Prohibit, permit or promote?

J. Warner Wallace of Stand to Reason made some excellent points about the role of government in same-sex relationships.  These are very useful to help frame the argument against the government recognition of “same-sex marriage.”

Government has three options with respect to a given behavior:

1. Prohibit – Disallow it and punish offenders.

2. Permit – Allow it, but don’t offer incentives for it.

3. Promote – Actively encourage it via recognition and/or incentives.

Even though same-sex activity causes various societal problems (e.g., according to the CDC, gay men have HIV and Syphilis rates greater than 40 times the average), it isn’t practical or desirable to think that government could completely or closely monitor or prevent those relationships.

But should government promote this behavior via recognizing “same-sex marriage” and conferring benefits upon them?  No.

For the government to get involved in relationships there has to be an important reason. They have been involved in real marriages because by nature and design children are created by those units and they are the only relationships that can provide a mother and a father to children. Countless studies show this as the ideal, so the government has good reasons to encourage their stability. Nearly all the men I’ve met doing prison ministry had absent or poor fathers.

Please note that I didn’t say that they must produce children, only that children are always produced by one man and one woman. It is sad how many times Liberals trot out that straw man.  And again, only those relationships can provide a mother and a father to a child.  Deliberately denying this to a child is cruel.

While it may be logical at this point to permit but not prohibit these relationships, there are no good reasons to promote them. None.  And there are many good reasons not to promote SSM: The erosion of free speech and religious freedom and the damage done to children.  Despite what the fools presenting to the Supreme Court on Prop 8 claim, children do deserve to have a mother and a father.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACLU, Democrats and media blast Obama for forcing his religious views on us

OK, everyone knows the title is bogus.  The Left — including the religious Left — are determined to put the Onion out of business with their self-parodies.  They leave nothing for the rest of us!

Case in point: Why didn’t the usual suspects go wild when Barack “the church is not his thing” Obama flipped back to his pro-”same-sex marriage” position and blamed Jesus for it?  Presumably Obama’s Jesus was for it in 1996, then against it for 16 years, and then for it again now.  As the link below notes, “even when Obama changes his views, Jesus somehow comes around to agreeing with him.”

If this was just about Obama’s personal views, no one would have cared. But the Left cheered triumphantly, knowing that Obama has no intention to leave it to the States.  If the President changes religious views on infant baptism then it doesn’t generate big news, because everyone knows it won’t impact the populace.  But we all knew this had huge political ramifications.

It is the same kind of hypocrisy and short-term thinking that made the Left cheer when Obama refused to back the Defense of Marriage Act because it “might” not be defensible in court (uh, even though it had been successfully defended multiple times).  Hey guys, would you have applauded the same leadership if Bush had decided that Roe v. Wade couldn’t be defended?  Didn’t think so.  Therefore, please think 15 minutes into the future before validating such dangerous precedents.

The Ambivalent Theocrat makes some excellent points (hat tip: Pastor Timothy).

There are legitimate theological arguments on both sides of our political divide, but they are not equally well received. In America, it seems, one man’s moral teacher is another’s Torquemada — the difference is usually determined by party registration — and the returns on overt religiosity are mixed at best. As president, George W. Bush was repeatedly and pejoratively labeled “theocrat” for acknowledging his faith, and even the slightest intimation that his religious belief informed his political vantage point was perceived by the Left as symptomatic of an almost treasonous disrespect for the separation of church and state.

Bush talked less about his faith than most Presidents — including Clinton and Obama — but people had the feeling that Bush actually meant it.  (Fair and balanced reporting note: I must mention here that Bush’s “Muslims worship the same God as Christians” line was a superfluous political move and horrific theology.)

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama, too, has marshaled religious argument and imagery to his cause when politically expedient, but nary a whisper has followed his proclamations — even when his pastor of 20 years was exposed as an unreconstructed bigot. Obama’s appeals to religion and his claim to be “doing the Lord’s work” are cynical and mercurial enough to have pushed Michael Gerson amusingly to quip that, “even when Obama changes his views, Jesus somehow comes around to agreeing with him.”

. . .

There was no greater example of this than Obama’s 2007 speech at the general synod of the United Church of Christ. After admonishing the Christian Right for talking about religion and warning that faith leaders use the Bible to “exploit what divides us,” Obama proceeded to push for climate-change legislation on the basis that “the Bible tells us that when God created the earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that earth.”

While still a senator in 2006, Barack Obama claimed that “not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation — context matters.” Perhaps so. But to judge from his record, it appears to be a context driven solely by political consideration.

It is ironic that the false teachers consider themselves to be generous and loving when they push their religious beliefs on others and ask the government to do what they think their god wants. You’d expect the ACLU to get litigious over that, but the ACLU and the rest of the Left just go after religious views they disagree with, which means the issue isn’t religion at all, but the disingenuous and hypocritical suppression of freedom of speech.

More importantly, Christians need to use better discernment when following any politician.  Just listen to these Jeremiah Wright clips about Obama and ask yourself if you should really look to the President for your religious views.

—–

Also see Audacity of a lie: timeline of Barack Obama’s false religious life .

Do you wonder how many studies aren’t published because they didn’t give the “right” answers?

Or, the “Left” answers, to be more specific.  See the video at James O’ Keefe Investigation: Rutgers Education Professor in Pay-for-Play | MRCTV to see how a Rutgers education professor agrees not to make a deal until the research shows what he wants it to be.

We know how wildly biased media and education can be, but I’ve never given much thought to how many things the Left can hide in academia.  Think of the studies that allegedly show how well kids turn out in gay/lesbian households.  But what makes you think they wouldn’t hide a study that showed otherwise?

For example:

However, a new in-depth review of 59 studies on gay parenting has concluded that such “strong assertions” about gay parenting are “not empirically warranted.”

Most of the 59 gay-parenting studies involve children of high-income white lesbian mothers or tended to use very small samples; studied children but not teens; and either had no comparison families or compared lesbian-led homes with single-mother-led homes, wrote Louisiana State University family science professor Loren Marks.

These and other weaknesses cannot support broad statements that there are “no significant differences” between being raised in same-sex versus mother-father homes, wrote Mr. Marks, whose analysis was included in the Oct. 15 briefs filed by the House of Representatives in its defense of DOMA in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.

Roundup

Best. Pro-life ad. Ever. Don’t worry, it isn’t graphic.  But if you think the message is harsh, the reality is a million times worse.  Make it viral, please!  HT: Jill Stanek

 

“Only they’re not bunnies.” Priceless.  Hey, if they were bunnies, it would be illegal already.

Ask your Congressional representatives to de-fund PP now.  It isn’t just the abortions, it is the serial hiding of statutory rape and sex crimes.  Don’t listen to the fear-mongering about the other services they provide.  There are many places that can provide those that don’t commit the atrocities that PP does.

Barely twenty-four hours after her inauguration as America’s first woman chief executive, President Sarah Palin announced today that Attorney General Mark Levin has been instructed to stop defending Roe v. Wade and abortion in a wave of fresh lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

~Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator, February 24

From Jill Stanek’s quote of the day.  Those cheering Obama’s refusal to do his job and support the Defense of Marriage Act have no idea what precedent it sets.

Wisc. and Ind. Democrats: Union Cash Driving Democrats to Run and Hide

By far unions are the largest donors that Democrats have all up and down the line from local and state to federal. Unions spent over 50 million dollars on Barack Obama’s campaign back in 2008 and they spent another 50 million for the 2010 midterm elections.

Most specifically public employee unions are Democrats biggest supporters.In the last week of the 2010 election, for instance, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent over a million dollars to help elect Democrats. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent almost $400,000.

So when these Democrats run away and try to hide in a neighboring state it is because their biggest donors are demanding that they “do something.” And since Democrats in these states have lost all power due to the will of the voters, they feel that their last ability to stop legislation that hurts donor’s interests is to shut down government.

There is no parallel for this in the actions of Republicans who have spent decades as powerless onlookers in state government. No blocks of Republicans have run away like cowards to nearby states to avoid doing their jobs. Republicans have been essentially powerless in the face of unions since World War II yet in that almost 80-year span where Democrats have been in the pocket of Big Labor no blocks of Republicans have wallowed in such childish petulance. Republicans continued to go to work in their state capitols despite being virtually powerless to affect unions.

The insidiousness of media bias — Democrats, Media Keep ‘Birther’ Story Alive

The nagging issue of “Birthers” raises a chicken/egg question: It is an issue that lingers of its own accord, or does it linger because the media won’t let it go away?

Republicans appearing on cable to talk about important issues of the day — unemployment, the national debt, Egypt, Wisconsin, etc. — can bet the “Birther” question will come up. And there appears to be nothing a Republican can do to satisfy an interviewer on this question. It is not enough to state a belief in the president’s Christianity, or that one takes the president at his word. In question after question, interviewers call on Republicans to condemn, repeatedly, rumors they neither believe nor spread; then they condemn the condemnation for not being condemnatory enough.

And so the issue keeps coming up. It’s self-perpetuating. Twice in the past week, George Stephanopoulos has asked Republican guests on Good Morning America about it. David Gregory routinely does the same on Meet the Press.

I saw this comment that was trying to refute John’s excellent response to a HuffPo fluff piece by a false teacher promoting pro-gay theology:

Christians loudly opposing homosexuality are being really interrested in the personal sins of others, are they not? Or is it only a few particular sins, that they happen to be blameless for themselves? So, the question arises, are they doing what their religion demands of them? Wether christians should be good and forgiving people or should they be on the lookout for their “neighbours sins”? Is it really what Jesus demanded of them? If that is a part of being a christian, I am especially happy I am not one. It must be a burden to try and watch for ones fellow man, for him not to “sin” in his bedroom…

My response to the commenter:

Go check your history.  Was pro-gay theology the dominate view of the church for 2,000 and then these awful conservatives came along to try and change it?  Did both Christian and non-Christian cultures always celebrate (oxymoronic) “same-sex marriage” and then conservative Christians decided to change that?

Of course not.  The apostate pro-gay theologians brought it up and part of their playbook is acting like we’re the ones obsessed with it.

And when one of the logical consequences of making sexual preferences into civil rights is that young children will be forced to learn that these perversions are “normal,”  that is definitely worth fighting.

Lara Logan, Islam and Women’s Rights – Why the media silence on the Islamic gang-rapes?  Too scared to mention it?  Doesn’t fit in the the PC-memes?  Why aren’t the feminists going insane over this?  More from the Wintery Knight about the Koran’s teachings on this.

Roxanne On that whole “teachers work long hours during the school year” thing — Nice.

All Teachers Unions Must Fall, Not Just Wisconsin’s – just read it all.  Great overview of how awful they are and why they should be illegal.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

What if a Republican President decided not to enforce a law he didn’t like?

Anyone on the Left cheering President Obama’s dropping of legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t thinking even 30 minutes into the future.  Do they really like the precedent that a President can pick what laws to enforce?  (BTW, DOMA passed by huge margins in the Senate (85 – 14) and House (342 – 67) and was signed into law by President Clinton.)  Will they just sit there when a Republican President does ignores laws he opposes?

Let’s turn to our one-stop-heresy shop, Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, for the typical response of the theological Left (i.e., false teachers):

President Obama Does The Christian Thing In Dropping Legal Support For Defense of Marriage Act.

Really?  Got any Bible verses for that?  In addition to Jesus specifically stating that marriage was designed for one man and one woman:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

President Obama today directed the U.S. Department of Justice to stop defending theindefensible: the so called “Defense of Marriage Act” which bars federal recognition of same sex marriages.

“Indefensible?”  That’s beyond hyperbole considering what both Christian and non-Christian cultures have determined through history.  Same-sex unions by nature and design do not produce the next generation.  Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman.

This was an act of moral courage on the part of the president

That’s odd, when a Republican like Rick Perry spends time passing a sonogram law to reduce abortions and make them safer for women the Lefty criticism is that he should be working on the budget or other bigger problems (Bigger than saving lives?!).  But when Obama does something like this to cater to certain sexual preferences it is courage. Check.

The prohibition of gay marriage is the twin evil of the legal prohibition that not long ago existed that barred interracial marriages.

For the 100th time, skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ made history by becoming the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse full marriage equality in 2005.

Yes, we know you are a band of apostates.  As Glenn noted, “The United Church of Christ has again demonstrated it is more involved with the social gospel than the true gospel, and that they assist those who behave illegally.  In Chicago a UCC has given sanctuary and protected some of the Wisconsin Democrat lawmakers who are hiding from the State Patrol rather return to do the job they are being paid to do.”

The U.S. Department of Justice “will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law,” according to The New York Times.  This action on the part of the president moves our nation closer to being the Beloved Community.

“Beloved community” is a classically nauseating false teacher-ism.  He’s got no Bible verses to back it up.  He makes up the phrase then pretends that his false god makes that the highest goal.  Then again, what do you expect from a “reverend” who brags about taking 6 year old girls to gay pride parades?