It’s Not a Ban on Gay Marriage

Marriage amendments, such as the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and "defense of marriage" laws are often referred to in news articles, commentaries, and other media as "bans on gay marriage."

I frequently point out that this phraseology is inaccurate and misleading – and I don't like it when it is used by "marriage defenders" or the marriage neutering crowd.

I maintain that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron akin to "dry liquid".

Even granting that a man could marry a man, or a woman could marry a woman, the use of the phrase "ban on gay marriage" is still sloppy.

First, notice that there is a difference between "gay" and "same-sex". I don't know of anyone who is asking that the sexual orientation of the individuals obtaining a marriage license together be noted anywhere in the paperwork. It has never been part of the process. Consequently, a man of any sexual orientation and a woman of any sexual orientation have always been able to obtain a marriage license together, provided neither one was currently married to someone else, and provided they were not close relatives and were of age. A gay man could marry a lesbian or a straight woman. Likewise, a straight man could marry a lesbian. All of these combinations have happened more than once.

When and where neutered marriage licensing occurs, there is nothing preventing two straight men from obtaining such a license together, nor two straight women – provided they meet all of the requirements (marital status, age, non-relation). Thus the phrase "same sex" is more accurate than "gay".

The word "ban" is also wrong. Our marriage laws are no more a "ban" on same-sex marriage than they are a "ban" on polygamy.

Same-sex (and presumably homosexual) couples were having "marriage" ceremonies for years before any state our country neutered their marriage laws. They have exchanged rings, have had a minister officiate, have lived together, have referred to each other with spousal designations, have changed names, have held receptions and gone on "honeymoon" vacations, so on and so forth. Employers and other organizations could recognize them as married if they so chose. Neither California's Marriage Amendment, nor any other similar law prohibits any of this. Thus, it is not a ban.

Incestuous marriages have been recognized in the past, though now they are actually banned as people are prosecuted in most places for sexual activity among consenting adults who are closely related. People go to jail for this activity – forget about being a denied a state-issued marriage license.

Some – not all - states in the USA had actual bans on "interracial" marriage in the past that were struck down by a SCOTUS decision. Marriage neutering activists frequently compare this to the situation with neutered marriage licensing, but the comparison is flimsy.

With the adoption of the California Marriage Amendment or any other such law in other states, no couples were forced to split up or forced to stop living together. Not a single legal entitlement was lost, as the federal government has never recognized a same-sex coupling as marriage, and California still treats domestic partners as spouses. Contrary to a shameful television ad, no Mormon missionaries forced their way into the homes of sex-same couples to destroy or take their property.

Affirming traditional marriage licensing is not a "gay marriage ban". Such language is used by media outlets who abandon objectivity and engage in advocacy and manipulation.

John Eastman Explains The Law

The Public Discourse continues to churn out worthwhile reading, including this writing by Dr. John C. Eastman on Judge Roy Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court's recent actions in regards to marriage neutering.

The US Supreme Court has set a precedent upholding the right of states to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. All federal and state judges—including those in Alabama—are bound by that precedent.

That's right. In the DOMA case and others, SCOTUS indicated federal law had to defer to state law in marriage licensing.

Our nation’s elites have convinced themselves that a judicial order by a single federal court trial judge, no matter how wrong or contrary to existing precedent, is the “law of the land” and must be followed unquestioningly.

Only when it goes in their favor.

Decisions of the lower federal courts—what the Constitution calls “inferior courts”—are not binding on the state courts. If the lower federal courts in a state interpret the Constitution in a way that conflicts with the interpretation adopted by the state courts, neither decision has binding effect on the other.

The US Supreme Court has held that “A decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.” Only the Supreme Court of the United States, which sits at the pinnacle of both judicial systems, can resolve such conflicts.

Bet you didn't see that in your newspaper.

Second, it is important to note that the federal court order at issue was entered by a single federal trial court judge, who serves on the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, one of three federal district courts in Alabama. That court has jurisdiction over only thirteen of Alabama’s sixty-seven counties.

While a federal district court order declaring a state law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement can have statewide effect if there is a statewide official involved in the case before the court, that order can only bind the defendants named in the suit, their officers and agents, and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with” them, as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order cannot bind people not before the court or acting in concert with them.

Under Alabama law, probate judges—who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Alabama—are judicial, not executive officers, and are entirely independent of the executive branch of government. Therefore, the order issued to the Attorney General of Alabama did not and could not bind probate judges.

Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?

The big irony for those accusing Chief Justice Moore and his fellow justices of ignoring the allegedly binding effect of the lower federal court order is that the lower federal court itself refused to follow US Supreme Court precedent—precedent that is as binding on that lower federal court as it is on Alabama Supreme Court and Alabama county probate judges.

In 1972, the US Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court holding that a state’s man-woman marriage law was not unconstitutional. That decision, Baker v. Nelson, is binding on the lower courts, both federal and state, even though it was only a summary disposition.

And I'll note again that this was AFTER Loving v. Virginia, which itself did not neuter any state marriage licenses.

How many of the people (wrongly) insisting that Moore is not following the law have cheered on all of the people who violated the law in initiating brideless and groomless "marriages", such as in California, in order to get the matter back into courts?

The problem with Dr. Eastman is that he writes as though protocol, consistency, logic, & reason matter. None of those things matter in these cases. Sheer power is all that matters, and the marriage neutering crowd has gained enough power to impose its will on everyone. Everything must be sacrificed on the altar of esteeming homosexual behavior.

Homofascists Sure Like to Attack Christians and Abuse Black History

Apparently, Twitter user Lithobolos ‏@Lithobolos didn't think my longtime pen pal could handle disagreeing with me himself, so he decided to jump in with the standard homofascist marriage neutering talking points, and most recently tweeted this out, along with a picture of two men (I think they're men - I guess we're not supposed to assume these days) kissing.

Weird people like @PlayfulWalrus find the best deal of these two getting married offensive. #lgbt #tcot #uniteblue

Notice that it was not written in response form, and along with the hashtags, is an obvious plea for help from fellow fascists.


The discussion was about whether people like bakers, florists, and photographers should be forced (at gunpoint, ultimately) to either participate in an event that mocks there sincerely held convictions, one of the most enduring & widely held convictions in human history - that marriage unites a bride and groom - or be forced out of a business.


Is it really "weird" of me to support liberty over fascism? To support the First Amendment rights of business owners? The arguments I have been making are not about whether I'm personally offended. It is about freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free markets.

George Carlin, Economist?

I have no idea if George Carlin, who was often a very funny man, said this or not. It doesn't really matter. The Left circulates this, thinking it is oh-so-clever.

I am for limited, Constitutional government.  Most people would classify me as a conservative. I most certainly do not want to "give the rich more money." The rich earn their own money. What I am against is taking, by force, even more money from the rich to waste on ineffective, inefficient crap that isn't even Constitutional in the first place or out of some sense of envy.

Perhaps the quote is being circulated in reference to capital gains, which is where some rich people are making most of their money? In that case, we're talking about gains made on investments. That income isn't taxed at the same rate as wages or salary because: 1) most of the time, it was already taxed as wages or salary before it was invested in the first place; 2) it was taxed again already since corporations pay taxes; 3) we want to encourage investment; 4) when the tax rate on capital gains is raised, actual revenue collected decreases.

That is because yes, people lose their incentive to take the risk of investing in ways that will subject them to higher capital gains tax rates. Rich people have choices about what to do with their money.

Meanwhile, many poor people do lose their incentive to be productive and work to earn money if they're getting hand-outs. If someone can get food, housing, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, entertainment, transportation, fire protection, police protection, and so much more without ever working, many of people will choose not to work.

It is ridiculous to compare letting rich people keep they money they've earned (rather than taxing them even more) to increasing hand-outs to people who choose not to work or not to advance their place in life.

Also, in general, rich people and poor people do not handle money the same way, or react to money to the same way. That is why many of the rich are rich in the first place, and why many of the poor are poor in the first place. Not all, but for the most part.

If you were to take, at random, ten rich individuals and ten poor individuals and even out their net worth and liquid cash, not so long down the line from doing that, most of the formerly rich individuals would be much better off that most of the formerly poor. That is because the rich do the things they do, and the poor people do the things they do.

The Left is always looking for ways to take money from productive people who put money to good use and give it to strangers who piss it away.

Dr. Ryan Anderson on Marriage Equality

Dr. Ryan Anderson: Marriage Equality and Marriage Reality at the Supreme Court

State of the Union 2015 Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, but permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over thirteen years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S. Apologize for Benghazi and what happened in the wake of that terrorist attack. Stress that ISIS and other such organizations must be obliterated.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allowing illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

We're One Race - Human. Yes, "race"-based slavery was our national birth defect, and injustices persisted after slavery was abolished, but hostile racists have very little power now in our overall system. Law enforcement must have limited powers, and rioting shouldn't be tolerated.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this. Apologize for Fast & Furious.

Declare the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence and character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Valuing Diversity

The Left, or champions of "equality", have been insisting for many years that diversity, including gender diversity and gender integration, makes an organization stronger and is generally beneficial. It is good, we have been told, for the military, for universities (including dorm rooms), colleges, and other schools, it is good for businesses and the workplace, it is good for hospitals, fire departments, and police departments, it is good in who provides our entertainment and information, it is good for leadership in charities, civic organizations, scouting, and churches, it is good for country clubs, and it is good for legislative bodies.

Gender diversity is good. Gender diversity makes us stronger. Gender diversity brings benefits to those involved. Gender diversity is required.

Right?

And yet, some of the very same activists who've been telling us this for years in their news releases, their picketing, their lawsuits, their plays, literature, and media productions, their classrooms, and any other way they can, suddenly contradict their claims when it comes to parenting, and when it comes to marriage, with or without parenting (though most marriages involve parenting).

Literally the same people who insist gender diversity makes organizations stronger deny it makes a gender-diverse relationship any different (let alone better) from a same-sex relationship, or adds anything important to parenting. They really want us to believe that everything they've said about gender diversity when it comes to everything else somehow doesn't apply to family.

We have overwhelming data that the absence or virtual absence of their father in their home while growing up correlates to many negative indicators in adolescents and adults. We don't have nearly as much information about the absence of mothers, so let's just stick with the absence of fathers. Many of those "fatherless" children had at least one other adult in the house in addition to their mother, including an aunt, a grandparent, etc. However, that isn't the same as having a father. Those who advocate that groomless marriage or same-sex parenting is no different than or at least not lacking anything worthwhile in comparison to the bride+groom union want us to believe that the absence of a father is entirely rectified by the presence a second female guardian. However, just as no man can satisfy a homosexual woman's desire for a woman, no woman, no matter how great a person she is, no matter how much she may love the mother of those children, can fulfill the need children have for a father.

Unfortunately, the neutering of state marriage licensing makes it official state policy that there is no difference. This is an insult to both men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and to our intelligence and innate sensibilities. This is anti-science.

Neutering state licenses means that bride+groom unions can't in anyway way be encouraged or incentivized or preferred over brideless or groomless unions under the law or in any program relying on taxpayer funds. For example, adoption or foster care agencies under state control or receiving any state funds can't prefer a bride+groom couple over a groomless union in placing children. They have to operate as though
giving a child two mothers and giving a child a mother and a father is the same thing. It obviously isn't.

We're all better off recognizing and encouraging bride+groom unions and parenting within such unions, but under neutered licensing, we'll have much less ability and fewer ways of doing that.

Studies also indicate that intentional parenting is generally better than "oops, we got pregnant" parenting, but it would take a substantial increase in the size and reach of government to even try to ban the latter to give every child the former. However, all it takes to set aside gender-inclusive unions as special, and thus hold up in our public policy the value of fathering, is a pair of already-there government documents, and maintaining the bride+groom requirement - the worldwide, historically celebrated core of marriage - in state marriage licensing.

It doesn't exactly encourage men to marry when or before having children, nor stick around to father their offspring, when we have public policy and a culture that disrespects them and insists they bring nothing of value to marriage nor parenting. But hey, it isn't like we're having any difficulties these days with fathers being around for the children, right?

The Left should abandon its absurd, self-contradictory claims that heterosexual unions are no different than homosexual unions. Leftist homosexuality advocates have proven effective at organizing and appealing to emotion and wielding their power, but just because they can get precedents and common sense tossed aside, judicial activists to rule for them, and elected officials to abandon their obligations, protocols, and ethics doesn't mean they should press ahead with the neutering of marriage, which would ultimately leave everyone, including them, worse off. Their efforts are more admirably spent on fighting the criminalization of homosexuality abroad and fighting actual prejudice, homelessness, assault, vandalism, bullying, suicide, domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness, and sexually transmitted diseases, which are real problems in "gay and lesbian communities".


Previously:

Bride-and-Groom is the Right Side of History

The Ideal of a Married Mother and Father

Slippery Slopes and Neutering Marriage

More good stuff from Stand to Reason.

Is invoking polygamy, etc. a "slippery slope" that doesn't make for good argumentation?

I can't recommend STR more strongly. (For some reason blogger eats YouTube embedding the first time around, at least on this blog. It's not like they are both owned by Google, or anything. I forgot about that. Sorry.

Should Christians Retreat on Marriage Neutering?

Why a Gay Man Would Vote Republican

Something Leftists Democrats will often say is "Why would a gay person vote Republican?"

I can think of many reasons why.

Maybe the person cares more about...

1) American values and the American Trinity (Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust)
2) the economy
3) government (taxpayer) debt
4) government employee pension reform
5) rewarding instead of punishing private sector success
6) free markets
7) fiscal responsibility and sustainability
8) monetary policy
9) decreasing dependency on the government
10) economic liberty
11) private property rights
12) tax policy and reform
13) Constitutionally-limited government
14) Federalism
15) judicial restraint and strict constructionism
16) tort reform
17) education reform
18) protecting human life
19) protecting crime victims and holding criminals accountable
20) reformative and restorative justice and reducing crime
21) personal defense and Second Amendment rights
22) national defense
23) religious freedom
24) strong families and parental authority/responsibility

...and any number of other things than:

1) voting as part of a lockstep groupthink support for pandering politicians who divide the American people into different groups based on skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

2) making sure that everyone is comfortable with - and affirming of -  everything a homosexual person does

3) reorganizing everything to make sure homosexual behavior is depicted and affirmed in each and every area of everyone’s life

4) neutering all state marriage licensing through judicial intrusion

In short, they care about other things more than whether or not a politician cheers the fact that a man gets his jollies with another man.

If our nation goes into decline because of fiscal irresponsibility, too much dependency rather than productivity, too much federal government micromanaging of our lives and businesses, identity politics balkanization, or ineffective national defense, things like whether Harvey Milk has enough space in grade school textbooks is going to be the least of a homosexual person’s worries.

The original question presumes that Republicans or Republican policies are "anti-gay". There are some Republicans who do not like people because they are homosexual, but there are some Democrats like that, too. Where in the national GOP platform is anything that is against homosexual people? Affirming that marriage = bride+groom and that such marriages are the ideal for raising children is in no way a knock on homosexual people – it is simply recognizing the difference between men and women and therefore a difference between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men or two women. Are there any more Republicans than Democrats elected to major office (Congress, Governor) who have expressed hatred for homosexual people?

Republicans are against bullying and against violence to an innocent person or their property, regardless of their sexual orientation. I’m not aware of any prominent Republican with any power who wants to prevent homosexual people from having the freedom of association.

There are homosexual Republicans, and there are heterosexual Republicans who support many parts of the Leftist homosexual agenda. There are Republicans who want to improve things for "the gay community" through other means than judicial fiat.

So there shouldn't be anything confusing about why a homosexual person would vote for Republicans.

But the Leftist Democrats do this with all of the groups to which they pander with identity politics, including African Americans, Latino Americans, and Vaginal Americans. They identify someone by one aspect of their personal identity and tell that person they have to support Democrats... as if that person can't think for themselves and the only thing that matters about that person is what someone else is going to do for them based on their skin color or genitals or their genitals being the same as their partner's.

A Wall Separates Both Sides

Marriage has been the basic building block of communities and society, uniting both sexes in a cooperative unit, usually producing and and raising the next generation with a parent of each of the two sexes.

Marriage is presented in the Bible as a powerful metaphor for God and His people, Christ and the Church. Literally from the first book of the Bible through to the last, marriage is depicted as uniting the sexes, while never portraying as marriage something absent of the participation of both sexes. Theologians who are followers of Christ cite marriage as one of only two or three institutions directly started by God. Even if one does not believe God created marriage, the fact is secular government in general didn't create marriage, and certainly not the government of the United States nor of the states themselves. They have merely described marriage, and put certain limitations (such as monogamy, minimum ages, low level of consanguinity) on the state licensing of marriage. The states have done so because new citizens, who do not consent to the relationships, usually result from marriage, and for the stabilization of family, inheritance, etc.

While I recognize that legislators, or the people directly, can legally vote to neuter state marriage licenses into documents that recognize nonmarriages under the name of description of "marriage", it is immoral for them to do so, as they are usurping something that our "wall of separation" should prevent. Fifteen years ago there was never anything anywhere in the world called "marriage" that lacked one of the sexes. Calling a brideless or groomless pairing a "marriage" is an abuse of the word, along the lines of government declaring that shrimp wrapped in bacon, served on a cheeseburger, is "kosher", or that ham is "vegetarian".

Any church or clergy that refuses to speak out in opposition to the neutering of state marriage licenses, citing the "separation of church and state" should be consistent. In that, I mean that they should never then, having claimed that religious marriage and state marriage are two separate things:

1) Require a state marriage license be involved in order for a marriage to be performed in the church.

2) Consider any congregants or members or staff "married" or not based on the possession, or lack thereof, of a state marriage license. It should be based  solely on whether or not there was a church-recognized religious ceremony and a church-recognized divorce. A man or woman whose legal spouse committed adultery should be free to pursue another spouse and have a marriage ceremony in the church, regardless whether or not the state says he or she is divorced in the first place.

Put up or shut up, all of you churches willing to roll over and bow down to the petulant marriage neutering advocates.

There are many good nonreligious reasons to support the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, but even so, one does not surrender his right enumerated in one clause of the First Amendment - the freedom of speech - by exercising a right enumerated in another clause of the very same Amendment - the freedom of religion. Speaking up and voting for marriage on religious grounds is no less valid and legal than demanding and voting for the neutering of marriage on the basis of personal sexual attractions or federal entitlements.

What Is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?" Who cares if a couple of guys want to marry each other? What’s the harm? How does this hurt my/your marriage? They've had same-sex marriage licensing in [a state our country] for [x] years, and isn’t the place still there? Have things fallen apart? When has a member of the clergy ever been forced to perform a wedding against his or her will?
These are questions that are often asked of those who stand up to defend marriage from being neutered.

However, in most places, it isn't up to us to demonstrate that there will be harm. The burden of convincing falls on the people asking for change. The federal government and all but a handful of states recognize marriage as uniting the sexes, so in those cases, it is those who want to neuter marriage who must demonstrate why doing so would be of overall net benefit to society. While a marriage license may solve practical challenges for a brideless or groomless couple, those issues can be addressed without neutering state marriage licensing.

The universal understanding of marriage has been that it unites a bride and a groom. Only recently, in a few places, has there been deviation from this concept.

With that in mind, let's examine the questions.

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?" 

Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

How many times have you heard that? Yeah, I've heard it a bunch of times. Before I get to that, though, I wanted to address another issue raised by this cartoon. I'm not a Roman Catholic. In the US, we have freedom of religion, and we APPLY to jobs. Nuns here have chosen to be part of the Roman Catholic church. If they do not like the policies, teachings, practices, or leadership of the church, they are free to leave. Guess what happens when most people disobey their boss? They get fired. Now, on to the statement that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality."

Why is this an issue? Did the Pope all of a sudden one day just start speaking out against homosexuality, or was there something to which he was reacting? Who picked this fight? Does the church send operatives into the middle of meetings of homosexuality advocacy groups to protest and disrupt them? Something to think about.

Saying that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” is an argument that has been shown to be a bad one in many ways, many, many, many, many times. And check out this for good measure.

By the logic being used in this statement, we can also say that Jesus "didn't say anything" about rape, securities fraud, or torturing-for-fun polar bear cubs, either.

Quickly, 1) Jesus is God, and thus Jesus affirmed what God taught, and that included things about sexual behavior and marriage - this was reaffirmed with Jesus also being a Jew who affirmed the teachings of the Scriptures - and unlike other established practices and traditions of those days, Jesus is never recorded as changing or ending or countering or clarifying the existing teachings about homosexual behavior; 2) Jesus chose and raised up Apostles and disciples who also wrote about sexual behavior and marriage under the inspiration of God (the Holy Spirit); 3) Jesus spoke about the two sexes and the practice of them cleaving to each other.

Literally from the first book to the last, the Bible teaches that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that sex is for marriage. The implications are inescapable (fornication is wrong, adultery is wrong, homosexual behavior is wrong). Jesus affirmed what we call the Old Testament – His audience was familiar with the Scriptures – He didn't need to repeat each word of them for them to remain valid and applicable.

Plenty of people don't give a rip what the Bible says, or don't consider Jesus an authority. Christians do, however. There are people who use all sorts of tricks, contortions, and gymnastics to try to present the Bible or just the Jesus of the Bible as neutral or even supportive of homosexual behavior, apparently in a desperate effort to take the air of the tires of Christians who do not bend... er... roll over and let homosexuality advocates go unanswered or homofascists run their lives. Sound Bible reading and study, however, reveals clear teaching about sexual behavior.

I do not think the government should attempt to prevent people from engaging in private homosexual behavior. Everyone should have their personal rights protected. Churches should be free to continue to teach the Biblical view of sexuality. These are matters of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

For more:

Answering the Gay Christian Position

http://www.equip.org/articles/answering-the-gay-christian-position

Christianity and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/christianity-and-homosexuality

The Bible and Homosexuality

http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality

Married People a Smaller Percentage of the Population

It's all over the news that there are supposedly now more "single" adults than married adults, or something worded similarly, and this is the first time in the history of the country things have been this way.

First, we need clarity of what actually exists. The statistics include the population down to sixteen years of age. Those are "adults"? Really? And what counts as "single"? Someone who is shacking up is not really single, are they, especially if they have children and financial accounts with their partner?

I'm sure most the change that has created this snapshot has to do with things like 1) people getting married for the the first time at older ages, 2) divorce, and 3) people living longer divorced or widowed.

Some of it, though, no matter how small, has to come from men who've gone on a "marriage strike", and I expect that to have an increasing effect on the statistics, even if in the end, many of the men end up with their strike just being a delay and not a lifelong standoff. The men who've joined the marriage strike are a diverse group, ranging from hedonists to devout conservative Christians who have come to the conclusion that legally-sanctioned marriage is something to be avoided.

Hedonists are increasingly realizing that they can get more sex, and with a variety of women to boot, if they do not marry, often without any obligation or jumping through any hoops. Hedonists (or anyone who has no moral/spiritual concerns about unmarried sex) can now get literally everything they want without ever marrying, without suffering (and often benefiting) professionally and socially. Others, such as the religiously devout, would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. Marriage strikers range from those who try to have as little interaction with women as possible (including in the workplace) to those who will do everything with women except legally marry them.

No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts:

• unilateral no-fault divorce
• community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying
• alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!)
• child custody and support issues
• presumed paternity and paternity fraud
• domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it

Strictly speaking legally, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. Such automatic assignment of paternity saves him a little effort/expense as otherwise he'd have to sue for the designation. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law.

There is probably some legislation that could ease at least some of the concerns of marriage strikers. The problem is, it is a certainty that introducing such legislation would be met with shrill shrieks of being part of some nefarious conspiratorial "war on women". That's a great fundraising tactic for certain politicians and abortion advocates.

Especially since it is increasingly becoming a legal principle that marriage is about the feelings of adults rather than what benefits children or society, I expect the statistical trends to continue, meaning we'll see the percentage of the adult population legally married at any given moment continue to shrink. After all, why bother to get or stay married to raise your own children, since marriage "isn't about children"?

This is not a matter to be ignored by Republicans. Married women are far more likely to vote Republican than women who aren't married. One reason is that many unmarried women, while claiming to be "independent", are very dependent on government programs and thus male taxpayers they don't even know, and Democrats promise more government programs. I suspect another reason is that Republican women are generally far more attractive and thus more likely to attract a husband.

Love and Hate

In response to my posting on negative perceptions of evangelical Christians, this comment was left by Anonymous:

I don't think anyone can deny that while evangelicals preach love, they are more prone to hate. Especially anything that falls outside of their beliefs, which given how backward many of them are, is a ton! I respect all religions and know that there are good evangelicals out there, I just haven't met any. Having lived in Georgia, I have been told that eating ethic food such as Lebanese or Indian is against the will of God, that yoga is spiritually dangerous, that Harry Potter fosters witchcraft. For among these reasons, while I respect all religions, I can't respect a religion that hates so much and denies science and hates anything it considers outside. Their message on Homosexuals is completey against their message of love, and their repression of women through their beliefs on contraception is rediculous and backwards. Their hating has turned me into a hater 

Clearly this person has bad feelings about experiences with evangelicals. I have no doubt that Christians have some amount of blame in that. We are called to give a reason for the hope that we have with gentleness and respect, and we don't always do things that way.

I want to take a closer look at the comment.

When the Sideshow Takes the Center Ring

As someone who believes in the rule of law and equal application of the law, it saddens me to see some situations devolve into a bad circus sideshow, where the truth gets buried underneath people playing to the cameras, talking heads yelling about something they did not witness as though they did, and professional attention-seekers doing what is best for their personal agenda, regardless of the harm it does to the actual victim or community.

A Tough Standard For Human Behavior

The Bible teaches that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes. These things are taught throughout Scripture, as something that applies to all people at all times, rather than something that applies to a specific group of people or for a specific period of time. This has many implications for human sexuality, at least for those who strive to follow Him.

Just one of the implications is that engaging in sex-like behavior with someone of the same sex is sinful.

For years, homosexuality advocates have taken the "don't believe the Bible" approach or "the Bible is outdated" approach for trying to reconcile homosexual behavior with Christianity, or at least neutralize Christian opposition to homosexual behavior.

Lately, homosexuality advocates have tried to say that the Bible doesn't really teach that homosexual behavior is sinful.

As wiser people than me noted even before the Internet came into general public use, a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth can get its boots on.

As such, refuting some of the recent attacks on the traditional understanding of Biblical teachings on sexuality can take a long time. With that, I point you to this:

“Gay Christianity” Refuted!

The complete response to Matthew Vines is now available as a single program. Yes its five hours and nine minutes long, (72meg in size), but the world needs to hear this message. We believe this so much that we have decided to make this publicly available to be distributed for free. Share it with your friends and relatives. We’ve titled it “Gay Christianity” Refuted and only ask that you not change it or sell it. All fair use rules apply for criticism too.

You can play it here or right click and download it. All that we ask is that if you are edified by it please consider supporting this work on a regular basis. There is more where that came from Lord willing.

"Gay Christianity" Refuted by James White is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Based on a work at aomin.org.

Good churches will welcome people who have identified themselves as homosexuals. However, a good church will not abandon the Biblical standard for human sexuality for the sake of the feelings of anyone who wants to engage in sex or sex-like behavior with someone who isn't their spouse in the Biblical sense.

 

I listened to the entire file of James White utterly refuting what Matthew Vines taught. Vines repeatedly appealed to emotion, and that might be effective for people who do not think critically and do not have a good understanding of the Bible, but it doesn't make what Matthew Vines taught true. It isn't.

 

Sex is for marriage. Marriage unites the sexes. That is the consistent Biblical teaching.

 

I find it interesting that people who claim:

 

1) To follow Jesus Christ as omniscient & omnipotent Lord and Savior

2) Being "gay" is a God-ordained, God-created identity, a sexual orientation that is every bit a part of someone and every bit morally neutral as having blue eyes

3) That Christians have unjustly condemned all homosexual behavior based on misreading or erroneously being selective in their application of the Bible

...are unable to point to a single, clear, Bible passage or reliable external source documenting that Jesus cleared up typical misunderstandings or animosity of his day about sexual orientation or same-sex relationships. Surely, an omniscient & omnipotent Jesus could have said something like, "You know, grooms don't have to marry brides. They can marry other grooms, if that is the desire of their heart. This is also very good." And He could have seen to it that it was recorded and preserved in the Bible, and thus prevented all sorts of trouble endured by people.

Instead, Jesus repeatedly affirmed the Scripture and, unlike with other things, is never recorded as having cleared up misconceptions about sex being for marriage and marriage uniting the sexes.

Matthew Vines repeatedly referred to "loving" lifelong monogamous same-sex relationships. By his own logic, he is attacking nonmonogamous people, including many people who identify as "gay Christians", in a way he chastises others for doing in his very message.

There is no way around it, folks. You do have the freedom to not follow Christ. You do not have the authority to change what God has taught about marriage and sexuality. Yeah, that can feel like a bummer sometimes. I didn't always live by the Biblical teaching myself. Plenty of churches would have accepted my fornication. That doesn't make fornication right.

 

UPDATE:

Jesus, Scripture, and the Myth of New Knowledge Arguments about Homosexual Unions
 

(Follow that link to watch at 76 minute video.

 

Dr. Gagnon will address the myth that we have radically new knowledge today about homosexuality that allows us to discount the biblical witness on homosexual practice or to claim its affirmation of loving homosexual relationships. Join FRC as Dr. Gagnon clearly presents a Scriptural perspective on today's most hotly contested moral debate: human sexuality.

Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas [Society of New Testament Studies]. He is also an ordained elder at a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics; co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views; and, as a service to the church, provides a large amount of free material on the web dealing with Scripture and homosexuality.

What Is Marriage?

My continued thanks to @SearchCz @ActivistDalek @NotGayDalek on their patience and my apologies for not replying more quickly.

@SearchCz commented on this previous entry. You can see his comments at the bottom of the link.

Let me try to sort out this confusion re: *throuples*, and why marriage law should only apply to couples. This is LESS a question of whether or not *throuples* have rights, and MORE a question of what marriage is and isn't (particularly based on the public's interest in the institution).
 
You've repeatedly pointed out how children are an integral part of our understanding of what marriage is - particularly the public interest in how children are raised. This is YOUR argument, that raising children has something to do with marriage.

 The common argument, to which I subscribe, is that the state has more of an interest in bride+groom unions because as a group, as a rule, and in general, sex-integrated unions are the kind of pairing that naturally create new dependent citizens, even if not all do. Throupling is either ineffective (only one sex) or superfluous (only one member of each sex is needed). However, if state marriage licensing is not about society’s interest in integrating the sexes and raising the next generation, but instead about the attractions of adults, then it doesn't matter what kind of parents throuples make. I have heard many times in the fight for "marriage equality" (perhaps not from @SearchCz – I don’t recall) that "marriage isn't about children" and "They are consenting adults, how does it hurt anybody?" If those statements are true, they apply to throuples as well.

#1) We have evidence showing that same-sex parents work out as well (or better) for kids as opposite-sex parents.

No, we don’t. There has been no study indicating this done with a large enough sample size comparing apple to apples, which in this case would mean things like comparing adoptive same-sex couples with adoptive both-sexes couples with similar socio-economic status, etc. and same-sex couples where one adult is a biological parent and the child was conceived intentionally with both-sexes couples of the same situation.

However, it shouldn't take a study. Some things should be obvious, such as "mothers and fathers are different" and all other things being equal, a child benefits from having both raising them.

Likewise marriage. It is a *thing* to which we have a right. So when we start talking about whether or not *throuples* have a "right" to marriage, we can't disregard what that marriage *thing* is and isn't. Legally, marriage is reciprocally exclusive when considering shared property, pensions, authority to make decisions for the other. ( These are some of the things a COUPLE can do that a *THROUPLE* cannot )

However, people can legally marry and have paperwork (prenuptial agreements and the like) that state otherwise.

You and I agree that marriage is something and not other things. We disagree on where there demarcation is. I have maintained that "the right to marry" in a legal and social sense has always been about an individual uniting with someone of the other sex, so that saying a man has a right to marry a man makes as much sense is saying a man has a right to a square circle. Yes, I think a man has a right to freedom of association, which includes sharing his life with another man in whatever form they want, but whatever it is, it isn't marriage. This, however, strays from the central issue at hand about state licensing.

And, if I can offer another analogy: consider a two-seater sports car. Does a *throuple* have a "right" to drive one? It doesn't matter, that two-seater is made to safely accommodate two people and NOT three or more. (In fact, only one person at a time can drive it).

Imagine that sports car is constructed around the body configurations of one man and one woman so that two men couldn't fit or two women couldn't fit. You want the car reconfigured. Why can't it be reconfigured in a way that allows more people?

But same-sex couples don't require that any new protections be invented, only that they have access to the existing protections available to others.

There was never a right to get a marriage license with someone of the same sex before – not for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Isn't that a new protection? When women were no longer denied their right to vote, it was to vote just like men did. Voting itself was not changed to accommodate women.

Can you explain why the state's interest in how children are raised ought to be concerned with whether or not the adults in question produced the children in question? Keep in mind that the state ALREADY freely sanctions 2nd marriages in which children will be raised by a biological parent and a step-parent.

Parents are naturally in possession of their biological children. If they neglect/abandon those children, they are prosecuted. If they want to raise their children but are unfit, the state has to have justification and follow procedures to remove the children from their custody. If the parents want to give their children away, they have to do so through formal adoption (although some places allow newborns to be "safely surrendered"). In the event of a divorce or other break-up, parental rights are sorted out by legal authorities. Adopting official public policy that logically indicates that marriage, reproduction, and parenting are not related or diminishes the connection between them carries certain risks. For example, diminishing the general connection between parent and biological child as a legal consideration.

Clearly, men and women are going to continue to get together and make babies. Will our public policies encourage of discourage them from doing so within marriage and raising those children together?

Yes, there are single parent situations, adoptions, and stepparent situations, but what is the natural situation, and what is best? I grew up with my genes and certain other inherited biological elements. It is of some benefit for my son to grow up with me for that reason alone. I've been there, done that. There are some awesome stepparents out there, and God bless them, but statistically speaking, minor children are better off with their biological parents together, and if that isn't going to happen, without their parents bringing their new lovers into (and often out of) the child's life until the child is grown.

When it comes to parenting, public policy should encourage men and women marry in order to have and raise children. Yes, there will be other situations, but what should be encouraged?

Who pressured Eich to resign? on Life on Twitter

I saw a lot of noise being made by marriage neutering advocates targeting Mozilla because of Eich. Clearly, Mozilla was going to be the target of organized actions to ruin the business.

On to @NotGayDalek:

1.) BRIDELESS AND GROOMLESS MARRIAGES ARE NOT PROPOSED. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A BRIDE, GROOM OR BOTH

A bride is a woman, a groom is a man. So yes, without both a man and a woman, one is missing.

2.) “THROUPLES” IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT: A LOGICAL FALLACY, AND FEAR MONGERING

Rather than make a transcript, I’ll note that this is addressed here.

 3.) THE ONLY “UNDUE DISENFRANCHISEMENT” THAT IS OCCURRING IS BANNING PEOPLE FROM MARRIAGE.

The disenfranchisement is that the licenses are issued on behalf of the people, and in many places, the people have voted to retain the bride+groom requirement in that licensing, only to have judges, often federal judges (despite SCOTUS indicating it was a state matter) overturn their votes. The bride+groom requirement allows access to everyone, both men and women, and as such does not violate the Constitution, despite creative pronouncements to the contrary. Notice that different states have different restrictions on the ages of the individuals and how closely they can be related, so states are allowed to implement different restrictions even though such restrictions are based on personal characteristics with which the individuals were born. In other words, even though they were "born that way" they are still denied access to getting a marriage license together.

Why Do I Care?

Before I was so rudely interrupted by life, I was engaged in a talk on Twitter about neutering marriage. It originated with me tweeting out links to columns and the like surrounding the pressuring of Eich to leave Mozilla (the company behind Firefox) because he supported Proposition 8, a duly adopted (and popularly approved) amendment to the California constitution that restricted state marriage licenses to marriage. My tweeting of those columns resulted in many responses from some people on Twitter, and the talk ensued. A longtime reader/commenter of this blog and another to which I've contributed joined in with his thoughtful comments, and plenty of people came and went, some vulgar and trying to take the conversations on tangents, others more focused and civil.

The bulk of the conversation has not been about Eich, but about whether or not state marriage licenses should be neutered so that brideless and groomless couples also get those licenses.

I don't think there is any resolving the conflict, because the basis of my position is that marriage is inherently about uniting the sexes and that state governments have an interest in distinguishing marriage via licensing and the laws that apply to such licensed marriage, and their position appears to be that brideless and groomless unions of two (but not more) people should be licensed as marriages and treated exactly the same as bride+groom unions. For a dialogues to have any meaning, there has to be an agreement on something to begin with. We don't even agree on what rights are. Regardless, although Twitter can accommodate bumper sticker slogans, these topics deserve more than 140 characters.

Cracking the Republican Code

It’s time to come clean. People like Chris Matthews and critics of this blog are on to us, so there’s no point trying to disguise our true intentions. I’m ‘fessing up.

We Republicans have been talking in code.

Here is your guide to our nefarious secret code, which some bloggers have apparently figured out already.

Coded statement: "Well, [insert first name of question-asker here]…"
Real meaning: I completely dismiss you and everyone of your race, you subhumans

"14-year-olds should be able to earn money cleaning their schools for an hour or two"
I want six-year-olds to be forced to work for 16 hours per day, 365 days per year in coal mines without safety equipment or standards, for pennies a day.

"welfare", "food stamps", "felons"
All black people are lazy criminals

"It is better for people to have the opportunity to get jobs rather than be handed food stamps."
I need slaves for my plantation.

"Obama"
All black people

"I'm less than completely satisfied with President Obama."
I hate him because he's black. I also believe he's a commie Muslim Kenyan.

"free enterprise"
A return to race-based slavery

"Tenth Amendment"
A return to race-based slavery

"property rights"
I want to own black people and women.

"Second Amendment"
I want to be able to shoot at my will anyone who isn’t a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group, but especially black people.

"Constitutional"
Only what property-owning, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group want.

"voter fraud"
When anyone votes who isn't a healthy, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age.

"Obamacare"
I want everyone to die who isn't a heathy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age… painfully, after going bankrupt.

"Social Security is unsustainable without some changes."
I really, really want old people to be poor, starving, miserable, sick, and then die early.

"values”
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"morality"
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"American exceptionalism"
There is nothing good in the world that hasn't been provided by a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"restoring American greatness"
Stealing from, torturing, and killing everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I love this country!"
I only love healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group, and I want everyone else to die… painfully.

"God Bless America!"
I'm a dominionist Christianist theocrat who wants all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully, so that everyone remaining can be forced to live under a Christian equivalent to Sharia law.

"I want everyone to succeed."
I want everyone who is a healthy, American, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to own slaves.

"We shouldn't raise taxes on anyone."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"Burdensome regulations"
I want total anarchy so I can steal from, torture, and kill everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I'm not convinced that man-made global warming is a serious enough threat that can be effectively alleviated if we simply cripple the progress of human civilization with confiscation and redistribution of private earnings and totalitarian intrusion into private life."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and I want everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"I'm not convinced that all of the biological diversity and symbiosis, beautiful nature, human capabilities, and vast universe we see are the result of nothing more than purposeless, undirected, random physical forces that emerged from nothing, caused by nothing."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and will use a Ouija board to make my decisions.

"I don't believe federal tax dollars should fund art, especially art that is highly offensive to a large number of taxpayers."
I want to ban all art.

"school vouchers"
I want to funnel any money anyone spends on education to flat-Earth religious groups who want to kill anyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
The day I get into office, we're going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed.

"All other things being equal, I believe a married man and woman should get preference in adoptions."
The day I get into office, we’re going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed. And THEN all single parents are going to be hanged.

"I'm not convinced homosexual behavior is healthy."
I'm gay and in the closet.

"I wouldn't want to receive anal sex from ten men in one session."
I'm gay and in the closet AND I want to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires.

"I don't think taxpayers should be paying for a woman's fifth late-term partial-birth abortion."
I want all women to be raped by their father, uncle, or brother until they experience a life-threatening pregnancy, and the I want them forced to raise the resulting children themselves, and then I want the women tortured and killed in a back alley.

"I support the death penalty."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"Foreign terrorists should be punished as enemies of the state, rather than treating them like domestic citizen criminals."
I'm Islamophobic and I want all people who aren't healthy American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"We have to defend our borders and have a good immigration policy and enforce that policy."
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them, first in America and then everywhere else in the world.

"I'm against race-based quotas"
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them.

"Activist judges"
Any judge who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

Now some of my fellow Republicans will claim to sincerely believe that every human being has inherent worth and certain rights and that limiting government helps to protect those rights, but isn't it better to ignore any argument they might offer by calling them bigots?

At least one of my critics is bound to miss that this is a sarcastic post.

Life on Twitter

Folks like @urbaurba @ACTIVISTDALEK @NotGayDalek @proudliberalmom are getting hysterical on Twitter, joining longtime debater @SearchCz because I said someone should not be pressured to leave their tech job because they supported a mainstream position on marriage laws.

The latest round of tweets:

Activist Dalek @ACTIVISTDALEK
YOU ARE HILARIOUS. DO YOU THINK REPEATING YOURSELF IN A BLOG POST MAKES YOU MORE CORRECT OR IS CHANGING ANYONE'S MINDS? #LULZ

I don't know why this person thinks my blog postings have any less validity than their own tweets. Statements are either true or not, regardless of who says them or how.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
If you are going to claim something is harmful, the burden of proof is on you…
…and saying "It's basic biology" isn't proof of anything.

That was in response to me noting that children are best off with a married mother & father. Marc, apparently, is claiming that men bring nothing to personal relationships that women can't bring, and vice-versa. I'd be worried if Marc was my partner.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba 17h
Same sex couples are the most INTENTIONAL parents.

Yes, in many cases they are, that is why when someone claims to have a study saying that motherless or fatherless parenting is just as good or even better than mother+father parenting, it isn't valid if the studies didn't compare similarly situated mother+father families, meaning the parents INTENTIONALLY became parents. That was my point.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And the most famous anti same sex parenting study out there, Regnerus…

I never brought up that study. Arguing studies on Twitter is pointless. Marriage neutering advocates like this would never accept any study that shows children are best off with mother+father, and even if they did, would they let that stop their demand for "equality" anyway? Let's get real.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And obviously, marriage doesn't have to involve children.

I never said it did.

When I said "Constitution allows treating different kinds of associations differently." This was the response:

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
Like interracial marriage, master-slave associations?

Interracial marriage is not a different kind of association. Skin color is irrelevant to marriage, sex is not.

When I wrote "Children will have to deal with both sexes. They are best off being raised by both." This was the response:

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And you are entitled to your opinion, fortunately actual scientific research doesn't agree.

There is no credible research that says otherwise. It is amazing how a political or personal agenda will allow someone to deny basic reality about biology. Meanwhile, there are many people who identify as gay or lesbian who can see this obvious truth, because they haven't allowed themselves to be usurped into a Leftist agenda.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
Except when it's two women or two men who want to be married? That's not equal right.

Man+woman = has produced 7 billion currently operating units. Man+man = 0. Woman+woman = 0. Obviously they are different.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
Which 'pro-gay cultures' are you referring to?

That was in response to me pointing out that even in pro-gay cultures, marriage was understood to unite the sexes. Ancient Greece, for one.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
Are people who (gasp!) never want kids allowed to marry?

Are they allowed to get a state marriage license? Yes, because the state needn't pry into their intent. The state already has birth certificates, which still indicate male or female, though I'm sure the wacky gender confusion activists will attack that before too long. Anyway, one male + one female - that requirement can be determined to have been met by state documents. No need to question them about their sexual likes and dislikes, their medical condition, or their intention. Oh, and by the way, many people who say they never wants kids end up having them later, even if by "accident" (which NEVER happens without both a man and a woman - go back to take basic biology courses if you are confused about that.)

SearchCz @SearchCz
questioning things once accepted wholesale=universally praiseworthy

Questioning is one thing. Denying basic biology is another.

SearchCz @SearchCz
licenses issued on behalf of the entire state, not just a sampling of voters.

State governments represent the governed. Laws are enacted either through legislative representatives or direct vote of the people. The people ARE allowed to set limits on marriage licenses. That is why, in some states, first cousins can get a marriage license and in other states they can't, even if they are members of a suspect class/historically oppressed minority.

Marc Abrams @urbaurba
And rights based on the US Constitution, not popular opinion, the bible or any other religious text.

The people who wrote and adopted the Constitution, including every Amendment, understood marriage as something uniting the sexes. The people who wrote the 14th Amendment would laugh you out the door if you said it required the state to license a brideless "marriage".

SearchCz @SearchCz
the encouragement to marry, then parent, remains with marriage equality

It's not marriage equality, but neutering marriage enshrines in public policy that marriage laws are about the subjective feelings of people, not about children. That is going to have an impact on law and culture. Children will lose.

I wrote "But we're talking public policy applied to KINDS of associations." To which came the response…

SearchCz @SearchCz 16h
like the kind that joins without any chance of reproducing?

Man+woman is the reproductive kind, even if not all can or will. Absent a man, or absent a woman, it isn't the reproductive kind.

I've gone over all of these things in depth here:
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/p/same-sex-marriage-reviewing-basics.html
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/search/label/marriage%20neutering

David Benkof Continues to Deliver

People like Camille Paglia and David Benkof can tell you what the "homosexual community" is like from the inside. Benkof has long provided thoughtful material when it comes to public policy on things like marriage and family, and homosexuality as an identity.

For several years, Benkof had something online that I found here (bugs in the text... I don't know what to do about them):

Evangelical Christians are Ignorant, Uneducated, and Illogical

Conservative or evangelical Christians are anti-science, stupid, hateful hypocrites. The evangelical community consists of liars and the deluded, mindless followers of the liars who deny science.

That's the message I see day in and day out in everything from Facebook updates from people who are listed as my friends to tweets and television broadcasts from celebrities such as Bill Maher, and so many others.

Consider this recent tweet from actor Michael McKean (@MJMcKean) to film critic Roger Ebert:

RT @ebertchicago Evangelical professors in trouble for doubting Adam and Eve//"evangelical think tank"=priceless!

The idea of an evangelical think tank is funny? I think it is safe to say McKean hasn't bothered to attend a conference of the Evangelical Theological Society or the Evangelical Philosophical Society, or check out Glenn M. Miller's Christian Think Tank.

Now, I might have the same opinions and so rudely state them, complete with sarcasm and derision and mocking of others, if I based my opinions on what I was told by sources with a demonstrable anti-evangelical bias such as the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, on CNN, MSNBC, Leftist books, radio and websites, depictions in primtetime television, and if my main exposure to "evangelicals" consisted of the likes of some of the more showy personalities on TBN.

But to judge evangelicals by watching a few minutes of TBN is like judging all athletes based on watching a few minutes of WWE.

There are serious evangelical thinkers whose work isn't difficult to find.

How many of these people, who do not hesitate to insult and dismiss a significant minority population of the nation*, have ever sat through a single service in an evangelical church? Anyone can listen to services online, though doing so does not allow one to mingle with the people attending the services, so one can still listen to the services while still assuming that everyone in attendance is a freak. How about listening to something from Chuck Swindoll or John MacArthur? How about reading just one issue of First Things, Touchstone, or the Christian Research Journal (go ahead and highlight the factually incorrect statements, the logical fallacies, and the unsubstantiated claims and tweet them)? How many of these people have ever bothered to read or listen to anything by any of the following when addressing what they believe and why, and what it means for how they live:

William Lane Craig
J.P. Moreland
Gary Habermas
Chuck Colson
Francis Beckwith
Greg Koukl
R.C. Sproul
Hugh Hewitt
Nancy Pearcey
Joni Eareckson Tada
Francis Schaffer
Josh McDowell
Frank Turek
Dinesh D'Souza
William Dembski
Hugh Ross
Peter Kreeft
Paul Copan
Max Lucado
N.T. Wright

All of these writers have their critics, of course, but will any of these famous people who so casually shout their disdain for the intellectual capacity of evangelicals please name which one of those listed is or was uneducated, illogical, or stupid? Which of them are hypocrites, hateful, or reject the scientific method as a way of gaining knowledge? Don't merely make assertions based on what someone else tells you; go to the source.

"Evangelical" is certainly not antintellectual, antireason, or antiscience. What makes someone an evangelical Christian? Generally, our beliefs can be boiled down to what is found in these three creeds, and we believe the Bible to be the authority in how to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and be His disciples, we believe in serving others, and we believe in making disciples through proclaiming and defending the Gospel. We don't leave our faith in the pews six and a half days out of the week or only mention it during certain holidays, at our weddings, or at funerals - rather, we try to live by our faith in every aspect of our lives. How does any of that imply we don't think?

I'm an evangelical because of thinking, not because a lack of thinking. The Bible, and the leaders from whom I've learned, have encouraged people to use their minds – to be reasonable and use sound judgment, to discern truth from error; I'm to love God with all of my mind. Christianity is the only major religion that depends on events that either happened in history or they didn't; we are called to believe because those things happened, not to just believe blindly, or because of a feeling.

I have taken comparative religion courses. I graduated from a secular university after attending schools teaching anything but evangelical teachings for my entire formal education. It's not that evangelicals have ignored or irrationally dismissed what our critics have said. I'm barraged with assertions and claims that run counter to my beliefs many times every day, whether in the media or via social networking or anywhere out in public. Every Easter and Christmas season, we can expect another round of television broadcasts and features in periodicals that claim to debunk some core Christian belief or popular Biblical account.

Dear critics and mockers, we hear you and read you constantly. You're unavoidable. We've studied other faith traditions and claims. We have read the arguments of atheists. We've heard your claims of alleged fatal contradictions in the Bible, forgery and plagiarism, your assertion that miracles could never have happened, your claims that the God of the Bible is cruel, evil, or otherwise lacking. We've heard it all, and we'll keep hearing it.

We have thought things through, and we have arrived at a reasonable faith.

I don't automatically think that all Wiccans, Muslisms, observant Jews, people who identify as Christians but not evangelical, secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, New Agers, Buddhists, Hindus, or others are stupid or ignorant, or that they don't think. Why are there so many people like McKean that dismiss evangelicals as thoughtless?

Go ahead, Mr. McKean - why don't you try calling up Greg Koukl while he is doing his radio show, and expose him for the thoughtless man he must be. I'd love to hear that. Better yet, ask to join him in studio. I challenge you, and anyone else who thinks that evangelicals are not serious, careful thinkers, to do some reading and listening, attend some classes at a school like Biola, or otherwise see what serious evangelicals have to say. You might be a little more respectful, and enjoy some diversity while you're at it.

= = =
*About 40% of Americans have identified as born-again or evangelical Christians. (Anyone who follows the true Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is born-again and a Christian, so the terms are redundant.) And yet how often have we heard that these Christians are just like the Islamofascist terrorists? The mocking of such Christians and their beliefs demonstrates the comparison to be ridiculous and slanderous, as I have yet to see Christians rioting, doing suicide bombings, and doing decapitations on webcams in response to the mocking.