bringing a child into a motherless, perverse relationship.  Such narcissism and selfishness on behalf of Elton and those who are so thin-skinned that they have to force their views on little children.

From the Your President Thinks You Are Stupid category: He has raised discretionary spending 84% and is “committing” to cutting it by less than 1%, and you are to believe that he’s a cost-cutter.  Check.

Miracle of life video – highlights some crucial scientific facts about the unborn, namely that they are human beings from conception.

Update

I updated the Are you sure you want to bring Jesus into this? post based on an encounter with a philosophy professor who doesn’t handle losing very well (Richard Brown, a PhD candidate in the Cognitive Science and Philosophy program at The Graduate Center, CUNY and an Instructor (tenure-track) at LaGuardia College, CUNY).  I did exactly what I recommended in the post and it worked well.  Too well, in fact. 

I didn’t use any religious arguments, but he kept bringing them up.  So I asked him to support them.  He refused to acknowledge his ignorance of the Bible and wouldn’t back up any of his “religious bigotry” comments.  He gave the predictable challenge that I should just live out what the Bible says and everything would be better, and I asked them to please explain what that was and why.  I also offered my summary of the Bible (you know, the sinners in need of a Savior thing) and I think that is what really set him off.

So he deleted a comment.  No big deal, but then he started saying false things about me and then completely changed one of my comments to say something I never said (something rather crude, in fact).  I’ve never seen anyone do that before.  Then he “responded” to the fake comment.

But when I pointed out that I had made a copy of the comment thread he panicked.  He deleted everything he could find on his page: All of my comments, all of his comments answering mine and a whole new post dedicated to saying false things about me.   Then he hid the original post from his main page, though you can still access it directly from the link above (at least until he figures out how to delete it).

Wow, talk about taking the fun out of blogging!  I was going to give the guy a pass and gave him multiple chances to avoid all this.  But then he came up with another post with an “anonymous” comment of mine and wouldn’t provide a link to all the comments.  He can criticize me all he likes, but to hide any links to the discussion in question is cowardly.  He is trying to pretend that a comment part way through the thread was just so darn offensive and religiously based that he has to do all this. Sure. The comment wasn’t even religious in nature.  And if it is so bad, why I am glad to have it displayed in the link above?  Why can’t he link to the whole thread?  Why change my comments? 

So I decided to respond. 

This is a glimpse of what many college professors are like: Hostile to Christianity but woefully ignorant of it and with no desire to learn about it.  Sadly, the students have to listen to the authority figures and don’t know how to respond to them. 

Read the whole comment thread at the bottom of the post if you have time.  It covers quite a bit of ground on the civil union topic, as well as how to address many logical fallacies.

And pray for this guy.  I forgive him, but felt that I needed to flag this as a public service.