Should you believe the authors of the Bible or the “Christians” who claim the writers were blasphemous pathological liars?

The way the “evangelical Left” talks, you’d think that the authors of the Bible were just like Tommy Flanagan, John Lovitz’ Pathological Liar character from Saturday Night Live.

The title may seem bold, because the Leftist Christians making those claims don’t use that specific wording.  But their comments on the Bible — whether cursory or in-depth — reveal that is their view of scripture.  They routinely dismiss what the authors wrote as being different than what God really wanted there.

For the writers didn’t just claim once or twice that God spoke to them, but in literally thousands of verses — not to mention passages claiming that the entirety of scripture is from God.  So if it wasn’t truly from God then they weren’t just stretching the truth or telling a few white lies, they were committing non-stop blasphemy throughout the entire Bible.

This raises two questions:

1. Why would the theological Left claim the name of Christ if they think the Bible has literally thousands of blasphemous lies in it?

2. Why would anyone consider people holding those views to be authentic Christians and go to their churches, buy their books, etc.?

The answer to question 1 is that being a Leftist Christian can be highly profitable.  You get to have the approval of the world and sell lots of books without the cost of real discipleship.  Also, 2 Corinthians 11:13–15 explains them:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

The answer to question 2 is similar: People get to feel “spiritual” yet completely conform to the world when they follow Leftist false teachers. That’s demonstrated in studies showing that churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” have nearly identical views as non-churchgoing people.

Here’s an example from false teacher Mark Sandlin, where he desperately tries to rationalize away the clear commands of Leviticus 18:

Whatever the reason, the perspective in these clobber verses were based on an understanding of sex and sexuality that was just as misinformed as their understanding of the earth in relationship to the sun, of fish, of pork and of reasons for stoning children. In our scientific age . . .

But that would mean that Leviticus 1:1 and the rest of the book were pure lies from Moses, or whomever Sandlin claims wrote the book: The Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them . . . More specifically, see the beginning and end of chapter 18: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not . . . I am the Lord your God.”

If you claim a direct quote from God, you are either right or you are wrong.  There is no middle ground.  So who is lying, the original author of Leviticus or Mark Sandlin, who claims to be a pastor while explicitly denying Jesus’ divinity, mocking the Bible, and more?

Here’s another example from false teacher Rachel Held Evans, who supports Peter Enns version of God’s command to take over the Holy Land:

“God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The Israelites believed that God told them to kill the Canaanites.”

So they think that the writer of Joshua and other books were completely mistaken or liars when claiming to speak for God, but that we should totally trust Evans, Enns et al.  (Evans, notably, tries to rationalize away the child sacrifice element of the story of Abraham and Isaac, even though she is pro-legalized abortion.)

Remember what the Bible says about those who falsely claim to speak for God: Deuteronomy 18:19-20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. So the Israelites obviously didn’t think it was no big deal to be mistaken about what God really said.

How can these people claim that the human authors were complete idiots and/or liars and then pick and choose the few verses they think they agree with and build “ministries” on those?* I call this Leopard Theology (aka Dalmatian Theology), where people claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots. Then there is Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding and removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological Leftists and “Progressives.”  There are no good reasons to trust them.

Oh, and don’t forget to point out how the theological Left has a wildly different view of the Old Testament than Jesus does.  You know, the Jesus they claim to follow.  Even after they’ve rationalized away all the verses about him that they don’t like, they usually claim to like the Sermon on the Mount.  And does Jesus flinch about the OT?  Not at all. In addition to quoting the most controversial parts without apology in the rest of the Gospels (Adam and Eve, Noah, Sodom, Jonah and more), He says this:

Matthew 5:17–18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Run, don’t walk from churches and “Christian” false teachers who mock the Bible.  Trust the human authors and, more importantly, the divine author.  The original writings of the Bible turned out exactly as the Holy Spirit and the human writers wanted them to, and they have been faithfully transmitted to us.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

If you are surprised, then I’m surprised that you are surprised.

Via Coeur d’Alene city officials to pastors: perform gay marriages of face jail, fines — Wait, that can’t be right.  An Idaho city is going to literally jail Christians for not performing oxymoronic “same-sex weddings?”  Yep.

While the LGBTQX agenda leaders and the false teachers on board with them are obviously at the root of this, the real blame lies with the Christians who chose political correctness and willingly believed the “tolerant, loving” lies.  The Left is rightly called the Gaystapo because they take the same incrementalist approach, always reassuring the gullible that this is the last thing they’ll ask for.

They aren’t done by any stretch.

Also see 300 examples of the LGBTQX agenda at work — large and small.

 

 

Hillsong won’t take public position on LGBT issues

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Via Hillsong’s Brian Houston says church won’t take public position on LGBT issues:

At a press conference for the Hillsong Conference in New York City today, Michael Paulson of The New York Times asked Houston to clarify their church’s position on same sex marriage. But Houston would not offer a definitive answer, instead saying that it was “an ongoing conversation” among church leaders and they were “on the journey with it.”

Anytime you hear “ongoing conversation” and “on the journey” a Weasel Word Warning should go off.

Carl Lentz, pastor of Hillsong’s New York City location, made similar statements on CNN in June, saying Hillsong in New York City has “a lot of gay men and women” and he hopes it stays that way. But he declines to address the matter in public because, in part, Jesus never did.

Ugh.  The argument that Jesus never said anything about homosexual behavior (or abortion, etc.) fails on several levels.  If a church leader uses it you can be confident that he or she is ignorant and/or malicious.

Short version: Yes, He did say something about it, but the theological Left ignores or distorts it as they do with many things about Jesus and his teachings.

Medium version: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these Leftist theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.), He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them, and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews.  And the Gospels never claimed to include everything He said.  John specifically notes that the whole world couldn’t hold it all!  (John 21:25) And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

Long version.

Oh, and check out Wait . . . Wait . . . Wait . . . This Hillsong Church Business All Makes Sense Now — Now that’s convenient.  Hillsong just came out strongly pro-LGBTQX right before it was announced that they had hidden child molestation from authorities.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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 of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians
2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” are identical to the world

This is a devastating but unsurprising summary of their views.  The data is right here.  While comparing the first two columns of numbers is illuminating, what really stuck out to me the similarity of the 2nd and 3rd columns.  Note how the churchgoing people who support SSM are nearly identical to the population average in every category.  These churchgoers are even more pro-porn and pro-abortion than the average person!  Regnerus-Graph

This is just more confirmation of one of the theological Left’s biggest lies, namely that we are just misreading the Bible on the verses about homosexuality.  But if that was the case, these “Christians” who support SSM should at least be more aligned with us than with the world when it comes to porn, abortion, divorce, etc.  And keep in mind that two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) agree with Bible-believers that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Please read this carefully and note how it perfectly describes churchgoers who support SSM: 1 John 2 15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

I wish they would have added a question about whether Jesus is the only way to salvation.  That is a simple litmus test, because it is taught over 100 times in the New Testament.  Anyone who disagrees with that should not claim to be a Christian.  In my experience there is remarkable correlation between pro-SSM people and those who deny the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation.  So you can test their authenticity without even bringing up the LGBTQX topic.

The theological Left and its false teachers love the world, not God.  They have access to the truth but delight in living out the opposite, and blame others for the incredible destruction caused by violating God’s guidelines for sex.  If it weren’t for them, abortion would be illegal, Planned Parenthood would not get taxpayer funding, schools wouldn’t be teaching pro-gay propaganda, and we wouldn’t be losing our religious freedom, parental authority and freedom of speech at such an alarming rate.

Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” are identical to the world. In other words, they don’t appear to be Christians.

—–

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

  1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
  2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
  3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

“Same-sex marriages” — redefining marriage and fidelity

Via Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret – NYTimes.com.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

Of course not!  That is the dirty little secret of the gay world: They will have literally hundreds of sex partners over the course of their lives, often anonymous.  How soul-crushing is that?  It does explain why gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men  .  Meditate on that for a moment.  How evil and vile do you have to be to knowingly risk infecting others with a deadly disease, just because you don’t want to wear a condom when having sex?  That is one of the most profoundly selfish acts imaginable, yet the mainstream media and “comprehensive sex education” classes never tell you about these things.

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

Yep.  You wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of the agenda.  Just go watch some more episodes of Modern Family, people.  Nothing to see here.  Whatever you do, don’t apply critical thinking skills or the Bible.

According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules.

That is how it works for Chris and James. Over drinks upstairs at the venerable Twin Peaks Tavern in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, they beamed as they recalled the day in June 2008 that they donned black suits and wed at City Hall, stunned by the outpouring of affection from complete strangers. “Even homeless people and bike messengers were congratulating us,” said Chris, 42.

A couple since 2002, they opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.

Oh, well if you have some rules and check in with each other before having sex with other people that’s fine.

Seriously, the NY Times title was ironic enough, calling relationships with built-in infidelity “successful.”   I guess if you are redefining marriage you can redefine whatever you like.

And the fact that the “pro-gay Christians” ignore this rampant infidelity while advocating for “same-sex marriage” because the unions are allegedly “loving” is just more proof of their being false teachers.

An atheist found one absolute moral law. Guess which politically correct one it is?

Atheists often have in-house debates over morality.  Some try to pretend that there really could be objective morality under atheism (e.g., Christopher Hitchens, for all his poor reasoning, was anti-abortion).  Others are more consistent with their worldview — well, they try to be until someone does something bad to them — and insist that there are no universal morals.  They are pure moral relativists, acknowledging that we’ve (allegedly) evolved to “think” there are morals, but that these are really just personal preferences.

One of the latter group has had a change of heart.  Sort of.  Via Professor Larry Moran squares the circle:

Professor Larry Moran has recently created something which he has previously declared to be impossible: a moral absolute. Readers might be wondering: what is Professor Moran’s moral absolute all about? Is it about the inherent wrongfulness of killing the innocent, or taking away people’s freedom, or oppressing the poor, or violating a commitment one has given? Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong! Here’s Professor Moran’s new moral absolute, in all its resplendent glory:

“It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences… There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry.”

The reason why I was surprised to read this statement on Professor Moran’s blog is that he has previously denied the existence of moral absolutes. Here are a few examples of statements he has made on the subject of morality, and on how we can know that something is true . . .

How fitting that he picked our society’s most politically protected sins to declare off-limits for criticism! He is a Romans 1 poster boy. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness by denying that God exists, then “gives approval to those who practice” exhibit A in God’s list of sins that suppression of truth leads to.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

You can’t make up things like this.  2,000 years ago the Holy Spirit inspired Romans 1, and here it perfectly describes this atheist.  He suppresses the truth by saying there is no God and no moral laws, then he makes up one moral law that goes against God’s first example of where suppression of the truth leads.

Atheists simply can’t live consistently with their worldview.  I hope God makes Moran and others spiritually alive so they can repent and believe.  There is a better way to live than by using the talents God gave you to shake your fist at him 24×7.

Heterosexual supporters of “same-sex marriage” are going to get mugged by reality

Here’s why: Their support for these “marriages” will also justify support for polygamy, polyamory, bi-sexual multiple marriages and more — and their spouses will have the option to participate in those without their consent.  The woman who supports “same-sex marriage” today may regret it when her husband brings home another woman — or another man — to legally share her home and finances.  They will also lose their spouses and children because the courts will be eager to side with the LGBTQX people, such as in this case.

Please read this post carefully so you’ll be able to show people how the pro-gay movement can have deep and personal impacts on them.  This is not a “slippery slope” fallacy, it is a logical slippery slope (or, as I like to call it, a cliff argument), where the arguments for one position automatically support another position as well.  And don’t say, “That can’t happen!,” because it is already getting mainstreamed.  

The consequences are huge and have already manifested themselves in many places.  Their agenda has and will continue to cost people their personal liberties, religious freedom and parental rights — and those are design features, not bugs.

There is a simple reason that the gay lobby focuses mostly on the “LG” (lesbian and gay) part of the LGBTQX alphabet soup: The reasoning of the rest of the acronym is harder to sell because of the logical consequences.  But if they can get the first part affirmed and codified then it will be too late to backtrack to prevent the rest from taking place.  Case in point: Have you noticed how they never talk about bisexuals and their “civil rights” to be able to marry at least one person of each sex?  After all, all the same arguments for gays and lesbians should apply to them.

We have such obvious and sound arguments on our side.  By nature and design, one man / one woman relationships produce the next generation and only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.  Therefore, the government has an interest in those unions, because they form the foundation of society.  We don’t even have to use religious arguments, though of course God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages and homosexual behavior is a sin.  The Bible could not be more clear.

But our arguments have often been ineffective.  Why?  Because the foundational lie of the gay lobby works so well.  They combine a lie (“Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others”) with the truth (“We will relentlessly harm you if you disagree”) and that is too much for many people to withstand.  They have made it very easy for people to switch sides and repeat false sound bites (they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about it, it prevents bullying, it doesn’t hurt you, they love each other, we shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage, etc.).  People are really good at rationalizing lies to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

So I encourage you to try this reasoning: Ask the other person if they’d mind if their spouse (current or future) decided to maintain their relationship and marry someone else of the opposite sex — or the same sex.  Would that bother them?  If so, why aren’t they living consistently — even just hypothetically! — with their own worldview?  If they claim it wouldn’t bother them, ask if you can use your home polygraph test on them.  The other person may lie to you and pretend that they wouldn’t care, but you will have given them something to think about.  Later in the post I’ll show what that conversation could look like.

The argument takes the pro-gay reasoning to its logical conclusions and shows how most people will not like the possibilities.  That should help them re-think their entire argument.

It starts by demonstrating the truth that marriage is something we describe, not define.  As Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has noted, marriage has always described something that existed: A union of a man and a woman.  But if people think marriage is something we get to define, then anything goes.  Sure, they pretend that they just want to define it as any two adults who love each other, etc.  But why pull up the drawbridge there?  If you choose to define it rather than describe it, then why can’t others define it their way?

Then it points out the logical conclusions: If marriage isn’t just a union of a man and a woman, then why can’t it involve three people?  Why can’t it be polygamous?  Why can’t a man have a wife and a husband in two separate but simultaneous marriages?  Why can’t you marry your dog?  As Koukl notes, when the other person says those are silly examples, you get to agree with them!  Yes, they are silly — but they are your arguments, not mine.  If your position is that we can define marriage how we like, these possibilities are open for others who are more “open minded” than you are.

Here’s how that conversation might look.  Remember to be nice!  This doesn’t have to be combative.  You aren’t trying to grind them into a fine powder, you want them to see where their worldview is taking them.  Oh, and you want to work the Gospel in wherever you can.

Christian: So what do you think of this “same-sex marriage” and adoptions by gay people?

Pro-gay person: I’m all for it.  Hey, they love each other and that’s what it is all about.  You have a civil right to marry who you like.  It doesn’t hurt me or my marriage.  And the Bible never said it is wrong.

And gay people adopting is fine. Kids need love from anyone.  It doesn’t have to be a male and a female.

C: Actually, the Bible couldn’t be more clear, and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people agree that it considers homosexual behavior sinful.  We can come back to that if you like.

So do you think marriage is something you define or describe?  I mean, is marriage a thing that exists and then we describe it, or is it just a word that we can change the definition of?

P: I think we can redefine it.  It used to be that interracial marriage was forbidden.

C: But the definition was the same: A union of a man and a woman.  So if you can redefine it, I assume you are OK with polygamy, polyamory (group marriage), polyandry (multiple husbands), one or more spouse of each sex, marriages to animals, etc.?

P: Oh, don’t be silly.

C: I agree that those are silly, but they are your arguments, not mine.  If marriage is something you define, then who are you to say others can’t define it their way?  All the same things apply: It is the same love, they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about them, etc.

P: But those things won’t happen.

C: They can and they will.  The polygamy and pedophilia movements are already latching onto the gay agenda gains and using the same reasoning. ABC just ran a fluff piece on polygamy and The Atlantic is advocating for polyamory.  This is how they change the culture to accept what used to be unthinkable.  Who would have predicted 10-15 years ago where we’d be now with “same-sex marriage?”  Who would have thought that Christian bakers could lose their businesses for not baking cakes for same-sex “weddings?”

So why are you pulling up the drawbridge on these other people who want to live out the way they were born?  How do their loving relationships hurt you?  If a bisexual was born that way, how can you deny him the fulfillment of marrying a man and a woman?

And who says that you can only love one person?  Why can’t a man or a woman have two or more spouses of any gender?

Real feminists should hate where this is headed.  Women will devote their youth to raising kids, only to have their husband be able to bring another partner into the household.

P: Well, I guess . . .

C: You are married with kids, right?

P: Yes, I’ve been married to my husband for 12 years and we have 2 kids.

C: OK, so consider this: Your husband comes home and tells you he loves you and wants to stay married to you, but he has always been attracted to men as well.  And there is a man he really loves.  So for him to be complete he is also going to marry him.  His “husband” will live in your house with you and your kids and they will have sex together.    

P: That’s ridiculous.

C: But it could happen, right?  Lots of men have abandoned families for gay lovers and women have left for lesbian relationships.  Episcopalian “Bishop” Gene Robinson is a Leftist hero for leaving his wife and kids for his gay lover.  Why shouldn’t these guys stay married and just add on?

Again, I’m using your born that way / same love / etc. logic.

So what would you do in that situation?

P: But our vows were to “forsake all others.”

C: Uh, sorry, but are you not familiar with no-fault divorce?  Wedding vows used to be like a real contract where you couldn’t unilaterally abandon your obligation.  But with no-fault divorce either party can leave for any reason.  So with the political clout LGBTQ people have things like this are inevitable.

P: Well, my husband would never do that.

C: Probably not, but if he had wanted to he probably wouldn’t have told you until society and your Left-leaning church decided that “same-sex marriage” was a civil right.

Again, what would you do?  It is just a hypothetical based on taking your views to their logical conclusions, so please don’t be offended.

P: Well, I’d divorce him.  Or I’d marry another husband!

C: And what makes you think another guy would want to be involved in that?!  “Yeah, my husband married a guy that shares our bed now, so I want a second husband.”

Wouldn’t you want your husband to be happy and fulfilled and to be who he really is?

P: Not at my expense!

C: Indeed.  So if you divorced him, do you realize that some Leftist judge would probably give him parental rights? 

P: No way!

C: Way.  Think about it: You and society have decided that it is illegal for adoption agencies to “discriminate” against gay couples.  So they are “obviously” just as fit to parent your kids as a heterosexual couple.  And there would be two of them — your husband and his lover — versus just one of you.  And given how politically incorrect it would be to give custody to you, the judge would almost certainly side with them.  

So the logical conclusion of your worldview would be you — or someone else — either living with your spouse and his new spouse (man or woman) and you would have no legal control over it.

P: I still don’t think that would happen.

C: It will, because the logic is already in place once you grant civil rights to sexual preferences — whether allegedly inborn or not.  

Let’s try another example: Regular polygamy.  I picked the “bisexual polygamy” first because, oddly enough, they are ahead of the regular polygamists in getting civil rights for their sexual preferences.  But how can you argue against polygamy at all?  At least those relationships fit the original definition of marriage — that is, one man and one woman.  By nature and design they could produce children and provide a mother and a father to them.  They “just” involved more than one of those relationships.  

P: But polygamy is wrong! [Note: The Leftists may not even think it is wrong, but I assumed so in this case to make it harder to convince them.]

C: We agree, but you’ve already made the case for them: They love each other (“same love!”), they were born that way, etc.  They can even claim that there are more parents around to love the kids.  So your support of government recognition of same-sex unions unwittingly made the case for polygamy.

So here’s another hypothetical: What if your husband decides he’d like a younger wife but doesn’t want the costly divorce?  He’ll be able to marry someone whether you like it or not and bring her into your house.  She would share in all you have built up over the years and actually live with you.  Think of the guys who dump their spouses for “trophy wives.”  Polygamy may be much simpler and cheaper for them.

P: My husband would never do that!

C: But if society tells him it is OK, he might change his mind.  Remember how much people are influenced by the “if it is legal then it must be moral” line of thinking.  Even Planned Parenthood said this about abortion in a 1964 advertisement: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”  Just years later half the population thought that abortion was an inalienable right and a completely moral solution.  So give it a decade or two and it may seem natural for your husband to consider a younger model.

And even though the Bible clearly teaches that God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages for life, it is a thousand times easier to twist the Bible to support polygamy than it is to support “same-sex marriage.”

And even if your husband wouldn’t do that, what about all the other women and children impacted by it?

Now don’t feel like you have to answer me now, or at all, but I encourage you to think carefully about these things and see if perhaps you should reconsider your views.  If you think I’ve stated something incorrectly or illogically, please let me know.  But I firmly believe that those are all logical consequences of assigning civil rights to sexual preferences. Even if gays were born that way, there are no good reasons for the government to get involved in their relationships and there are many bad things that will inevitably happen — if not to you, then to others.

And please remember what the word of God says about this:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe 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 of any kind.

God created this world and knows exactly how it works.  Living in denial of that reality is always a recipe for pain.  The Good News is that all sins can be forgiven through repenting and trusting in Jesus.

—–

Conclusion: I encourage you to try this reasoning with people who hold pro-LGBTQ views.  I think it is a provocative way to get them to quit spouting fallacious sound bites and to think more carefully about the logical conclusions of their views.  Yes, it is an emotional argument, but one grounded in facts and logic.  The Left falsely uses emotional arguments, but there is nothing wrong with use using them properly.

——

By the way, if you a conservative using this on a Left-leaning spouse, be sure to tell them these are hypothetical situations!  You don’t want them to freak out too badly.