Tag Archives: homosexuality

An Uncalled for Low Blow

Last night I participated in a Facebook discussion in the wake of the Prop 8 court decision.

One guy who was for same-sex marriage kept bringing up divorce, using it to hammer Christians and conservatives over the head.  I have seen this time and again in discussions on same-sex marriage: “I don’t hear any Christians campaigning about divorce, yet Christians get divorced just as much as non-Christians.  Why doesn’t anyone get up in arms about that?  You all need to get your own house in order before hating on gays.”

Some even tout the 50% statistic: that 50% of Christian marriages end up in divorce.

One area of housecleaning before I talk about divorce: enough with the false dichotomies.  As my friend Neil recently noted, just because we do not buy into 100% of the gay agenda doesn’t mean we “hate” gays, and just because we don’t support same sex marriage doesn’t mean we are “anti-gay.”

The folks who bring up divorce skip over some huge points.  First, I know what Barna says, but there is some other data and studies out there that need to be taken into account.  Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, notes,

Mere religious affiliation may not reduce divorce, but religious practice clearly does. One longitudinal analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth found that couples who attended church as often as once a month had divorce rates less than half that of couples who attended church once a year or less. Similarly, a recent study of the National Survey of Families and Households found that marriage in which both couples attend church regularly have the lowest divorce risk (David B. Larson and James P. Swyers, 2002, “Does Religion and Spirituality Contribute to Marital and Individual Health?” in John Wall et al (eds.) Marriage, Health and the Professions).

The National Marriage Project, a research arm of Rutgers University, found that Religious affiliation does indeed lower one’s risk of divorce.  In the link, see the section titled “Your Chances of Divorce May be Much Lower than you Think.”  Religious affiliation lowers one’s risk of divorce by 14%.  Granted, they do not specify which religious affiliation, but the reduction is telling.  The NMP is an authoritative research group; anyone who wants to get to the bottom line would do well to pour over their data, rather than be content with a second-hand report of a few general stats from Barna.

Often, the people touting the statistic just heard one small sound bite in passing from a news report on a study, thus failing to take into account the details.

Yes, no matter which way you cut it, the divorce rate in the church is very high…too high.  Among evangelicals, for example, while it is lower than the national average (26% for evangelicals, 33% national average), it isn’t much lower.  I am not excusing divorce in the church by any means.  I just get bugged when vague stats are thrown around so cavalierly in an attempt to discredit an argument.  Best to get an accurate handle on the facts first.

Next, many fail to realize what, exactly, has caused the divorce rate in the Church to get so high.  Hint: it is not following the Bible’s teachings!  It is no coincidence that the divorce rate, both inside and outside the Church, has gone up up up since the 1960s.  The secular ideology brought on by the sexual revolution has unduly influenced the Church.  Divorce is just a natural consequence when you put your own desires above serving and obeying God.   Self-gratification was what the sexual revolution was all about.  The Bible’s got nothing to do with it, therefore it’s a stretch to try to lay the blame at the Bible’s door.

The folks at the NMP hint at this when they say:

The recent family trends in the Western nations have been largely generated by a distinctive set of cultural values that scholars have come to label “secular individualism.” It features the gradual abandonment of religious attendance and beliefs, a strong leaning toward “expressive” values that are preoccupied with personal autonomy and self-fulfillment, and a political emphasis on egalitarianism and the tolerance of diverse lifestyles. An established empirical generalization is that the greater the dominance of secular individualism in a culture, the more fragmented the families. The fundamental reason is that the traditional nuclear family is a somewhat inegalitarian group (not only between husbands and wives but also parents and children) that requires the suppression of some individuality and also has been strongly supported by, and governed by the rules of, orthodox religions. As a seeming impediment to personal autonomy and social equality, therefore, the traditional family is an especially attractive unit for attacks from a secular individualistic perspective.

All of what I’ve said so far are small points compared with the next three.  Divorce is a tragedy.  If you have been divorced, you have my sympathies.  I know that doesn’t help a bit, but I can’t imagine the pain you’ve gone through.

A past error in law (in this case, laws that made divorce easier), though, does not justify making another error in law.  I’ll say it again:  loosening laws in the past does not justify loosening them more now, especially if we have good reason not to loosen laws further now.  A third time: just because The Family has been weakened by lawmakers in the past doesn’t mean we cavalierly continue to do so now.  To suggest we continue down the slippery slope just ‘cuz, and to suggest I have to keep my mouth shut merely because lawmakers of the past decided to grease the skids in the first place is just plain silly…it’s a very large non sequitur.

If one grants the assumptions used to justify things like no-fault divorce, those assumptions might, indeed, be used to justify other changes to the institution of The Family, but that is not a problem for me, since I don’t buy into those assumptions.

I, as well as a throng of other Christian conservatives, happen to think that no-fault divorce laws and the worldview that justified them were horrible errors in thinking, so it is pointless to us for anyone to argue for same-sex marriage by bringing up the errors of the past.  Telling us to shut up because of the errors of the past falls on deaf ears.

Most  importantly, many who bring up the divorce canard, for some reason, bring it up as if Christians are for divorce!  They act like Christians think no fault divorce laws are ok!  I have no idea why they assume this.  What church are they going to?  What Bible are they reading?  Must not be the same Bible I’m reading.  Must not be the same Bible that almost every other Christian I know reads.  You can find churchgoers that attempt to justify their own adultery by slithering past a verse or two, true enough….but it’s wise not to set fire to straw men.

Geez, look around at churches and you will find countless individuals and organizations committed to helping married couples stay married.  You will find a cacophany of voices that hails divorce as an absolutely terrible tragedy.  You will find a great number of sermons dedicated to uplifting the virtues of a solid marriage and preaching the vices of divorce.  In fact, my pastor just had a sermon on divorce last week, and I will be blogging on it soon.

By the way the detractors beat their chests about the state of marriages in the Christian Church (which, I already admit, is in a sad state of affairs), you’d think they truly cared about divorce.  Ok, I’ll call their bluff: you, my friend, will you join me in the fight against divorce?  Will you write blog posts about how it has affected children?  Will you agree with me that divorce is a blight on society?  Will you financially support ministries and groups that help strengthen marriages?  If someone in a marriage is thinking about calling it quits (outside of abuse and egregious adultery), will you stare them squrely in the face (as my pastor did a few weeks back) and counsel them to seek help and not throw in the towel?  Will you aplaud with me all that James Dobson has done to help marriages thrive?

Chances are: no.

These folks who bash the Church over the head with divorce…I just don’t get it.  It is so uncalled for and represents a serious ad hominem + straw man.  I wish they’d take a closer and more charitable look at the Church when it comes to this subject.  I have a hunch that it’s not a serious point they really care about; my gut tells me it’s just their way of shaming and silencing those they disagree with.

Lastly, the reason why you hear so much talk about same-sex marriage relative to divorce is elementary: same-sex marriage is where the battle is currently waging.  No-fault divorce was decided years ago.  If there was a serious  chance that those laws would be repealed, you bet your bottom dollar that you’d see a strong push from many conservative Christians in that direction.  Same-sex marriage proponents write letters to the editor, appear on Larry King Live, and march in the streets today.  We want to answer those arguments.  Simple as that.

In conclusion: those who bring up the Church’s record as to divorce are changing the subject; they are merely distracting folks from the arguments for and against SSM itself, and they should drop the tactic.

This will be Decided from Above

Looks like the scrappin’ over Prop 8 isn’t over.  In fact, my friend and fellow blogger Chris Neiswonger calls today’s decision a “mere formality (thanks for the link, Chris!).”  If this goes through, I wonder what the higher court will say.

Here is the last part to a conversation series I did a while ago on Proposition 8.  It gets into some of the arguments from both sides (You’ll need to follow the links and start in the introduction.  Follow the parts from there consecutively.).  I highly recommend heading over there to refresh yourself with the issue.

Day of Silence Redeux

See my first post on this here.

Last week, the LGBT group at our school held the annual Day of Silence. For those that aren’t aware, the Day of Silence (D.O.S) is a day where gays  and lesbians, in addition to many straight students, protest harrassment and anti-gay bullying by taking a vow of silence for the day.  The protesters wear large decorated cards around their necks saying, “ask me why I’m silent today.”  If someone asks, they hand them a flyer that describes the point of the DOS.

Bullying in any form is out of line.  No teacher worth his/her salt actually wants a student to be called names and pushed around.  High school can be a cruel place for anyone, gay or straight, and that needs to change.

Seems to me, though, that  the DOS goes farther than that.  Why do I say that?

Go up to almost anyone who helped put on the DOS and ask them this question:

“What would you say to a person who harbors no ill will or hatred against gay people, but has moral objections to homosexuality?”

That is a crucial distinction that often gets lost in the fray.  Morally objecting to a desire/act/lifestyle isn’t hatred.  People object to what I hold dear all the time; it doesn’t bother me.  Why should it?

If someone says, “I have a sexual attraction to people of the same gender, and this condition is good and is part of who I am,” I cannot affirm or encourage that.  I deeply disagree with them,  but that doesn’t mean I hate the person, and it doesn’t mean I advocate hatred and violence.  If that is hatred, then A.A hates alcoholics.

I hold that a person’s desire is not his destiny.  Therefore, I disagree when a gay person equates his inclinations with his identity.  But that is not bigotry.  Again, if it were, then Alcoholics Anonymous would be a bunch of bigots.

Most likely, their response to that question will reveal an agenda that goes past just silencing bullying to silencing any disagreement with a lifestyle.  Most gays (as well as what are called “allies.”  I am using the term “gay” to denote not all who have same-sex attractions, but those who affirm such attractions as normal and good parts of their identity.) I have talked to can’t make the distinction that’s embedded in the question.  If I don’t affirm and encourage homosexual behavior and desire, then I automatically hate gay people.   As the years go by, I see a greater and greater effort on the part of many to stigmatize any and  all disagreement as hateful and bigoted.  This is an exercise in stereotyping and broadbrushing, which, ironically, is what gays and lesbians object to conservatives doing (and, admittedly, in many instances this accusation does stick.).

I asked a fellow teacher that question Friday, and she said, “they can think that, as long as they keep it to themselves.  They should keep quiet.  It could hurt people.”

Ah, I see.  Everyone can speak their mind but conservatives.  You, teach, can speak your mind, but I’ve gotta “keep quiet.”  How is it that when you voice disagreement (as you just did with me), you are being tolerant and truthful, but when I voice my disagreement, I’m just hateful?

There are many other questions that need to be asked as well:

Does ‘love’ mean you must encourage everything the beloved does or desires?

Short answer: no.  I’m glad my parents didn’t think so.  Whenever they saw me doing something that was destructive to me and others, they steadfastly stood against it.  This was an expression of their love, because they desired what was best for me.  Even if they were wrong that what I was doing was destructive, they were just wrong on the facts; this didn’t make them hateful.

Why think that gays are “born this way”?

Also: what does “born this way” mean, really?  What reputable scientific research shows that same-sex attraction is meaningfully genetically pre-determined?

I’m aware of Levay, Hamer, Bailey, Pillard, and others.  What, exactly, do those studies show? Hint: not what folks think they show.  Most, though, when they talk of gays  being “born this way,” the only justification they have for that is that of a strong felt inclination/desire for the same gender.  Is that a good reason to say someone was “born that way”?

If there is a genetic component to same-sex attraction (this is a much less controversial and appropriate way of phrasing it), does that mean we must surrender our moral concerns about same-sex relationships?

If so, then what does that say about our moral concerns about a myriad of other inclinations that have a genetic component to them (alcoholism, for example)?

Are all consensual relationships equal?

Most would say no.  Why?

While we’re at it:

Define equality…as well as homophobia, bigotry, rights, tolerance, discrimination, and other loaded words.

Those are incredibly emotionally laden words that are rarely defined.  The way those words are used by gay activists are sketchy at best.  Just say the words, and that’s enough to sound persuasive.  They function as sound bite bludgeons to marginalize any and all objections.  Those who use these terms in such undefined ways need to be called out on it, because name calling is not an argument.

The way “equality” is being used, if I say that certain inclinations are unhealthy or if I don’t affirm all relationships as normal, I’m guilty of profound prejudice.  How does that follow?

The same goes for all the other words.  If I think homosexual behavior is destructive and goes against the way we are designed, I’m a bigot.  If I hold to a traditional  view of marriage, I’m a bigot…somehow.  How is that?  As philosopher Doug Geivett points out, calling someone names like that might work as an intimidation strategy, but not much else.

If I hold to a traditional view of marriage, I’m somehow denying gays  their rights.  For gays to say they have a right to such and such means they have a just claim to something, for that is exactly what a right is.  Forget all the talk about benefits and hospital visits.  In California, gays already have that in their relationships.  This debate is about approval and affirmation.  Gays understand that legalizing same-sex marriage confers societal approval on their relationships.  That might be desirable, and, hypothetically, good, but why is it a right?  Since when is affirmation and approval of a relationship a right?  How is “being in love” (another popular justification for the right to same-sex marriage) a sufficient basis for granting the “right” to same-sex marriage?  If it is, then why should a right to SSM be any more legit than a “right” to enter into any number of other unions?

Tolerance…since when has tolerance come to mean that one has to agree with everything?  Classically, tolerance refers to people but not ideas and desires.  That distinction, however, is lost today.

I’d say there could be just a little more room carved out for tolerance in the classic sense.  Asking these questions, I think, will make that point.

Check out my other related posts on education, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage.

A Link

One link on the current same-sex marriage/homosexuality debate.

From Albert Mohler.

It’s worth reading…

The Very Definition of Ironic

In case you haven’t heard, the latest scuffle over same sex marriage started during the Miss USA pageant.  Just saying that amuses me.

Panelist Perez Hilton, a gay rights activist, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean what she thought of same sex marriage.  Listen to her reply yourself:

Her answer caused quite a stir, at least with Hilton himself (who went on later to call Prejean a “dumb b****”) and with certain members of the pageant elite.

Philosophy professor Doug Geivett has made some very astute observations about the controversy.

Some even believe it’s a travesty that she was the acknowledged runner-up after such an “insensitive” and “hateful” public statement about the definition of marriage.


The folks that call her answer “hateful” and  “insensitive” will use the same adjectives to describe anyone who disagrees with their definition of marriage.  Hilton, on a TV show later, said he was not upset because Prejean disagrees with him; he was upset because of the way she worded her answer.  Bullcorn.  Her answer was slightly awkwardly worded (kinda like that phrase), but it was about as innocuous as it gets.  There were no names, put downs, stereotypes, or loaded language.  Hilton objected vehemently merely because Prejean stuck to the traditional definition of marriage, which stands in the way of his cause.  Who is the intolerant one here?

Gay rights advocates are duty-bound by their cause to take offense. It is a strategic requirement in their effort to persuade others of gay rights. “Being offended” is an acquired taste. It comes natural when you’ve trained for it.

I have seen the same thing in discussions I’ve had myself  with same sex marriage advocates.   They can be quite sensitive and easy to offend.  Again, who is being intolerant?


Gay rights activists (my note: not all gays are activists) are engaged in a strategy to marginalize anyone who believes that there is no “right” to gay marriage. You may believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. But do you have a right to believe this? Do you have a right to say so? Doesn’t matter. Gay rights activists will do anything in their power to ensure that if you believe it you will be made a pariah.

So Hilton, in contrast to Prejean, is an intelligent and broad-minded person of good will who thinks Carrie Prejean deserved to lose the crown because of her “unfortunately worded remarks” (as they’re called over at AssociatedContent.com).

Hilton, as I noted above, called Prejean a “dumb b****” in a video blog soon after the pageant.  He apologized for the comment, but later went on to retract his apology.  What’s more, he added to his pile of bile by saying “I was also thinking of the ‘c word.’”  Watch it here:

Again, the contrast between Prejean and Hilton is all too apparent.  Prejean is supposedly the bigoted one, for stating her beliefs.  There was no name calling or loaded emotional language in her answer.   But no one, not even the staunchest gay activist, can say the same of Hilton’s response.  The situation is thick with irony, and my hope is that the irony won’t be lost on the public at large.  I’m not getting my hopes up,  though, for the public tends to respond well to “being offended,” especially when the offended comes from a liberal perspective.

I admire Carrie Prejean’s courage. She knew she might be asked about gay marriage, and she hoped she wouldn’t be. She knew it would be risky to answer with honesty. She now says she would give the same answer over again. The test she passed may be much more significant than she realizes. Prejean’s courage will be rewarded with greater courage. That’s how growth in virtue works.

Right on.  Let’s hope she continues to stand her ground in a winsome way, and lets hope it encourages others who are on the timid side to likewise stand against the emotive tide.

Something Rotten in the State of Iowa

….and Massachusetts, and Vermont.

I’ve been flittin’ about on different discussion boards and listening to all the brou-ha-ha on SSM in the media, and I’ve noticed a common narrative that, frankly, is contradictory.

Many claim that there are no secular arguments against SSM. Yet, these pundits/commenters often turn back around and critique secular arguments. “These arguments have no merit” they say, giving reasons why these arguments are bogus.

If there are no secular arguments, then there are no secular arguments. You can’t say that and then turn right back around and critique a secular argument.

It is inconsistent to critique something you think doesn’t exist. Either there are no secular arguments, or there are secular arguments that have no merit. Can’t have it both ways.

The same pundits often qualify their statements by saying, “It is only a religious issue in the sense that opponents to SSM are motivated by religious beliefs.”

This is a totally different claim than what is first set out. There is a difference between a religious motivation for a political stance and there being “no secular arguments” (i.e. all arguments are religious in nature) for a political stance.

To see this, consider a key plank in the Republican platform: limited government. Some, Christians, gravitate towards this view because they hold certain biblical beliefs about human nature. There are many atheists and agnostics, though, that gravitate towards limited government for economic or other reasons. The same goes for big government–people from all sorts of theological backgrounds hold to that view. Are we then supposed to fault limited government and/or big government policies because some are religiously motivated in their commitment to them?

What you are advancing is tantamount to viewpoint discrimination…in our country, all viewpoints can argue their case, including those motivated by religious concerns, as long as they use non sectarian arguments that are accessible to a wide swath of the public. As Meacham said in the recent Newsweek article on the Decline of Christian America, “Let the religious take their stand in the arena of politics and ideas on their own, and fight for their views on equal footing with all other interests.”

If you disagree, remember, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…atheistic and agnostic viewpoints would then be subject to exclusion as well, for they are just as concerned with theology as a theistic worldview is.

Most arguments against SSM that I’ve heard center around certain views of gender difference, tradition, the common good, and what’s the best for children. These views are held by Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, JW’s, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Heck, even atheists and agnostics, can, in principle, hold to all those things (though, I admit, these concerns are more at home in a theistic worldview). The point is that since they are common to many religions, the arguments don’t establish a particular religion.

One more comment regarding the “religious” issue: if arguments against SSM are out of bounds for being religiously motivated, what about the countless number of folks who argued for SSM based on their religious convictions? Several churches put forth pro-SSM arguments based on their theological views, yet I haven’t heard a single person object to that.  It is special pleading at best…really, it sounds just plain disingenuous.

Check out the following related posts:

Day of Silence in Public Schools

Day of Silence in Public Schools

The Day of Silence came and went on April 17.  My school was on Spring Break, so we missed it, but I’m willing to bet the Gay/Lesbian/Straight Alliance group at my school will have a day of silence on their own soon.

The Day of Silence is a day for homosexuals and those sympathetic to their cause can choose to be silent for the whole day as a way of protesting bullying and injustice directed towards homosexuals.  At least that’s the official line advertising the day.  Despite the innocuousness on the surface, there is a definite agenda behind the D.O.S.

The teacher's picture of a shirt worn in his class.

The teacher's picture of a shirt worn in his class.

On The Book Jam (a website forum for educators that I frequent nowadays), a fellow teacher posted on the Day of Silence.  There was a bit of a confrontation between some students in his class.  In his own words:

From what I found on the (D.O.S), it was originally started by pro-homosexual groups. What started out as a peaceful stand turned into a very volatile situation, when the anti-homosexual groups walked into school wearing anti-homosexual shirts. They confronted each other during lunch, where a yelling match began. Later in the day, a student that wasn’t wearing a shirt originally came into my classroom wearing the shirt to start something with a openly lesbian student in my class. I had him remove the shirt immediatly. My class was disrupted the first few minutes, but I made it a teachable moment. I knew my “normal” lesson was going to have to be scrapped. We are in the middle of a poetry unit, so I had my students express their anger, fear, hurt and other feelings in poetry using similies. By the end of the hour, everyone left in smiles.

He then asked, “When do students lose their first Amendment rights?”  He also asked if anyone knew of any Supreme Court cases relevant on the matter (he gave a few that he had found).

Another teacher, whom I greatly respect, responded:

I always get really philosophical on issues like this and my question is, “Is it just mankind’s nature to need opposition in order to better define our own selves?” From cavemen to Romans to Nazis to Crips and Bloods to Gay-Bashers we’ve always had, as a species, person vs. person conflict. Even the Buddhist monks get their ass kicked now and then by people opposed to their way of life. A part of me suspects it’s part of our DNA as human beings and another part of me believes humankind, in general, are just idiots and unless we elevate our way of thinking, we are going to cause our own self-destruction. Really, has any species on the planet ever been more deserving of extinction than us?

Not so helpful when it comes to 16 year old teens puffing out there chests hurling anti-gay rhetoric at other kids, I know… but connected somehow, no?

Though I did not know about any Supreme Court cases, here was the response I wrote:

You stated it right when you hit on disturbing the classroom. That is my line in the sand, and I think it should apply to all viewpoints equally. That is, if a student walks in with an obsene t-shirt personally attacking homosexuals, and the student is intending on causing a confrontation, it’s gotta go. By the same token, if a student walks in cross-dressing, he’s gotta change too. He might complain about how I’m supressing his individuality or discriminating against him, but such talk to me is a bunch of hot air…he’s disturbing the learning environment in my classroom, and I can’t allow either expression in the name of “individualism and/or freedom of speech.”

That being said, I think we need to be careful and make a distinction between that and expressing a point of view. That is, many students (and teachers) across America object to homosexual behavior and/or same-sex marriage not out of fear (though many do), but for moral, health, religious, or principled reasons. I think it is unproductive and unreasonable to demonize these folks by labeling them “hate mongers,” calling them “homophobes,” or something like that.

Students in my class often bring up the subject, and what I tell them is this: calling someone a name, be it “faggot” or “gay” or whatever is out of bounds in my class. Using homosexuals as the butt of jokes is out of bounds. Attacking the person like that is illegitimate. That *is* homophobia. But there is a difference between that and being against a lifestyle or behavior for the reasons above. If you engage in the former, I will come down on you pretty hard. But if you engage in the latter, I have no problem. I recognize walking the line, especially for young high schoolers, is pretty difficult, but that won’t change as long as the lines are blurred like they are being blurred now.

If a student were to wear a t-shirt that says “yes on Proposition 8,” I’d allow that. It’s an expression of a political/moral point of view, and it’s no more out of bounds than someone wearing a “keep abortion legal” shirt or “Obama/Biden 08″ shirt. If a student group, say, a Christian group, wants to discuss the biblical view of homosexuality in their meeting on the day of silence, that should be allowed if the day of silence is being allowed. If a conservative group wants to engage folks in discussion during lunch on why Iowa should not have allowed for SSM or something, they should be allowed if the counter view is allowed to flourish.

Some like to say that viewpoints like that (being against homosexual behavior for health/religious/moral reasons) are what leads to physical gay bashing (this was expressed in the media in the wake of the Matthew Shepherd murder). If that is the case, that would make Alcoholics Anonymous responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in a back alley….that is a direct quote, by the way, not from a conservative talk radio pundit, but from Al Rantel, himself a homosexual, who was a KABC talk show host at the time.

Before the election, I was having an online discussion with a few fellow teachers on proposition 8. I was arguing for prop 8, but all both could manage was an emotional vitriol against me personally.  They couldn’t substantively engage with my arguments; mostly they angrily called me names. I have had similar experiences whenever I discuss this issue, and my conservative friends and colleagues have had similar experiences. This is sad, and we teachers need to take measures to teach more civility, especially in controversial issues like this; civility needs to be taught for *both sides,* not just the conservative side. Classically, tolerance is reserved for those you disagree with; it doesn’t mean thinking all beliefs/behaviors are right and good.

People disagree with my beliefs and behaviors all the time…in other words, I get “judged.” Doesn’t bother me a bit, nor should it. When I was younger and I did something that hurt myself or others, my parents did not acquiesce to that behavior. That was an expression of their love, and I’m grateful for it. Demonizing those you disagree with is the wrong way to go, and *that’s a two way street.*

__________________________________________________________________

Though I could have brought up the dangers of homosexual behavior itself, I chose not to.  The reason is that it’s common parlance these days to immediately shout down the conservative Christian point of view on sexuality by calling names.  You are ostracized even before you state your case.  It was this attitude I wanted to critique.  I wanted to show it as the sham it is.  Name calling is not an argument. The specific case against the supposed benignness of homosexual behavior or traditional marriage is a conversation for down the road…need to clear the brush first.

Check out a few of my other posts on homosexuality and Same-sex marriage.

__________________________________________________________________________________

If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button at the top right in the sidebar).