Wednesday, June 07, 2006

A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage

The following article is one of the best that I have read concerning reasons why homosexual "marriage" should be discouraged in America. Individuals on the other side of this important issue have often accused me of using such an issue in order to "push the Bible and my religion" upon others. But the Bible and Christianity do not provide the only legitimate reasons to fight against the desires of homosexual activists and their goal of legalized "gay" marriage. The reasons to discourage homosexual behavior and "marriage" are included in the article below. These reasons are non-religious and do not cite the Bible. The reasons are sound and IMO, any logical, thinking person would have a difficult time attempting to refute them. Please feel free to share your thoughts! I also suggest sending a copy to everyone on your email list!


P.S. Well known Christian blogger La Shawn Barber has graciously labeled me as "a traditional marriage activist" in a post at her site. Thanks La Shawn! I'll embrace such a label! It sure is a much nicer one than those that I usually get from the liberal left (e.g. New-aged Nazi?)


P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271
Web: Tel: 704.887.8200 Fax: 704.887.8299

Wed Jun 07 06:56:36 2006
Feature Article: JAH044

Protecting America’s Immune System: A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage

by Frank Turek

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 6 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to:


The legalization of homosexual marriage threatens traditional marriage — the national immune system that protects our civilization from destruction. Biblically based arguments against homosexual marriage carry little weight in the public square; however, it is possible to make a reasonable argument to protect traditional marriage and oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage without appealing to the Bible. This argument is as follows:

1. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare.

2. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare.

3. The law is a great teacher; it encourages or discourages behavior and attitudes.

4. Legalization of homosexual marriage would encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive. It also would weaken the perceived importance of traditional marriage and its parenting role, thereby resulting in further destruction of the family and society itself.

5. The law should endorse behaviors that are beneficial and restrain (or certainly not endorse) behaviors that are destructive.

6. Therefore, the law should endorse traditional marriage and it should restrain (or certainly not endorse) homosexual marriage.

I grew up in a small, blue-collar, New Jersey shore town where neighbors knew one another well. My best friend, who lived next door, had an older brother who became involved in homosexuality. He eventually went to New York City and immersed himself so deeply in the homosexual lifestyle that it cost him his life. We buried him 11 years ago at the age of 36 — dead from AIDS.

Well, it wasn’t actually AIDS that killed him. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) technically doesn’t kill anyone. It destroys the body’s immune system, which makes its victims susceptible to other diseases. Pneumonia and other ailments were the ultimate causes of my friend’s brother’s death. In the end, he became a shell of his former self. On his deathbed, his mind was so tainted by dementia that he cursed his own mother.

His parents were wonderful people who deeply loved their son. In retrospect, however, they made a well-intentioned decision that turned out to be a tragic mistake. In their noble effort to love their son under very difficult circumstances, they failed to distinguish between their son and their son’s behavior. They rightfully accepted their son as a person deserving of love, but they failed to oppose his destructive sexual behavior. Love requires that we stand in opposition to behavior that is likely to hurt or kill our loved ones. After some initial hesitancy, these well-meaning parents endorsed the homosexual lifestyle that ultimately led to their son’s death.

This tragic story is currently being played out on the national level in America. The players are different, but the results could be the same if we make the same mistake. Homosexual activists want our nation to endorse homosexual marriage; however, if we endorse homosexual marriage or civil unions, we risk doing exactly what those well-meaning parents did — endorsing a practice that could destroy our immune system. On the national scale, our immune system is traditional marriage.

In what sense is traditional marriage our “national immune system,” and how could homosexual marriage destroy it? In this article, I will offer answers to those questions and others as I make a case against homosexual marriage without citing the Bible. Don’t get me wrong: I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and have coauthored a book titled I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Crossway Books, 2004) that presents the evidence for why I believe this. I also believe that the Bible clearly opposes homosexual behavior; therefore, it implicitly opposes homosexual marriage. When debating moral issues in the public square, however, we Christians sometimes need to make our case in language that will convince those who haven’t accepted the authority of the Bible. The following six points, therefore, constitute a reasonable argument against the legalization of homosexual marriage that does not appeal to the Bible for support.


Traditional marriage provides the best environment in which to raise children. More than 10,000 studies document significant advantages children experience when raised by a committed and loving mother and father.1 These advantages include:

· A lower poverty rate. (On average, children from never-married homes spend 51 percent of their childhood in poverty compared to only 7 percent for children in married homes.)2

· A lower suicide rate. (Children from married homes are six times less likely to commit suicide than those from divorced homes.)3

· A lower crime rate. (Children from broken homes are more than twice as likely to end up in jail as are children from married homes.)4

· A higher health rate. (Children from married homes are generally healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood than children from unmarried homes.)5

If these were the only benefits traditional marriage provided to society, it would be reason enough to give marriage privileged legal recognition. In fact, traditional marriage does much more; it serves as a kind of national immune system. When our marriage ethic is strong, our social ailments are few, but when our marriage ethic is weak, our social ailments increase. In addition to the positive effects listed above, traditional marriage also has the following benefits:

· It results in lower welfare costs to society.6

· It civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits. (Unmarried men cause society much more trouble than married men.)

· It protects women who have given up or postponed their careers to have children from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men.

· It protects mothers from violent crime. (Mothers who have never been married are more than twice as likely to suffer from violent crime than mothers who have married.)7

· It lengthens the life span of the man and the woman. (Married men, for example, tend to live nearly 20 years longer than single men.)8

· It encourages an adequate replacement birth rate, resulting in enough well-developed and productive young people who can contribute to society and provide social security to the elderly. (The United States is a dying nation — without immigration our population would be declining.)

These positive results of traditional marriage are not new to our twenty-first-century culture. British anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin studied 86 cultures spanning 5,000 years and found that the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong traditional marriage ethic. Every civilization that abandoned this ethic by liberalizing their sexual practices began to deteriorate, including the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Roman empires.9

It’s not hard to understand why this is so. Traditional marriage results in procreation and meets the most basic needs of family members: safety, sustenance, and security. A civilized and productive society cannot long endure when its adults abandon this structure (and their children) in order to pursue their sexual desires.


One often-repeated adage says, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” Homosexual activists argue as if they are entitled to their own facts when they assert that there is no appreciable difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. Homosexual marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan, for example, writes, “[Gay marriage] says for the first time that gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships.”10

The real fact, however, is that some relationships are better than others. People may be equal, but their behaviors are not. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural design and compatibility of the human male and female bodies; therefore, homosexual marriage can neither function the same way nor birth the same benefits as traditional marriage. In fact, homosexual marriage would actually hurt society at large. In addition to its inability to bring about procreation, homosexual behavior results in the following:

· It increases health problems among those who practice it, including AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis.11

· It shortens the median life span by 20–30 years. (One study showed that the median age of death for gay men and women without AIDS is in the early 40s.) 12

· It spreads disease to innocent people. (Some have died of AIDS after having a blood transfusion and thousands of heterosexuals have contracted STDs via sexual contact with bisexuals.)

· It costs Americans millions of dollars in higher medical insurance premiums because of the increased costs of covering health problems related to homosexual behavior.

The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is unhealthy and has negative consequences on society. Innocent people are affected by homosexual behavior.

Most homosexual activists become angry when someone cites these facts. Why would anyone become angry over facts? Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us.

A few homosexual activists, however, acknowledge the negative health effects mentioned above, but use them as a reason to support their cause. This “conservative” case for homosexual marriage suggests that homosexual monogamy would be encouraged by the legalization of homosexual marriage and would alleviate these health problems. Sullivan writes, “A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.”13

There are, however, at least three reasons why health problems and life span are not likely to improve significantly in so-called “committed” homosexual relationships.14 First, the main issue is not homosexual monogamy, it is homosexual behavior. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, whether done with one partner or many. This is especially true of sexual acts between males. Anal intercourse, for example, causes a host of inherent health problems simply because the organs involved do not tolerate this act well.

Second, coupled homosexuals tend to practice more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. They also forgo safer-sex practices because they are “in love.”15 In other words, coupled homosexuals tend to engage in more risky sexual contact than their single counterparts.

Finally, strict monogamy is the exception rather than the rule among homosexuals. A recent survey found infidelity in about 62 percent of gay couples, which led researchers in the Journal of Family Psychology to write, “The practice of sexual nonmonogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples.”16

Sullivan would not be surprised by this. He asserts that gay marriage might help make homosexuals more monogamous, but, paradoxically, he doesn’t believe monogamy is “flexible” enough for homosexuals. He calls monogamy a “stifling model of heterosexual normality” and thinks homosexuals have a greater “understanding for the need for extramarital outlets.” Incredibly, he believes heterosexuals could learn from homosexuals’ example in this matter. He writes, “Something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”17

One wonders how the “flexibility” to engage in “extramarital outlets” could “strengthen” any marital bond. The last thing our society needs, certainly, is for more married men and women to avail themselves of extramarital outlets! If, moreover, this is the kind of relationship homosexuals want to extol, then they need to call it something other than “marriage.”

Even if homosexuals stopped their “extramarital outlets,” and even if homosexual marriage could reduce some of their health problems, those unlikely possibilities do not justify making homosexual marriage the legal equivalent of traditional marriage. The ability to procreate belongs uniquely to the heterosexual relationship that accompanies traditional marriage; therefore, traditional marriage should be the only sexual relationship our society encourages legally. The law does matter.


Homosexuals understandably want their relationships to have equal social status with those of heterosexuals and they see the law as their weapon to force the public to accept that equality. Sullivan writes, “If nothing else were done at all and gay marriage were legalized, ninety percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved. It’s ultimately the only reform that matters.”18 In other words, the push for homosexual marriage isn’t really about civil rights, it’s about civil acceptance. Legalizing homosexual marriage is the one law that will legitimize homosexual behavior in general.

Sullivan is right about this; he recognizes the power of the law to change behavior and attitudes over the long run. The law is a great teacher. Many people think that whatever is legal is moral and therefore should be accepted. One only needs to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country — slavery and abortion — to see the power of the law to influence behavior and attitudes.

One hundred and fifty years ago, our country was split on the issue of slavery. Today, virtually every American believes that slavery is morally wrong. What happened? After the Civil War, the law changed. The Thirteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution and it has helped teach each new generation that slavery is wrong.

Unfortunately, a change in the law can also lead new generations astray. When the Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade opinion in 1973, most Americans thought abortion was wrong, as evidenced by the laws in each of the 50 states at that time that outlawed or restricted it. Today, however, the country is about evenly split. What happened? The law changed. In a situation that is the reverse of what happened with slavery, what was once considered immoral (and thus illegal) became sanctioned by the federal government. Legalization led to more social acceptance of abortion and a sixteen-fold increase in abortions nationwide. If homosexual marriage is legalized, we will likely see an increase in homosexual behavior as well.

There is actually a third example of the law’s impact: divorce. Homosexuals are right when they say that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce; however, this is not an argument for homosexual marriage. In fact, the recent history of the law and divorce actually argues against homosexual marriage. The vast social problems America has experienced since the liberalization of divorce laws should help us realize just how important the law is to the health of the family. It should also help us realize how important traditional marriage is to the health of the country and why we should protect traditional marriage from the knockout blow homosexual marriage would deliver it. In the next section I will explain how homosexual marriage would do that.


It follows from points 2 and 3 above that the legalization of homosexual marriage would result in an increase in homosexual behavior. Not only so, but it would weaken the perceived importance of traditional marriage and its parenting role, thereby resulting in further destruction of the family and society itself.

How Would Homosexual Marriage Hurt Traditional Marriage?

Homosexual activists maintain that homosexual marriage would not affect traditional marriage, but they are wrong. Legalizing homosexual marriage would degrade traditional marriage, especially among future generations.

Right now, the legal benefits our society gives to married heterosexual couples affirm the fact that we consider traditional marriage to be the most valuable sexual relationship. If, for example, sexual relationships were players on a sports team, traditional marriage would get the most valuable player (MVP) award. In sports, that award is esteemed because it’s given only to the player whose performance is truly the most valuable. Suppose, however, that the league redefined the qualifications for the MVP award to the point where everyone in the league received the award, even those who performed poorly. Would anyone think the MVP award was special? Obviously not! Everyone would think it was meaningless. In the same way, the value of traditional marriage will be diminished if the government redefines the qualifications for marriage to include homosexual relationships (especially when it confers the same benefits on those relationships).

We need to face the facts: just as all players are not equally valuable to a team, all relationships are not equally valuable to a society. Evidence from 5,000 years of human history, the self-evident complimentary design of the male and female bodies, and the documented beneficial results of traditional marriage to individuals and our society prove that the most valuable sexual relationship to any civilization is the union of a man and a woman in the bonds of matrimony. If we allow any other sexual relationship to have the same legal status as the heterosexual relationship in traditional marriage, we will degrade marriage itself (just like we degrade the MVP award by giving it to everyone). If we degrade marriage, heterosexual couples will be less inclined to participate, which will further weaken our civilization.

How Would Homosexual Marriage Hurt Children?

If government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract between consenting adults of any gender, regardless of procreative realities, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for bearing and raising children. Marriage will be seen as nothing more than coupling. In fact, that’s exactly how Sullivan sees marriage now. He writes, “Coupling — not procreation — is what civil marriage now is.”19

If Sullivan’s view of marriage prevails — as it will if homosexual marriage is legalized — many more couples in our society will forgo traditional marriage and have more children out of wedlock. That will hurt children because illegitimate parents (there’s no such thing as illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those parents who simply live together break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. When illegitimacy rises, not only do children suffer, but the rest of us are forced to pay high social costs to deal with the problems that result from it, including increases in the number of neglected and troubled children, as well as in crime, poverty, and social spending.

Are these just the hysterical warnings of an alarmist? No. We can look at the results in Norway, a country that has had homosexual marriage (without legal sanction) for about a decade. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly gay “rainbow” flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared. In Nordland, more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time do so out of wedlock and nearly 70 percent of all children are born out of wedlock! Across the entire country of Norway, the out-of-wedlock birth rate rose from 39 percent in 1990 to 50 percent in 2000.20

Social anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.”21 Homosexual marriage is probably not solely responsible for this growing problem, but it is certainly a contributing factor. “Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage,” says Kurtz, “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”22 When the entry standards for marriage are weakened to include same-sex couples, the perception of marriage will also be weakened; marriage and childbearing will just be considered incidental. That’s one reason why the number of illegitimate parents is exploding in Norway and it’s a major reason why we shouldn’t bring homosexual marriage to America.

How Would Homosexual Marriage Hurt You?

Homosexual activists ask, “How would legalizing homosexual marriage hurt you?” It’s not hard to foresee several negative consequences:

· Your income taxes may be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy. (We provide financial benefits to married couples because they produce and care for children. Providing financial incentives for homosexual unions would be doubly counterproductive. First, taxpayers would be subsidizing, and thus encouraging, destructive behavior. Second, we would be paying for the results of that behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs.)

· Your social security taxes may be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual “widows” and “widowers.”

· Your medical insurance premiums may rise to offset the higher health-care costs associated with homosexual behavior, which will likely become more prevalent. Medical premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples. (There’s sure to be some judge somewhere who would order this.)

· Your employee benefits may be reduced if employers are mandated to spread their limited benefit dollars to homosexual partners. (Limited benefit dollars given to homosexuals must come from somewhere; indeed, they would be taken away from everyone else, including married couples who are raising children.)

· Your ability to adopt children may be hindered if homosexual couples are given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate.

· Your children will be indoctrinated, with or without your consent, to accept homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage. (We are already seeing this in our public schools.)

· Your workplace will attempt to indoctrinate you to the same ends, and if you refuse, you will either lose your job or not be considered a “team player.” (This is already happening through “diversity” training in many companies; it will become universal if homosexual marriage becomes law.)

· Your place of worship may lose tax-exempt status if it refuses to hire homosexuals.

· Your free speech rights may be curtailed as any opposition to homosexuality is declared to be illegal “hate speech” (as it is now in Canada).

These short-term negative effects are indeed significant; however, the most dramatic impact will be on future generations, because homosexual marriage will change the way they think about homosexuality and marriage itself.


Some homosexual activists think that the government exists to validate their desires regardless of the consequences such validation would have on others; but that’s not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens from harm. That’s why good laws endorse behaviors that are beneficial to the public welfare and restrain behaviors that are destructive to it.

I’ve argued that traditional marriage is beneficial while homosexual marriage would be destructive. If you’re still not convinced, consider this: How would it affect society if everyone lived faithfully in a traditional marriage? It would dramatically reduce crime, welfare, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, and child abuse. On the other hand, how would it affect society if everyone lived faithfully in a homosexual marriage? It would bring about the end of society as we know it and the human race itself.

Simply put, homosexuality is not good for individuals or societies. Governments cannot feasibly restrain all destructive behaviors, but they certainly can avoid endorsing them. Our government, at the very least, must avoid endorsing homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage.


The conclusion regarding homosexual marriage follows logically from the premises: the law should not endorse homosexual marriage. The same argument applies to the compromise position of “civil unions,” because this would still mean government endorsement of a destructive behavior. Playing word games will not eliminate the negative effects of such endorsement.


How should we respond to the call for homosexual marriage? If we allow our emotional affection for our gay friends and relatives to interfere with sound reasoning, we risk making the same mistake that my friend’s parents made — endorsing behavior that will hurt our loved ones. Such a mistake, however, will not hurt just one person just once; it will hurt entire future generations repeatedly. Legalizing homosexual marriage will teach future generations the false ideas that:

· Homosexual behavior is just as moral and healthy as heterosexual behavior.

· Homosexual marriage is just as moral and beneficial as traditional marriage.

· Mothers and fathers offer nothing uniquely beneficial to the care and development of children (homosexual couples always deny children either their mother or father).

· Marriage is no longer about procreation, just coupling; therefore, if someone wants to have children, there is really no reason for that person to get married.

These are false and dangerous ideas. Those who accept them stand to hurt themselves and others.

We must face the facts of nature: homosexual relationships cannot produce the benefits of heterosexual unions; therefore, our laws should not be changed to pretend otherwise. Laws can neither change the facts of nature and magically transfer the procreative abilities of heterosexual relationships and the benefits of traditional marriage to homosexuals, nor can they erase the serious health problems that result from homosexual behavior. A new law legalizing homosexual marriage would only serve to deceive people into thinking that homosexual marriage and traditional marriage are equally beneficial. Such legally endorsed deception would be a dangerous teacher to new generations.

Only traditional marriage can secure a healthy future for our children and our entire civilization; therefore, it alone deserves privileged legal support. We must not make the mistake my friend’s parents made and risk endorsing behavior that will ultimately hurt those we claim to love. Love requires that we stand firm. The most loving policy for our country is to legally protect traditional marriage — our national immune system — by ensuring that it remains solely the union of one man and one woman.


1. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 54.

2. Patrick F. Fagan et al., “The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts,” under “The Economic Effects of Marriage,” see “Chart 3: Child Poverty by Birth Status,” The Heritage Foundation, research/features/marriage/index.cfm.

3. Michael J. McManus, “Why Is It in the Government’s Interest to Save Marriages?”
The Heritage Foundation,

4. Fagan, under “The Effects of Marriage on Children,” see “Chart 17: Family Background and Adult Criminality.”

5. Dobson.

6. Fagan, under “The Effects of Marriage on Welfare,” see “Chart 7: Welfare Dependence on Birth Status.”

7. Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. Fagan, and Kirk A. Johnson, “Marriage: Still the Safest Place for Women and Children,” The Heritage Foundation, research/family/bg1732.cfm.

8. See Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler, Legislating Morality (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 132; Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 54.[1]

9. Joseph Daniel Unwin, Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1934).

10. Andrew Sullivan, “Here Comes the Groom: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,”,

11. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 51.

12. Paul Cameron, William Playfair, and Stephen Wellum, “The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic,” Omega Journal of Death and Dying 29, 3 (1994): 249–72. For corroboration of these results, see Turek and Geisler, 259–60n4.

13. Sullivan.

14. Cameron, Playfair, and Wellum found that homosexuals with a long-term sexual partner died one year earlier than those without.

15. David Dunlap, “In Age of AIDS, Love and Hope Can Lead to Risk,” New York Times, July 27, 1996.

16. Quoted in Warren Throckmorton, “Chris Matthews’ Hard Sell,” Grove City College, editorials/throck_Chris_Matthews_7_15_04.htm.

17. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 202–3.

18. Ibid., 185.

19. Andrew Sullivan, “Correlation, Causes, Links, Whatever,”, index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_01_25_dish_archive.html#107526329968381529.
Also quoted in Stanley Kurtz, “Slipping toward Scandinavia,” National Review
Online, February 2, 2004, kurtz200402020917.asp.[1]

20. Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,”
Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004, http://www.weekly

21. Kurtz, “Slipping toward Scandinavia.”

22. Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.”

HT: La Shawn Barber

HT: Christian Research Institute


Juan Buhler said...

Premises 2) and 4) are incorrect.

2) because you could argue that the reason homosexuality is associated with a marginalized life is the discrimination they suffer.

4) because you could argue that homosexuality is not a decision but a characteristic of birth. True, without discrimination more people would come out of the closet. I call that improving the total happiness of the population.

Christine, I think it's obvious that the article you posted doesn't really add anything new to the discussion. You did notice that, didn't you?

Mark said...

2) the 'marginalized' life one suffers has nothing to do with 'discrimination'. God discriminates and so should we. The public welfare is never served by not laying claim to Right and Wrong.

4) to re-define that which is sin as good, is evil at work. Once one has been exposed to and accepted that which is wrong, one's very conscience is silenced. One's conscience is the very gift of God that pulls us towards Him. To no longer recognize Good from Evil, is a dead conscience, a point in one's life where Good has been replaced with evil and truth with lies. How does that happen? You chose your own wants & desires over God's. You chose You, over God. And you can wrap that choice in anything you feel is Good and Righteous, that is satan's greatest tool against us, our own pride. Something Satan knows well.

Now, what you really want Juan, is someone to justify Your own selfish, Godless ideas, isn't it? That would make you feel better about your choices, especially the choice to reject a walk in holiness and a cleansing of Christ's blood. No you follow another earthly 'leader', one that will whisper sweet justifications and approval for your life and choices. Here Juan, have an apple, God wants you to have knowledge, eat! God loves you and He really wants you to eat, becuase you really want to, don't you? ...nothing really changes in how Satan talks to us, does it?

You eat the apple, then blame someone else when your punishment is rendered. Sound familiar? Reference the First book in the Bible before grinding your teeth in anguish is all you have left because you heard the truth and rejected it and now know you were wrong. That is hell!

Juan Buhler said...


You seem to suffer from the same problem Christine has. You assume that not sharing your beliefs means being unable to distinguish good and evil. You equate godlessness with selfishness.

Two comments about your attitude:

1) It destroys dialogue. It is the same as saying "those who don't think as I do are idiots." People won't want to talk with you if you are insulting them.

2) It is dangerous. Your self righteousness is of the kind that can be easily used to oppress and kill people. Murdering some sinners shoudln't be too much to pay to ensure your loved ones go to heaven, should it? You get my drift.

That said, and more to the point, I happen to think that my godless morals are better than yours. They don't seek to discriminate as your god does, and they try to maximize everybody's happiness.

Yours are based in the legends of a tribe of people in the Middle East, and are not even as beautifully poetic as those of the Greeks, the Vikings, or even of some tribes of Central and South America.

May I suggest some comparative religion studies? It might cure some of that infatuation you have with Christianity.

Mark said...

Thanks for the advice Juan. You see, what you call self righteousness, I call speaking the truth. Perhaps I don't do it with enough kindness, I'll work on that. That said, unless one is in Christ, they are dead, their mouths are dead, their lives are dead, the hearts are dead, their tongues & words are dead. You may say, but I am good to others, I work hard, I make others happy, I have freinds, family a nice house a good job etc...Nonetheless, you are dead my friend. Without accepting Christ, you are dead. There is nothing I can do nor say to change anyone's heart, God works from within, and only you can make the choice.

Now, thanks for comparing my faith with 'other' perhaps Middle Eastern faiths. Yes Juan, many have and do lay claim to truth, except I know the truth and rely on Nothing of this world to exhibit the truth, nor do I kill, hate, or destroy so I may spend some quality time with some virgins in heaven. Earthly rewards are not part of God's truth, nor is it something that can be seem on the 'outside', it is a change from within. Perhaps you confusing you conscience with your own desires. That's a Mistake Juan.

Juan Buhler said...

Mark, this is why your beliefs are dangerous and scary.

Imagine those same words in the mouth of someone perhaps more violent than yourself, someone with a gun. Why wouldn't he pull the trigger and kill me, if I'm already dead anyway?

Note also that I didn't compare your religion to any other middle eastern ones--they are all similar in regards to the lack of poetic beauty in their legends. That you needed to reference islam seems to be a chip on your shoulder, btw.

Joe Brummer said...

THe reason this article isn't "reasonable" is because it relies on non-peer reviewed and rejected research of people like Paul Cameron. At one point Paul Cameron was calling for the execution of gays and lesbians.

By promoting such an article, you are saying you agree with many of the lies its contains. Gays don't live 30 years less. No credible research has ever shown that, if fact only one study has and it was done by Paul Cameron. Big surprise there.

If you are going to post anti-gay marriage articles. read them, find out who the reseachers were and then see of they are really accepted credible reseachers.

In the case of the article you have posted, these are not credible reseachers.

Christinewjc said...

Hello again Joe,

It appears that you missed this in the footnotes:

"For corroboration of these results, see Turek and Geisler, 259–60n4."

You are not claiming that all of the rest of the research done and included in the article is "not credible," are you? Often, it is due to bias against a researcher that their findings are not allowed in a "peer-reviewed" journal. So they show their statistics elsewhere. The ID movement and NARTH are two, separate examples of this.

The author of the article made a thorough and legitimate argument against legalization of homosexual marriage (without citing the Bible). Just because you don't like his reasoning, doesn't make the argument less credible.

This argument is as follows:

FACT: 1. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare.

FACT: 2. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare.

FACT: 3. The law is a great teacher; it encourages or discourages behavior and attitudes.

FACT: 4. Legalization of homosexual marriage would encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive. It also would weaken the perceived importance of traditional marriage and its parenting role, thereby resulting in further destruction of the family and society itself.

FACT: 5. The law should endorse behaviors that are beneficial and restrain (or certainly not endorse) behaviors that are destructive.

CONCLUSION: 6. Therefore, the law should endorse traditional marriage and it should restrain (or certainly not endorse) homosexual marriage.

Joe Brummer said...

Sorry, Christine, but yes. The majority of the research isn't accepted by the scientific community. Narth isn't accepted by the scientific community either.

What you have posted is a well written piece of propaganda.

1) Homosexuality is not destructive. Bad choices in your life whether you are gay or straight. That is destructive. Drugs, sleeping around, etc...those are not a result of being gay. that is a result of people's bad choices.

As for the research. DOn't take me word for it Christine. Do the homework on those studies. Look at the Methodolgy and see if it is strong. See if the journal that published it was a peer reviewed journal or what you apy to publish in.

I think with a little homework, you will see I am correct.

Juan Buhler said...

Often, it is due to bias against a researcher that their findings are not allowed in a "peer-reviewed" journal. So they show their statistics elsewhere. The ID movement and NARTH are two, separate examples of this.

This is one of the best, funniest things I've read all day. Let's please, please, PLEASE mention the topic of ID when we talk about gay rights.

It can only lend credibility to your side, you know [Juan tries to keep a straight face.]


Christinewjc said...

Not to get off topic here, but I wanted to clarify why I mentioned an example of additional bias in the "peer-reviewed journal world".

Here's a case in point regarding the obvious and blatant bias of "peer-reviewed" journal editors and how such bias led to an "after-thought" rejection of a legitimate scientific paper that happened to be written by an advocate of ID.

If you don't know the background, basically the case went like this. Stephen C. Meyer's paper was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but then the Evolution proponents went ballistic and demanded it be retracted. That incident reminds me of a school child stamping his feet because he didn't get his way. Now that's funny!

Stephen C. Meyer's paper

chibikuri said...

Dear Christine,

Usually I get miffed when I read blogs like yours, but given your approach to promoting your own arguments, all I can do is smile. I certainly don't agree with your views--I'm a healthy gay male in a 10-year relationship, and my partner and I have adopted a wonderful child who loves us with all his heart.

If you want to pray for someone, please pray for our son's birthparents--two drug addicts who enjoyed a short-lived relationship, the result of which was an innocent child left in the hospital for 8 weeks after birth coming down off cocaine, heroin, and a few other choice drugs.

Our son is healthy and happy now, and hopefully will continue that way, despite the fact that the world is full of people who use their religion to tell him that there's something wrong with his family.

Despite this, I'm grateful we live in a place where we have the freedom to speak our own mind, practice our own beliefs, but hopefully, one where those beliefs can be enjoyed within one's own sphere of activity, and not used as a wedge in political or "moral" arguments against others in one's community.

If you're truly worried about threats to marriage, why not attack divorce in general, and leave gay marriage out of it? Seems like an easy target to go after, but I don't hear about anyone raising a petition to amend the Constitution on that one...

Kisses from the Bay State,

Saltnlight said...

Still the same empty blown out of proportion arguments as ever.

The point is this:
God said it and that should settle it however It hasn't settled it because the age old story is still the same. Nothing new under the sun.
God gave them over, not once but three times. Why? because they wanted it their way. God’s present wrath punishes men by giving them what they want. God’s present wrath gives men more rope, so to speak, allowing them to plunge more deeply into sin.

Christine, it still dosen't make sense to argue with depraved minds. They have an excuse for everything they do.
Below article by; J. Michael Sharman
The Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club, for example, says it not only seeks legal recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships, but also: “A compassionate, aggressive response to AIDS and other health issues affecting the lesbian and gay community” and public school “Family Life Education and guidance programs that offer age-appropriate, nonjudgmental information on sexuality, tolerance, homosexuality, and sexually transmitted diseases.” (1.)
As a community, though, we obviously don’t care much for our friends, family and neighbors if we don’t let them know that homosexual behaviors are unhealthy and dangerous activities.
HIV/AIDS, of course, is probably the most well known danger, yet as a society we continue to deny that HIV and AIDS are for the most part totally preventable diseases caused primarily by homosexual behaviors.
The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first identified in 1981. Before that time, the malady was just called Gay Bowel Syndrome. (2.)
The Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) estimates that from 1981 to 2003, a total of 929,985 cases of AIDS have resulted in 525,060 deaths. The CDC says that today there are at least 1.3-1.4 million persons in the United States infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.1. [3]
We can preach tolerance and diversity all we want, but the inescapable fact is that the majority of persons living with HIV in the United States are men who
have sex with men, and the disease spreads primarily by HIV-positive men having sex with other men and thus exposing new sex partners to HIV.[4]
During a two-year study which ended in December 2002, a total of 2,491 HIV-positive men were interviewed. These HIV-positive men were asked about their sexual activity in the past twelve months. The good news is that 586 (31%) of them reported they were abstinent.
That was the end of the good news.
Nearly two-thirds of the HIV-positive men (1,177 of them) reported having sex with a man during the preceding 12 months. Eight percent reported they had sex with women. The number of sex partners reported by these HIV-positive men in the past year ranged from one to 500. [5]
Primarily because of that ever-expanding pool of people sexually contacted by HIV/AIDS positive men, the number of new HIV infections grows steadily by about 40,000 every year since the early 1990s. Among new cases in 2003, 72 percent were to males and 28 percent to females.[6]
That’s how the HIV epidemic continues to spread.
In addition to HIV/AIDS, acts of domestic violence are a significant health problem for homosexuals. It is estimated that as many as 600,000 homosexuals in a same-sex relationship are victims of domestic violence each year.[7]
A Radford University study noted that, “intimate partner assault may be more prevalent against gay men than against heterosexual men.”[8] And it isn’t just homosexual men who have an increased risk of domestic violence: A review of studies on same-sex domestic violence found that 22 to 46 percent of all lesbians have been in a physically violent same-sex relationship.[9]
A study published in the February 2006 edition of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence discovered that the increased risk of domestic violence in homosexual relationships ties back into the HIV/AIDS debate.
The study found that 41% of the persons in the study who were in same-sex relationships reported being forced by their partners to have sex. In other words, they were raped. Because of the domestic violence in the same-sex relationship, 28% said they didn’t feel safe to ask their abusive partners to use safer sex protection. In fact, up to 32% of those studied experienced abuse as a direct consequence of asking their partner to use safer sex protection.[10]
Being homosexual is about as “gay” as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. The question is whether we as a society have the courage to admit it.
[2] Kazal HL, Sohn N, Carrasco JI, Robilotti JG, Delaney WE, “The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases”, Ann Clin Lab Sci 1976 Mar-Apr;6(2):184-92 (1976)
[3] Anderson JE, Chandra A,Mosher W. "HIV Testing in the United States, 2002", Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 363. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2005.
[4] "High-Risk Sexual Behavior by HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex with Men ---16 Sites, United States, 2000-2002" Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[5] QuickStats, "Percentage of Persons Aged 15--44 Years Overall Tested for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) During the Preceding Year and Percentage by Number of Sex Partners of the Opposite Sex --- United States, 2002,"
[6] Anderson JE, Chandra A,Mosher W. "HIV Testing in the United States, 2002", Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 363. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2005.
[7] Freedberg, Pauline, “Health Care Barriers and Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Literature”, J Foren Nurs. 2006;2(1):15-24,41
[8] Owen SS, Burke TW, “An exploration of prevalence of domestic violence in same-sex relationships”, Psychol Rep. 2004 Aug;95(1):129-32.
[9] Renzetti, Claire M.; Miley, Charles Harvey. (1996), “Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 2.”
[10] Heintz, AJ, Melendez, RM, “Intimate partner violence and HIV/STD risk among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals”, J Interpers Violence. 2006 Feb;21(2):193-208.

Saltnlight said...

More than anything else, homosexuality is a willful choice. No one can say, "I was born that way." No one is born homosexual. No one. Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant of the Bible or has deliberately perverted its teaching. You can talk all you want about genetics, the size of the hypothalamus, about absent fathers, over-protective mothers, about early sexual confusion, and even about sexual abuse. Some of those things may indeed create a predisposition to this particular sin. But the fact remains: Every act of homosexuality—whether in word or deed or in lustful thought—every single act is a personal moral choice. Temptation is not the issue because temptation in and of itself is not a sin. But giving in to temptation—whether mentally, verbally or in actual deed—is a sin. That's a moral choice for which God will hold you 100% accountable.

You can't blame your choices on your hypothalamus! You can't even blame your father for his failure to be there when you needed him...As a society moves away from God, one mark of its drift into judgment is widespread homosexuality."

"Whenever men turn away from God, terrible things begin to happen in society. Long-held standards disappear. Things once considered incredible now become commonplace. Evil no longer seems evil. The basic distinctions between male and female are obliterated. No one knows the difference between right and wrong. In such an atmosphere, homosexuality is first tolerated, then accepted, then praised, and finally enshrined as the ultimate freedom."

The tragic fact is that this is exactly where America is today."

And we are headed for God's final outpouring of wrath. Due to our unwillingness to stand up for His Word.

I include all sexual sin as being against a holy God for it is against He and He alone that we have sinned.

Saltnlight said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.