by Dr. Michael Shermer & Dr. Frank Turek
It’s not often that an atheist and a Christian, who have just had a debate on campus, can be brought into agreement by a group in the audience. But the Graduate Queer Alliance (GQA) at Stony Brook University has managed to do that. Their letter to the editor on April 30 was so full of false assertions and totalitarian demands that we, Dr. Michael Shermer (an atheist) and Dr. Frank Turek (a Christian), felt compelled to write this letter together in response.
The central assertion of the GQA is that anyone who expresses a negative opinion of same sex marriage or homosexual behavior is guilty of “hate speech” and should be barred from speaking at Stony Brook University. The GQA says this while also claiming to believe “that a university should provide an open forum for controversial ideas to be discussed and debated.” We both wonder how the GQA can hold these two contradictory opinions at the same time. After all, they say they are for the debate of controversial issues, but apparently only if both debaters hold the same position and that position agrees with the GQA. Some debate!
How is disagreement over controversial moral and political issues “hate speech?” If it is then GQA’s position is “hate speech” because it disagrees with people who believe marriage should be defined in other ways. Calling people names or characterizing their arguments as “hate speech” is not good public discourse designed to discover the truth; it is bullying—the very thing GQA should be against.
To demonstrate the oversensitivity of the GQA, you should know that our debate was not even about same sex marriage or homosexuality. Our debate was about whether God or Science better explains morality. As you can see for yourself in the debate here, Dr. Turek never mentioned homosexuality or same sex marriage in his prepared opening statement. Dr. Shermer brought up those issues in his opening statement as examples of what he believes to be moral progress (hence the title of this book, The Moral Arc). Dr. Turek expressed disagreement with Dr. Shermer’s point only when Dr. Shermer pressed him to comment during the cross-examination period. (Imagine, a debate where the debaters disagree!)
The true motives of the GQA are revealed by what is not in the letter: the arguments made by Dr. Shermer in support of same sex marriage, arguments he made with great passion that elicited equal passion—on both sides of the issue—from the audience. If those in the GQA are so interested in advancing their position through sound reason and science—which was Dr. Shermer’s point—why would they not highlight the arguments offered in support of it? Instead, the GQA seems to think they have a right not to hear an opposing opinion lest they be challenged!
It’s a shame that those in GQA appear so uninterested in evidence. Unfortunately for them, as the late Christopher Hitchens put it (and Dr. Shermer elevated to a principle, “Hitchens’ Dictum”, in one of his Scientific American columns http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-skeptics-skeptic/), “What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.” Instead of citing evidence, GQA attempted to smear the character of one of the debaters and now tries to silence all future debate by simply declaring that the major issues of our day have all been decided in their favor. Don’t bother debating anything. We know what’s right and you have no right to express your wrong opinion!
What’s also problematic is that none of the derogatory assertions about Dr. Turek made by the GQA are true. For example, contrary to the GQA:
- Dr. Turek has not written a book that “derides gays.” His book on same sex marriage (which they obviously haven’t read) does nothing of the sort as numerous reviewers have observed. By making a derogatory judgment without knowing the facts, those in GQA are guilty of the very bigotry with which they falsely charge Dr. Turek.
- Dr. Turek never said that gays have a choice in their sexual orientation. He believes the consensus view that the causes of sexual orientation are not entirely understood. But for him, the issue isn’t attractions—it’s actions. And we all are responsible for the actions we choose.
- Dr. Turek made no parallel between homosexuality and a Nazi propaganda video. The video was shown in Dr. Turek’s opening statement, long before Dr. Shermer brought up the issue of homosexuality. The only purpose of the video was to demonstrate that Hitler thought natural selection gave him justification to kill the weak.
Finally, on the issue of tolerance, it appears that GQA only wants to tolerate ideas they agree with. That’s not tolerance. That’s totalitarianism. You can only tolerate ideas you disagree with. Moreover, you will never learn and grow (the essence of a university) if you hear only one side of any issue. As Dr. Shermer points out in The Moral Arc by quoting same sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch: “Good ideas outcompete bad ideas in the marketplace of free exchange.” Now that’s a good idea rooted in the very foundation of a free society.
Unfortunately, GQA is expressing a totalitarian impulse to silence all opinions that dissent from their own. As a free people, we must not adopt such an unlearned, intolerant and unconstitutional position. This atheist and Christian agree with same sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan who wrote against this totalitarian impulse this way: “If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”
Ricky Martinez Elizondo • Jul 27, 2015 at 6:08 pm
>”Why is the lack of unity and broken marriages amongst marriages any kind of sign?… Why is that an argument against gay marriages?
You used “Marriage framework” as support for Homosexual marriage. I was pointing out the fact that the framework does not make relationships successful nor provide a healthy environment.
Andrew R • Jul 28, 2015 at 6:23 am
“I was pointing out the fact that the framework does not make relationships successful nor provide a healthy environment”
I thought the whole point of the ‘we should protect marriage’ argument was that marriage DOES provide a framework that makes relationships more successful. If it doesn’t, then what exactly are you trying to protect?
mallen717 • Jun 27, 2015 at 12:15 pm
And another Leftist totalitarian movement rears its ugly head on college campuses. Now bigotry against the free speech opinions of others is now being driven by the homosexual movement. Thank God for the 1st Amendment!
Black Talon • May 18, 2015 at 11:15 am
the nazis were sodomites, read Scott Lively’s book the Pink Swastika. so it is no surprise to me that the sodomites would be totalitarian just like the nazis who happen to be sodomites as well.
Mark Lilly • May 18, 2015 at 3:30 am
I see two defenders of free speech here who aren’t afraid to attach their names to their work. Do those who wrote the original GQA letter plan to own it now by claiming authorship?
Nick Sewell • May 16, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Good on Shermer for co-authoring. Gallup found last year that 55% support and 42% oppose same-sex marriage, and Pew found that 52% support and 40% oppose.
I highly recommend people look up how students at Columbia are trying to put “trigger warnings” on readings of Ovid – look up Jerry Coyne’s article “Life Is “Triggering.” The Best Literature Should Be, Too.” Trying to overturn college readings that have been in place for generations to appease a modern identity politics.
Saudi Arabia has executed homosexuals. Fear the movement of so-called “queer” identity politics groups fixating on labelling Americans as “Islamophobic” and never dealing with real human rights abuses in Muslim majority countries.
Rockon • May 16, 2015 at 9:56 am
Some “gay” activists? Try ALL. The very nature and definition of homosexual ACTIVISM is what is taking what should be a private bedroom matter and making it an in everybody’s faces matter. The CEO of HRC gets paid 200-300 thousand dollars a year via corporate donations and our tax dollar just for advocating his private bedroom habits publicly. This entire activist movement is Orwell 1984 meets Brave New World…it’s insanity. Homosexual ACTIVISTS and their “kool-aid” carriers make no sense when they ask people “why do you care about what people do in their bedrooms?” when they themselves have become public activists for their bedroom habits (and even worse, involve children into their unbalanced and inequal family structure that DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY denies children of either the loving motherhood that only a woman can provide OR the loving fatherhood that only a man can provide).
Jennifer Coutlee • May 16, 2015 at 1:03 pm
And what about the families ripped apart because being gay is his right now, be damn what was best for your children, exposure to a string of men is okay because the parenting guidelines don’t say anything against it,
Andrew R • May 19, 2015 at 4:56 am
Families are less likely to be ripped apart when the parents are married – Frank Turek himself claims this often. So allowing gays to marry should benefit families. And straight parents have affairs too – that doesn’t mean we ban marriage altogether.
Ricky Martinez Elizondo • May 19, 2015 at 2:29 pm
But what do heterosexual households offer that homosexual households cannot and vice versa? I see loss, specifically for the child, in homosexual households. Right now, I am not convinced that broken heterosexual households makes an argument for homosexual households to be advocated as the same or better than heterosexual households. There are compelling articles of children of same-sex households that wish they had a father and a mother working through their differences. But to be fair, I Have also read some articles of children who were raised in same sex households that were not impacted by same sex parenting. I don’t want to turn a deaf ear to those who wish they had a mother and a father present in their lives.
I want to make this clear, I do not advocate discrimination of homosexuals in the work place nor in the public square. But I do not count someone as having an opinion or view that opposes same sex marriage as discrimination or hate speech, which was the main focus of this article. I have met nice homosexuals. I’ve communicated with, hung out with a few homosexuals myself. I am not homophobic. I just cannot advocate same sex marriage as the same as heterosexual marriage. I have met homosexuals who have agreed with me.
Andrew R • May 19, 2015 at 3:14 pm
“Right now, I am not convinced that broken heterosexual households makes an argument for homosexual households to be advocated as the same or better than heterosexual households”
I wasn’t making such an argument!
‘Working through their differences’ doesn’t apply to many families where the child was born via surrogate to existing gay couples. Then the child simply wouldn’t otherwise have existed. At any rate, gay couples raising kids is a reality and has been for some time. All allowing gay marriage does is provide the same framework for those families that straight couples currently enjoy – a framework that everyone agrees is good for kids.
The ‘I wish I’d had a mom and dad articles always seem to actually be ‘I wish my mom and dad had stayed together’ articles – they’d be saying that still if their parents had split and made new HETEROsexual partnerships.
Ricky Martinez Elizondo • May 21, 2015 at 12:24 pm
“I wasn’t making such an argument!”
I apologize by assuming you were making that argument.
“Working through their differences doesn’t apply to many families where the child was Born via surrogate to existing gay couples….gay couples raising kids has been a reality for a long time.”
You’re right. I agree with everything you have said up to this point. But here is where I am agnostic/ skeptical.
“All allowing gay marriage does is provide the same framework that straight families currently enjoy.”
I’m sorry but you are assuming that gay marriage provides the same framework as straight couples. Which takes me back to my first question. What do heterosexual households provide that homosexual households do not? And I’ll add another question. Does the answer have any effect (biologically, emotionally, etc.) on the child at all? And should we just accept redefining marriage and calling it the same for the sake of experiment?
I mean Can’t we just offer special assistance to those surrogate children and their family in need without saying, “I totally agree with same sex marriage and I am confident that it provides the same or better environment than the normative heterosexual couple.” I can’t say that just yet.
Just to be clear, what do you mean by framework?
Just by allowing two adults to label themselves as “legally married” (receiving benefits and tax exemptions Etc.) doesn’t provide the same “framework”. One way it doesn’t provide the same framework is biologically to the natural order of family.
Andrew R • May 21, 2015 at 12:33 pm
“I’m sorry but you are assuming that gay marriage provides the same framework as straight couples”
I’ve seen no reason to assume that it wouldn’t.
“Just to be clear, what do you mean by framework?”
Evidence shows that married people are more likely to stay together, are happier and live longer. Conservatives often offer this as a reason to encourage couples to marry. So it seems that marriage provides a beneficial framework. If people want to argue that these benefits could not also be enjoyed by male/male and female/female couples then they need to give good reasons.
“What do heterosexual households provide that homosexual households do not?”
You tell me!
Ricky Martinez Elizondo • May 22, 2015 at 12:00 pm
“Evidence shows that married people are happier and live longer…If people want to argue that these benefits could not also be enjoyed by male/male and female couples then they need to give good reasons.”
The issue for me isn’t, whether or not homosexuals can benefit from marriage (marriage meaning a bonding agreement that promotes unity with one partner.) The argument is which environment has the greatest potential of providing the best environment for the child. Marriage between one man and one woman has been proven throughout history to be the best method for raising a healthy child. (mentally and emotionally)
It sounds like you are hoping that the bonding agreement of marriage is what’s going to provide the same “framework” for the child. If we look to the lack of unity and broken marriages amongst heterosexual marriages then that should be a clear sign that redefining marriage to incorporate same sex relationships is not going to provide the same framework in order to raise a child. There is a deeper heart issue for heterosexual couples and for homosexual couples. The bonding agreement of marriage is not what keeps marriages together and provides the environment or “framework”.
Here is some research I have found interesting.
In the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, a peer-reviewed journal, American sociologist Paul Sullins concludes that children’s “Emotional problems [are] over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents”.
He says: “It is no longer accurate to claim that no study has found children in same-sex families to be disadvantaged relative to those in opposite-sex families.”
“It is based on more data than any previous study — 512 children with same-sex parents drawn from the US National Health Interview Survey. The emotional problems included misbehaviour, worrying, depression, poor relationships with peers and inability to concentrate.”
After crunching the numbers, Sullins found opposite-sex parents provided a better environment. “Biological parentage uniquely and powerfully distinguishes child outcomes between children with opposite-sex parents and those with same-sex parents,” he writes.
So why would I encourage and promote same sex marriage involving children? Why not encourage people to lay down their “wants” to have a same sex parter for the sake of the next generation? If you want children or have children, Marry the opposite sex and fight your desire for same sex. Work with the natural means of procreation in order to provide a potentially better “framework” for raising a child.
Tim Riches • May 17, 2015 at 6:56 am
Gay activism isn’t about bringing private bedroom matters into the public. It is about advocating for equality of homosexuals in society. I can understand why someone who is against gays as people could distill it down to the sex act, but that is not what is at issue. Gays aren’t advocating for public sex, they are advocating against discrimination in society from those who would treat them differently because of who they are. You can tell who the bigots are from their speech patterns, and those like you can properly be labelled bigots because of your emphasis on the sex act, straw-manning a position the gays do not actually hold.
Michael Ejercito • May 17, 2015 at 1:27 pm
What is the nature of this discrimination gays face?
satanaugustine • May 18, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Not being able to get married. Being beaten, sometimes to death, for being gay or merely even being perceived as gay. Losing jobs because they are gay. The list goes on and on.
Michael Ejercito • May 18, 2015 at 8:35 pm
I am unaware of any jurisdiction that forbids a partner in a marriage from being a homosexual.
I am unaware of any laws that authorize, let alone mandate, a person to beat the other person because the other person is a homosexual.
I am unaware of any laws that forbid people from employing homosexuals.
Ben • May 18, 2015 at 9:56 pm
“I am unaware of any laws that forbid people from employing homosexuals.”
There used to be but gay activists, who you now mock, had to spend decades fighting to repeal those sorts of laws.
Andrew R • May 19, 2015 at 4:52 am
“I am unaware of any jurisdiction that forbids a partner in a marriage from being a homosexual”
By your logic a law that forbade interracial marriage would not be discriminatory as long as everyone was still allowed to marry their own race. This is a aspect ours argument. It is exactly the same argument used a few decades ago to claim anti-miscegenation laws were not discriminatory – ‘people who want to marry someone of a different race have the same right to marry someone of the same race that everyone else has’.
You ignore the concept of constructive discrimination – a law that forced everyone to swear on the Koran would be constructively discriminating against Christians, despite the fact that it would in theory ‘affect everyone equally’.
Michael Ejercito • May 19, 2015 at 11:25 am
That would violate the fundamental right to marry.
that violates freedom of religion.
As a matter of fact, two appellate courts sidestepped the discrimination issue by claiming that there was a civil right to same-sex marriage. Under that rationale, the sexual orientati9on of those seeking to enter such a union is irrelevant.
Andrew R • May 19, 2015 at 11:33 am
You say nothing there that argues with my point, which therefore still stands, which showed it was nonsensical to argue that as long as gays could enter into straight marriage there was no discrimination.
Again, by that logic people in interracial relationships are not discriminated against by anti-miscegenation laws, and Christians would not be discriminated against by being forced to swear on the Koran.
Again, point stands.
Rockon • May 19, 2015 at 10:03 am
It is already true that every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex….can they not? So if every adult person already can marry another adult of the opposite sex, how is not redefining marriage a form of discrimination?
If homosexual practice is about love and not about sex, why can’t any two or more adults who claim to love each other get the same legal marriage benefits that same sex couples will get via legalizing homosexual/genderless “marriage?”
When two women claim, via homosexual “marriage,” that they are capable of having the same relationship as a man and woman do, does that not imply that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary? Is that not a form of discrimination against men, and the fatherhood only men can provide, based on their biological sex?
When two men claim, via homosexual “marriage” that their relationship is just as much a relationship or marriage as a man-woman committed relationship, does that not implicitly dismiss any contribution of every woman, thus also claiming women are not essential to relationships, marriage, and family? Is that not a form of discrimination against women, and the motherhood only women can provide, based on their biological sex?
Can you also please tell us how redefining marriage to make biological parenting optional and unnecessary won’t encourage more instances of this form of discrimination? A nd as a result, won’t DELIBERATELY deprive children their right to be raised by both a loving mother and father?
Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a biological mother and father. By redefining marriage to mean that those biological connections as unnecessary, are we not teaching society that children are commodities for adult desires, and that marriage is not about the children’s needs?
If it is true that there is an epidemic of victimization and violent persecution of people with homosexual inclinations and behavior, how does that justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?
Tim Riches • May 19, 2015 at 10:12 am
Bet you have a text file with this blurb handy. You’ve pasted it twice so far.
Rockon • May 19, 2015 at 10:24 am
So? And your point is? Does that make the questions invalid how? Care to answer the questions?
satanaugustine • May 20, 2015 at 8:18 am
Your first paragraph is irrelevant and dismissive. It’s not an argument. It’s just a declaration that you believe that gay people should not have the right to marry people they love, who are, by definition, members of the opposite sex.
The definition of marriage has changed multiple times. It is not a creation of Christianity or any other religion. That said, in the Bible itself, the definition of marriage changed at least once (probably more than that). In the Old Testament marriage meant one man – many wives. The stories of David and Solomon illustrate this well. By the time of the New Testament, though, marriage consisted of a relationship between a man and his property, his wife (the multiple wives men had in the OT were also considered property, right along with those men’s slaves, land, and livestock. Many Christians still believe this is what marriage means, but Christianity is not US law and the US has already changed the definition of marriage in the past as illustrated in the following quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
“Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down.” So saying that we shouldn’t change the definition is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s already been done. More than once.
With regards to your second paragraph, marriage of any kind is generally about both love and sex, but even if a marriage were just about sex, it would not affect you, I, or anyone else. Such marriages, including opposite sex marriage, probably exist, as do sexless marriages. As long as that’s OK with the married couple, no one is being harmed. And as far as two or more people getting married, as long as everyone in the marriage is in it consensually, I can think of no reason as to why this should not be legal as well. But your mentioning of polygamy is really just an example of both the slippery slope and red herring fallacies and as such have no bearing on the argument for marriage equality (in fact, since they are fallacies, they are never valid arguments in any situation). At least you didn’t ask, “Well if same sex marriage is OK, is it OK for someone to marry their dog?” as some opponents of gay-marriage have done.
With regards to your third and fourth paragraphs: No, it is not any form of discrimination against men or women if lesbians and gay men do not want to be in relationships with them any more than a straight man or woman not getting to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex who is not attracted to them is discrimination. Lesbians do not want or need a man, just as gay men do not want or need a woman. As to your question, “does that not imply that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary?” No, this does not imply that EVERY man is replaceable or unnecessary. Unless a marriage ends in divorce, a man is necessary and irreplaceable in an opposite sex marriage. It means that men are unnecessary in a lesbian relationship (this should be obvious) and as I outlined above, this is not discrimination. The same goes for your similar question about women when you’re referring to men in a same sex relationship. EVERY woman is not implicitly dismissed by the mere existence of man-and-man marriage. Furthermore discrimination is an act. Making a gay man or woman only able to marry people they aren’t attracted to (people of the opposite sex obviously) is discrimination. If you as a straight man (I’m assuming) had only the choice of marrying people you are not attracted to (other men), that would be discrimination as well. Of course no one is limiting your choice in that way, but you’ve made it abundantly clear that you wish to limit the choices of gay people in terms of who they can marry (see your first paragraph).
With regards to your fifth paragraph, I already debunked your claim that gay-marriage constitutes discrimination against either sex. Children are not deprived if they have two loving mothers or two loving fathers. This has been borne out by studies of the adopted children of same-sex couples. These children are just as well adjusted as those who are raised by opposite sex biological or non-biological parents.
Of course every child has a biological mother and father, but those biological connections sometimes are not necessary/ don’t happen, as in the case of adoption. Instead, connections are made with the adoptive parents. And this is not something new. In the distant past it was not unusual for a child’s parents to die (the average lifespan was very short and mothers frequently died during childbirth), other members of the family and/or tribe raised the children. Just two parents raising children is a relatively new phenomenon. It’s the love, care, and teaching that matter more than biology. And the legalization of gay marriage will not result in any children being taken from their straight parents and straight people will not suddenly turn gay (just trying to cover all bases here). In fact, marriage equality will have no effect whatsoever on you, me, or any other straight people. None! (Well, except for those of us who are egalitarians; we will celebrate it as progress towards a more equal, and thus improved, society).
As for your final sentence: I never made the argument that gay people should be allowed to marry because they are being persecuted. I was merely responding to the commenter who asked how gay people were being discriminated against. Not being treated as equal citizens – by not being able to marry those they love, by being physically and emotionally abused (are you aware that multiple gay teens have been bullied – in person and online – into committing suicide?), by being denied services at public establishments, by being denied or fired from jobs just because they are gay – is not an argument for gay marriage and I never presented it as such. The fact that they are our fellow human beings is the reason they deserve to be treated equally, with the dignity and respect that we would (or at least should) afford all of our fellow human beings…and that includes the right to marry those they love!
Joe Rodriguez • May 20, 2015 at 9:27 am
Everything you just claimed as happening to homosexuals has also happened to heterosexuals, nothing new here. In fact professing Christians suffered much greater persecution throughout history to God’s glory. I say to His glory because He has promised to sanctify and preserve His children until the end and nothing will snatch them away from Him. God is awesome! The wages of all sin, (and not just homosexuality for those of you who feel particularly persecuted for this particular sin) is death. If we offend in one, we offend in all of the law, so heterosexuals that sin in other departments are just as wicked as homosexuals, and are only fooling themselves by self-righteous pride. All sinners are guilty! The first death is spiritual in nature, where the sinner finds himself in perpetual spiritual darkness while serving the prince of evil. The second death is where God will destroy the body and the soul forever. I condone no violence or injustice toward anyone, for any reason whatsoever. There can be no right in injustice; it is always an abomination against what Christ teaches, but I stand firmly in my convictions by the word of God as spoken in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
Black Talon • May 18, 2015 at 11:13 am
homophilia is not equal to heterosexuality, homophilia is inherently immoral, and can never be good. heterosexuality on the other hand is inherently good, but it can be misused and abused. sodomites are crooked and are not equal to straight people, just as people who do commit pedophilia are not equal to those who do not commit pedophilia.
satanaugustine • May 18, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Can you back up any of your assertions with actual evidence?
Rockon • May 19, 2015 at 10:03 am
Discrimination? It is already true that every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex….can they not? So if every adult person already can marry another adult of the opposite sex, how is not redefining marriage a form of discrimination?
If homosexual practice is about love and not about sex, why can’t any two or more adults who claim to love each other get the same legal marriage benefits that same sex couples will get via legalizing homosexual/genderless “marriage?”
When two women claim, via homosexual “marriage,” that they are capable of having the same relationship as a man and woman do, does that not imply that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary? Is that not a form of discrimination against men, and the fatherhood only men can provide, based on their biological sex?
When two men claim, via homosexual “marriage” that their relationship is just as much a relationship or marriage as a man-woman committed relationship, does that not implicitly dismiss any contribution of every woman, thus also claiming women are not essential to relationships, marriage, and family? Is that not a form of discrimination against women, and the motherhood only women can provide, based on their biological sex?
Can you also please tell us how redefining marriage to make biological parenting optional and unnecessary won’t encourage more instances of this form of discrimination? A nd as a result, won’t DELIBERATELY deprive children their right to be raised by both a loving mother and father?
Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a biological mother and father. By redefining marriage to mean that those biological connections as unnecessary, are we not teaching society that children are commodities for adult desires, and that marriage is not about the children’s needs?
If it is true that there is an epidemic of victimization and violent persecution of people with homosexual inclinations and behavior, how does that justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?
Joe Rodriguez • May 20, 2015 at 9:29 am
Just like every sinner who has hated to submit to the authority of the one true God, homosexuals too, will most certainly have the opportunity to “advocate their case” before our Lord and our God , Jesus Christ on that great day of judgment. Sinners can continue to foolishly justify themselves to themselves and before themselves while in the flesh, but as certain as it is appointed for every man to die, so too will every man come face to face with his Creator in order to give an account for themselves.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 King James Version
(KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Phil Weingart • May 23, 2015 at 11:47 am
(1) Gay activists continue the abhorrent practice of slandering their opponents as part of every argument. “…someone who is against gays as people…?” Garbage. If you can’t argue without slander, you can’t argue at all. Knock it off, or go home.
(1)(‘) If using straw men is evidence of bigotry, as you claim, then this persistent slander proves that gay activists are deeply bigoted, ne c’est pas?
(2) If gays aren’t advocating for public sex, why are so many gay parades and demonstrations so full of public, sexual displays? “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” Gimme a break; the entire gay “rights” movement is about making “gay” publicly acceptable, mostly by telling sanitized lies about gays.
(3) Gays have not been treated differently for decades. What current activism is about is suppressing even the slightest hint of disagreement with the gay agenda.
(3)(‘) Yes, gays can get married, and have always been permitted to do so. There is no “sexual preference” test in the law governing marriage. A gay man may marry any women who is not a close relative, not a minor, and who consents to the union; a gay woman may marry any man who is not a close relative, not a minor, and who consents to the union.
What gay activists may not do is redefine words in such a way as to make the laws mean whatever they like.
Ricky Martinez Elizondo • May 16, 2015 at 9:18 am
This is good. When two opponents having two different world views take the time to come together and help clarify and defend each other in the face of misinformation.