The second group has completely rejected the authority of Scripture and embraced the idol of open theism, a god who changes his mind over time. Not surprisingly, this god seems to change his mind in ways that comport exactly with the secular morality of twenty-first century America.
Posts tagged ‘Same Sex Marriage’
This quote is making the rounds.
“The logic of the sexual revolution continues to play itself out. At each new step, its advocates claim that “of course they are not proposing the legitimation of” whatever it is that is obviously just over the horizon as the logical next step. When their opponents point to the logical next step, those advcoates accuse them of resorting to “scare tactics.” Then, having gained whatever the proximate objective was, they begin the process of legitimating the next step. What you see in the Scientific American article here is the foundation being laid for “the conservative case for polyamory.” Mark my words.” – Robert P. George
The article in question is here.
I think at this point, the concept that conservatives “scaremongering” is absurd. I believe this because I saw how quickly same-sex marriage went from “don’t be ridiculous” to “only bigots oppose this”.
Frankly, any lobby that changes that fast gets no respect from me. This is 1984 stuff – and that’s before we even get into the idea that a government can change the definition of a universal concept like marriage with a wave of the hand.
Bob’s covered this one pretty well.
Family First NZ is hugely concerned by comments made by the author of the bill to redefine marriage regarding integrated schools who receive government funding and may disagree with altering the definition of marriage.
In comments to a gay website about Northland’s Pompallier Catholic College and comments made by the Principal opposing the bill, Labour MP Louisa Wall said ‘I don’t think in these days of integrated schools and given this school does receive some form of state funding, that advocating against equality and non-discrimination and supporting discriminatory laws is what schools and a principal should be promoting.’
“This seems to be a veiled but real threat to integrated schools, many who are faith-based and would oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, that they will either have to promote same-sex marriage against their own beliefs or be threatened with losing funding,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
It speaks volumes about those promoting this law, that they are so bold in making such threatening statements.
But, lest we remember, almost the entire country stood up and rejected the last item on the liberal agenda, and that did a fat lot of good. So they know full well that they can be say things like this and there’s not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
(My position is clear: legislating for same-sex marriage is like legislating for dry water. You can call something whatever you like and change whatever laws you like, but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
This “issue” is not something that I find worth my time debating, though the stupidity does tend to drag me in from time to time!
The biggest concern at this point is what the effects of this contradiction between law and reality will have – i.e. what laws will they foist on us once they realise people don’t recognise same sex unions as marriages. Somehow, I don’t think any of the proposed “answers” will ever involve less state power.)
Labour MP David Clark, a Presbyterian minister, said there was an absence of advice for gay marriage in the Christian scriptures, particularly in Jesus’ words.
“I suspect he would say that marriage is frequently paraded in the media by those who claim a Christian viewpoint as really a thinly veiled defence of Victorian morality.”
Mr Clark voted for the bill.
Jesus didn’t live in Victorian England. He lived in ancient Israel. The morality of that time comes from a strict interpretation of Leviticus, whose laws indicated that homosexual behaviour should be stoned*. Victorian England merely locked up homosexuals.
In fact it’s even sillier than that – way sillier.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):
NZ Herald June 21 2004 “Should people who want to have legal recognition of a marriage be able to get it? The Government says yes, but you can’t marry. Marriage is only for heterosexuals. The Government is not — underline — not, changing the Marriage Act. That will remain as an option only for heterosexual couples.”
TIM BARNETT (Labour – now Secretary General of Labour):
1st Reading “The Civil Union Bill is an acceptable alternative; marriage can remain untouched.”
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour):
1st Reading “I accept that marriage has a traditional and religious heritage, which is why our churches are so protective of it ….Having said that, I utterly reject the idea that the State cannot create an alternative way of recognising couples—be they straight or gay—…”
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Labour):
1st Reading “The Marriage Act applies only to heterosexual couples. The opponents of the Civil Union Bill feel strongly that that should remain so.The Government respects that view, which is why there is no proposal to change that Act.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour, Associate Minister of Justice):
1st Reading “Through the Civil Union Bill, the Government …is also confirming that in New Zealand marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. …The social, religious, and traditional values associated with marriage will remain”
3rd Reading “Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry, or who do not wish to marry.”
Idiot/Savant is calling for homophobic bigots to be kicked out of the Labour party. But really, one has to wonder how these people were allowed to stay given their “Victorian England values” only 8 years ago.
*True, he challenged some aspects of it. But he focused on the self-righteous way it was being enforced.
Good article by Glenn Peoples on a study that found same-sex partners did not make the best parents.
Glenn examines some of the criticism of the author.
Look through the list of factors that David Sessions (the author of the above article). These are listed as things that Gays and Lesbians should be alarmed by when seeing this study:
- The research project was led by a person who engages in “attention grabbing” research
- This man’s findings sometimes agree with what social conservatives think about the sexual revolution.
- This man was once a professor at a Christian College
- This man wrote a cover story in a Christian magazine, saying that Christians should encourage marriage at a young age.
- This man wrote an article claiming that the sexual revolution has had some negative consequences for women.
- This man’s latest research (the study on same-sex parenting) was funded by groups that are not socially liberal, but socially conservative instead.
Quite a modest set of charges when dealing with this sort of thing. Which of course suggests strongly that the guy is sound, but leans conservative in his convictions.
Oh, and if you think those things are legitimate reasons to ignore research, then I feel very sorry for you.
Glenn then points out that the study is far from a slam dunk anyway. It seems that the offence just may be (and this is my opinion) that it wasn’t a ringing endorsement.
So there you have it. It’s not the bombshell revelation-to-end-all-revelations study that settles every argument that some might have hoped for, and it’s not the atrocious omg-I-can’t-believe-anyone-would-publish-this piece of trash that some are claiming it to be. What the appearance of this study has done, however, is to again allow the ugly side of intellectual policing to rear its head. Some things just shouldn’t be allowed to be said, so when they are, they must be shouted down by any disreputable means necessary.
Have a read and make your own mind up. As I write, there’s two comments – the first a vicious attack on Glenn for his “hateful” criticism, which is of course completely ironic as the second comment says.
I goggled Mark Regnerus (he’s the guy who did the study) and found this article. It is the sort of response that liberals should be making, but starts by noting the response that liberals have been making.
Mark Regnerus is a hateful bigot. He’s an ultra-conservative with links to Opus Dei. His new research paper on same-sex parenting is “intentionally misleading” and “seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents.” His “so-called study doesn’t match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well.” His “junk science” and “pseudo-scientific misinformation,” pitted against statements from the American Psychological Association and “every major child welfare organization,” deserve no coverage or credence.
That’s what four of the nation’s leading gay-rights groups—the Human Rights Campaign, the Family Equality Council, Freedom to Marry, and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation —declared in a joint statement this week. Flanked by a mob of bloggers, they’re out to attack Regnerus’ motives, destroy his credibility, and banish his study from the scientific record. Even Slate contributor E.J. Graff says “Slate‘s editors should be ashamed” for publishing Regnerus’ “dangerous propaganda.”
Nice people, aren’t they?