Hatred, Bigotry and Truth in the Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage Debate

Hatred, Bigotry and Truth in the Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage Debate February 8, 2013

The moral status of homosexuality and the legal advancement of same-sex marriage remain among the preeminent moral and theological issues confronting the church. I’ve published many pieces representing a diversity of opinion — including my own thoughts (see here and here, for instance), which do not neatly fall into the expected categories. I appreciate the way in which this blog has become a place for serious conversation about these issues.

Many will know already that more information emerged this week about the man who attempted a mass murder last summer at the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington DC. From time to time, I’ve published guest posts from Rob Schwarzwalder, who is a senior VP in charge of several teams at the FRC. The following piece from Rob represents his own opinion, of course, and I’m grateful to him for this guest post: 


Hatred, Bigotry, and Truth

By Rob Schwarzwalder

The Bible’s teaching on human sexuality is clear: The only kind of sexual intimacy Scripture countenances exists between one man and one woman, within marriage. This teaching is restrictive, limiting, narrow. It also possesses the singular advantage of being accurate, in the sense of being a faithful representation of what the Bible says. 

One need not agree with the Bible to acknowledge its clear teaching. Regarding efforts to diminish the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality, specifically, former Benedictine monk Luke Timothy Johnson, now of Emory University, writes, “I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says.”

The text says that heterosexual fornication and adultery, and homosexual intimacy, are sins against God and those who bear His image. Agree or disagree – you’re free to make that decision. But have the intellectual honesty not to engage in the almost comical expositional gymnastics required to make the Bible say something it doesn’t.

Having read the above, many Americans will be dumbfounded: You mean there are people whose allegiance to an anachronistic collection of ancient writings which articulate an archaic moral code actually drives their thinking and behavior today?

Yes. Many intelligent, well-educated, independent-minded people have come to the conclusion that the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments uniquely reveal the mind, the will, and the plan of God for humankind. That their meaning is adequately clear to have propositional authority. That their teachings are not subject to reinterpretation contingent on popular culture or personal whim.

Is everything in the Bible easy to grasp or accept? No. Were it, the Scriptures themselves would not so candidly acknowledge the realities of doubt and unbelief. But the labor with which one comes to and sustains his faith produces good fruit, since – yeah, here goes the Fundamentalist again – the Bible is true.

This is important to understand for two reasons: First, Evangelical Protestants, faithful Catholics and orthodox Jews don’t pick and choose their moral standards. We accept them, based on our belief in the divine inspiration of our written texts, and how we see them vindicated in human experience.

Second, our acceptance of these tenets is not merely intellectual. I affirm that the street outside my office is paved with black asphalt: This is the recognition of an obvious external reality, but one that does not animate my convictions about the purpose of life or the means by which I should live it. Unlike mere intellectual assent, since we believe our moral standards are issued by a God with Whom we have a relationship and to Whom we owe our core allegiance, we cannot keep them neatly confined to the space within our crania. In other words, we are obligated by our Creator not just to acknowledge the correctness of what He has said but to live accordingly.

That means we reject homosexual behavior as morally acceptable. It means we also reject the numerous heterosexual sins, as well, including sexual infidelity to a spouse and intercourse before marriage.  We also affirm that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman, for life — and that this definition is unchanging.

I know of no conservatives who wish to disrupt homosexual homes. We don’t want to be invasive any more than we want to be coerced ourselves. But we reject the redefinition of marriage on theological grounds, as well as on a surfeit of sociological data showing that children benefit most by being raised by a mother and a father.

This is not bigotry. It is not hatred. It is not homophobia. It is, to quote one of my pastors, theophobia. We fear God, and thus we submit to what we believe is His revealed will. No one is requiring any homosexual to do anything. Catholics, Protestants and Jews who believe biblical morality is absolute and final are being asked to treat homosexuality as morally neutral behavior. Yet we do not believe it is, and thus cannot countenance its widespread social or legal acceptance any more than we accept heterosexual cohabitation. 

No one is demanding that any homosexual become a heterosexual, or that homosexuals be in any way harmed, demeaned, or persecuted. To the contrary, true Christians should and do show the love of Christ to every image-bearer of God, whether that person is homosexual or heterosexual. Period.

We simply believe that sexual intimacy is reserved by God for heterosexual, monogamous marriage. That’s inconvenient and difficult for many of us, heterosexual and homosexual. It’s also what we believe the Word of God says. Therefore, for us it is determinative of not just belief but also practice.

Coercion and repression are the signs of fascism. No one, in any sphere, is either coercing or repressing homosexual men and women. Rather, homosexual activists seek to shut-down those who believe their behavior is immoral. Raise a moral concern about homosexuality and immediately accusations of bigotry and hatred are showered upon you. The outraged viciousness of the response is commensurate with the intensity of one’s allegiance to full cultural and legal affirmation of homosexuality. Since traditional believers won’t change on this point, efforts are made to bully us into silence or reserve our beliefs for our homes and the four walls of our houses of worship. We are called names, are threatened in late-night phone calls, or, in the case of my colleagues and I at the Family Research Council, we become the intended targets of a would-be assassin’s bullets, as last summer’s shooting at our building demonstrates.

Persons of biblical faith – who believe the Bible says what it means and look to it as the source of truth, not just comfort – have no alternative but to stand with Scripture. For this, we are accused of a lack of love. Nonsense: There can be nothing more unloving, or more cowardly, than ignoring a train as it is about to strike someone on its tracks. If we warn against the consequences of sexual sin, whether heterosexual or homosexual, we do so not with self-righteous condemnation but sincere concern for those wrestling with such sins.

The homosexual left insists that everyone endorse same-sex relationships as morally and legally valid. We will not. They want to redefine marriage. We refuse. The want homosexuality to be affirmed universally as morally good or at least morally neutral. We cannot. They want full and affirming integration into every social institution, whether it be the military or the Boy scouts or, for that matter, churches of all kinds. We cannot support it.

This is not hate. It’s moral conviction. It will not change.

Here we stand. We can do no other. God help us. Amen. 

Rob Schwarzwalder is senior vice president of the Family Research Council.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Crœsos

    Contentions like “I know of no conservatives who wish to disrupt homosexual homes” or “No one is demanding . . . that homosexuals be in any way harmed, demeaned, or persecuted” are hard to reconcile with someone affiliated with an organization that is in favor of criminalizing homosexuality. See the amicus brief filed by FRC (jointly with Focus on the Family) in Lawrence v. Texas, a position re-affirmed by FRC’s Peter Sprigg on Hardball in 2010.

  • Rob, I appreciate your courage, boldness, and stand for truth. However, I think your case will be more persuasive if you left out overstatements like, “No one, in any sphere, is either coercing or repressing homosexual men and women” or “I know of no conservatives who wish to disrupt homosexual homes.” This is the core of the dispute: to deny gay marriage is seen to be repressive, coercive, and disruptive. There are some conservatives who wish to be disruptive – surely you know of at least *one* person or group? In standing for traditional marriage, we need to acknowledge that the gay community feels repressed and attacked by those who affirm traditional marriage as best. Doing so is part of how we find a relationally honest way of respecting their experience in the midst of continued disagreement. To deny that the gay community feels harmed, wronged, and oppressed is to add insult to injury. It is to say, “your negative experiences are not real or important.” The truth compels us to admit that wrongs have been done to the gay community by the Christian community. We need to accept this and repent of this. I recognize that FRC has come under incredible pressure, especially given how the Southern Poverty Law Center’s opposition directly encouraged someone to attempt to kill you! So the hostility to advocates for traditional marriage is certainly fierce. Still, even as we continue to advocate for a good cause, we must be especially sensitive to how we advocate for that cause, and that’s where I would gently challenge the tone of this article.

    • I am bisexual and was raised by a lesbian. I am supportive of policies that help LGBT communities in a material way but I have written extensively about my reasons for opposing gay marriage, regardless of whether “the gay community feels repressed.” In the United States, our nation was aggrieved by centuries of chattel slavery, of which the worst part was the practice of breeding human beings and then trading their children for money. In 1807, Jefferson banned the slave “trade,” and in 1853, Pierce signed the Anti-Flogging Act, so that there were moves toward abolishing corporal punishment of any extreme kinds, starting with whaling ships. Note that neither the 1807 abolition nor the 1853 move toward banning whippings could solve the hideous problem at the heart of slavery: the use of babies and children as objects of monetary trade. Heterosexual marriage is the single institution that protects us from sliding back into chattel slavery because it means that first and foremost babies belong within the triangular unit of mother-father-child that conceives children through lovemaking, absent any trade in human flesh. Gay marriage violates the 13th Amendment by opening the way to state enforcement of power over children who have been acquired by adults in exchange for money, whether by sperm banking, surrogacy, baby farming, or human trafficking. The government would be in the position of the Dred Scott decision again, forced to use its powers to return human chattel back to its owners, if gay couples are guaranteed the same rights in marriage as men and women who conceive children. Note the argument here, complex but deserving of attention: http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/p/gay-marriage-violates-13th-amendment.html

    • Regan D.

      @CARSON W.
      “…Especially given how the Southern Poverty Law Center’s opposition directly encouraged someone to attempt to kill you!..”
      There are too many times to count, when the FRC, or anyone who aligns themselves with their same political action, will run with a bald faced libel like this.
      There are too many times to count, when layers and layers and layers of hypocrisy grow so thick coming from Tony Perkin’s mouth, that it’ll take years to dig to the bottom of it.
      There are several VENERATED anti hate organizations that research and investigate hate activity of all kinds in this country and abroad. The SPLC is one of them. There is specific criteria for different levels of designation, and they are careful to be certain of evidence and locations. Because some parts of this country are more fertile for hate crimes than others.
      There are OTHER groups that made the cut besides the FRC. They haven’t responded in the way that FRC has.
      Directly encouraged?
      Directly encouraged?
      I know you have absolutely no evidence or proof of that. What happened at the FRC was hardly a tragedy. And considering the violence that occurred at Oak Creek,. Aurora and Sandy Hook, Perkins milking what Corkins did is grossly insensitive to victims of real violence. ESPECIALLY for example, the two teen lesbians shot in the head execution style last summer. One died, the other left with brain damage. The perp was never caught.
      And when gay kids are assaulted and tormented to the point of suicide, all Perkins can answer to it, is they knew their homosexuality was wrong so that’s why they killed themselves.
      He said NOTHING about the criminal acts like beatings on gay kids, sometimes from their own family members.
      Of course it wouldn’t occur to you that perhaps THAT is what made Corkins break? One more 15 year old suicide of a gay kid?
      No blame the SPLC.
      Gay people know all to well what unjust violence feels like. And wish it on NO ONE. Therefore, each and every advocate group renounced what Corkins did. He’s in jail, and will be for a long time. He acted alone. Nothing else happened like that before or since.
      But keep throwing the FRC pity party, it’s obvious who and what you really care about.

  • I loved the article but found a typo:

    “We refuse. They* want…”

  • First—violence is wrong in almost all instances. Physical attacks criminal acts, where they are attacks on churches or on gays. Certainly, while there are physical attacks against churches and Christians, attacks on gays are much more prevalent. While you can disavow them, there a a number of Christian pastors who do preach that gays should be imprisoned.

    Schwarzwalder is wrong on (at least) two issues in his article. First, every Christian sect, and even many individuals, pick and choose which Biblical laws to follow. These also change over time. One common example is slavery; something that is condoned in the Bible, and has since become recognized as immoral. Mental gymnastics are required to claim that it was considered immoral in the bible.

    The other aspect I take exception to is the claim that these Christian groups are not attempting to interfere with the lives of homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with preaching against recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians, this comes under the banner of free speech, as do claims of bigotry and homophobia. However, attempting to force the government to adhere to your is definitely interfering with the lives of others.

    In countries that have recognized the right for gays and lesbians to marry, there have been very few, if any, churches that have been forced to marry anyone who does not meet the criteria of the church. That is, pastors are free to refuse to marry non-members, divorcees, or anyone else.

    Marriage, like any other institution has changed, and will continue to change over time. Today, women have more martial rights than at any time in history. This is an example of relatively recent change to marriage, and was determined in a purely secular manner. In some of the more fundamental sects, these rights are still not recognized.

    In summary, no one is restricting your rights to believe, or say, whatever you want. The push is to remove your demands on the rest of society.

    • Gay marriage means going backward, not forward, to the times of slavery when the government’s force had to be employed to maintain adults’ power over children they didn’t conceive (having bought or acquired the babies by force). The worst part of slavery was the breeding of human beings in the earlier forms of what is today insemination, surrogacy, and baby trafficking, all being used by gay couples to have children. If you legalize gay marriage, you aren’t moving forward. You are bringing back long-debunked and scarring practices that involved treating children as property of adults who buy them. Gay marriage is a horrible idea, aside from religious convictions, since I do not base my objections on religion, rather on history. We have a clear, established record of what happens when people who do not conceive children wish to corral the state’s enforcement power to exert dominion over other people’s offspring. Read this piece explaining the text and context of the 13th Amendment: http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/p/gay-marriage-violates-13th-amendment.html Please avoid glossy generalities about marriage evolving, because that’s quite dangerous.

    • Kevin McKee

      peicurmudgeon, thank you for your thoughtful response to this article, which as a Christian I found offensive. I have studied the same Scriptures all my life and also tried to understand the sitz im leben in which the various passages were written and I am drawn to equally and deeply held views that are contrary to those of the author, does that make me invalid as a theologian, as a Christian? In addition, in the political actions of organizations like the authors, they are causing harm to others who have done nothing to harm them and are making proposals that are not harmful to Christians, yet the attitude of vengeance is very apparent. I do not here organizations like his coming forward actively attacking corporations who exploit human beings (one of the strongest messages of Jesus), nor do I hear them politically acting against the NRA and its desire to maintain weak gun regulation, nor do I hear them speaking out against capital punishment, which destroys human lives. Again thank you for a solid response, which was more honest than the original article.

    • TruthForAmerica

      Question: “Does the Bible condone slavery?”
      Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

      The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

      The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

      In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

      Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

    • FormerLiberalnowConservative

      We as a society as we the people get to decide what is best for our society and for marriage. It is we the society that makes the decision not the intolerant 2% of the population who thinks that because they are homosexual they get to decide all matters. Children come before sexual perversions.
      Although marriage has changed in granting more woman rights its definition has not. The union of one man and one woman. The Sodomites do not have a right to redefine marriage just because of their sexual behavior.

      • Dorfl

        “We as a society as we the people get to decide what is best for our society and for marriage. It is we the society that makes the decision…”

        This much is true. The problem is that a majority of the American population supports gay marriage. People who think like you are now a shrinking minority. Will you accept that you – as a society – have made the decision, and it turned out not to be what you personally would have preferred?

        • Test your theory. Propose a constitutional amendment for SSM. See if it passes.

          • Dorfl

            I’m not American, so I can’t propose constitutional amendments for anything. That’s why I said “you – as a society”, not “we – as a society”.

        • FormerLiberalnowConservative

          Oh really then how do you explain your side losing in 30 out of 34 elections? When the people have decided one man/one woman marriage has overwhelmingly prevailed. The sodomites have been shutout in the red conservative states and barely won in deep blue states. You always claim you have the support of the people but cannot back it up.
          What is great is when we vote to make one man/one womam in our states constitution. Now the only way your side can claim that Americia supports your view is by winning fair and sqaure at the ballot box to have the state constitution changed again. You made a statement that has no proof and shows clearly you are wrong.

          • Dorfl

            I don’t know how the American voting election works, so I don’t know how well it reflects the public will. I do know that popular support for gay marriage has been polled for the last few years, and that it crept past 50% sometime during 2012.

            Of course, you can decide that the polls suffer from liberal bias, and you actually have a large majority on your side. I’m sure that approach will work just as well for you now as it did in the last election.

  • FACT CHECK: Obama Flat Out LIED about his “Evolving Feelings” on Gay Marriage. – YouTube http://ow.ly/hxNL7

  • I appreciate the article. The situation is bad in academia as any questioning of the moral rightness of homosexuality is met with hostility by most faculty. One professor in Michigan was fired for presenting a natural law case against the moral rightness of homosexual practice as one of the options that has been historically discussed. He was later rehired after threats of lawsuits, but that illustrates the totalitarian tactics used by homosexual activists and their academic allies. Although there are a few nasty Christians out there who confuse condemning sin with hating the person who commits the sin, in general Christian and other opponents of the morality of homosexual practice are not the ones full of hatred.

  • Joe Chip

    A simple thought experiment for Rob Schwarzwalder and the folks at FRC: If by some twist of fate your heterosexual marriage was deemed by another religious group to be ‘against God’, and you were denied the right to marry the woman you loved, would or would you not attempt to fight for (what you see as) your equal rights? I am going to guess that you would.

    No one is objecting to your right to be a bigot, or to have your “Theophobia”, if you will. What they object to is your using the coercive power of the State to deny homosexuals the right to marry. It continues to baffle me how white “Religious Right” lobbyists play the persecution card, when YOU are the ones working to deny your fellow citizens their right to marry.

    • right-o

      there is no “right” for you (i assume you’re homosexual) to marry. just as i had no “right” to drive a car at 15 years old. at 13 years of age i was deeply disappointed to learn i couldn’t marry my first cousin either. waht about the Mormons. they were just 150 years too early. Brazil has recently recognized menage-a-trois as a legal marriage(s), i’ve heard. How nice.
      So you and your ilk are again reverting to name-calling (bigot). Tell me, where were you just 20 years ago, when there was not even an idea of “gay” marrriage. I guess back then, you ewere a bigot.

      • Brian Westley

        “there is no “right” for you (i assume you’re homosexual) to marry”

        Under US law, marriage IS a right. See Loving v. Virginia.

        Marriage under US law is civil, not a religious rite.

        • FormerLiberalnowConservative

          Marriage is a right but you have no right to redefine it and change its meaning. Loving versus Virginia although affirming the right to marry still kept marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It did not change that. There is no Constitutional right to make up your own rules of marriage. We the people do that.
          By the way recognition of your marriage is a priviledge of the state and not a right. All licenses are priviledges. No one has a right to make up their own definition of marriage and demand the state recognize it. If that were so then single people could marry themselves and get a marriage license.

        • UCFan79

          Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

          The law cited recognizes marriage as fundamental to corporate existence and survival. It is talking about potential procreativity in male/female relationships. Otherwise, there is something substantive about a same sex marriage that is “fundamental of our very existence and survival.”

          There is nothing that can be cited about same sex marriage that affects corporate existence and survival. Therefore, applying this ruling to same sex marriage is inappropriate.

    • Joe, in that scenario I would have a religious ceremony at a church that would perform it, and I would get on with life without worrying about state approval. If someone didn’t want to let us stay at their bed and breakfast, I’d find another one where I would feel welcome. I would not want to try to use the law against a printer or baker that didn’t want to provide services for my wedding.

      I don’t need government approval. Why do you?

      • Brian Westley

        How about the ability to make life & death decisions if your spouse is hospitalized, and lower taxes? There are literally hundreds of more advantages conferred by legal marriage.

        Let’s say your spouse isn’t a citizen, and since your marriage isn’t recognized, she’s about to be deported. A legal marriage to you would stop the deportation. Would that be a good reason?

        • FormerLiberalnowConservative

          Making life decisions about another can be made with hospital visitation laws not by redefining marriage. Homosexuals do not deserve the lower taxes since these were given as benefits to married people to procreate which as same sex couple cannot.
          This is totally unfair to single people. They do not get the lower taxes because they do not get the procreation benefits. Since homosexuals also do not procreate then a same sex couple should be seen as two singles living together.

        • Hi, Brian. You know where there could be agreement? Evangelicals would, almost certainly, support legislation whereby contractual agreements could be made between consenting adults for hospitalization, etc. Many of these issues could be dealt with easily. The only requirement would be that both parties consent.

          We wouldn’t support it if it is about sex, though. It would apply equally to siblings living together, etc.

          I have a question for you, though. Why do you think that in Britain, where civil partnerships grant all the legal rights that marriage does, there is still a militant and divisive push for SSM? Could it be that it isn’t about rights at all, but about affirmation? If so, we can just drop the “rights” discussion, can’t we?

    • FormerLiberalnowConservative

      We are not using the powers of the state to deny homosexuals the right to marry. They are free to enter one man and one woman marriage equally like the rest of us. It is you trying to impose your view of marriage on the rest of society. You do not have the right to redefine it.
      Marriage licenses by the state are priviledges and not rights so no rights are denied.

  • kat

    I don’t think you all read the same article that I did. For those who believe the Bible is the word of God, this article is spot on. The author’s conclusions are logical. No where does it say that Bible believers are perfect and free of sin. We all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God…but we do try to live by the tenements of the Bible. Numerous studies have proven that the best way for children to be raised is in a home with a mother and father of the opposite sex who have committed to a lifelong marriage based on biblical principles. Personally, I find that the sin easiest to resist is sexual immorality.

    • Ash

      kat, please point out the studies that claim “that the best way for children to be raised is in a home with a mother and father of the opposite sex who have committed to a lifelong marriage based on biblical principles. “. Such a study would have to compare Hindu and atheist and Muslim and Buddhist marriages to “biblical” ones. I doubt any such study exists.

      • FormerLiberalnowConservative

        Plain common sense and using your brain would tell you that children are better off with a mother and a father than denying either of them a mother or father on purpose.

  • victoria

    I guess my big question is, what changes if marriage is redefined to allow two unrelated partners of any gender? And who benefits from SSM not being legally recognized at the federal level?

    I happen to be close to two lesbian couples who are raising children. In both families (coincidentally) one partner is the biological mother of twin girls. I believe that both of the non-biological parents are adoptive parents (but I’m not sure about this). One family is Christian, the other is not. Both families have two working mothers, but in each case there is a fairly substantial disparity of earnings between the partners. My state does not legally recognize SSM, civil unions, or domestic partnerships.

    What would change for these families if SSM were legalized?

    In the status quo, both couples live together. The parents make joint decisions for the kids. Each couple owns a house. Clearly SSM not being legal in our state has not dissuaded them from living as de facto married couples. You say you’re not looking to disrupt homosexual homes, which implies that you’re not in favor of criminalizing homosexual activity/relationships. The lack of legal recognition for SSM hasn’t made the atheists more Christian, the Christians more atheist, or the lesbians more heterosexual.

    If SSM were legalized I believe both couples would get married. Their day-to-day lives would change…not a whit. But what would change would be protections for the kids if things went pear-shaped. If one mother died the other could claim Social Security spousal benefits. If one mother left the other would certainly have an easier time obtaining a judgment for child support, and a primary custodial parent would have a much more time legally disrupting the children’s right to maintain a relationship with the only other parent they’ve ever known. The spouses would have a legally recognized right to take FMLA to care for the other partner if someone got sick and needed care.

    That’s where I’m coming from as a heterosexual supporter of SSM. I see no downsides to allowing it and lots of upsides.

  • Dorfl

    While I read this, I felt a sort of grudging respect for the author. While I disagree with him, the text is well written and at least internally consistent. Up to this point:

    “Coercion and repression are the signs of fascism. No one, in any sphere, is either coercing or repressing homosexual men and women. Rather, homosexual activists seek to shut-down those who believe their behavior is immoral. Raise a moral concern about homosexuality and immediately accusations of bigotry and hatred are showered upon you.”

    Here he says two false things. One I believe is an honest mistake. The other is a knowing lie:

    Coercion and repression are indeed signs of fascism. Accusations of bigotry and hatred, even a shower of accusations, are not coercion and not repression. I understand that it’s not very pleasant to be on the receiving end of, but free speech does not mean ‘I get to say want I want, unopposed’. It means ‘I get to say what I want, and everybody else is free to criticize both the things I say and me personally, using whichever tone they decide is appropriate’. Nor does it mean ‘You have to lend me a megaphone and a soapbox to stand on’, but ‘You don’t get to take away the soapbox and megaphone that I’ve got’. For some reason though, we tend to forget that freedom of speech is something everybody else has as well.

    The claim that no one is coercing or repressing gays is a lie. It’s false, and the author has enough knowledge to know that it’s false. He also knows that any reasonably well-informed reader will know that it’s false. What rhetorical point he hoped to score by telling a lie he knows the readers will know to be a lie, I really don’t know.

    • Rob Schwarzwalder

      Thank you for your comments. I honestly don’t know anyone from the faith community who wants to, or actively seeks to, repress or coerce homosexuals regarding anything. Perhaps there are some who do, but if so they are so far out on the fringe that I’m unaware of them. Also, I’m all for free speech, but not to the point that either of ours drowns-out the other person’s. If objections are raised to same-sex marriage, the morality of homosexuality, etc., invariably the rhetoric from some gay activists (not all, but some) becomes hateful, accusatory, and/or vile. Use your megaphone at will – let’s just allow each other to be heard.

      • matt

        You don’t know anyone from the “faith community” who wants to repress homosexuals? Really?

        CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
        PETER SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly-
        MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
        SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
        MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
        SPRIGG: Yes.”

        Do you know Peter Sprigg? I’m guessing, since he works for FRC, that you do. You are a liar.

        • Timothy Dalrymple

          Since he obviously knows Peter Sprigg, I would just ask for his response. The last line in your comment is not helpful.

          • Basil


            I find the chain of comments on this post to be really fascinating. It seems clear that a lot of fairly conservative people are coming around to accepting equality of LGBT persons, at least in the realm of civil law, and that is a hopeful thing.

            I noticed you pulled down your blog post on the Prudential market survey. It was fundamentally an issue of statistics — a survey vs a full census.

            My question today is this: why post a guest column from the FRC? It’s like asking the KKK to write a guest column for a blogpost on race relations.

            I think there are plethora of voices of people/groups who object to homosexuality on religious grounds. FRC goes way past that. They are among a small number of groups that campaign actively to stigmatize and vilify LGBT persons in the public square, and they lobby actively to maintain and extend laws and regulations that discriminate against the LGBT community. Heck, they even fight against safe school anti-bullying campaigns. Their rhetoric isn’t about “our religious beliefs are so delicate, we think homosexuality is immoral and we don’t to be persecuted” — it’s more along the lines of “those queers are immoral perverts who will rape your children, because gay men are a bunch of pedophiles”. This is a matter of the public record — there is a good reason that they got listed as a hate group by the SPLC. Go read the SPLC’s analysis — go crosscheck with FRC public statement and interviews — it holds up. The FRC earned the label as a hate group (and the list is not that extensive).

            So why on earth would you give the FRC, of all groups, a guest column? There surely must be less extreme choices.

          • Timothy Dalrymple

            Hey Basil, I didn’t pull down any posts. The Prudential survey post should still be available.

            I obviously don’t regard the FRC as on a par with the KKK. I’ve read the SPC analysis and I feel like we’ve been over this many times. I’ve heard the arguments against the FRC, and given them opportunities to respond, and I’ve found their responses largely fair, even though I still find them objectionable on certain points. They have apologized for some of the more extreme comments, explained some of their reasoning for supporting or not supporting certain kinds of legislation. I understand you don’t find their responses persuasive in the least, but I consider them legitimate voices in the conversation, even if they don’t always say what I’d like them to say.

            Thanks for continuing to read, though. I genuinely appreciate that.

          • Basil


            Maybe you mean well, but I think you give FRC the benefit of a doubt because they just say “We’re Christian”. When have they ever apologized? I don’t ever recall them saying “we are sorry for comparing gay men to child molesters” or “we are sorry for saying that homosexuality is a choice” or “we are sorry for opposing the right of gay kids to go to school without being bullied “(how would feel if it was your child being bullied for being gay, or for any other reason?) In fact Tim, if you go to their website right this very second, you will see all that garbage still up there (in convenient pamphlet form, for easy printing by any homophobe or petty bigot). Apologies indeed!

            Maybe it’s because you are not gay, and therefore you just don’t get how viscerally offensive (and often threatening) FRC’s rhetoric is, especially when it get’s parroted by politicians (like ex-Senator Rick “man-on-dog sex” Santorum — you can look up that reference yourself). Hitler used similar rhetoric, before he sent thousands of gays to the concentration camps in the second World War. We should all know enough of history to not let that happen again. That includes not making excuses for neo-fascist propagandists (even if they say “we’re Christians”).

            I don’t want to hector you, but really, you should be better than that.

          • matt

            You’re right. I shouldn’t come to your site and be overly aggressive. Reading that last line does sound aggressive.

            Yet, as you point out, Mr. Schwarzwalder does know Peter Sprigg. I’m guessing that he also knows that FRC filed an amicus brief in Lawerence v Texas. I’m guessing that he knows that the FRC produces pamphlets that you can download on its website that argue against things like anti-bullying campaigns. Many of his own writings about homosexuality sound like yours – he tries to find some balance between his own (mistaken) reading of scripture and grace towards those he considers in the wrong. But I cannot conclude that he is telling the truth here. FRC is aggressively anti-gay – not only in theology, but also legislatively.

      • Dorfl

        “I honestly don’t know anyone from the faith community who wants to, or actively seeks to, repress or coerce homosexuals regarding anything.”

        I can certainly believe that you personally aren’t closely acquainted with anyone in the faith community who actively tries the repress or coerce gays. That’s a much milder claim than your original “No one, in any sphere, is either coercing or repressing homosexual men and women”, though. I stand by my statement that you can’t honestly claim to be unaware of coercion or repression of gays occurring within any sphere.

        “Also, I’m all for free speech, but not to the point that either of ours drowns-out the other person’s. If objections are raised to same-sex marriage, the morality of homosexuality, etc., invariably the rhetoric from some gay activists (not all, but some) becomes hateful, accusatory, and/or vile. Use your megaphone at will – let’s just allow each other to be heard.”

        I can only repeat what I’ve already said: Gay activists using rhetoric that is accusatory and hateful, possibly even vile, does not drown you out or otherwise stop you from being heard. I’m sure it’s not very pleasant for you, but in the end it’s just a breach of good manners. It’s not a violation of your freedom of speech, and it definitely isn’t fascism.

  • s4johns

    Yes I want to stand up and cheer!! So well said. I applaud your honesty and bravery.

  • Kubrick’s Rube

    The anti-homosexual right insists that no one endorse same-sex relationships as morally and legally valid. We will. They want to hijack the definition of marriage. We refuse. The want LGBT people to be treated universally as second class citizens. We cannot. They want full and affirming privelege within every social institution, whether it be the military or the Boy scouts or, for that matter, churches of all kinds- even those that affirm same-sex marriage. We cannot support it.

    This is not hate. It’s moral conviction. It will not change.

    Here we stand. We can do no other. God help us. Amen.

    • Excuse me, but how can THEY be “hijacking” something that’s been around for centuries when YOU are the ones trying to redefine it?

      • Kubrick’s Rube

        They are hijacking the definition of marirage by ignoring its civil history and evolution over centuries of American law. They are hijacking it by intentinally conflating civil and religious marriage. They are hijacking it by claiming to defend religious liberty while fighting to deny churches and synogogues with a different viewpoint the right to perform legal marriage ceremonies. The are hijacking, disrespecting and diminishing marriage by constraining its definition to a specific and nonuniversal version of its letter rather than the spirit in which it is actually practiced and applied by most people in America.

        • Centuries? Really? So people were already starting to think this way in the early 20th or 19th centuries?

          • jdens

            I don’t think that’s what Kubrick’s Rube said or implied. The truth is that this notion that the concept of marriage has been a fixed model from the beginning of time is false. See polygamy, property rights, divorce, arranged marriage, etc for a start.

          • Kubrick’s Rube

            No, the point is that the legal definition and cultural understanding of marriage have been in flux for nearly as long as we’ve been a nation.

          • Kubrick’s Rube

            (That “No” was to yankeegospelgirl, not jdens. jdens made my point better than I did.)

    • FormerLiberalnowConservative

      Yes we insist on not recognizing same sex relationships as morally equal or valid because they are not. Man/woman procreate while same sex does not. This is why marriage comes with procreation benefits from the state not avialable to single people.
      The second class claim is a farce and a lie. When society affirmed marriage and gave it benefits it created a class between single and married people. Notice how the sodomites despise the so called second class status but support it for single people.
      They are trying to hijack marriage and trying to redefine it for its own selfish purpose instead of what is best for society as a whole. Just because you practice a minority form of sexual conduct it does not give you the right to hijack marriage and redefine what a marriage is.
      The thing about the Boy Scouts and other social institutions is they are PRIVATE PROPERTY. The homosexuals claim that they do not have to respect another private organizations private property. We refuse to cave in and will fight for this. When you claim a right to go into a private group like the Boy Scouts and infiltrate their organization then you have trampled on our civil rights to make our own moral decisions and the code of conduct on our own PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!!!

  • This entire article can and should be reduced to this one paragraph:

    “The homosexual left insists that everyone endorse same-sex relationships as morally and legally valid. We will not. They want to redefine marriage. We refuse. The want homosexuality to be affirmed universally as morally good or at least morally neutral. We cannot. They want full and affirming integration into every social institution, whether it be the military or the Boy scouts or, for that matter, churches of all kinds. We cannot support it.”

    This is the problem. Period, full stop.

    If FRC and related organizations were not trying to codify their personal religious beliefs into civil law and fair-minded policy—laws and policies that do discriminate against LGBT people, regardless of who is willing to admit it—then very few LGBT people/LGBT allies would have a problem with their work. The overstepping is the issue.

    And then, when they try to pass this off as mere “moral conviction”? It’s beyond offensive.

    • Clark Can

      What many if not most heterosexual people object to is the blatantly dishonest and fraudulent re-definition of marriage as “naturally including” gay marriage. It is you and your ilk that must alter law to suit your gay agenda. You do more than merely “project”. You fabricate a non-existent reality. We have not defined marriage, the God of the Bible and every civilized society before us have done so. Your type of Alynsky-esque tactic may be in vogue but it is no less militant and devoid of honesty or integrity than the Nazi propaganda after which, by admission (read The Last Waltz for the stunning and disgusting admission) it is modeled. Make sure you understand fully just who all you are condemning if not damning when you spew the lies of hate and “intolerance” toward those who see the dangers of this unprecedented social experiment. If your argument is to prevail it is to concede that every civilizaton which has not endorsed the concept of “gay marriage” has just been plain wrong. That is beyond self-consumed.

      • BlazerJason

        A woman being allowed to choose her husband was once an “unprecedented social experiment” and I think that turned out fine. Have you read what the Bible defines as marriage (spoils of war, forced union to rapist, polygamy, brothers marrying sisters-in-law after brother’s death). I say, no thanks to the Biblical model of marriage, it is down right immoral. Anyway, I’m heterosexual and happily married but I am sure you would condemn our marriage as well because our wedding was secular (not one mention of God or Jesus in the whole thing, amazing huh?) and we had no intention of reproducing. Oh and most heterosexuals don’t object to gay marriage anymore.

  • MD


    “I know of no conservatives who wish to disrupt homosexual homes.”

    You haven’t met any conservatives then. You’re trying to be placating while actually being incredibly offensive and demeaning.

  • I tried to reply to this before, but the site said my reply was spammy. I guess it was too long or something. I threw up the reply on my blog instead, if anyone is interested in reading the full version: http://www.fidesquaerens.org/blog/?p=1126 .

    Basically, I think it is possible to resist full rights for gay people without being homophobic – it all comes down to how and why you oppose it. But too often, the way conservative Christians go about fighting for their values is hate-filled. It is dismissive to those who believe differently. It also assumes that their values should occupy a place of privilege above other peoples’ sincerely-held values. Finally, it ignores the very real damage that acting on our principles causes for gay people across the country, as well as those close to them. When we value our principles above actual humans, that becomes a kind of hate.

    I also disagreed with the writer –strongly– that you couldn’t read the Bible and interpret it in a way that didn’t condemn homosexuality. I take my Bible very seriously, and I disagree with that interpretation. My exegesis is not comical. And, to be clear, my struggling with what the Bible taught about homosexuality came first. I always felt the way the Christians I was surrounded with acted on their belief was uncaring, and that troubled me. But I didn’t reread my Bible a certain way because I held a certain political position; rather, understanding the Bible better allowed me to adopt what I think was a better political approach. Namely: the problem is sexual sin, not sexual orientation.

    • Bobby


      I agree. There are cogent arguments to be made against the adoption of same-sex marriage. But these arguments are often nuanced and complex. Unfortunately, too many evangelicals have little tolerance for nuance and complexity, and tend to gravitate toward rationales that offer clean black-and-white divisions, even if that comes at the expense of truth. I don’t think that evangelicals are intending to be dishonest. But there does seem to be an abiding conviction among many evangelicals that truth is simple and that clear distinctions are more likely to be right than hazy ones. Unfortunately, the opposite is typically the case.

      • Nate Sauve

        Bobby, what strikes me as amusing is your nice tight black and white categories for “those evangelicals.” Maybe it is easier for you to lump them together as a black and white monolith, rather than assume the dynamics are nuanced and complex.

        • Bobby


          First, you misquoted me. Nowhere did I employ the phrase “those evangelicals.”

          Second, it is clear from the context of what I said that I’m referring to a subset of evangelicals. Further, the comments I’ve made are no different than the observations of a litany of others who study the American evangelical movement.

  • Garett Burns

    Rob, i am all behind you on this, Gods word is the truth and i stand by that as i am a christian. I am against SSM and homosexuality it is a thorn in Gods side ,and it is sin against him, and it makes me sick! The Bible say 1 man + 1 woman =marriage! What God says in his word, if your living as a christian then you need to do what it says. I don’t hate the sinner, i just hate the sin the sinner encounters with which means to some who don’t under stands (means all those who don’t honor GOD!

    • Sven

      So you’re a Christian and your religion says that same-sex marriage is wrong.
      Tell me, what gives your religion the unique privilege of deciding what marriage means for ALL Americans? Why can’t they exercise their religion as freely as you can exercise yours? If you don’t like same-sex marriage, then don’t marry a member of the same sex.

      • FormerLiberalnowConservative

        You are free to practice your perverted form of marriage in your church. But civil marriage and what is best for society and for our children is made by we the people. The 2% of homosexuals do not have a civil right to impose their view on the rest of us.

        We as Americans make that decision not you or the courts.

        • Sven

          But same-sex marriage is not an imposition on you or anyone else, nor is same-sex marriage a detriment to society. You support a big-government ban of the practice for no good reason, just “I don’t like it”.

        • BlazerJason

          Actually, a majority of heterosexuals support gay marriage as well. Have you not been paying attention, states are now legalizing gay marriage through the vote and elected officials. It is now your turn to bend to the will of the majority. People that would deny a loving couple the joy of a lifetime commitment is what is considered perverted.

          • FormerLiberalnowConservative

            You have no facts to back up your worthless claim. 30 out of 33 states made marriage man/woman. Some of the other states it was imposed by corrupt courts wtihout the consent of the people. I live in one of those states where the democratic vote of the people was denied. This is why the sodomites love the courts.
            In some other states corrupt legislators were bribed into approving SSM again without the consent of the people. In NY we the people were denied our say. Our voting rights were blocked as we had no say.

          • BlazerJason

            Your argument is outdated. New York went through the legislative process (i.e. elected officials not the courts) to legalize same sex marriage. The three most recent votes on same sex marriage were all approved by popular vote. Minnesota rejected a measure to define marriage as only one man / one woman also by popular vote. The pattern will follow a similar path to the legalization of interracial marriage with the southern states (one of which is my home) falling in line last. All recent (emphasize: recent) polls have shown a majority support for gay marriage. It’s over, the voices of equality have won.

  • BlazerJason

    Funny how the Bible is rigid when it comes to homosexuality, but seems up for re-interpretation when it comes to slavery, polygamy, and dietary laws. A rape victim must be forced to marry her attacker and unruly children be put to death. These seem to have been re-interpreted (fortunately) and are conveniently explained away by various tortured means. But that is fine, the Bible after all is literature, and like all writing is subjected to a wide range of analyses. I had an English lit teacher in college who was convinced Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet were a gay couple. I don’t know if I buy it, but I respect her analysis because she was brilliant and knowledgeable. But you know what I would not accept, if she claimed ghosts were real because they exist in Hamlet. You can have all of the selective interpretations you wish, it’s literature after all and I certainly am in no position to question you. Your analyses are just as valid as anyone else who has extensive study of the Bible, but of course, when you use these analyses outside the confines of the Bible as literature, the secular world may rightfully reject you.

  • Bobby

    It strikes me that this piece is somewhat disingenuous because it fails to address the reasons why FRC has been identified as a hate group.

    First, no one is seeking to deny Christians the ability to practice and enforce their beliefs within the confines of their faith communities. The issue comes when Christians seek to use their majority status in a particular region to enforce their religious practices on society as a whole. Laws that discriminate against gay people are simply too difficult to justify without reference to exclusively religious principles. So, if 55% of the population of a state is Christian, why should the 45% minority be forced to accept laws that have little justification without reference to Christian moral teaching? This is the relevant question that’s at stake in the SSM debate, and folks at FRC seem to want to avoid answering it.

    Second, few groups that oppose same-sex marriage are classified as hate groups. FRC fails to address the reasons why SPLC has identified them as a hate group, and has not made the same assessment regarding the Heritage Foundation. It’s my understanding that FRC has a history of suggesting that there is a link between pedophilia and male homosexuality. It is well established that there is no link whatsoever between pedophilia and male homosexuality. To the extent that FRC continues to spread such false and harmful lies about gay men, it indeed raises serious questions about the organization’s integrity, and, in my view, puts FRC more fittingly in a class with white supremacists than in a class with groups like the Heritage Foundation and other mainstream groups that oppose same-sex marriage.

    • vasya

      Actually, there are studies showing a correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality:
      Scientifically speaking it does not prove that one causes the other or vise versa, and it’s invalid to use these studies to reason that gay men pose a threat to children, but it is valid to use these studies to reason that homosexuality is not a good thing compared to heterosexuality, therefore marriage should be defined as one man/one woman and how it would benefit the society. People who use these studies for the purposese mentioned above, are not being like white supremacists or Nazis, but are being of reasonable intellect.

      • Dorfl

        Are you sure you’ve linked to the correct address? Because the page you have linked to says the complete opposite of what you imply it says. It’s rather long, and Patheos thinks that quoting the whole conclusion is too ‘spammy’, so I’ll quote the most important part:

        “The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.”

        Before that, it actually does cite article by the FRC, and explains in detail why it’s conclusions don’t hold water. Most of the time, it turns out that the studies cited by the FRC don’t actually say what the FRC implies they say. Either.

        • vasya

          FRC have never made claims that gay men are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, it is a spin being done by SPLC. I’ve read FRC’ literature, and FRC even made a disclaimer that they don’t hold such views. What FRC did is they correctly intereprted studies listed in the article mentioned above, showing a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, which do NOT prove at all that one causes the other and vise versa, and they came to their own conclusion that homosexual relationships are unhealthy things and children should not be exposed to them. I find such conclusions to be well-reasoned, but apparently, for people who have no clue what correlation or correlational studies imply, are more likely to do spinning.

          • Kubrick’s Rube

            This is not true. There is an article on the FRC website called “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse.” Despite the actual conclusions of the studies cited, FRC.org states, “The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.”

          • Kubrick’s Rube

            (continued) They come to this conclusion by ignoring the accepted medical and psychological definitions of “homosexuality” and “pedophilia” and redefining the terms to fit their own prejudices. All done to paint with suspicion and deny rights to all gay men because of the horrific crimes of (under either set of definitions) a small subset. It doesn’t take an FRC-style redefinition of terms to recognize that as bigotry.

          • Bobby

            So, it appears that Vasya is actually wrong on both counts.

            1. Based on the above quote, it appears that FRC does publish literature that falsely alleges that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles than the general population. This is a flat-out lie. To the extent that FRC continues to traffic in this kind of nonsense, I think it is fair to consider the organization to be little different from the KKK.

            2. The study that allegedly supports this lie actually does the opposite: It shows that gay men are no more likely than the non-gay population to be pedophiles.

            I understand why people may be opposed to same-sex marriage, although I disagree with them. But I don’t understand why certain people and groups feel the need to spread vicious and damaging lies about homosexuals.

          • Dorfl

            Vasya, have you actually read the article you linked to? The various studies the FRC cites either have serious methodological flaws, fail to find a correlation, or turn out not to address the subject at all.

        • Clark Can

          Alot of invention in that response. I was best man in a secular marriage. It was between a man and a woman. You missed virtually every point I made.

          • Dorfl

            Did you mean for this to be a reply to Blazer Jason’s post above? Because it seems like a complete non-sequitur in this chain of replies.

          • vasya

            To sum up: I read the FRC article about child sexual abuse, which was written more than 10 years ago, and the most recent one, entitled Myths about Homosexuality, the most recent one where FRC have clarified their position. To me, they don’t appear anything at all what SPLC and other liberal organizations claim they have said. To say that someone does something at higher rate/frequency than the other, does not imply that any person from the identified group with a higher frequency is very likely to participate in such a behavior.

            As for whether FRC is trying to strip gays of rights: it was explained numerous times by others that they are not trying to deprive them of the rights they already have, guaranteed by the US Constitution. What FRC is trying to do, is to prevent radical liberal activists, including but not limited to gays ones, from forcing the society to agree with their ideology.

          • Bobby


            Are you serious? First, there is no evidence of a statistically significant higher rate of pedophilia among gay men than among non-gay men. The article you cited makes exactly that point. Therefore, it’s a bit disingenuous to say that there’s a higher rate of pedophilia among gay men, and then to suggest that you didn’t mean any harm by it because you only meant to say that this alleged higher rate was statistically insignificant. If it’s statistically insignificant, then it’s improper even to make the suggestion that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. I find it a bit incredible that you don’t recognize the slanderous nature of these kinds of allegations. Maybe evangelicals used to be even more vicious in the slander of gay people than today. But how is that commendable, if one is still engaging in intentional slander of others?

          • Dorfl


            Claiming that a group of people is more likely to be child molesters, without any data to support that claim, is slander. That the claim does not imply that the average member of that group is likely to be a child molester, does not help. If you have difficulty seeing that, imagine that the FRC had made up out of thin air that redheads are more likely to be cannibals, or that lefthanders are more likely to commit zoophilia.

            Now, the FRC does not simply lack data, they cite studies that turn out to say the opposite of what the FRC claims they say. That pushes them across the line from what was already slander to deliberate lies.

        • vasya

          There was a study on child molesters of both orientations, and the ones with homosexual have shown to molest children at higher rate/frequency. It doesn’t mean at all, that ALL people who have homosexual orientation are more likely to be child molesters. If we follow SPLC’s logic, we can also come to conclusion that straight men are likely to molest little girls.

          • Tony

            Care to give us a link to this study? Or quote a reference/source, please? I’m really interested to see it.

          • Dorfl

            “It doesn’t mean at all, that ALL people who have homosexual orientation are more likely to be child molesters.”

            No matter how true this is, it’s still a red herring. Claiming that members of a group are more likely to commit murder/molest children/pick their noses in public is still slander against that group unless you can show data that supports the claim. The only source that you’ve actually linked to, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html , is the one that says gays are no more likely to molest children than straights.

          • Dorfl

            That is, if you say that gays molest children at a higher rate, then you are also saying that the average gay is also more likely to be a child molester, even if you then add that the likelihood is still very low and that any particular gay person may have other factors lowering their likelihood of being a child molester.

            If your claim is demonstrably true, then it is. But if it isn’t, then it’s slander. So far, neither you nor the FCC seem to have provided any data showing that it is true.

        • vasya


          While it’s obvious, that SPLC and people like you, are twisting the facts around to suit your agenda, you also do not want people to use and interpret research that might portray homosexual behavior in a negative light, and whoever does so, will be unnecessarily accused of slander, even if such portrayal is based on facts. You know what, your and SPLC’s behavior reminds of the Communists’ in Russia, from where my family came from. You all want to stigmatize Christians who don’t agree with you, and that’s why I’m appalled by liberalism.

          • Dorfl

            The only fact you have supplied to this discussion, is a text which said the direct opposite of what you claimed it said. Other than that, you’ve simply referred to ‘literature’ and ‘studies’ that allegedly support your point of view, without bothering to give any references. So even if I’d been so inclined, there haven’t been any facts here for me to twist around.

            Also, I’m definitely not a liberal. The political spectrum has more shades than ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’.

  • We will all be accountable at the end of our lives. In Romans 1: 32 it says,” Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

  • This… is perfect.

    Truly. It is perfect. I can add nothing.

    Mr. Schwarzwalder, I will go to bed tonight with fresh hope in my heart, because you have proven that there are still men like you out there. God bless you.

  • Tony

    I notice that in all the nonsense talked here about what the bible “says” about homosexuality, none of the Christians anywhere on this site has the courage to expound on what the bible *actually* says i.e. that homosexuals should be put to death (Lev 20:13). Lets’s see some Christians actually stand up for this particular piece of Bronze Age barbarism.

    • Grandmother

      The penalty for ALL sin is death. The free gift of God is eternal life through the death and shed blood of His only son, Jesus Christ, as the substitute for our sin. Jesus willingly took the barbarism we all deserve because of the vast love of God for all of His creation. If you refuse to believe this then there is nothing left to say.

      • Tony

        Yes, I’ve heard that excuse before, but that’s not what Leviticus means – it quite clearly and unambiguously says that homosexuals should be put to death specifically for the “crime” of being homosexuals, in the same way for example that some women, according to the bible, should be put to death for the “crime” of not being virgins on their wedding night. This is entirely separate from Original Sin or whatever other sin you mean.

        • Two aspects to that teaching. The first is on the moral character of homosexual behaviour. God called it an abomination. Fully applicable today.

          The second aspect is on what that means in a theocracy — the death penalty.

          No Christian theocracies in the world today. Jesus made it very clear His followers weren’t to try to establish one. (Some under His name have tried to do so, but He said to “render to Caesar” and that His kingdom was “not of this world.”)

          So, Christians shouldn’t be trying to establish a theocracy, and few evangelicals would be looking to do that. But we should advocate government that at least discourages, if not actively restricts, evil, rather than endorsing / affirming it.

          You may not agree with any of that, but that is the reason a Bible-believing Christian will affirm the moral teaching and want it to be reflected in law, while not seeking to apply the specific theocratic law. It’s not inconsistent.

          In Israel, the whole nation was God’s covenant people, so they were expected to obey His moral law with legal force behind it. In the New Testament, God’s covenant people are to be put out of the church if they disobey His moral law.

          • Tony

            That sounds to me like a classic case of having your cake and eating it. You want your theological beliefs to be reflected in law, but you don’t want a theocracy. That’s some serious hair-splitting right there. You want a government that actively restricts evil, by which you mean your personal definition of evil, but you don’t want a theocracy? Whats the difference? There’s also a high degree of scriptural cherry-picking going on there – you appear to want homosexuality condemned as an abomination, but you seem to lack the moral courage to stand up for what your god, via scripture, unambiguously says should be the punishment for that specific “abomination”. Lastly, if Jesus made it so clear to his followers that they were to render unto Caesar, etc, why can’t Christians just keep their religion to themselves and stop insisting that the state follow their theological precepts?

          • Tony, sorry for the delay in answering. Don’t know if you’ll read this. Some thoughts, anyway:

            1. You want your moral beliefs to be reflected in law, too. Everyone does. Nobody wants murder, or rape, or armed robbery, or embezzlement, or perjury, to be legal. My moral beliefs are guided by Scripture, maybe yours aren’t, but everyone believes law should reflect morality.

            2. If you are asking what I personally would like to see, I believe one day Christ will return and there will be a theocracy. I look forward to that very much. There will be peace on earth.

            3. Christ said He wasn’t setting up a theocracy at this time. This is not a question of what I want or cherry-picking, I’m just going by what the Scriptures actually say.

            4. Lack courage? Ok, if you say so. But I’m putting my full name on comments that a lot of people hate. Some people even engage in violence against people who say what I say. But to be clear, I fully endorse the death penalty for homosexual behaviour in a God-ordained theocracy, as it was in Israel and as it will be in the future. That’s not the way God is dealing with people right now, though, and it would be rebellious of me to go against His instructions and try to set up a theocracy now. As I said above, that doesn’t mean I don’t want to see moral standards upheld by law.

            5. Render to Caesar? How am I disobeying Caesar if I engage in political advocacy? I thought the government encouraged political involvement of citizens.

          • Tony

            Quite all right, we’re all busy these days!
            1. I don’t claim to know what god wants or thinks or expects of us. You do. That’s the difference. If you tell me that you want us to have laws that say that a person can’t do X because god says so, I have every right to ask you, nay to ask you to *prove*, that that is in fact what god wants. If you can’t do that (and I have every reason to think that you can’t) then I have every right to ask you to keep your theological views out of the public arena. This applies also to your point 5.
            2. Fine, but no-one is under any obligation to share that belief or to enact laws based on the theological underpinnings of that belief.
            3. Scriptures say a lot of stuff (talking donkeys, talking snakes, etc). It don’t make it so.
            4. Two points – firstly, bully for you for standing up for what Scripture actually says, but I think it’s barbaric. Secondly, once again you’re claiming to know the mind of god. Prove it.

          • Hi, Tony. Thanks for the response.

            1. I want laws that reflect my moral beliefs. You want laws that reflect yours. You cannot “prove” any basis for me to follow your moral beliefs, so I can ask you to keep them out of the public arena, I guess. What have we accomplished now? 🙂

            3. And your point is? I answered an accusation of hypocrisy / cherry-picking by showing that I’m consistent with Scripture. Whether you believe the Bible or not is irrelevant to that point.

            4. A) It is barbaric to endorse something unnatural and encourage people to choose a lifestyle (I didn’t say choose desires, I said a lifestyle) that is self-destructive, and a philosophy that defines a person’s entire being by sexual desires. So we’re even, we both see barbarism in aspects of the other’s view.
            B) Proof. Obama finally released his birth certificate, right? But he didn’t for a long time, because he didn’t want to concede that people he viewed as wackos had the right to insist. Similarly, God will not submit Himself to the concept that people have the right to demand proof — He would be less than God if He did. Evidence? Yes, He’ll provide evidence, and I could give you some. But God will never submit to demands for proof. No true God who is really Supreme ever would — it would diminish Him.

            The burden of proof is on your side. For millenia, marriage has been a male-female thing. So if you want to change it, maybe you’d better prove there isn’t a God, and prove that we should accept your definition and basis of morality. We’re not operating in a vacuum here.

          • Tony

            1. I really think you’re being dishonest here, or at best disingenuous, although I could be mistaken and I will gladly withdraw the accusation if it is untrue. Let’s be clear about this – you want laws based specifically on your theological beliefs i.e. that your god condemns homosexuality as an abomination and commands us (allegedly) to put to death those who practice it. I’m not claiming that I know what god wants us to do, nor would I. My own moral precepts are based very simply on the golden rule , which by the way (to anticipate a rebuttal) existed way before Christianity.
            3. So do you also believe, and would you have it enshrined in law, that women who are not virgins on their wedding night should be put to death, that disobedient children should be put to death, that people who work on the sabbath should be put to death, that witches not only exist but should be put to death, etc, etc?
            4A) Sorry Jon but it’s just absurd to say that homosexuality is “unnatural”. Homosexuality occurs in many, many species, not just humankind. Where’s your evidence that such a lifestyle is “self-destructive”? Also, I must disagree – what is barbaric is to want to put to death a person for doing something in the privacy of their own home and which *harms absolutely no-one* and ultimately really is no-one elses business.
            4B) Sorry but there you go again, telling me you *know* what god wants and thinks and what he will/won’t/can/can’t do. I’m not the one making this claim, you are, therefore the burden of proof is on your side.
            Finally, it makes no difference marriage has been a male-female thing for millenia. Things change. Peoeple move on. Society moves on. Get over it.

          • 1. A) Tony, it’s not disingenuous. Your view that homosexual relationships should have the same societal recognition as marriage is based on your unproven view of morality. You cannot “prove” your view is right anymore than I can “prove” mine. It simply isn’t provable that the Golden Rule is the standard by which laws should be formed.
            B) I do NOT want laws based on the death penalty for homosexuality in the Old Testament, or there would be other laws I would want, as you rightly note. Yes, my views are theological, but not theocratic. I DO want laws based on morality (we all do), and my view of morality is most certainly informed by the Bible.

            3. Your questions come down to do I want to establish a theocracy. No.

            4. A) “Unnatural.” I’ll stand by that. Even many who fully support gay rights know this is unnatural. “Self-destructive” — suicides, mental illness, spread of disease, loneliness associated with childlessness, etc, etc, all present through society, all much worse among homosexuals. “Privacy of home” — why this discussion? People march in “Pride” parades,and demand government, private businesses, and everyone else affirm their sexual behaviour — and then trot out the “privacy of their own home” and “really no one else’s business” line? That’s absurd.

            4. B) It only makes sense. Only a God who is not Supreme would yield to demands for proof. It proves nothing, but it shows theism is internally consistent philosophically.

            Finally the burden of proof for those who want change is to prove the change is good. That means you have to A) discredit God and then B) discredit the wisdom of millenia.

          • Tony

            1A. How are you supposed to “prove” something like the golden rule? You’re setting up a straw man here by asking me to do so, and by asserting that my adherence to the golden rule is somehow equivalent to adhering to a morality dictated by a holy book.
            1B. Sorry Jon but you’re contradicting yourself. I refer you to your answer above
            3. Your deliberate avoidance of this straight question strikes me as more than a little suspicious. Let me put it to you straight – do you also endorse the biblical demand for the death penalty for women who commit the crime of not being virgins on their wedding night, yes or no?
            4A. You haven’t answered my point about homosexual behaviour being exhibited by many, many other species other than humankind. If that’s not “natural”, what is? On a related note, are you going to ban all the other things that man does which aren’t “natural”? You know, like false teeth? Your computer? Yes of course I’m being totally facetious but religious people go on all the time about this or that not being “natural”. It doesn’t stop them accepting what is apparently “unnatural” when it suits them.
            I hardly think that participating in a gay pride is the same as copulating in the streets. Homosexuals have the same rights as any American to free assembly and freedom of expression, don’t they? Don’t they?
            The prevalence of mental illness and morbidity among homosexuals is documented and I won’t deny that it is so, but has it occurred to you that this might have something to do with homosexuals being told that they’re evil and sick? I mean, that would get *anybody*down. And while we’re on the subject, if religion were to be demonstrated to be bad for society, would you ban it too? Google the research on religion and societal health by Gregory Paul in 2005.
            4B. “Only a god who is not supreme would yield to demands for proof”. Really, Jon? Really? I’m sorry but this is just one half-baked excuse after another and is also flatly contradicted by your own bible, where Jesus allegedly yielded to a demand for proof from Thomas (John 20-24:29). So much for theism being internally consistent.

          • 1. A) Impasse. You can’t prove that the Golden Rule should be the standard. I can’t prove that the Bible should be the standard.
            B) No, I’m not contradicting myself. You said, “Let’s be clear about this – you want laws based specifically on your theological beliefs i.e. that your god condemns homosexuality as an abomination and commands us (allegedly) to put to death those who practice it. ” Only half true. The fact that He commanded Israel in a theocracy to put to death those who practice it has nothing to do with what I want. That He condemns it informs my view on morality. The penalty He assigned in a theocracy is irrelevant to what I should want for laws today. If you can’t understand that and want to keep dragging that death penalty into the discussion, then I’m forced to conclude you don’t even want to understand, you just want to have an argument to use against evangelicals.

            3. Deliberate avoidance? I said no. I am not trying to establish a theocracy. That’s no, as in no. That was a law for a theocracy. I’m not advocating one.

            4. A) There is much in nature that is not as God intended when He made a perfect world. Sin came in and made a mess, and the results are far-reaching.

            Yes, homosexuals have the right to have parades. They can’t then say it is all about what they do in privacy, if they are having a parade to show how proud they are. This debate is not about whether what they do in privacy should be illegal or not. I know some people would criminalise it, but that’s not what we’re discussing, is it? And “ban” — nice straw man. What are you talking about?

            4B. Good point. Jesus gave Thomas the exact same evidence He had given the others — they had seen Him, He had told them to touch Him. Thomas said, “I’ll believe when I see the same.” Jesus gave him the same, but then corrected him for not believing the testimony of others who he knew to be honest. Not exactly the same as what we’re talking about here, but I admit there are similarities. I withdraw the absolute nature of my statement. An absolutely sovereign God would be unlikely to frequently submit to demands for proof from one of His creations, but He might do it at times. No one has the right to expect such a Being, if He exists, to prove Himself at their beck and call. If he exists, He is the Master.

          • Tony

            Dear Jon,
            1A. Sorry but you brought up the whole issue of “proving” the golden rule in the first place, something which I never claimed I could or would do and in fact I specifically repudiated any attempt to do so. My point is that I can use the golden rule to inform my view on morality without any recourse to anything outside my own knowledge and experiences of other people. I can’t “prove” the golden rule, but what I can do is demonstrate that it makes perfect sense to treat other people the way I would like to be treated by them. As I said before, I am not claiming that my morality needs anything else other than common sense to work. Yours does i.e. the existence of a supreme being. The burden of proof is on you and always has been.
            B) Well in order that I don’t set any up more straw men, could you tell me what it is that you *do* want?
            3. My point here is about consistency and the tendency of Christians to cherry-pick from scripture what suits them. You had shown an admirable attitude in standing up for biblical commandments which are utterly barbaric. My question still stands – if you endorse the death penalty for homosexual behaviour, as it was in Israel and will be in the future, do you also endorse the putting to death of women who are not virgins on their wedding night as is stated in the bible? The latter command comes from exactly the same book that gives the command to put to death homosexuals, which you fully endorse. It’s not a straw man, it’s a simple, straightforward question.
            4. A) Your first two sentences are assertions made without evidence and as such I’m entitled to dismiss them without evidence. Sorry if that seems blunt and I really don’t mean to be rude Jon but you can’t just make statements like that and just expect me to take your or anyone else’s word for it.
            “Yes, homosexuals have the right to have parades” – well gee thanks Jon, I’m sure all the gays are over the moon to have your endorsement. Look, let’s cut to the chase here – what business is it of yours (and I do mean you personally, Jon) or anyone’s what gay people do? What does it have to do with you? It’s none of your business. I personally have a major problem with people filling their kid’s heads full of religious claptrap, but it’s absolutely none of my business how people raise ther kids and I keep my nose out of it! And I’m sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick and accused you of saying or wanting something that you didn’t say – but would you mind telling me what on earth *do* you want?
            4B. Fair enough, thank you for a gracious response but in regards to your last sentence, it’s a big “if” and the evidence is against it being true.

          • Homosexuals >make< "what they do" the business of others when trying to force businesses to provide services for celebrations of what they do. Driving a registrar out of her job for not wanting to be part of a public expression of what they do. Trying to force a B&B to provide a facility for "what they do."

            Homosexuals make it everyone's business. They want marriage tax breaks, etc, for what they do. Other taxpayers, and their children and grandchildren, will pay more to provide that tax break. The "none of your business" line doesn't work.

            Tony, I engaged to answer why Christians don't want the death penalty for homosexuality. Scripture tells us the behaviour is immoral, but tells us not to establish a theocracy. It's that simple. That's what we believe. I'm not saying you have to believe it or accept it, just explaining it. What you do with it is your responsibility. But if you continue to use the "death penalty hypocrisy" argument, it's a straw man, and any thinking Christian will know it and have no respect for your argument.

            We'll all answer to God someday for how we approach this topic. I don't think He wants me in an extended back and forth, so I'll drop it now. Thanks for the discussion. If I failed to be respectful on any point, please take my word that such was not my intent and accept my apology.

          • Tony

            Thanks for discussing this with me anyway. I’ll say no more about it, and if I came across as disrespectful in any way, I also apologise unreservedly.

  • rumitoid

    As others have already well articulated, the absurd defense that all Christians are of pure motive and no Christian is looking to in anyway harm or impugn homosexuals made the article practically worthless. Thousands of sects and Christians don’t pick and choose what to believe? Sorry, just plain pompous. Another attempt to the martyr.
    It is curious to note that the “first marriage” produced both The Fall and a murderous son: is this the tradition they are seeking to protect?

    • SingHispraise

      The first marriage did not produce the fall. Satan did. He deceived the woman by telling her a lie. The lie was that she was as smart as God. She believed the lie and convinced her husband it was true. Satan is still on the earth convincing people that they are as smart as God and do not need to follow His rules, but instead decide what they want for themselves and convince others to do the same.

      Even if there were no bible we can see with our own intelligence how the creator made us male and female to compliment each other. Heterosexual sex used as God advised, brings life. Homosexual sex brings disease and death. That is why God wants us to avoid it. He wants us to avoid all things that would harm us because He loves us.

      • rumitoid

        @singhighpraise, so are you saying either adam and eve were not married or that Satan sinned and not them as a couple. And what about the offspring of this couple? Even heterosexual sex can gring disease; a marriage certificate is not immunity from infection or death.

  • Daniel Lafave

    Mr. Swartzwelder, you’re free to believe what you like about the moral status of homosexuality, but many Americans either aren’t Christians or don’t agree with what your interpretation of what Christianity requires. You’re not called a bigot because of that. You’re called a bigot because you insist that your beliefs be enshrined in legal discrimination. The state wasn’t established in order to impose your theological beliefs on the rest of humanity. Recall that neither God, Jesus, or any creator exists anywhere in our Constitution. If you are afraid of a god you believe exists, feel free not have a same-sex relationship. That’s all that you should care about.

    It’s going to take Evangelicals some time to realize that they don’t control the culture anymore. Orthodox Jews realize that they are a cultural minority and work to enforce their religious beliefs in their own community, not through laws that forbid the consumption of pork among American populace generally. Evangelicals will need to accept that they are in the same circumstance and stop trying to legally impose their purely religious motivations on the remainder of society.

    • SingHispraise

      The State has an obligation to protect is citizens, especially it’s most vulnerable citizens, the children. The State has a right to shape it’s society to that which produces the best citizens. Statistics prove that children thrive and do their best with the support of their mother and father. Therefore, the State has a right to have it’s laws promote this, because it is in the best interest of the State, which is the people.

      • Tony

        Yes, and the state also has the right *not* to bow down or give special dispensation to any and all religious views. You don’t have the right, whatever your religion, to dictate to the state that it should enshrine laws which promote your view of what is “right” or what is “best” just because you say god told you.

        • UCFan79

          Actually, Tony, in the political arena “right” is only one of the issues. As you well know, one reality is “might makes right”. If the “right” that might makes is also in reality, “right”, then might has enshrined what is actually “right”.

          Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether ___ chooses to reveal ___self to you. If ___ chooses, you can’t resist. If ___ doesn’t, you remain depraved and in your sin.

    • Elizabeth

      @Daniel You make some interesting points. However, consider that US law has a history of being based on the Bible/ Judeo-Christian values. Since self-identified gays and lesbians don’t make up more than 3% of our population what has changed? The national drift away from the belief that the Bible has any moral authority, and a growing drift away from practicing our faith in a way that has a positive influence on our culture. Ultimately, all the problems in our country can be laid at the feet of those (including myself) who profess to follow Y’shua (Jesus) but have done a lackluster job of it. Jonathan Cahn said it much more eloquently in his book, “The Harbinger”. Many argue that nothing substantial will change if our law is changed. I submit to you that G-d will not hold His judgment off forever and we spit in His eye to codify sin into law (which, btw, we have been doing at least since the 1960’s) and those who name the name of Jesus have sat by (mostly) and done little to nothing. So here we are. Only G-d knows if it is too late for our country or not. I for one am grateful for an organization that has the fortitude to stand up for what is right (as long as they continue to do so in love).

  • Jankia

    The fortunate truth we Christians have in this entire debate is seldomn spoken due to what isnt debated about this matter.Why the proven fact that faith can indeed cure the malady whose evil is never contradicted in the Bible isnt spoken of more is simple.Its because he unknowns of science precede the knowns of faith.

  • FormerLiberalnowConservative

    Thank you Rob for the absolute brillant article and why the fight for this is just and why we must continue with the battle. It is about the children and what is best for them. I especially loved the posts about slavery and children.
    Another real point that is ignored by the opposition is the fairness issue to people who are single. The state confers benefits to married people not available to singles because of procreation. This is the justification for the state recognition and the benefits from the state. Recognizing SSM is a total injustice to single people. We are not entitled to the benefits because these are procreation benefits then same sex couples who do not procreate do not deserve the same benefits either as they also do not procreate.

    • Basil

      About a quarter of same sex couples have children (whether biological, or adoptive — the law does not distinguish kids that way), and the proportion of same sex couples who have kids is increasing over time. So for your argument to be remotely cogent, you would have to argue that married couples without kids should get no legal rights/recognition/benefits, and those with kids (whether gay or straight couples) should get the rights/recognition/benefits of marriage.

      So when will you be proposing that states start mandating divorce of childless straight couples? If it is all about procreation, that would be your logical next step.

      But if it is about just looking for ways to impose bigotry, and using civil law to punish gay people for being gay — then continue arguing what you are arguing. Just drop the sophistry of trying to pretend it is “all for the children”. It’s not. It’s just a fig leaf for your own bigotry. Be a man and be honest enough to own your bigotry.

      • UCFan79

        A child has a right to a mother and a father. Every child lacking that is automatically challenged.

        So, with heterosexual couples there is the potential of procreativity. With homosexual couples there never is that potential. That some homosexuals are caring for children is the result of a relationship between some male and some female being terminated. And with that termination, some child is being denied the right to have a mother and a father.

        • Basil

          First of all, a child with two same-sex parents is not “automatically challenged”. There is voluminous social science research looking at kids raised by same-sex couples, and those kids as well adjusted as kids raised by straight couples. So, it is just a lie to say that those kids are “automatically challenged”, and you are a liar for making that untrue allegation. Lying is a sin, and by repeating the lie over and over, you are compounding that sin, and demonstrating particular malice towards gay couples and their innocent children, all of which will ensure that you spend your afterlife in hell.

          There are two further flaws to your idiotic “potential of procreativity” argument. 1. Gay and straight couples (some of whom are my friends) who actually do procreate, via surrogate mothers, which is perfectly legal and non-controversial, and those children are biologically their own. 2. If only “potentially procreative” couples should be allowed to get married, then why don’t I see Christians work to ban marriage for women over the age of 50 (post-menopause) or otherwise infertile couples? Because that would be unacceptably insane. People don’t marry just to procreate (unless you are a British monarch seeking to produce an heir, which is the only known case where “procreative potential” is a requirement of marriage)

          All of this is just a complete and transparent charade on your part to cover your immature feeling of revulsion at the notion of gay sex, your prurient obsession with other people’s personal and intimate lives, and your malicious desire to use the law as a means to punish a population that differs from you in their presumed enjoyment of gay sex. Your immature argument is just beneath contempt.

          • UCFan79

            Your argument about surrogacy is simply caving in to the reality that I presented. There is no potential for procreativity with homosexual couples. It is basic biology. It takes a male and a female to produce their child. Men having sex with men and women having sex with women does not have that potential ever. So, saying “surrogacy” is no argument at all. It’s like you saying “I don’t have a PhD and my friend doesn’t have a PhD, but we know someone who does.” So What?!!

            Also, your argument that a homosexual couple can take children not their own and produce a livable environment is again a caving in to reality. An orphanage also provides a livable environment. That isn’t the issue. The issue is what is best for a child, and research shows that a child is best reared by his/her OWN parents, those whose potential procreativity bore fruit and gave rise to their own offspring. With that child, these parents bond, and there is a much more positive result for the child.

            Rather than calling other people immature and not dealing with the reality of potential procreativity and the conventions that societies have logically developed over the generations to accommodate that reality, you’d do better to simply be concerned for the children. They have a RIGHT to their OWN mother and father.

            I could give a rat’s behind about who you love. I don’t care who you love. It makes no difference who you love. The government has no interest in who you love.

            The government does have a legitimate interest in the procreative activity of males and females and the offspring they produce. They are the future generation, and therefore, governments have made concessions for that male/female relationship that produces that culture’s future generation.

            My point? You could have someone define all relationships as “marriage” simply to take over a word and make it appear as if you’re egalitarian, hip, progressive. The culture, however, will eventually realize that it has a vested interest in those who are potentially procreative. They will invent another word to describe that unique relationship that produces children, and they’ll find some way to make concessions so that that “unique relationship” can better rear the children produced who will be that culture’s future generation.

            Final word to you. Grow up and quit being illogical.

  • I have a three year old who is pretty advanced (I know every parent says that). Does the museum offer any activities for her age group?

  • Sandy

    “I know of no conservatives who wish to disrupt homosexual homes.” Really? So why do you want to support legislation that would deny adoption rights to gay people? Why would you invalidate their families in the eyes of the law? Why would you deny their children legal protections that apply only to children of married couples? You are certainly disrupting homes. You are trying to deny people the right to have a family, and that is wrong.

  • Bobby

    A number of above comments appear to deny that evangelicals harbor animus against gay people.

    Today, World Magazine, a leading voice of evangelicals in the US, published an article on its web edition criticizing the appointment of a distinguished openly gay attorney to the federal judiciary. The first sentence of the article reads as follows: “The normalization of homosexuality continued this week with President Obama’s appointment of Todd Hughes to the U.S. Court of Appeals.” The article gets no better after that. It includes no review of Mr. Hughes’s record at an attorney for the civil division of DOJ. In fact, the article includes no criticisms of Hughes at all, except for the fact that he is gay. And upon that basis alone, the editors of the leading evangelical publication in America are opposing his nomination? A quick search suggests that a number of evangelical groups are lining up to oppose his nomination, again, based on nothing other than the fact that he is gay. Never mind that Mr. Hughes is being appointed to an appellate court whose docket consists mostly of patent-related cases.

    The World Magazine article is a sad reminder that, for all too many evangelicals, the battle is not just about “protecting marriage.” Mr. Hughes is an accomplished attorney whose nomination to the federal bench should be judged on whether he has the legal knowledge and the temperament to serve as a judge. Yet World Magazine and a number of evangelical organizations are criticizing his nomination for no other reason besides the fact that he is gay. I suspect that many, if not most, evangelicals harbor a deep animus against gay people and see nothing wrong with discriminating against someone based merely on that person’s sexual orientation. This article appeared in World Magazine, after all, which is a rather mainstream evangelical publication.

  • fernando

    I am curious, those who turn to the bible for their rejection of homosexuality, do believe everything that the Bible has too say on the subject. Do you think that it was proper to legally execute people who engage in same sex activities. In Leviticus 20, we are told that homosexuality is an abomination and that people who practice it should be killed. Today most people would find any country that has thoser sorts of laws morally abhorrent. So are we correct today in rejecting such a barbaric practice, and when we do are we passing judgement on God?
    I am, I think that the notion that two consenting adults should be killed for engaging in acts of physical intimacy, is morally indefensible. It is morally indefensible today and it would have been morally indefensible 2000 years ago. Unlike the author of this piece I do not think that when God called for the legal execution of people who engage in same sex activities, that that was right for the time.

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      Even in apostolic times, the Christian church began to differentiate between the ceremonial law and the moral law, where the ceremonial law was a system of cleanliness codes and ceremonial instructions that were intended for a particular people at a particular place and time. We no longer stone rebellious children, for instance, if that was ever really carried out in the first place, nor are we concerned about the eating of shellfish or rock badgers. But there are other moral instructions — the ten commandments come to mind, or the greatest commandment and the second greatest — that are universal standards of right and wrong, rooted in the created order, not limited to one historical people but intended for all human beings. Christians have generally argued that the prohibitions against homosexual sex were a part of the moral law because they recur throughout the Old Testament and New Testament and are explicitly grounded in the language of creation and nature. So it’s not arbitrary for Christians to say that God condemns homosexual sex as immoral and yet also believe that we’re no longer required to live out the ceremonial law.

  • Matthew Miller

    It is dishonest to pretend that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It is also dishonest to pretend, as was done here, that the Bible does not condemn homosexuals. It instructs the faithful to kill them in no figurative tone. God says they deserve death and have brought it upon themselves.

    It is dishonest to pretend that the Bible does not teach discrimination, hate, and violence.

    • UCFan79

      The bible teaches evaluation, rejecting the bad, and protection.

      Some might want to call these discrimination, hate, and violence, but that simply means that person doesn’t know the rest of the story.

  • UCFan79

    What is wrong with conservatives wanting to prevent what they see as a negative, destructive change in their culture?

    You might disagree with them, but all you’ve really acknowledged is that the culture is in conflict.