Advertisements

Should “God Bless America”?

This past week I was in Arizona. I had the pleasure of leaving the below freezing weather of Minnesota to enjoy 70 degree weather. I also got to spend time with my lovely fiancé which was beyond amazing. Everything was wonderful…until this last Sunday came around.

I went to a church service that featured a special speaker named Dr. Cecil Todd. The service focused on awakening America. This is truly a nobel cause because America definitely needs another great awakening. Even with that nobel end in mind there were many things that troubled me. None was worse than mixing in “God Bless America” in with the worship music. I know for some this would not be a problem but for me it is. Allow me to share my reasoning.

This countries morals are crumbling under our feet. We have killed more human beings through abortion than Hitler did through the Holocaust. Not only that, it is legal in our society. Yet, we have the audacity to ask God for his blessing on our nation.

We live in a country that is bending to the wills of homosexuals who want to redefine marriage. In California the 9th Circuit Court overturned the votes of Californians for Prop 8. In case you didn’t know, the 9th Circuit is made up of three judges. A three judge court overturned the votes of the majority of Californians. Yet, we have the audacity to sing “God Bless America”.

We live in a country that will take down the Ten Commandments in public places. Just today The Christian Post had an article about the Freedom From Religion Foundation asking the town of Newland, North Carolina to take down the Ten Commandments in their town hall. Here is what the FFRF said about it:

However, Patrick C. Elliott, the group’s staff attorney, claimed the display of the Ten Commandments is ‘a blatant violation of the constitution.’

‘Putting the Ten Commandments up permanently in a town hall like this is unconstitutional and I think the court is going to agree with that’.

The FFRF also says:

‘the history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion’.

We live in a country that endorses the killing of humans through abortion. We live in a country that endorses gay marriages which go against God’s institution of marriage. We live in a country that takes down the Ten Commandments because they are ” a blatant violation of the constitution.” Yet, we sing “God Bless America”.

Ladies and gentlemen of the faith it is time to get on our knees and ask for God’s mercy not his blessings. We live in a country that has been blessed with the truth of Christ and we, as a nation, have turned away from that truth. We need to start being more like Abraham in the midst of Sodom and Gomorrah when he pleads with God for his mercy in Genesis 18 instead of asking for God’s blessing as we are blatantly going against his commands.

I pray for another great awakening and the mercy of God on this nation.

Advertisements

About Travis Berry

I am a blatantly honest person who loves to think, read, discuss, and write about God and theology. I have a bachelor's degree in Youth Ministry from Crown College. I work at a church in Houston, TX as a Youth Director and love every minute of it! I am married to a wonderful woman named Becky and we have one amazing child! I have a love for God's Word, and a fervor to live it out in the fullest, and I pray this blog reflects that. Thanks for checking out AnotherChristianBlog!.

Posted on February 14, 2012, in Christianity, Culture, Theology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. May America be convicted.

  2. Thanks for reading and commenting LeRoy. That has been part of my prayers for a long time but it is unfortunate to see our nation so hard hearted towards God.

    Travis

  3. Do you want a theocracy?

    Put up the Ten Commandments on your garage if you want to. Put a monument with them on the lawn of your church. Just don’t use state money to support religion. That’s best for all of us, right?

    And why does same-sex marriage affect any person who’s married today? “Cause God said so” doesn’t count in this secular country.

    Anyway, that isn’t much of an argument because we ignore lots of “what God said.” Review Lev. 20 and see if you want to take the whole package.

    • Hey Bob,

      It’s been a while. I do not want a theocracy but that doesn’t mean the ten commandments should come down. It is clear that this nation was based on the foundations of Christianity. You may not like that but it is true. That doesn’t make it a theocracy. I just find it funny that my faith would allow you to practice or not practice any way that you would like. Does the Ten Commandments offend you? Does it take rights away from you?

      Why does same-sex marriage affect any person who’s married today? Did I say that it would directly affect married people? No, I am saying that if you want to redefine marriage as two men or two women then you need to change it for three women, four men, two men and a woman, one man with 20 women. If you are not taking the “man and woman” paradigm then why are you limiting marriage to two people? You are denying people’s rights Bob because people can love more than one person.

      The fact is that the state recognizes marriage between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can bestow benefits on society by giving new citizens and raising them in a loving household. Two men or two woman cannot procreate thus the state shouldn’t be involved in the personal affairs of those people.

      Travis

  4. It is clear that this nation was based on the foundations of Christianity. You may not like that but it is true.

    I’m afraid it’s not. See my post on the Constitution.

    Does the Ten Commandments offend you?

    That’s not really the point. They have no business on public property—that’s the point.

    No, I am saying that if you want to redefine marriage as two men or two women then you need to change it for three women, four men, two men and a woman, one man with 20 women.

    Wait a minute—is there a significant minority clamoring for those changes? If not, then don’t pretend that there’s an issue when there’s not.

    And keep in mind that the last time the U.S. “redefined” marriage was in 1967. The time before that was the late 1800s. Don’t fool yourself by imagining that it’s been constant. Heck—it wasn’t even one man and one woman in the Old Testament!

    Two men or two woman cannot procreate thus the state shouldn’t be involved in the personal affairs of those people.

    Recheck the marriage vows and show me the procreation part.

    • Hey Bob,

      I am currently at work and the firewall is not allowing me to access your post so I will need to read it later. However, I would like to respond to some of your other points.

      You said: “Wait a minute—is there a significant minority clamoring for those changes? If not, then don’t pretend that there’s an issue when there’s not.”

      Me: It is all about precedent, as I would hope you would know. Lawrence V. Texas was a great “victory” for gay-marriage but that same case is being used by others to make their cases. This include polygamy and incest. The same arguments for gay-marriage are being used for incest. If the arguement is not wrong or bad then I logically we must accept those other consequences. Is that not right to point out? If you would like a reference you can check out time magazines article here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1607322%2C00.html

      You: “And keep in mind that the last time the U.S. “redefined” marriage was in 1967. The time before that was the late 1800s. Don’t fool yourself by imagining that it’s been constant. Heck—it wasn’t even one man and one woman in the Old Testament!”

      Me: Marriage was “redefined” in 1967? Of course you are referring to the case of Loving v. Virgina. That was about inter-racial marriage. It was one woman and one man. That is not a redefinition that is simply allowing the definition to carry out in practice. The defintion of marriage is between a man and a woman. That case didn’t change that…it affirmed it. As far as the 1800’s go I am not sure what you are driving at? Maybe you could give some refereneces because I am lost there.

      Also, when it comes to the Old Testament marraige was never meant to be polygamous. The nation of Israel wanted a human king instead of God becasue all the nations around them had kings. That was against what God wanted for his people but he allowed it to happen. When the kings came they saw other kings taking many wives. So, that is what the kings did. It was never God’s perscriptive will for polygamy. It was man’s fall that created it.

      You: “Recheck the marriage vows and show me the procreation part.”

      Me: Are the marriage vows written by the government? No, they are not. The vows don’t need to say, “we are getting married for procreation,” for the government to recognize that a marriage between a man and a woman is the ONLY way to have responsible procreation. That is why the government had any concern with defining marriage in the first place. Heterosexual marriage has the opportunity to provide new citizens for the country and to raise them in a household with two loving parents. This is a beneift on society that homosexual marriage cannot supply.

      Thanks for commenting Bob,

      Travis

  5. (Rather long–sorry.)

    If the arguement is not wrong or bad then I logically we must accept those other consequences.

    If there is harm, the state is entitled to prohibit it; if not, then we can consider legalizing it. In the case of gay marriage, we have an upside but no downsides (except perhaps injury to Christians’ pride?). Is polygamous or incestuous marriage (between adults) OK? I dunno—let’s see if there’s any harm.

    The primary thing to note is that this argument devolves into: “OK, I have no argument against gay marriage, but if you go further, it would get bad.” OK—then don’t go further. Problem solved.

    Of course you are referring to the case of Loving v. Virgina.

    Yup.

    It was one woman and one man.

    Wrong. It was about one woman and one man of the same race. And the same kinds of arguments are used now as were used then. “Anti-miscegeny laws unfair? Of course they’re not. A black person can marry another person of the same race. That’s the same restriction imposed on white people. See—it’s fair.” Just like we’re told today that homosexuals can marry anyone they like—as long as it’s someone of the opposite gender.

    As far as the 1800′s go I am not sure what you are driving at?

    Polygamy was legal; after a Supreme Court case in the late 1800s, it wasn’t. Marriage redefinition, once again.

    Also, when it comes to the Old Testament marraige was never meant to be polygamous.

    I’m afraid you’re reworking your own book. You’re hammering the Bible to take the shape of your faith. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t the Good Book™ speak for itself?

    It was never God’s perscriptive will for polygamy.

    Oh? Show me where God says that polygamy is bad.

    Are the marriage vows written by the government? No, they are not.

    You’re making a pretty effervescent case here. Marriage vows say plenty, but nothing about procreation. Whatever you sign that makes the marriage legally binding doesn’t say anything about procreation. Are couples that are infertile or don’t want kids or are too old to have more kids (like me and my wife) in some sort of second-class marriage? Indeed, you may be aware that babies don’t come from marriage; they come from sex.

    So why make a big deal about procreation?

    Unless this is simply a clumsy attempt to dredge up one facet of marriage that same-sex couples can’t do and then pretend that that’s the primary purpose of marriage. That’s how it looks to outsiders.

    Dude—what would Jesus do?? Is there so much love and goodness in the world already that we can afford to squash an attempt by a group to have it? When Christians complain about divorce statistics, does it make sense to slap in the face a group that actually wants to embrace marriage?

    Y’know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see a Christian who says, “OK, gay marriage does absolutely nothing to denigrate my marriage or that of any other person. But my reading of the Bible makes it clear that it’s bad. I hate to be against gay marriage, but my hands are tied.” Indeed, anti-gay-marriage Christians never seem to have absolutely this quandary.

    Have you read Lev. 20? It has a famous anti-gay verse. But it also has lots of nonsense that Christians happily discard—stoning unruly children, eat no unclean animals, death for homosexuality, and lots of other nonsense. Last time I checked, the Bible comes as a package—you don’t get to just pick and choose like you’re in a buffet line.

    a household with two loving parents.

    Sounds nice. Now—what fraction of children live in these circumstances: they’re with their biological parents; no divorce; no domestic violence; no adultery; neighborhood has minimal drugs, violence, or gangs; schools are good and likewise are free from drugs, violence, gangs, and similar bad influences; parents have enough income to provide the children with all the basics; health care is good; and so on? Less than 10%, I’m guessing. What do we do with the rest? Suppose the divorced lesbian with a child can live as a single mother or marry a lesbian partner. Let’s be realistic: she’s not a candidate for a conventional marriage. Which is better for the child?

    • Bob,

      You: “If there is harm, the state is entitled to prohibit it; if not, then we can consider legalizing it. In the case of gay marriage, we have an upside but no downsides (except perhaps injury to Christians’ pride?). Is polygamous or incestuous marriage (between adults) OK? I dunno—let’s see if there’s any harm.”

      Me: No downsides? How about raising children that are gender confused? How about the studies that show the life expectancy of homosexuals is 8 to 20 years shorter than the general population?

      You: “The primary thing to note is that this argument devolves into: “OK, I have no argument against gay marriage, but if you go further, it would get bad.” OK—then don’t go further. Problem solved.”

      Me: Unless the same exact arguments can be used for those other things that you would think is wrong then the argument itself is flawed. Incest is an issue in many places but we know that there many health risks associated with it. People who are incestuous use the same arguments that homosexuals use. The argument is flawed thus should be rejected.

      You: “Wrong. It was about one woman and one man of the same race. And the same kinds of arguments are used now as were used then. ‘Anti-miscegeny laws unfair? Of course they’re not. A black person can marry another person of the same race. That’s the same restriction imposed on white people. See—it’s fair.'”

      Me: The point I was making was this decision did not fundamentally change the definition of marriage. Also, race is not something one can choose. So, it is wrong for us to suggest that inter-racial marriage is wrong because everyone is created in the image of God. However, the fundamental underpinnings of marriage were not change, rather, they were recognized.

      You: “I’m afraid you’re reworking your own book. You’re hammering the Bible to take the shape of your faith. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t the Good Book™ speak for itself?”

      Me: I find it quite disrespectful to use the sort of language that you do about the Bible. If you read the Bible then you know that there is a difference between the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the world-wide Gospel in the New. Israel was formed for a purpose. Israel was to be a nation that was holy and pave the way for the coming of Jesus. If you want to hold me to the Old Testament fine but Jesus does not do so because I am not part of the Old Covenant. Maybe it would be best to allow Christians to define what they believe before attacking straw men.

      You: “You’re making a pretty effervescent case here. Marriage vows say plenty, but nothing about procreation. Whatever you sign that makes the marriage legally binding doesn’t say anything about procreation”

      Me: You are right. Marriage vows don’t speak about procreation but this is not the issue. The issue is the governments recognition of the marriage. I could say “this, that, or the other thing” in my marriage vows but the government recognizes it because of the benefits my marriage can bestow on society.

      You: “Are couples that are infertile or don’t want kids or are too old to have more kids (like me and my wife) in some sort of second-class marriage? Indeed, you may be aware that babies don’t come from marriage; they come from sex. So why make a big deal about procreation?”

      Me: No, couples that are infertile or don’t want kids should not be disallowed from the benefits of marriage. They are not second-class marriages and I did not ever suggest such a thing. The point is that on a fundamental level homosexual couples cannot responsibly reproduce. That is the main benefit that marriages give to society. Only heterosexual couples have the capability of reproducing so the government recognizes marriages on that basis.

      You: “Dude—what would Jesus do?? Is there so much love and goodness in the world already that we can afford to squash an attempt by a group to have it?”

      Me: Jesus would stand against sin. He would call it out, like he did in Scripture, and call people to repentance.

      You: “When Christians complain about divorce statistics, does it make sense to slap in the face a group that actually wants to embrace marriage?”

      Me: You just assumed a redefinition of marriage that has yet to be reasoned for.

      You: “Y’know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see a Christian who says, ‘OK, gay marriage does absolutely nothing to denigrate my marriage or that of any other person. But my reading of the Bible makes it clear that it’s bad. I hate to be against gay marriage, but my hands are tied.’ Indeed, anti-gay-marriage Christians never seem to have absolutely this quandary.”

      Me: I am not an “anti-gay-marriage Christian” I am a pro-Biblical marriage Christian. We are all against something but I think you would much rather be represented for what you are for than what you are against right? I think we all deserve that respect so maybe next time you will use different language.

      Also, marriage doesn’t denigrate anyone’s personal marriage. It does denigrate the institution in itself because it fundamentally changes the definition.

      You know what I would like to see? I would like to see you repent from your sins Bob. I would like to see you come to the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I want you to know that I am praying towards that end.

      You: “Have you read Lev. 20? It has a famous anti-gay verse. But it also has lots of nonsense that Christians happily discard—stoning unruly children, eat no unclean animals, death for homosexuality, and lots of other nonsense. Last time I checked, the Bible comes as a package—you don’t get to just pick and choose like you’re in a buffet line.”

      Me: My discussion earlier of the nation of Israel would apply to Lev. 20. We take principles from the Old Testament but apply them using the New.

      You: “Sounds nice. Now—what fraction of children live in these circumstances: they’re with their biological parents; no divorce; no domestic violence; no adultery; neighborhood has minimal drugs, violence, or gangs; schools are good and likewise are free from drugs, violence, gangs, and similar bad influences; parents have enough income to provide the children with all the basics; health care is good; and so on? Less than 10%, I’m guessing. What do we do with the rest? Suppose the divorced lesbian with a child can live as a single mother or marry a lesbian partner. Let’s be realistic: she’s not a candidate for a conventional marriage. Which is better for the child?”

      Me: What is best for the child? To live in the ghetto not being supported or living with a lesbian mother who pursues relationships with another woman? What if that kid was ashamed of his mother’s lifestyle and commits suicide? What is he/she grows up with gender identity disorder? We can ask all the whit if questions that we want but I think both of us can agree that two parents of the opposite sex are better suited for raising children than two men or two women. We should pursue the best for the children not legalize a system that guarantees that a child wont have a dad or a mom.

      Thanks,

      Travis

  6. Travis: You’re salvageable. That’s why I’m writing all this. You’re a thoughtful person, and this thoughtless, reflexive approach to marriage is beneath you.

    How about raising children that are gender confused?

    How big an issue is this? I’m curious to know how reliable this claim is. And if the alternative is Mom just living out the rest of her days alone even though she’d like to marry is heartless.

    How about the studies that show the life expectancy of homosexuals is 8 to 20 years shorter than the general population?

    Show me.

    Unless the same exact arguments can be used for those other things that you would think is wrong then the argument itself is flawed.

    You’re saying that proponents of incest are clamoring as loudly and in the same numbers for marriage as those for same-sex marriage? I must’ve not been paying attention.

    The argument is flawed thus should be rejected.

    Guns can hurt people; therefore we must outlaw guns. McDonald’s fries can hurt people; therefore we must outlaw them.

    The slippery slope argument is pretty flabby.

    The point I was making was this decision did not fundamentally change the definition of marriage.

    And the point that I was making was that it did! You’re saying that anti-miscegeny laws weren’t a big offense? I doubt it.

    Also, race is not something one can choose.

    What a coincidence! That’s what homosexuals say.

    If you want to hold me to the Old Testament fine

    I’m just asking for consistency. If you quote the OT in your argument against homosexuality (I don’t know if you do or not), then let’s just agree on the baggage that comes with that. If instead you say that the OT has nothing relevant to say about homosexuality in modern America, that would be great.

    The issue is the governments recognition of the marriage.

    You see the problem, right? I don’t want you to imagine that you’re making a strong argument if you’ve just arbitrarily picked one aspect of marriage and called that the purpose of marriage. This agenda-driven approach is without merit, and I’ll bet that neither of us wants you to be guilty of that.

    If you asked an objective third party to list the features or attributes or reasons for marriage, I have a hard time imagining that he would say, “I’d put procreation as items 1, 2, and 3 on my list. Far down on my list would be companionship, love, taking care of one another when sick or old, and other trivial items.”

    Consider this: you’re giving advice to your son or daughter who’s on the cusp of getting married. What do you talk about? Do you talk about sex positions? Do you talk about populating the earth? I doubt it.

    You see where this road has led you, right? That you must defend the bizarre nothing that marriage is primarily about procreation. Just makin’ babies. And you’re a Christian! Can this be a valid Christian attitude about marriage?

    The point is that on a fundamental level homosexual couples cannot responsibly reproduce.

    Guess what? Neither can my wife and I!

    Only heterosexual couples have the capability of reproducing so the government recognizes marriages on that basis.

    Look, if simply cranking out kids is the point: (1) you’ve bypassed the issue about infertile couples. You must declare them inferior if you would see a homosexual couple as inferior. Both can’t make kids. (2) Homosexual couples can have kids! IVF, surrogate mother, adoption, raising kids from a previous marriage, helping raise the grandkids.

    If your goal is to have homosexual couples making babies, problem solved.

    Jesus would stand against sin.

    Jesus was a Jew—one of those Old Testament guys. He would say, “You betcha I’m in favor of stoning kids who sass their parents! Read Leviticus 20. Any questions?!”

    Or would he? Maybe he’d realize that those were rules for a very different time and place. No one advocates for Levirite marriage (what Onan got killed for disobeying) or polygamy now; why imagine that the other laws apply?

    I am a pro-Biblical marriage Christian.

    The polygamy, too?

    You know what I would like to see? I would like to see you repent from your sins Bob.

    Satan tells me that I can’t. Sorry.

    We take principles from the Old Testament but apply them using the New.

    How do you decide what to keep? This sounds like very dangerous territory. You’re setting yourself up as the Judge of the Bible. Aren’t you concerned that you’ll make a mistake?

    What if that kid was ashamed of his mother’s lifestyle and commits suicide?

    I wonder how many instances of this there are compared to homosexual teens bullied into suicide. Do you have any stats?

    both of us can agree that two parents of the opposite sex are better suited for raising children than two men or two women.

    And for the lesbian divorcee with a child, your kind of marriage isn’t an option. You see this, right? And if all you care about is the child (odd—I would think that the happiness of the mother is a factor, too, but maybe that’s just me), then wouldn’t it make sense to give the mother the option of a lesbian marriage? Wouldn’t that be better for all concerned—more income, the happiness that comes from marriage, etc.?

    • Bob,

      You: “You’re salvageable. That’s why I’m writing all this. You’re a thoughtful person, and this thoughtless, reflexive approach to marriage is beneath you.”

      Me: Thanks for the comments but I do not think my position is thoughtless or reflexive. It is biblical and rational. Contrary to atheist believe those two are not a dichotomy.

      You: “How big an issue is this? I’m curious to know how reliable this claim is. And if the alternative is Mom just living out the rest of her days alone even though she’d like to marry is heartless.”

      Me:

      A meta-analytical study by pro-gay researchers Stacy and Biblarz indicated that children raised in same-sex households were more prone to promiscuity, crossing gender lines, and same-sex attraction. To cite one example, they found that lesbian mothers had a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. They also reported that ‘the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste . . . in other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them.’ On a more personal note, Dawn Stefanowicz, raised by a gay father, wrote, ‘What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving, honoring, or protecting the women in his life.’ Children do best with a mom and dad, but same-sex marriages guarantee that this possibility will never exist for children they raise.

      You: “show me”

      Me:

      In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. -Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology

      Granted this was while AIDS was not being addressed but I have not seen any other numbers. I am sure they are less than this but I don’t know of any other studies.

      You: “You’re saying that proponents of incest are clamoring as loudly and in the same numbers for marriage as those for same-sex marriage? I must’ve not been paying attention.”

      Me: You are right. You weren’t paying attention. I never said that the same amount of people are arguing for incest. I never said they are being as loud. I am saying that they are using the same exact argumentation. If the arguments aren’t flawed on what basis do you except gay-marriage but deny incestual-marriage? That is my argument.

      You: “Guns can hurt people; therefore we must outlaw guns. McDonald’s fries can hurt people; therefore we must outlaw them. The slippery slope argument is pretty flabby.”

      Me: My argument is not a slippery slop. My argument is following the line of argumentation that homosexuals use. If those arguments are valid and can be used to argue for incest or Man-Boy Love then why not accept those too?

      You: “I’m just asking for consistency. If you quote the OT in your argument against homosexuality (I don’t know if you do or not), then let’s just agree on the baggage that comes with that. If instead you say that the OT has nothing relevant to say about homosexuality in modern America, that would be great.”

      Me: I do recognize the moral standards that the OT makes. However, the NT speaks storngly about homosexuality. That is typically where I keep my focus when it comes to this topic.

      You: “You see the problem, right? I don’t want you to imagine that you’re making a strong argument if you’ve just arbitrarily picked one aspect of marriage and called that the purpose of marriage. This agenda-driven approach is without merit, and I’ll bet that neither of us wants you to be guilty of that.”

      Me: Marriage is about intimacy with another person. Marriage is about coming together as one flesh. Being there for one another. In sickness and in health…you know the rest. However, when we discuss governments involvement in recognizing marriage we need to discuss procreation. I never said that marriage, on a personal level, is mainly about procreation. But when it comes to the governments involvement that is the main reason why they define it the way they do. You argument is simply a misunderstanding of categories.

      You: “Look, if simply cranking out kids is the point: (1) you’ve bypassed the issue about infertile couples. You must declare them inferior if you would see a homosexual couple as inferior. Both can’t make kids. (2) Homosexual couples can have kids! IVF, surrogate mother, adoption, raising kids from a previous marriage, helping raise the grandkids. ”

      Me: I have not bypassed anything. Did you read what I wrote in the previous comment? This is what I said:

      No, couples that are infertile or don’t want kids should not be disallowed from the benefits of marriage. They are not second-class marriages and I did not ever suggest such a thing. The point is that on a fundamental level homosexual couples cannot responsibly reproduce. That is the main benefit that marriages give to society. Only heterosexual couples have the capability of reproducing so the government recognizes marriages on that basis.

      Also, are you seriously suggesting that two men or two women can actually procreate? That would be a modern marvel for sure.

      You: “The polygamy, too?”

      Me: Polygomy is not a Godly view of marraige. Jesus speaks clearly about marriage in the NT. One example is Matt. 19 when he says:

      Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

      You: “I wonder how many instances of this there are compared to homosexual teens bullied into suicide. Do you have any stats?”

      Me: I was asking a hypothetical question to show that the “what if” questions don’t shed much light on this topic. bullying is wrong. I stand with all Christians against bullying. That is much different than saying that homosexuality is wrong or sinful. People committ suicide because they are made fun of for being over weight, un-cool, un-athletic, different, poor. Are all of those things supposed to be celebrated like homosexuality? No, but we are all human beings. Humans are created in the image of God and that means every human being has worth. Your worldview cannot account for human dignity which is what really baffles me. Especially coming from a guy that believes in evolution. If you hold to evolution then gay-marraige should be terrible for you because all evolutiion is concerned about is passing your genes along. Wheich raises an interesting question…why on earth do you care about marraige at all? You should just pass your genes on to as many women as possible. That’s your system of evolution.

      You: “And for the lesbian divorcee with a child, your kind of marriage isn’t an option. You see this, right? And if all you care about is the child (odd—I would think that the happiness of the mother is a factor, too, but maybe that’s just me), then wouldn’t it make sense to give the mother the option of a lesbian marriage? Wouldn’t that be better for all concerned—more income, the happiness that comes from marriage, etc.?”

      Me: So you are telling me that a gay woman who made the choice to get married and have a kid with a man should be fit to raise that child after lying to her husband and her child about her sexual oreintation? doesn’t sound like a person who is fit to raise a child to me. Maybe the kid should stay with his/her father instead.

      Sorry about the spelling errors. I am sure there are a few considering spell check isn’t working and I am at work trying to type fast.

      Travis

  7. As to the question of life expectancy, you really need to be cautious when you find just the perfect citation. When it blows up in your face, it makes you look bad. To your credit, you acknowledged this.

    Now, sex is safer within the gay community, awareness of HIV is higher, and there are medications for AIDS. The data that grounds your quote is from “the late 1980s and early 1990s” (source). It continues:

    if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved.

    Well, duh. Cherry picking old stats isn’t a good idea, and your old quote is useless.

    Of course, you could well question my source. Fine! It’s something I found after 5 minutes of searching, and there could well be more data that would surprise me as well. My only point here is that finding a snappy quote that makes your point isn’t a serious quest for the truth.

    I never said that the same amount of people are arguing for incest

    Then wake me up when they do. Until that point, this is just a pointless red herring. You may have noticed that a critical mass is arguing for same-sex marriage. Critical mass vs. insignificant minority—that’s the difference.

    the NT speaks storngly about homosexuality.

    What does it say about gay marriage? What does it say about a loving, committed gay relationship?

    when it comes to the governments involvement that is the main reason why they define it the way they do.

    Is it? I see that the government has lots of rules here, but I haven’t seen that procreation is clearly the primary focus. Seems to me that the primary focus is on the spouse–survivor benefits, health care issues, how property is inherited, income tax deductions, and so on.

    But it sounds like we’re on the same page about the meaning of marriage personally—great.

    They are not second-class marriages and I did not ever suggest such a thing. The point is that on a fundamental level homosexual couples cannot responsibly reproduce.

    And at a fundamental level, infertile straight couples can’t reproduce either, but you’re not denigrating them any. Your distinction seems arbitrary (and agenda-driven) to me.

    Also, are you seriously suggesting that two men or two women can actually procreate? That would be a modern marvel for sure.

    Ever hear of IVF? Surrogate mothers?

    Polygomy is not a Godly view of marraige.

    Oh, please. God is totally cool with polygamy in the OT. Face it: marriage has been redefined even within the Christian community.

    Your worldview cannot account for human dignity

    Huh?

    If you hold to evolution then gay-marraige should be terrible for you because all evolutiion is concerned about is passing your genes along.

    Get a little education, please. Homosexuality is widely observed in the natural world. Evolution has no problem with it existing or with explaining it.

    You should just pass your genes on to as many women as possible. That’s your system of evolution.

    Men do indeed have a drive for lots of sex with lots of partners. You may have also observed that humans have an innate grasp of the Golden Rule. The result is what you see within society—some rape, some adultery, lots of promiscuity, but overall a society that values commitment and cooperation.

    So you are telling me that a gay woman who made the choice to get married and have a kid with a man should be fit to raise that child after lying to her husband and her child about her sexual oreintation?

    Where did lying come into it? Society (thanks in large part to Christianity) does its best to suppress homosexual feelings. It’s not surprising when a woman who may have conflicting feelings would go into a conventional marriage.

    You say that having the mother and father is best. OK, I can agree with that. But the question is: what do we do with the rest of society? A woman, now a lesbian, who has a child doesn’t have that as an option. Why isn’t giving her the option of marriage the right thing to do?

Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: