A Gay Debate: Chapter Six- Livin’ La Vida Vadar

To conclude this gay debate over gay marriage, I your Rent A Friend, am going to wrap up as any Rent A Friend should- with an overreaching analogy based on Star Wars. You’re Welcome.

A Long Time Ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
now on DVD and Blue Ray….

Young Anakin Skywalker had no father. He was raised by a single mother in a poor neighborhood. But he was different from other boys. He had feelings that were… different. One day he was taken from his mother by a man who won him in a bet.

You have to admit that’s unusual.

For many years he was raised in the Jedi temple. They taught him that his ‘dark’ feelings were wrong, and taught him to suppress them. They also taught him that a Jedi was not to have any romantic love, and that his desire for romance should similarly be shunned. For a long time he did, and all was well.

An Older Man and a Queen

During this time, Anakin got to know a man who was considerably older than he was- “Tadd” Palpatine. Tadd did not fear the dark side like the Jedi did. Anakin was interested in his point of view, but afraid to go against the establishment of the temple. At the same time, Anakin met a queen with a fabulous wardrobe who loved diplomacy but who wasn’t afraid to kill people with a blaster if she needed to. This queen stirred feelings in him that he had been taught were forbidden. Eventually he discovered that the queen had forbidden feelings for Anakin as well. This was clearly against the teachings of the temple, but he could not help his feelings. He began to live a secret double life with the queen he loved.

Anakin came more and more to question the wisdom of the temple. They seemed like a bunch of self-righteous, religious hypocrites, and after hiding his relationship from them for a few years, he grew to distrust them. They kept him from the person he loved, and they kept him from the power of the dark side (probably because they were jealous of his potential). Then one day he just said, “To Mustafar with all of this!” and he decided to fully embrace his lust for power and dark feelings and he became Darth Vadar. He embraced a lifestyle unlike any the temple had ever permitted, and finally he felt complete- balanced in a way. Then he killed a bunch of children and his wife. But, hey, everyone has a bad day now and then. If the temple hadn’t been so oppressive to his feelings, he might not have killed nearly as many of them. And in typical judgmental fashion, the temple sent his own friend to kill him, but in the end Vadar only lost a few limbs.

From a Certain Point of View…

Now, there isn’t a REAL morality here. The force is the dark and the light, so it’s not like Darth Vadar was going against the commands of a transcendent and Good God when he killed a bunch of children. He was expressing his feelings, and his feelings are just as valid as Yoda’s happy, tree-hugging feelings. Let’s face it- Yoda has cut off a few heads in his day as well. The point is, under the yin-yang of the force, Darth Vadar isn’t REALLY evil. He just seems evil if you take a Jedi-centric view of the universe. From Darth Vadar’s view, the Jedi are evil.

That said, I think we need to admit a few things. Both Anakin and Palpatine wound up a little uglier for their dark powers. There are certain risks to epidermal quality, eye color, and the respiratory system, as well as the risk of loss of limb once you embrace the dark side. Sith Lords tend to face unusually high interpersonal conflict/violent deaths, and unstable relationships where betrayal is sadly, inevitable. But just because turning to the dark side results in being a deformed murderer with unusual relationships doesn’t mean the Jedi were right to condemn it. If it makes them happy to turn to the dark side, then that’s their own choice. If an older man asks you to be his ‘apprentice’ and to go kill a bunch of monks and children, then you should be able to follow your heart and do what your lust for power drives you to do.

And let’s not hear any of this rhetoric about protecting the children from Sith Lords. As far as we know, Darth Maul didn’t kill ANY children, and it’s very offensive to assume that, just because he was a Sith full of the dark side, he would have. The point is, Anakin and Palpatine were two consenting adult men who chose to be in a “master and apprentice” relationship.  That’s their business. Who does it hurt if it makes them happy? There’s no “wrong” way to use the force. The force is just THERE. Like gravity. Saying their use of the force is wrong is like saying they fall down wrong when they slip on bantha poodo. Besides, they were PROUD of their dark side lifestyle. The two of them could be found leading the Sith Pride Parade for many years.

This chapter of Anakin’s life wraps up with some changes to the government which, if you want to be picky, not everyone was in favor of. Palpatine had (thanks to a little ‘political pressure’) enough supporters in positions of power that the will of the people didn’t need to interfere with his desires for the legislation of his new chosen lifestyle. Just because the people didn’t want him to be an Emperor didn’t mean he couldn’t have the law changed. And so, Anakin lost his queen, but as Darth Vadar he was now “Apprentice” to an emperor. An emperor who wore a dress a lot and got very excited about having young, powerful men around him all the time. He’s been watching Anakin “with great interest” since he was a small boy, after all, and finally they were together.

Lessons from the Dark Side

If you have read the previous chapters of this debate, I think the metaphors should be obvious. For instance, if there was a God, then he would decide the right and the wrong ways to use the Force. He would explain the purpose for which the Force was created, and then direct us to use it accordingly. Furthermore, the temple would be justified in teaching against the dark side when they see how it results in charred skin, missing limbs, and dead padawans. The death toll is too high to ignore, and I think it’s obvious that it’s not good for marriages or other relationships. Your master is going to betray you, or your apprentice is going to toss you down an energy shaft. Sith relationships just aren’t healthy and happy ones. They don’t last.

The one metaphor which is new to my side of the debate is the legalization of the Emperor’s lifestyle against the will of the people due to people of influence. The fact is, in the United States the majority of states have had the chance to vote on the issue of legalizing homosexual marriage, and in EVERY state where it is put to the people, they vote AGAINST it. That homosexuals cannot marry is not the result of a religious minority forcing their morals on the populace, but the result of the majority of voters expressing their view democratically. Where Homosexual marriage has been legalized has been AGAINST the will of the people, or at least without the support of the majority, and has been overturned when the people have a say. When Obama pushed for legislation, it was not be because the majority of voters asked for it. More likely is that a significant number of financial contributors to Obama have been pro-homosexual organizations or homosexual individuals.

Galactic Empire of Wokeness

As the republic loses freedom because of this unwanted legislation, so shall Americans. In one of the eastern states where- without the consent of the people- homosexual marriage was legalized, a wedding photographer refused to photograph a wedding of two men. They sued him and it cost him thousands of dollars to NOT accept the chance to work. And once the federal government passes such laws, how long before churches, temples, and mosques are sued for refusing to marry homosexuals? Religious freedom is already in serious trouble. In many countries where homosexual marriage is supported by government, pastors and churches have faced fines and jail time for merely saying they do not support homosexuality and that the Bible clearly teaches that it, as a lifestyle, is sinful. Everything has a cost, and this will cost not just social norms, and not even just money, but it will cost freedoms. In places like Canada, France, and Australia, it has cost religious freedoms, and freedom of speech. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

What, then, is the answer for us all? The answer comes from Luke Skywalker. Luke comes to realize that Darth Vadar is not just some moral monster who needs to be destroyed, but is his own father. Out of the simple love of a boy for his father, Luke sees past the crimes and the moral choices and the machine he is wrapped in, and he sees the man underneath. He decides that the answer is not to destroy his father, nor to follow in his footsteps, but- out of love- to try and help him out of the dark side altogether. Yoda had told him, “Once you start down the dark path- FOREVER will it dominate your destiny.” Even Vadar tells Luke, “It is too late for me, Son.” Luke, however, refuses to accept that Anakin is just lost forever. He goes to Vadar in love. Vadar tries to turn it into a fight, but Luke tries his best to build a bridge between them. Ok, Luke loses his cool for a minute there, but ultimately Vadar sees that his son loves him, and in a moment of clarity, he leaves his dark side lifestyle and his “master.” Vadar is one again Anakin Skywalker, father of twins. Sadly, he dies soon after from the abuse suffered at the hands of his former “master,” but I think we all know he would have spent the rest of his days in jail had he lived.

Can You Pray The Gay Away?

This metaphor is about something you have probably only heard described through cynical, Christian hating films and adult cartoons, but it is a very real possibility: Liberation from homosexuality. As I have explained, Homosexual is NOT a species. No one need say of themselves or others, “Once you start down THAT path, FOREVER will is dominate your destiny.” Certainly it must be maintained that, when you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way- from your first cigarette to your last dying day, but the same is not necessarily true of homosexuals. If they desire to change, they can, and many have. Some live with the attraction all their lives but choose not to act on it, while others are given the grace to get past the lifestyle and the desires entirely. Some even wind up in happy, heterosexual marriages.

The big name in this movement of freedom from homosexuality- out of love for them as Luke loved Vadar- was Exodus International. If you can still find them, you can read stories of those who have left the homosexual lifestyle behind and see that people can change and leave the metaphorical dark side behind for something better. It’s not the weird, gay hating boot camp style thing you see in cynical comedy films. No one gets kidnapped and sent to brainwashing sessions. This is people reaching out in love to others to offer them freedom from an addiction. There are men who have thought, “I was born this way” and lived as homosexuals for many years, yet still come to discover that they don’t have to. Even after many years, many find they can leave it all behind and live a healthy, heterosexual life. The Gay Pride camp tends to be fairly close minded to this option- even openly hostile. But this group, Exodus International, and those like it, love men and women enough to say, “You can change if you want to, and we will help you every step of the way.”

Offering Counseling is like Pushing them into the Gas Chambers?

No doubt some of you are already throwing full wine bottles at your computer screen.

I worked for a newspaper once, and there was a group of psychologists nearby offering services for those who desired to leave the homosexual lifestyle. One of the writers on the staff referred to these doctors as “Nazis,” as if there is some connection to be made between offering therapy to those seeking to change their lives and murdering homosexuals by the hundreds as Hitler’s soldiers did in the 30’s. If you can see the connection, please explain it to me. Perhaps he thought of Weight Watchers and AA as terrorist organizations, but I digress.

All I’m saying is, some people do not have an open mind toward those wishing to change themselves from gay to strait as they do for those wishing to change from strait to gay.  But I am sincere when I say that the Christian position is that of Luke to his father. It is a position of love for our kin. We want them to change because we know there is better for them. Leaving ANY sin behind is freedom, and this one is no exception. That’s why it was Christians that started AA.

Now, I know that we Christians have blown up a couple of space stations, and on occasion made crass and uncalled for jokes about who is “holding Vadar’s leash.” Let me end as I began- I am sorry that our position, while ultimately founded on love, has not always been expressed in love. And our position has not always been held by people who have the kind of love they should (which is their sin, and we desire them to change. Groups like Exodus International help the family members of homosexuals learn to reach out to them in love as well).  Our position is ultimately founded on God’s decrees, which are founded on his nature, which is Love. Jesus says, “For God so LOVED the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” What you need is not the right to marry, but freedom and eternal life.

In short, you need Jesus.

So, to Amanda, her friend Jonny, and all of my friends out there in cyberspace, I hope I have explained it all clearly. Why would anyone oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage? Not out of hate. And not because it is wrong for men to love other men. But out of obedience to God, for the defense of marriage, to uphold democracy and the will of the people, and, hard as this may be for some to believe, out of a love for our friends and family who are homosexuals. We don’t want to take anything good from them. We want them-our brothers and sisters- to be free of the attractions and addictions which keep them from God’s best for them. We want them to have love and sex the way their Creator intended- healthy, happy, and full of joy. We want them to have marriages the way He intended them- with purpose, passion, and a faithful commitment to one person for a lifetime. And most importantly, we want them to have a relationship with their heavenly father- our Creator God, through his Son Jesus Christ.

I realize this was a much longer answer than you expected from such a simple question, but I’ve always said, “If what you have to say can fit on a bumper sticker, then you don’t have anything to say at all.” As always, feel free to send me questions. I remain, your Rent A Friend.

Jesus Loves You.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Gay Debate: Chapter Five- Hunting Blinds for Blind Hunters

If you are in favor of extending legal rights and privileges to those members of society who are not accepted as the “norm,” then you will be delighted to hear about what Michigan and Texas have done for their citizens. In many states, those persons who are “blind” are denied many basic rights merely because of their vision-alternative lifestyles, such as the right to drive a car or fly a plane. But the good people running both Michigan and Texas have seen the error of their ways  and have made it legal for those without sight to drive in those states, provided they wear their seatbelts.

Ha ha! I am kidding of course. Neither of those states allows the blind to drive. When one considers the potential harm which might befall not only those persons exercising their legal rights, but also those who are in the car with them or in adjacent cars, you can see why they would not put such a ‘right’ into law. It’s also unlikely that many, if any blind persons would WANT to drive. No, Michigan and Texas know better. However, they have both given the blind the legal right to hunt with firearm or crossbow.

And this time, I am not kidding.

Michigan and Texas are two of many states which have given those who cannot see what they are shooting the right to go out and shoot it anyway. When you consider the fact that hunting involves the use of a potentially deadly weapon, and the fact that a significant number of the blind (according to recent statistics) cannot see what they are shooting at, it seems to me that offering this kind of legal ‘right’ may not be the gesture of freedom and kindness that it was meant to be.  My gut instinct: this is a good way to get people killed.

If 2% of Hunters are 61% of Accidental Hunting Deaths…

Before I go on to explain how blind hunters relate to homosexuals wanting to marry, let me draw to your attention the statistics from the last chapter. Just one example: The Center for Disease Control estimates that men who have sex with men accounted for just 2% of the population in 2009, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections.  HIV causes AIDS, and AIDS is a horrible way to die, for which there is no cure. Already more than 600,000 people in America alone have died from it, and possibly a million more have HIV/AIDS right now and will someday die from it. In the mean time, many are giving HIV to other men. Blind persons are legally allowed to hunt in at least six states, and I can’t find anyone dead on account of this. Not one.

Now, let’s pretend that isn’t true. Let’s pretend that I could show you that not only do an alarming number of blind hunters injure or kill themselves and others by hunting, but that the majority of the blind have no interest in hunting. Would you support the fight to make blind hunting legal? Or would you say, “We’re fighting to protect a legal right that most have no interest in exercising! And those that DO go hunting put themselves and others in serious danger.” Because, if you did say that, someone would accuse you of hating blind people. I’m just warning you.

The Ugly Truth in Numbers

What follows are stats to show that homosexual relationships do not last, commonly include infidelity within relationships, and do not commonly lead to marriage even when the legal right is given to them. I’ve shown you the self-inflicted gunshot wounds and the trail of bodies of hikers and other hunters linked to this lifestyle, now you will see that we’re offering a legal right that most have no interest in exercising.

Gay Relationships Don’t Last

A study from Norway and Sweden (which have sanctioned same-sex partnerships since the 1990s) found that within five years of entering a legal union, “gay male relationships are 50 percent more likely to break up than heterosexual marriages, while lesbian relationships are 167 percent more likely to break up than heterosexual marriages.” On these stats, does it not seem the fight is ultimately over homosexuals’ right to be divorced?

Or to put it another way, is not the fight for gay marriage ultimately the fight for divorce lawyers to get richer?

Gay Fidelity is Rare

Perhaps it’s just the married homosexuals in Norway and Sweden whose relationships don’t last? No, the trend continues around the world. M. Pollak [1] found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that “typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.” The Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census of nearly 8000 homosexuals (2004) found that only fifteen percent described their “current relationship” lasting twelve years or longer. A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS (2003) found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was one and a half years.

Paul Van de Ven et al.[2], found that, of 2,583 older homosexuals, only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having 101 to 500 lifetime sex partners. Similarly, a survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre (1998) found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime.

The Dutch study [3] of partnered homosexuals found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous.

Gay Couples Don’t Get Married

If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships. This would provide them with legal recognition as well as legal rights. However, it is clear that few homosexuals and lesbians have chosen to take advantage of these various unions (same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships), suggesting a difference in commitment compared with married couples. Only 9% of heterosexual couples in California rejected the institution of marriage, while over 80% of the homosexual couples rejected “marriage” when it was offered to them in 2008. In Massachusetts, the number of same-sex “marriages” between 2004 and the end of 2006 represented only 52% of the number of same-sex cohabiting couples in the state identified by the 2000 census. By contrast, 91% of opposite-sex couples who lived together were married. In other words, 48% of same-sex couples rejected “marriage”, a rate more than five times higher than the 9% of opposite-sex couples who did so.

In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to legalize same-sex civil “marriage”, the figures are even more dramatic. A 2005 report indicated that only12% of same-sex co-habiting couples in that countryhave married, with another 10% in what are called “registered partnerships.” By contrast, 82% of heterosexual couples in the Netherlands (as of 2004) were married. This means that 78% of the same sex couples in the Netherlands have seen no necessity for legal recognition of their relationships at all, while only 18% of opposite-sex couples have similarly rejected marriage.

I think the point here is obvious. To follow my metaphor- imagine that I could demonstrate that most blind persons have no interest in having a hunting license, and that those that do get one are far less likely to ever have it renewed once they get it than the sighted, and that those who go shooting (Licensed or not) wind up injuring or killing themselves or others FAR more often than the sighted do. Would we be fighting over their right to go hunting? I don’t think we would. We’d offer them a fishing license and call it a day. Even if the blind persons we know and love REALLY wanted to go shoot a deer, we’d love them enough to say, “For your own good, and because I love you- no. But I’d be happy to take you fishing some time!”

So who loves homosexuals more? Those that are willing to see them go fishing (Or better yet, help them restore their sight so they can hunt safe and successfully) or those who say, “Odds are you’re going to kill yourself, but if it makes you happy, then load that gun and get out there and shoot something!” I would like to suggest that it is those of us who want to see them come home alive (and who want to see them regain their sight) who actually are showing them the most love- even if they can’t see us doing it. Metaphorically speaking.

[1] In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times (1991)

[2] In their study of the sexual profiles published in Journal of Sex Research (1997, 2000)

[3] Published in the journal AIDS

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Gay Debate: Chapter Four- The Bad News

To modern minds “Good” simply means, “Lacking evil.” Evil is measured by the physical cost. Thus, smoking is evil because it results in cancer, drunk driving is evil because it results in deadly crashes and Vampires are evil because they result in the Twilight movies. If there’s no body count, we tend to say there’s no evil, and if no evil, then good. Getting drunk, therefore, is good, and drunk driving is bad.  I bring this up because almost all of the arguments for legalizing Gay marriage, or even simply accepting the lifestyle, are along these lines: “What business is it of yours?” “Why do you care?” “Who are they hurting?” 

In short, the argument seems, for many people, to go as follows:

  1. I don’t know why you think it’s bad.
  2. If I don’t know what would make it bad, then a suitable reason must not exist.
  3. If it’s not bad, it MUST be good.
  4.  If it is good, then those who oppose it are evil.
  5. Thus, it is right to hate Christians and republicans. I’m going to burn down a Target and steal a 65 inch flat screen tv.

Or something to that extent. Before I reply to this argument, allow me to draw your attention to the fact that I have never heard ANYONE who started by saying “Homosexuality is good because…” Like the above argument, every one I have ever heard begins with an admission of ignorance in the form of a question or an assumption. But I’m not here to teach the basics of logic and debate. For right now, I’m just going to answer the question: 

“Who does it hurt?”

The answer is: It hurts the homosexuals themselves, the children in their care, and the culture that embraces the redefinitions of marriage and love.

Because some of you are already swearing at your monitors, I present statistical information which sadly supports my reply. I know many of you will say, “MY gay friends aren’t like this!” and I hope you are right. I hope the same is true of all of my gay friends, but even if we are right about our friends, that doesn’t change anything in the big picture. George Burns smoked until he was 105, but that doesn’t make smoking any less bad for you. I have friends who have driven drunk and made it home safe and sound, where as I hit an SUV under the influence of nothing stronger than coffee and an unfortunate rain puddle. That doesn’t mean driving drunk is the better alternative to coffee. It’s time to face the bad news and decide if really loving our friends means supporting their homosexual lifestyle, or if loving them would mean helping them out of it. Buckle up kids- this gets ugly:

1. Like smoking or driving drunk, living a homosexual lifestyle is linked to serious health risks.

In 1999, 50 percent of all new AIDS cases were reported among young homosexuals. During the year 2003, the CDC estimated that about 63% of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the U.S. were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men. The Center for Disease Control estimates that men who have sex with men accounted for just 2% of the population in 2009, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections.

No doubt, some of you are making the fairly logical conclusion that, were they allowed to marry, homosexuals would be in steady relationships and thus not as likely to engage in the same risky, promiscuous behaviors that leads to these numbers. Sadly, that is not the case. A study by the Dutch Department of Health and Environment (2001), found that 67 percent of HIV-positive men aged 30 and younger had been infected by a steady partner. The study concluded: “In recent years, young gay men have become more likely to contract HIV from a steady sexual partner than from a casual one.”

We decided that smoking was bad, not because no one enjoyed it, but because it was killing people. We outlawed drunk driving, not because no one wants to do it, but because it was killing the people who chose to do it, and far too often killed those around them. For decades AIDS has been killing homosexuals in disproportionate numbers. From this angle, trying to grant more legal protection to homosexuality is like turning the car pool lane into the “Drunks Only” lane. Sure, it’s giving acceptance, freedom, and even temporary happiness to a formerly imposed upon part of the population, but the death toll isn’t going to go down on account of your generosity.

2. Homosexuality is linked to other self- destructive behaviors.

Homosexuality used to be seen and treated as a sickness. When the American Psychiatric Association changed their minds about this in the 60’s, it was NOT due to new information. It was due to political pressure. This is what happened to anti-Semetism in the 1930’s. The Church said, “Hate is wrong. Jews are people too.” Then Hitler applied some “political pressure.”

The link homosexuals have with addictions and depression are not linked to social rejection or family rejection, as these stats are consistent in states, subcultures, and countries where homosexuality and gay marriage are accepted. The following info shows that homosexuals are anything but gay (If you don’t get this pun, then look up the word “gay” in a dictionary from before 1960):

A study in Family Planning Perspective showed: “Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.” A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviors than heterosexual women. In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is 20 times greater among homosexuals than in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. A 2008 “meta-analysis” reviewed over 13,000 papers on this subject and compiled the data from the 28 most rigorous studies. Their conclusion was: “LGB [lesbian, gay, bisexual] people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and deliberate self-harm than heterosexual people.”

Nobody is glad to see these numbers, but if you love your homosexual friends and family, you can’t just ignore this info. It does them no good for us to say, “Oh well, if it makes them happy, then what does it matter?” What this tells us is, it DOESN’T make them happy. God forbids homosexuality because he has something better- something which leads to joy. God forbids homosexuality BECAUSE he loves those people, not because he wants to ruin their fun. These are drunks staggering to their car for a joy ride. Being a good friend is going to be harder than simply shouting, “Drive careful!” Sometimes loving people means wrestling the keys out of their hands before someone dies.

3. Homosexuals are more likely to be abused in their relationship partner than heterosexual couples.

Sadly, “happily ever after” is not the norm for homosexual relationships. The Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians surveyed reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner (2000). A recent study by the Canadian government states that “violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples.” The American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies say, “Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.”

Who does it hurt? It hurts themselves, it hurts those in relationships with them, and it hurts the children who are raised under their custody.

4. Homosexual behavior and child abuse are linked.

Since almost thirty percent of child sexual abuse is committed by homosexual or bisexual men (one third male-on-male abuse times 86% identifying themselves as homosexual or bisexual), but less than 3% of American men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, we can infer that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.

A study in “Adolescence” found: “A disproportionate percentage—29 percent—of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent.…Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.

The first group of pedophile abusers are SELF IDENTIFIED bi/gay men, and the 30% of adults who were abused by their own parents as kids had what THEY identified as homosexual parents. So, the common argument that “Just because a man sexually assaults a boy DOESN’T make him gay,” doesn’t apply here. And let’s all admit that it’s not the Christian right who has to answer for NAMBLA.

Let’s make a deal: I’ll trade you NAMBLA for GodHatesFags.com. We can ship them both off to Iran and just pretend neither one ever existed.

Do you love your homosexual friends and family enough to NOT support their lifestyle choices?

If we grant the legalization of gay marriage, it will lead to easier adoption for homosexual couples, which will put more children at risk. No one is claiming that ALL homosexuals are child molesters, nor drug addicts, nor suicidal, nor abusive to their lovers. But then, not all drunk drivers crash into a minivan and kill a family of five. They’re just  more likely to. That’s why the law does NOT support the decision of drunk adults to drive. It’s to protect them and those around them. I suppose the question here is, do you love your homosexual friends and family enough to NOT support their lifestyle choices, or only enough to REALLY HOPE that these stats don’t apply to them?

This is a lot to chew on, and there’s more to come. For right now, let’s sum up. First of all, there is a real good, and that’s God. He loves us, and he gave us not only marriage and sex, but the rules governing them because he loves us and because he is good. Homosexuality is bad, not merely because it differs from the good which is marriage God’s way, but because it hurts those that live with it. Loving our homosexual friends and family  does not mean supporting homosexuality or gay marriage any more than loving our drinking friends means we support laws which allow them to drive drunk. Sometimes you show the most love by taking their keys away and letting them live to curse at you for it. Hopefully, they’ll thank you when they wake up sober and alive. If not, you’ve still done the right thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Gay Debate: Chapter Three- The Marx Brothers, Driftwood, Sex and Violins

If you haven’t seen the Marx Brothers movie “A Night at the Opera,” then it’s possible that, until now, your life has been a hollow lie devoid of meaning, hope, or joy. I suggest you rush right out and buy a copy at once. Aside from lasting joy and cultural education, I bring this film to your attention because of a particular scene.  

Near the end of the film, Chico and Harpo slip the sheet music for “Take me out to the ballgame” into the score, and then slip themselves into the pit. As the opera starts, the orchestra breaks into “Take me out to the ballgame” and Chico and Harpo pull out a baseball and have a short game, during which Chico pitches and Harpo uses a violin to smack the ball into the woodwinds. It’s classic Marx Brothers shtick which I will now use for my own metaphysical purposes. But first, let’s go to the beach.

Driftwood and Bon Fires

Welcome to the metaphorical beach! Here we find pieces of driftwood washed up on shore. Whatever the wood looked like in the distant past, it has been formed by wind and waves, chance and time to be smooth and aesthetically pleasing. In the 1970’s people would use them as home decorations until they ran out of wine and came stumbling down the stairs, squinting in the morning light, only to say to themselves, “What is that hunk of wood doing in the middle of the dining room table?” What was once $200 of interior décor is now found at garage sales for as little as 25 cents.

So, imagine you are at the beach, and you look into the water to find one such natural treasure floating your way. Having found some driftwood amidst the waves, you pick it up and you say to your friends, “Hey! We can use this as a baseball bat!” And despite the fact that there is no orchestra to be found, you play a rousing game of baseball with your new and all natural bat. As you play, Antonio Stradivari walks by and says to himself, “How clever! Those kids are using a piece of driftwood as a baseball bat.” And he goes home to watch a movie.

Eventually, you stop playing baseball to go get a Choco Taco. When you return you find that one of your friends has started a fire on the beach, which you think is wonderful until you realize that they have made this fire with your all natural driftwood bat! Mother Nature’s own Louisville Slugger is turning to ash before your eyes! The horror! The horror! “How could you do this to me?” you cry in despair. “That was my baseball bat!” Your friends stare at you as if you have bananas in your ears and say, “It’s JUST driftwood. It’s a hunk of dead tree that was shaped by the laws of nature plus chance plus time. You decided to use it as a baseball bat, and now we’ve decided to use it to make a fire. What’s the big deal?”

This is just like that time you found the perfect walking stick in the woods, and then set it down to get a soda, and your friends used it to make s’mores. You begin to wonder if any of them could be trusted to pet sit, or if they would eat your cat.

Meanwhile, at the Home of Stradivari…

Meanwhile, Antonio Stradivari has made it home and is watching the Marx Brother’s A Night at the Opera with his children. They are delighted and amused until the Opera starts. Then, Harpo- this icon of comedy entertainment- grabs a violin and uses it to whack a baseball! The children gasp in horror. “Daddy!” one of them cries, “What’s he doing with your violin?” But Antonio is unable to find the words to express the shock and disgust as his beloved creation, a Stradivarius violin, valued at $15 million dollars, is used in the same way one might use a found piece of common driftwood!

One of his children suggests that the Marx Brothers must be destroyed. Antonio realizes that this is so, and he grabs the phone intending to call the lawyer who works for him- the one who is known as “The Angel of Death.” But another child says to him, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Antonio, seeing the mercy of his child, puts down the phone and skips to the next scene.

Which brings us back to the topic of this series- the debate over gay marriage. No, really! This will all tie together in just a minute.

Nature or Craftsmanship?

The defenders of homosexual marriage are acting as if marriage and sexuality are like driftwood- it’s the result of accidental chance plus time which we have found and decided to use for one of several uses. When the other side comes along and says, “You can’t do that! That’s not what it’s for!” they roll their eyes and try to remind us that it’s JUST DRIFTWOOD. Just because we chose to use it as a baseball bat doesn’t mean EVERYONE has to use it the same way. And if we’re just arguing about driftwood, they are correct. Our baseball bat might be important to us, but it’s still just driftwood. It’s not really special and important. We just gave it a purpose which made us FEEL like it was special. But it wasn’t MADE to be a bat anymore than it was MADE to be a decoration for your dining room table- or firewood for that matter.

The defenders of traditional, Christian marriage are not just arguing about their feelings for driftwood. We are the children of Antonio Stradivari. Our father has made something beautiful and good. That piece of wood was not formed by chance and accident, but by the hands of a loving artist with great purpose. A violin has purpose built into it, which is why you need two different pieces. You need the violin and the bow. If you have no bow, it is a beautiful instrument, but it will not fulfill its primary purpose for existing- to make music. If you have two violins or two bows, you still do not have music. Like a key and a lock, a violin must be paired with something different to be complete-a bow-  to fulfill the purpose for which it was made.

I think the metaphor is fairly obvious, but I’ll spell it out anyway. God made sexuality with great artistry and purpose, as Stradivari made violins.  As the violin and bow are each a complete thing, made with beauty and purpose, men and women are complete by themselves and made with value, beauty, and purpose. But as a pair of bows will not make music- so a homosexual couple cannot fulfill God’s purpose in their design. This goes beyond the mere ability to reproduce, but it does include that. Men and women were made in the image of God, and alone we are not a complete image. Two men or two women also do not complete the image of God. And worse than simply being incomplete in purpose, when one violin is used as a bow on another, both are damaged and neither makes the music it was intended to make. I will address this subject more fully in a future chapter.

From Dining Room Table to Garage Sale Bargin Bin

If you reject the creator God and choose to say marriage, sex, and humankind is all driftwood- matter plus chance plus time- then you can use it as a baseball bat or a walking stick- but here is the point you have to face- you can also use it as firewood. The Nazis did this to homosexuals as well as Jews for exactly this reason. They rejected the Biblical God and the morality that came with in favor of Darwinistic naturalism, and they tried to kill all of the homosexuals in Europe. If you reject the Biblical God and the morality that comes from him in favor of Gay Marriage today, what will stop our nation from using them as firewood tomorrow?  Driftwood can be art for your dining room or fuel for your fire and all that keeps one from being the other is fashion. Today our fashion is calling for the legalization of gay marriage, but when our culture ejects the influence of the church and embraces Darwin as Germany did at the turn of the last century, what will keep us from doing away with this evolutionary dead end in the same manner? What keeps the$200 of dining room art from becoming a 25 cent piece of garbage you desire to rid yourself of? It can happen here. It happened in Europe not that very long ago.

And to make this point clear- it doesn’t matter what ELSE you use a Stradivarius for- if it is not for music, it is an abuse of the artist’s design. Homosexuality is not the only sin. God intended one violin and one bow for a lifetime of beautiful sheet music (pun intended). No trading bows with other musicians, and no using three bows at a time, or two bows and a toothbrush. No beating the violin with the bow like a drum. No filling the violin with beer or floating it in the bathtub. Had Harpo used the violin as a golf club, a football, or as a drum stick, he would still be doing wrong and the children of Stradivari would still oppose it, not because they hate the Marx Brothers, or even because they really believe Harpo intended to offend their father, but because they love their father and they know his work and the purpose for which it was made.

So as a son of Stradivari, I want you to remember that none of us are driftwood. You were made beautiful and with purpose. We are all Human First. And as humans we are made to make music, love God, and watch the Marx Brothers. Do yourself a favor- first, read the Bible. After that, get some Marx Brothers movies and watch them all. You’ll thank me. As for me, I’m going to grab a handful of change and go garage sailing. I’m looking for a big hunk of wood for the middle of my dining room table.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Gay Debate: Chapter Two- Building Bridges

Welcome back to a Gay debate about Gay marriage! When I last left you, I had spelled out the need for objective moral values in order to take EITHER side in this debate. Now I intend to take a minute to explain how much we all have in common. If your mind is easily blown, you may need a helmet- or a mind diaper.

The debate over giving homosexuals the right to marry is one where both sides want justice- you know, like Batman. We all want the law to reflect what is right and true and good and we want the Jokers on the other side to stop trying to ruin our metaphorical Gotham City. As a Christian, I believe what God has said about morality and building a good society, and thus I want the law to reflect what is best for everyone as instructed by God. On the other side are those who feel their homosexual friends would be made happy if they were given the right to be married, and so they feel it unjust to keep such freedoms from their friends. In the end, we all want justice- but we disagree about the proper application.

We all want happiness.

This is universal. Everyone wants total happiness. However…This is one of those times where it’s hard to make everyone happy. The pro-side of this debate is under the impression that giving homosexuals the right to marry will make their gay friends happy, and thus decide it is the best choice. In a future post I will explain how making someone happy might not be the same as loving them. For now, just imagine you had the power to turn things into gold just by touching them. It would make you very happy in the short run, but not in the long run. The short version is, you celebrate, get rich quick, and then lose everything and everyone you ever loved until your empire crumbles and you wind up repairing mufflers and breaks. This happened to some guy named Midas. Still, good for him that he can find work in this economy. Just don’t shake his hand when you take your car in.

What many people on the pro side of this debate may find surprising is that I have- and have had in the past- friends who are homosexuals. And I don’t mean just that one guy at work who I say hello to when I walk past. I mean I have had diner, gone to parties, exchanged Christmas presents with persons who are living homosexual lifestyles. I and people who agree with me on these matters have friends that we love who are homosexual. So this isn’t a matter of “If you only got to know some gay people…” This is a matter of some things being more important than just making others happy. Again, I will explain this in more detail in the future. For right now, let’s just admit that both sides of this debate have some friends we love who will be affected by its outcome.

People are PEOPLE

Aside from the common good we share of wanting justice and wanting happiness, we also have a few faults in common. Both sides of this debate have forgotten something which would help clarify why both of them are often in the wrong: We forget that homosexuals are people. They are human first. And we forget that homosexuality is not a person- it’s a set of facts about a person. We’re all throwing out the babies with the bathwater, and that makes for unhappy babies.

In my experience, this mistake can be traced to those persons living a homosexual lifestyle who, for reasons I do not understand, wrap their identity in their sexuality. These are the people who introduce themselves by saying, “Hi, I’m Becky- I’m a lesbian,” or sometimes just, “Hi, I’m gay.” At least Becky remembered to tell me her name. I can’t remember what gay’s name was. But that is sort of my point. He wasn’t a Tim or a Steve or a Ryan- he was just a “gay.”

Many homosexuals will say “I AM GAY” in the same way a certain zoo animal might say “I AM A PANDA!” Naming one’s species carries with it certain explanatory definitions of appearance and behaviors which are phenotypes determined by inherited genotypes. All of that is nerd-speak for, “Of course I act like a panda- I AM A PANDA! What did you expect me to do? I can’t help what I am! I’m proud to be a panda! DON’T YOU JUDGE ME!”

Dr. Phil and the Gay Panda

Aside from accepting their lifestyle, the liberal side quickly starts seeing homosexuals as animals determined by their genetics- unable to make any choices. I offer as evidence, TV’s Dr. Phil. He had a couple on his show where the woman complained that her husband had cheated with her not once, not twice, but repeatedly with at least three different MEN. The husband had told her, before they were married, that he had engaged in homosexual activities in the past. Having chosen to marry her, he assured her that his gay life was all in the past. Now, a couple of years and a couple of kids into the marriage, she finds he has been cheating with men.

So Dr. Phil, being trained in the art of Oprah-style morality and relationship counseling SCOLDS THE WIFE FOR EXPECTING HER HUSBAND TO BE FAITHFUL. I could not believe this as I watched it. Dr. Phil flatly told her, because the guy admitted he had been gay, she should not have believed him when he said he would be faithful to her. Dr. Phil delivered this speech in the same manner I imagine Animal Control gives the “It bit you because it was a wild animal speech to people who have tried to bring home a bear they found on vacation. The cheating husband got the slightest slap on the wrist, but the wife was told that this was basically her own fault. Once gay, still gay, always gay. He can’t help himself! He’s not a man who can choose to be faithful to his wife- he’s… a homosexual. They’re different. She (according to Dr. Phil) should have known better. Imagine this situation with the description “homosexual” being replaced with anything else- Italian, Chinese, a Cub’s fan, an alcoholic, rich, fat, tall, blonde… for what else would Dr. Phil have taken this stance? Nothing. Men and women are expected to keep their vows and promises. But homosexuals… they’re different.

What’s a Panda to Do?

This line of thinking treats men and women like animals. Not only is “Homosexual” their species, but (some believe) there is a gay gene that determined their lifestyle choice before they were born! The pro-gay marriage side basically feels like the Bible thumpers are hating on pandas for acting like pandas. What’s a panda supposed to do?

There are a couple of problems with this viewpoint. So far there is no evidence that a “gay gene” exists. After all, twins exist where one has homosexual feelings and one does not. But even if we decide there is a gay gene, that still doesn’t mean we ought to embrace the results of that gene. Do we celebrate down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, or color blindness? Can’t something be a genetic trait which is also a bad thing which we seek to cure?  Knowing something has a genetic cause is not enough to determine something good or bad. To determine that, we have to know the purpose of the affected area. We know color blindness is bad because we know the purpose of the eye- to see the entire visible light spectrum. What was the purpose of sex again? I used to know, but I think we’ve thrown it out with the bathwater.

The Bible isn’t condemning Pandas for being Pandas. It’s condemning Pandas for eating the giraffes when they’re supposed to eat Bamboo. Even if the Pandas REALLY REALLY feel like they SHOULD eat the giraffes- it’s only going to make them ill and seriously freak out the zoo going children. God made a natural order to the universe, and that order included pandas being vegetarian. If a panda tries to eat the giraffes, it is right that the zoo should try and stop him, even if the giraffes are ok with the idea.

Giraffes are into some weird stuff.

Hating Pandas for the Love of Giraffes?

If a panda tried to eat a giraffe, the zoo keepers shouldn’t say, “We really hate pandas now. Cuz that’s wrong behavior.” And panda lovers shouldn’t say, “We love pandas, so they should be able to eat as many giraffes as they want.” Yet, this is what both sides of the gay debate have done. Neither of them is really in the right. What they should ALL be saying is, “We love the pandas, but it’s not natural for a panda to want to eat a giraffe. Let’s figure out what went wrong so we can help them.” Maybe they need more iron in their diet and can just have some spinach. I’m not a vet. All I know is, if you give the pandas a giraffe, you might make them happy for a while, but you aren’t going to make them healthy. It might kill them. And you certainly won’t have many happy giraffes at the end of the day.

We aren’t going to be able to solve the gay marriage debate by confusing the person for the lifestyle. First, we all need to stop labeling people as “gay” or “lesbian” as if it is their species. We are all human FIRST. They are not a sexuality in the form of a person, they are a human with feelings and desires- just as we all are. If we remembered that, we would all understand why Christians can condemn homosexuality without hating men and women, and Christians would understand why we should love men and women, even if they are living a lifestyle which is displeasing to God.

If we’re honest, we’ve all eaten a bit of giraffe in the past. That’s why we need Jesus in the first place.

Let’s end this chapter by reflecting on what we all have in common. First of all, we all agree that some things are good and some things are bad. We are striving to get others to know the truth, for we agree that truth is good. We want justice, and we want happiness, for we agree that they are good. We are- all of us- human. We are not different types of human- we are all simply human. One big, crazy, messed up family of humanity, with our own feelings and desires who each have left teeth marks in the local giraffes. We have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and we all need Jesus to save us from our sin – to save us from the food poisoning that comes from eating giraffe when we were made to eat bamboo.

I hope all of you on both sides of this debate have found some things you share. My goal here is to build bridges. Let’s continue the debate as family and burn as few of them as possible.

And remember- Jesus loves you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

A Gay Debate: Chapter One

Hello friends. I am your rent a friend, and today I am responding  to a good friend of mine named Amanda who is flummoxed by the debate over giving homosexuals the right to marry. I was further encouraged to reply by her friend Jonny who said, “I want you to post publicly so everyone can see what an idiot you are.” And I’m nothing if not a sucker for fan requests. So, here we go. For my good friend Amanda, her friend Jonny, and all the people out there who need a friend,  A Gay Monologue about the Gay Marriage Debate!

Chapter one: Every debate in a nutshell

Before we can start with the specifics of this particular debate, we need to look at the foundation of all debates. I know, that sounds like it’s going to be wading through six feet of metaphysics with no socks on, but trust me, it’s easier than it sounds. What we need to do is look BELOW the level of the specifics.

For this particular debate you have two sides one FOR the legalization of gay marriage and one AGAINST. As with any side of any debate, both of these sides think they are standing for what is right and good and true. Either they are not talking about the same thing, in which case they might both be right or they are diametrically opposed, in which case one of them is right and one of them is wrong.

I told you this would be easy.

This debate seems fairly well opposed. Some want gay marriage to be legal, and some do not. That can’t both be right, so how do we figure out which side to take?  In order to help us all out, I need to compare the basement level foundation of both sides. Before I do that, let me be clear that I am not here to try and defend EVERYONE who is opposed to gay marriage. I am only trying to make sense of the Biblical, Christian position. Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans, Muslims, Mormons, and those heretic freaks over at GodHatesFags.com are on their own. Especially that last group. I’d like the earth to open up and swallow them. But I digress.

Every worldview (The basement level) has four components which need to be defined and made cohesive. I got this idea from Ravi Zacharias, and I steal it here without his knowledge or consent. Those four components are Origins, Purpose, Morality, and Destiny.

First the Christian worldview: 


“In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This is how the Bible starts, and it’s how our worldview starts. Everything that exists is directly or indirectly the result of God’s choice to create. What this means for our basement level is, everything has a purpose. God is not chaotic, but does things on purpose and with reason. The Bible tells us this in Acts 17:26, “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.” God has a purpose in where and when you are born. You are not an accident. You were designed- or as it says in Psalm 139, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Also to be learned from this passage is that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights… But I digress.

Jesus says this in Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.” Your gender isn’t an accident either. God made us male and female, and then, pretty much right away, he created the institution of marriage. God made marriage, and sex was part of that institution. After all, HE made us male and female. Some people mistakenly think sex was not God’s design, but the first sin. I don’t know how these people figured the human race would be fruitful and multiply as God commanded. I suppose they could have lived on fruit smoothies and invented algebra, but I don’t think that’s what God meant.

To be clear, sex was part of the original design. God made it, and he has a purpose. His purpose and design is part of the next step- Morality. God, being the creator and architect, has set up some rules so His creation can be used well. We call this the Moral Law. The root of every moral law is doing what is best for us, and avoiding what will hurt us. It’s like the driver’s manual for a car- you can drive in first gear and never change your oil, but when the instructions tell you to do otherwise it’s not because they want to ruin your fun. It’s because they don’t want your engine to burst into flames. The moral law is the same. When God says “Don’t” he generally means “Don’t hurt yourself or anyone else.”

Our destiny is one of two paths that we choose. In one, we say to God, “Your will be done,” and join him in his kingdom forever. In the other, he tells us “Your will be done,” and we are outside of his kingdom forever. Neither of these are as cartoons or heavy metal songs would have us believe. Let me sum it up with a mnemonic device: GOSPEL

G– God made you to have a personal relationship with Him.
O– Our sins separate us from God.
S– Sin cannot be removed with good works.
P– Paying the price for sin, Jesus died and rose again.
E– Everyone who trusts in Him alone has eternal life.
L– Life with Jesus starts now and lasts forever.

In case you missed it, that S makes Christianity unique in all the world’s history. In every other path you tell God, “Step aside- I’ve got this.” The Bible makes it clear- JESUS has it. You either let him take care of it, or your sin will have you forever. You let God adopt you into the family, or you stay his enemy. Your destiny is you holding onto sin and death, or Jesus taking those from you and giving you life eternal. It really is that easy.

So, when the Christians say they are opposed to gay marriage, or polygamy or divorce or infidelity, or anything we call “sin,” we mean, “God made marriage, and THAT (sin) is not his design. His way is better than ours. God made sex and THAT (sin) is not his design. His way leads to more joy than ours. God made men and women, and THAT (sin) is not his design.  His way is purposeful and linked specially to His nature- as we are all made in his image.” Or if you like, we mean, “HE is God and WE are not.”

What about the atheist worldview? This will be a little easier to sum up:

Origin: Accident

Purpose: None

Morality: None

Destiny: Oblivion (Both personal and universal)

Maybe I should elaborate a little.

Origin: Accidental. The universe popped into existence uncaused for no reason. Life sprang into being accidentally (And against great odds). The human race is just another bump on the meandering tree of life- not the end nor the goal- just the most recent version of one branch. As a species, we’re only a variation on dirt, worms, fish, rats, or monkeys (Depending on when you join the story).

Purpose: None. No one meant us to be here, we have no prime directive while we live, and no one is waiting for us when we die. We are an accident, and we are alone. We are the ghost in the machine. A smoke which came from accidental random chemistry, and which will soon dissipate and be gone forever with no one to even remember us. Someday the universe itself will die and we will be nothing but a forgotten memory in a graveyard of dead stars, fading forever.

Dang- I am a poet. That gave me chills just then.

Morality: With no purpose and no destiny other than oblivion, there is no objective right and wrong. We exist because of a process where billions of things spent millions of years killing each other. With that kind of history, it’s hard to say that real objective morals exist. The best you can really do is, “We have been conditioned by our genetics to be in favor of some behaviors and opposed to others.” That doesn’t hold a lot of weight when the genetics of our ancestors used to be conditioned to living in holes and eating dirt.

Destiny: We’re a smoky ghost. You know, like from my poetic paragraph above. That was classic.

So when an atheist says “I don’t see why you would condemn homosexuality or gay marriage,” they are being sincere. They don’t have a moral code which forbids homosexuality because on Atheism, Sex is an accident with no purpose, plan, or destiny. How can an accident be right or wrong? This would be like complaining a puddle is the wrong shape.

I don’t mean to say that atheists are without any moral code, but I do mean to say they should be without a moral code. Personal preference they can have. Fashion, they can have. But when the whole universe came from nothing for no reason and will die a cold, slow death, and we spend our fleeting short years under the watchful eye of no one-it’s hard to justify saying “YOU should do what I am genetically conditioned to Feel is right.”  I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but the pro side of this debate is essentially angry at me because my genetic predisposition is not the same as theirs. But don’t blame me. Blame the random, blind evolutionary chance that made me.

The question you need to ask is not, “What’s wrong with gay marriage?” but rather, “Is anything wrong with anything?” Because, once you reject God, what standard do you have left? What is the measuring stick by which you judge the world around you? Second hand worm DNA? With all love and respect to my friends, you need more than that if you’re going to condone or condemn.

So, to my good friend Amanda, her friend Jonny, and all of their friends who are flummoxed by this debate, let me sum up:

I am not questioning your goodness or your ability to tell good from evil. I do not doubt that you are all, in your way, kind, generous, and loving people. What I am questioning is your assumption of atheism. If you are right, then I have no basis on which to condemn the homosexual lifestyle, and everything I believe is a lie. But then, if you are right, then you have no basis on which to condemn laws against gay marriage, or anything else for that matter. You have no basis on which to choose to be kind, generous, and loving people beyond your own feelings or social convention. How do you condemn a conservative puddle and condone a liberal puddle when they are both the result of random falling raindrops? Very simply, you cannot. But you know as well as I do that some things are good and some things are evil. You know that some things should be fought for, and some things should be fought against. That’s why you care about any of this in the first place. We’re not entirely different, you and I. I agree with your position more than you, or I dare say even my own camp, readily understand. But I’ll explain all of that in my next post.

In the mean time, let me end with some well needed apologies:

On behalf of those who hate in the name of Jesus, I apologize. Most of them are heretics, and not real Christians at all- and all of them are wrong. Jesus taught us that God loves the whole world- not just the clean, pious ones. So, for all of them, I am sorry.

On behalf of those who are real Christians but have failed to love you and your homosexual friends- I apologize. Jesus told his disciples to love each other and our enemies- so where ever you fall in that spectrum, we should love you. I am sorry that we have failed in this matter. Please forgive us.

I hope you can do yourself the favor of learning to judge Christianity on Jesus and not on Christians, just as you should decide the value of recycling based on the facts and not on the guy who collects your blue bin every week.

As for me, I love you all. That’s why I am your Rent a Friend.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

This Paperclip is a JERK! | PonyH8R

It’s Atheist Friday, and so resident Atheist, PonyH8R joins us in his mom’s basement to rant about a paperclip which makes him angry.

Thanks for liking and subscribing!

Posted in atheism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

God and Charlie Chaplin| Sunday School for Sinners and Saints #5

Thanks for liking and subscribing! And remember- Jesus Loves You! 

Find answers about science: https://searchcreation.org/

Posted in Sunday School for Sinners and Saints | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Modern art sucks because… atheism

Thanks for liking and subscribing! And remember- Jesus Loves You! https://abitoforange.com/

Find answers about science: https://searchcreation.org/

Posted in atheism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Racism and the Fallacy of Composition

Because something is true of one member of a group- does that mean it must be true of all of them? We see how racism and political correctness make the same logical fallacies when it tries to describe the “Black Community” in America.

As always, look for more answers at https://searchcreation.org/


Or leave us good questions in the comments!


Posted in SocioPolitico | Tagged , , | Leave a comment