Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

We told you so. VOTE YES ON 8!

Hi – welcome to newcomers from the latest link(s) from other blogs.  Feel free to take a look around and comment if you like.

Here’s another example of what you’ll get lots more of if Prop 8 fails: School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartnersRight out of the gay agenda playbook.

It is interesting that some people criticize those who have the audacity to take exception to the things being pushed on children.  The same rationale people use to criticize me for criticizing the gay lobby could also be used to justify showing pornography to kindergarteners.  After all, you don’t want moral busybodies trying to prevent the victimization of children, do you?  You’ll just hurt them all the more, right?  I mean, anyone who wants to protect the innocence of children must have a series of psychological problems, don’t you think? 

But I probably shouldn’t use that pornography example with one of the guys pointing people to my site, considering what he considers normal in their parades and how he enjoys blogging about gay camping –  what with its fluid sleeping arrangements, tubes of lube on the picnic tables and dozens of naked guys in the pool.  And he claims to be a “Christian,” no less!  Of course, that guy thought that reading illustrated gay fiction to 2nd graders was a good thing and had no issues with kissing his “husband” in front of little kids. 

This is what we are dealing with, people.  Sick.  Of course, this is also the guy who said I was “worse than an abortionist’ and had “blood on my hands” because I think that pushing condoms on kids gives implicitly and explicitly wrong messages. 

And of course, he offers his favorite line of attack: If you criticize schools for teaching the normality of sodomy to 5 year olds then it must be because you are a closeted homosexual.  Uh, yeah, good logic there, folks.  I must also be a closet abortionist, pagan, tax-and-spend liberal as well.  (P.S. to my good buddy: It ain’t gossip if you quote someone off their blog on another blog, though it is a sin to make things up about someone and accuse them of things they have never said or done.  But I sincerely forgive you.)

But he does offer one insurmountable argument.  Maybe one day I’ll be clever enough to rebut it, but so far I’ve failed.  You see, he always refers to people like me as “wacky fundies” multiple times in each post.  So he must be correct in his views, eh?  And here I am, just stuck with facts and logic (Oh, and for authentic Christians, the Bible).

Such desperation.  It is a strong delusion.

P.S. I was amused that those who defended the field trip did so on the grounds that the parents signed permission slips.  Aside from the obvious peer-pressure issue, it misses the larger point: Even without field trips, just imagine the garbage they are pouring into these kids without parental awareness! 

Be sure to read the comments of Joanne below, who proudly says that she pushes the gay agenda whether oxymornic “same-sex marriage” is legal or not.  Reason #13 to home school if you are in California.

Also see What Same Sex Marriage Does to Kindergarteners.

I hope Californians vote “yes” on proposition 8 before it is too late.  Read Field Trip Takes First-Graders to San Francisco City Hall for Lesbian ‘Wedding’

This is so disturbing. It is exactly what many of us have identified already and predicted would spread further wherever oxymoronic “same sex marriage” is made legal.  First graders are being fed the lie that this behavior is somehow normal and positive.

Some people try to deny the slippery slope argument, which is sometimes, but not always, a logical fallacy.  But things like this are exactly what one should expect when a few rogue judges override the will of the people and invent civil rights for sexual preferences.   

Once this is legal then the state becomes an enemy of the church, because the church “discriminates.”  The state must give equal, or at least proportional time and space to these relationships in classes and textbooks.  Sadly, this whole process is aided and abetted by many fake and/or seriously confused Christians.

The San Francisco Chronicle ran this photo Oct. 11 by photographer Mike Kepka showing first-grade students from a local public grade school cheering their teacher’s lesbian “wedding.” This homosexual “marriage” “field trip” occurred just eight days after the Chronicle editorialized against the “fear tactics” used by pro-Proposition 8 forces in defending their proposed amendment preserving marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The newspaper had mocked a Prop 8 TV ad on the adverse effects of legal “gay marriage,” stating: “People would be sued on the basis of their personal beliefs! Churches would lose their tax-exempt status! Gay marriage would be taught in public schools!” The troubling photo above certainly contradicts the Chronicle editorial’s assertion that, “Public schools certainly would teach that same-sex marriage is legal, and the history behind it. But the value judgments surrounding matters of marriage and family would remain in the domain of home and church as they are today.” The school’s principal justified allowing the lesbian-wedding excursion to be considered a “field trip” on the basis that it would be a “teachable moment” for the young students.

Yes, it is teachable.  Another teachable moment is to show how God used behavior like this as exhibit A in the teaching that the sinfulness and rebellion in the world has turned the created order upside down.

Romans 1:18-33 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Not surprisingly, you also get public nudity, sex and indescribable perversions out in the streets in San Francisco – Nancy Pelosi’s district, no less – and nothing is done by the police!  Will this be the next field trip for the 1st graders?  After all, it appears to be legal since nothing was done to stop it. 

Or will the next field trip be to a Creationist Museum?  Probably so, if that is what the parents agree to, right?  Or would the “wacky liberals” complain about that, or would they be as creative in justifying the trip as they were this time?

If you are in California, please vote “yes” on proposition 8!

The good news buried in this atrocity is that it will show people what they will have – and more! – if proposition 8 fails.

P.S. I’m amused and encouraged that some EONs (self-described Enemies Of Neil) are linking to this post and using all their intellectual power to refute my arguments, mainly by using the phrase “wacky fundies” over and over and getting simple facts wrong, such as insisting that this public school was private.  Hard to argue with that, right?

A slippery slope or 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. 

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 virtually 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, since they can provide a mother and a father to a child.

Here’s an overview of same-sex unions.

Weekly roundup

Happy 4th of July, everyone!  Best.  Country.  Ever.  (Except the obedient days of Israel.)

Some very cool ideas to help people in poor countries (Hat tip: Edgar)

A good Q&A about errors in Mormon theology

How to talk to an Obama supporter – nice set of videos done by a Democrat. 

An excellent series of articles on the oxymoron that is “same sex marriage.”  They answer the main objections in a very thorough and readable way.

Picture of Child Abuse – same-sex unions with children.

The reality of Hell – Make no mistake: Just because most churches don’t like to talk about it doesn’t mean it isn’t real.  Jesus talked about it a lot and knew it was real.  Christians should seek to view the world the same way He does.

Excellent explanation of the 2nd Amendment.  It carefully analyzes how it was written and exposes the error of assuming that within the Bill of Rights (you know, the list of rights for the citizens, not the government), the writers paused to say that the government was going to get guns and the people could not have them.  Sure.  Read the whole thing.  Hat tip: Marshall Art’s

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

(We are a new, free country. It is necessary to have a trained, weapon equipped, standing army to help keep us free. And because we will have a standing army),

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(if the army gets guns, so do the people, in case the army ever gets out of line.)

Who can you marry? An exhaustive list of Biblical rules.

wedding-rings2.jpgAccording to the Bible, a Christian should only marry a person who is:

  1. A Christian
  2. Able to be married (i.e., of legal age, not married already, etc.)
  3. Of the opposite sex

Item 3 used to be self-evident (and still is, for most of us), but we had to add it to the list a few years back. 

That’s it.  The key constraint is usually item 1: The future spouse must be a Christian.  Ignoring God’s clear direction on this is a bad idea. 

Full disclosure: It is possible that my wife violated guideline #1 in marrying me.  Fortunately, she lost the receipt so she can’t return me now.

“Missionary dating” (that is, dating someone in hopes of converting them) is un-Biblical , as it is based on false pretenses.  God might bless your relationship and your spouse might become a Christian, but there are no guarantees of that in scripture.  You just don’t want to start your marriage in clear violation of one of God’s commands. 

Marrying someone outside your faith is problematic.  You will have vastly different views on what should be the most important part of your life.  It will send a horrible message to your children, namely that you and your spouse thought it was important to agree on where to live, how many kids to have, where to vacation, what to eat, etc., but it wasn’t important for you to have even a general agreement on who God is and how that should impact your lives.

A good Christian friend realized the error of his ways and broke off a relationship with a non-Christian.  It was pretty painful, but certain things validated why he needed to make the break: She specifically tempted him to deny his God, “Just this once” – proof enough as to why such relationships are a bad idea.

Of course, just because it is moral to marry someone doesn’t mean it it wise.  There is a lot of wisdom and advice about how and whether to marry in the book of Proverbs and in 1 Corinthians 7, among other places.  These passages were directed to Solomon’s son but they apply to both sexes.

Proverbs 12:4 A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.

Proverbs 21:9 Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.

Proverbs 21:19 Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.

Proverbs 27:15 A quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping on a rainy day;

Proverbs 31:10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.

Same-sex unions

u-turn.jpgSome random thoughts on same-sex unions . . .

Basics

The definition of marriage has always been a union of one man and one woman, so “traditional marriage” is a redundancy and “same sex marriage” is an oxymoron. But current events have forced the added words.

Claiming that marriage can be for two men or two women isn’t a little different than saying it is between a man and a woman, it is the opposite.  It is claiming that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that “marriage” is now whatever we want to define it to be.

Valid issues 

I am sympathetic to hospital and estate issues of gay and lesbian couples, but I think they can be addressed without redefining marriage and generating a slew of unintended consequences.

For example, estate taxes should be done away with altogether.  The government should not profit when you die, regardless of your sexual preferences.  And hospital patients should be allowed to have anyone they like visit them. 

I am also sympathetic to how gays and lesbians feel about churches being soft on divorce and heterosexual adultery but not on homosexual behavior.  But the answer is not to lower the bar further, it is to get back to the Biblical model of human sexuality.

Equal rights? 

The issue is often framed as if gays are being denied something.  Gays are free to marry in this country and they do it every day.  Some apostate churches will be glad to perform the ceremony.  Whole industries are set up to help you plan and execute the festivities and set up a household.  The debate is whether the government has an interest in recognizing these unions. 

By nature and by design, homosexual unions cannot and will not produce the next generation.  It is only by exception that these relationships involve children.  Therefore, the government has no reason to interfere with or regulate those relationships.  (Please spare me any arguments that heterosexuals must have kids for this reasoning to be valid.  We’re talking rules, not exceptions.)

Sometimes the “but they love each other” argument is used to support same-sex unions.  I realize that some gays and lesbians love each other.  So what?  What possible reason would the government have to be involved in a relationship just because love is involved?  Plenty of marriages don’t have love.  Many marriages in the world are still arranged. 

Aside from the marriage question, remember that adding sex to a loving relationship doesn’t make it better.  There are plenty of loving relationships (parent/child, siblings, pastor / parishoner, teacher / student) that are made worse by sex, not better.  Whatever happened to just having friends of the same sex?

I realize this isn’t satisfying for them, but gays and lesbians have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do: They can marry someone of the opposite sex.  Heterosexuals can’t marry someone of the same sex either.

Also see Denying Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t Unequal Protection.

Why it matters 

People often wonder why same-sex unions are met with such opposition.  The main reason for me is that when governments recognize same-sex unions then they have given civil rights for sexual preferences.  This leads directly to radical changes in what children are taught in schools, and it shuts down debate.  It will ultimately result to an attempted silencing of the church.  All these things are either happening in the U.S. or other countries already.  It has already impacted the adoption process.

If you love kids – and by love I mean that you have their long term best interests at heart – you won’t support civil rights for sexual perversions, because this will lead to more sickening things being pushed on innocent children.

Civil unions are just a smokescreen for eventually getting “same sex marriages” to be legal everywhere.  It is a two-step ploy: 1.  Gain Civil Union status by acting as if they would be satisfied with all the rights without the legal recognition and associated societal approval of marriage.  2. Point out how there is no difference with the rights of Civil Unions and marriage so we might as well make “same sex marriage” legal as well. 

“Same sex marriage” already resulted in radical changes to adoption and parenting laws. Who is looking out for the children?  Sexual preference with respect to partners is considered immutable and paramount – i.e., a gay guy can never change and he has to have another gay guy as a partner.  A masculine woman just won’t do, nor will a biological female who thinks she is really a male. 

But sexual preference with respect to parents is supposedly irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if a child’s parents are M/F, M/M or F/F (or who knows what combination).  They are all supposedly equal in value.  Let’s put the interests of the children first on this one and not repeat the big lie that adults are vulnerable but children are not. 

Who is being divisive?

Charles Krauthammer said, “Until the last few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with “divisiveness” those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness.”

Polls continue to show that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of “same-sex marriage,” even when the wording of the questions is skewed to favor it.  Even Massachussetts was afraid to let the people have a say in the matter.  That speaks volumes.

The Democratic party has flailed around on this issue. Apparently they haven’t noticed that every state that has voted on the topic has affirmed traditional marriage by an average of an 70/30 ratio, because they are once again in bed (so to speak) with the gay lobby.

Howard Dean, head of the Democrats, hypocritically said that his party supported traditional marriages then back-tracked after catching heat from the pro-gay groups. He then said they wanted to leave it to the states. Now it turns out that they wanted to work behind the scenes to oppose state efforts to affirm traditional marriage. Here is my favorite part of the Dem’s 5 point plan to fight for the homosexual marriage that they supposedly weren’t fighting for:

Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as “divisive” ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including “the Bush’s administration’s failed policies.”

Let’s see – marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a woman, the vast majority of Americans agree, Democrats want to change that, so the conclusion is . . . Conservatives are the ones being divisive.  Of course.

Church issues

I half expect the culture to come up with such ideas, but I’m disgusted at how the apostate churches and false teachers the churches have let in are pushing for same-sex marriages to be normalized.  Pro-gay theology falls apart at every turn, but people continue to mock God with it.  I’m hoping the Episcopal fallout emboldens Bible-believing Methodists (and those in other denominations) to stand firm in the face of the movement.

Miscellaneous 

If I were black I would be really irritated that the gay rights lobby was co-opting Civil Rights language for their cause.  This is a very simple proposition: There is no moral component to skin color, but there is a moral component to sexual behavior.  

Don’t forget the push for polygamy and multiple gay couples raising kids.  These are logical consequences of Civil Unions and/or “same sex marriage.”