Tag Archives: Relationships

Is opposing “same-sex marriage” like opposing interracial marriage?

Not at all.  It is remarkably simple to refute the argument in the title by accurately noting that skin color is morally neutral while sexual behavior is not.

But there is another interesting argument that goes even further, and it highlights how the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is actually the one similar to the racists who opposed interracial marriage.

Here’s why: The Left is (successfully) lobbying for coercive government force to change the meaning of marriage. The racists changed it to mean “only same-race couples” instead of just a union of one man and one woman, and the Left is now using it to change it to mean, “not just the union of a man and a woman.”

Marriage is what God defined it to be.  It describes a thing — a union of a man and a woman.  The term didn’t pre-date the institution, such that we get to define it any way we like.

If anyone is behaving like those that opposed interracial marriage it is the Left.  They are the ones abusing the original and obvious definition.

Roundup

—–

Sadly, pro-choicers think it is a good thing that we’ve reduced the cases of Down Syndrome outside the womb by killing 90% of those who have it when they are inside the womb.  And yet they think pro-lifers are the extremists.

—–

For you Reformed folks, please consider switching from TULIP to BACON.  Tulips are beautiful but bacon is tastier and more manly-sounding.

—–

Good, simple flowchart in responding to same-sex marriage arguments (click the link to embiggen and get the jpeg):

Marriage-Flow-Final-2.png (1024×563)

—–

Mainstreaming Bisexuality: ‘Captain Bisexual’ Marches in Chicago Pride Parade as Young Children Watch — the title says it all.

—–

Aussie Communists: ‘Strike blows’ against the Church and capitalism with same-sex ‘marriage’ — Hey, kudos to them for being honest about their agenda.  At least they didn’t peddle the lies about it being for “love,” which countless unthinking people reflexively repeat (as if not changing the definition of a timeless word would prevent people from loving each other).

Roundup

In case you missed it — a great video on marriage — the story of Ian and Larissa.

—–

Courtesy of Duane from Facebook, the two tenets of the Tolerance and Diversity movement:

  1. We Support Free Speech.
  2. Shut Up.

—–

I thought this was a gag at first — Coming Next: ADA Lawsuits Over Shy Bladder Syndrome.  Sadly, it isn’t.  This is government out of control.

—–

Self-professed pro-choice ‘terrorist’ pleads guilty to issuing death threats: cyanide found in home — Did this make the mainstream news?  I assume not.  Rhetorical question: Would it have had more publicity if it had been a pro-lifer?

—–

Lifting the Lid on Censorship of Black on White Violence — just a little balance would be nice.

The establishment media serves one purpose in this country: to advance the liberal agenda. Neither public safety nor the duty to keep the public informed is allowed to get in the way.

—–

Will the media bother to tell Ohioans that Obama’s ad there is pure fiction?

All of which means that the actual message of the ad is “I had a job in the auto industry until about six years ago… and then I got a new job. Which is apparently one with a bad environmental and fiscal record, but that doesn’t matter! That’s because Barack Obama really, really needs me to get on the screen and tell you how great it is for me as a spectator to see the auto industry get bailed out. So I figure that I’m golden… oh, crud, Facebook. But… they promised me that Republicans couldn’t read!”

Which, admittedly, doesn’t really sing as a campaign message.

—–

The viciousness of the Darwin Lobby:

Evolution News writes about an eminent scientist who is under by professors and students at Emory University because of his disagreement with Darwinian orthodoxy and his assertion that morality isn’t possible on a materialistic worldview.

Here’s the first article from Evolution News, which explains what got Dr. Carson in trouble with the Darwoids.

Excerpt:

You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

All that, but if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications — everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University is that man.

—–

This explains a lot about healthy eating and a proper diet:

400 Calories, by Volume

—–

Obama’s SSM stance looks to be hurting him with Independents.  I’d ignore the Republican less likely / Democrat more likely figures, as those would probably be the same regardless.  But the Independent gap is telling.

A slippery slope or a cliff?

Stan’s piece on slippery slopes reminded me of the distinction between a slippery slope and a cliff.

When debating the oxymoronic “same sex marriage” (SSM) topic one of the typical secular arguments I use is that the same arguments could be used to justify polygamy, incestuous relationships, bestiality, etc.  The reason is that the pro-SSM arguments are typically that the parties are loving and committed and that the government should therefore recognize and affirm these relationships – even though by nature and design they don’t produce the next generation and they can never provide a mother and father to a child.

The other side often responds that these are “slippery slope” arguments, defined as:

A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, “If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we’ll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.” This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.

However, as the link notes, the slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy.  In the case of SSM, it is clear from the reasoning that it would apply to these other cases.  That is why I consider it a cliff instead of a slope.  Once SSM is legislated the same reasoning is immediately available to other groups.

The same thing occurs with the inevitability of SSM impacting religious freedoms and the child abuse of teaching 5 yr. olds how “natural” LGBTQX behavior is.

What is ironic is that the SSM proponents claim (or is it feign?) revulsion at polygamy, incestuous marriages, bestiality, and necrophilia.  Yet who are they to pull up the moral drawbridge?  Until recently almost all of society viewed GLBT behavior as immoral, and many still do.  Why is the pro-SSM crowd so judgmental of other preferences and “orientations?”  I would think that polygamists would have a much stronger case for governmental recognition and affirmation than gays, because at least they can provide a mother and a father to a child.

Here’s an overview of same-sex unions.

Do Planned Parenthood and “comprehensive” sex ed programs teach this?

See New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce.  Read the stats at the link.  It is quite compelling.  Somehow I doubt that the answer to the title question is “yes.”  So you better tell your kids, and kids, you should tell your friends.

Divorce is very costly, very painful and very avoidable.  Out-of-wedlock sex also leads to more divorce, diseases, unplanned pregnancies and abortions.  If groups like Planned Parenthood, public schools, false religious teachers and the media really had your long-term best interests at heart they would put this on the front page for weeks.  But that isn’t their agenda.  They are too busy telling kids not to have sex until they are ready — which, shockingly enough, is right about the time they really want to have sex!

From the commentary there (emphasis added):

This dovetails nicely with the previous studies that Mysterious C sent me that showed that, for men and women, the more sexual partners you have before marriage, the more unstable your marriage will be. See the related posts for more. If you’re still a virgin, like me, (and I’m in my mid-thirties now, and I’m saving my first kiss for my engagement), then there is nothing wrong with you. If you want a stable marriage, then you don’t have sex before you’re married. There are tons of virgins out there, and there is a huge difference in the quality of romantic relationships when both parties exercise self-control with physical touching.

I was reading the Song of Solomon and noticed a couple things . . .

I just went through The Song of Solomon as part of my “read the Bible in a year” program and couldn’t help but notice that:

1. The love story involved one man and one woman.

2. The man seemed to know he was a man, didn’t question it and had certain manly traits and roles.

3. The women seemed to know that she was a woman, didn’t question it and had certain womanly traits and roles.

4. There wasn’t even a hint in this iconic book on romance of relationships between two men, two women, transgenderism, etc.

5. Despite their obvious passion for each other, the theme of waiting until marriage for sex was repeated at least four times:

Solomon 3:5 I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
by the gazelles or the does of the field,
that you not stir up or awaken love
until it pleases.

How politically incorrect!  I wonder how the theological Liberals deal with this work (other than immediately denying that it is God-inspired).  After all, they teach that homosexual, bi-sexual, transgender, etc. are preferences assigned by God.  It seems odd that He wouldn’t have been more inclusive.

And they also support the Planned Parenthood mantra of waiting to have sex until you are ready, and ignoring what your parents and religion have to say (Shockingly enough, kids tend to decide they are “ready” when they really, really want to have sex.  And then lots of disease and unplanned pregnancies happen.  Go figure!)

Seriously, it is a great book.  Sex is “God’s wedding present,” a truly great thing designed for a life-long relationship between one man and one woman.