Russell and Duenes

Jesus Died to Destroy in Our Lives The Little False Gods, and The Big Ones

with 27 comments

goodfridayThe social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology. – Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield, Amicus Curiae Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry, January 29, 2013.

But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. – President Obama, signing statement while signing the Executive Order to lift the federal ban on funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research

History is littered with notorious examples of false theories gaining wide acceptance among respected social and behavioral scientists, some of which supported pernicious public policies. – Kass and Mansfield, Id. at 2.

What should you think when you start hearing phrases like, “there is no doubt,” “the evidence is beyond question,” “there is no longer any room for debate,” “this is based on science, not ideology” and the like. When one has to tell you that what he or she is doing is “based on science,” you can be pretty sure that it’s based on ideology and preference masquerading as science. This is certainly true in the area of Darwinian evolution. One learns rather quickly there there “is no debate” when it comes to views of human origins “based on science.”

Yet “science” is used as a cudgel to bludgeon dissenters in a range of topics. Kass and Mansfield point to “global warming” as a prime example. Id. at 7. Further, it has been apparent in all of the legal and political maneuverings surrounding “same-sex marriage” that “science” is the hammer that will destroy anyone who questions the “established fact” that there is no difference in outcomes between children who are raised by two parents of the same sex or raised by a father and a mother.

This is the way it works: A certain social, political or moral viewpoint gains cultural ascendancy. It may do so for various reasons, but typically it will need some source of authority to support it other than God. That authority in our culture is going to be the “little false god” called “science.” Thus, very quickly one begins to hear through all of the usual cultural mechanisms that, wouldn’t you know it, “science is showing” the favored view to be true. As Kass and Mansfield point out, this is often said when nothing by way of scientific evidence could possible show what the claimant is arguing for. Id. at 3. In the case of “same-sex marriage,” they bluntly assert that “[t]he effects of same-sex marriage on family life are unknown, and currently unknowable.” What a refreshing statement. You mean “science” doesn’t know something? Incredible!

But of course, that’s not what we’re told. At one point in American history “psychiatrists almost universally considered homosexuality a mental disorder.” Kass and Mansfield, at 2. Yet in 1973, homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a mental disorder. Id. at 3. “The historical record shows that the change was not made because of new scientific findings, but rather in response to external political pressure and to political maneuvering within the [American Psychiatric] Association.” Id. The change may have been justified, but it was manifestly not justified by any new scientific discovery.

Kass and Mansfield are also clear in stating that the studies might one day, indeed, show that being raised by two same-sex parents has no appreciable effect on children. They are not making the argument one way or the other. They are saying that no one can credibly make the argument one way or the other based on anything claiming to be a “scientific study.” The studies are simply not possible at this point in time. Id. at 3-4.

But we are not apt to ascribe the modest modicum of authority to scientific evidence that it actually deserves. We must have an authority to supplant God. And we must have high priests that will defend our new god and punish dissenters. And woe to the dissenter on the topic of gay parenting. As one wag parodying Al Capone has remarked: “Nice academic career you got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

But “science” – as that term has been mangled by the high priests – is only the “little false god” being worshiped in the service of same-sex marriage. The “big false god” is one, in the worship of which, heterosexuals are much more complicit, including us Christians. This “big false god” is called radical, autonomous individualism. I wish I had a better one-word name for this idol (perhaps someone will aid me in the quest for a name); yet I have spoken of this god on many occasions.

In other words, “science” is only the god that allows us to get to the bigger prize, namely, the “freedom” to do whatever we want, with whomever we want, whenever we want, so long as there is “consent” and perhaps so long as it is “not hurting anyone else.” This is the god we want. This is the god we embrace. This is the god the “sexual revolution” has put at the pinnacle of our cultural temple to be worshiped. You touch him, and you have big problems. We worship him . . . I worship him, in our churches too. We want radical individualism. We want our options always open. We want to be unencumbered by authorities over us, constraining our “freedoms.” We don’t want to be inexorably tied and connected to others, whether it be our spouses, our children, or our brothers and sisters in Christ, in ways that will put the clamps on us. I’m generalizing, of course, but I think the general characterization fits. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes: “The logic of the argument against homosexuality now implicates the behavior of a lot of heterosexuals. If the argument is made openly, and cast as a case for traditional sexual morals in general, a large part of the public will flinch. If the argument is made so as to single out gays, the logic vanishes. Social conservatives begin to look as though they are motivated not by principle but by the desire to persecute a minority. If no effective public argument can be made, the prohibition on gay marriage must survive based on tradition and unarticulated reasons. These are weak defenses in a rationalistic and sexually liberated era.” (emphasis mine). Right, “in principle” we are not against sexual libertinism.

Sexual libertinism, based on radical individual autonomy to do as we choose, is the sustaining energy behind the drive for same-sex marriage. The drive is just a branch growing out of the larger tree, and the larger tree is sustained by heterosexuals who do not want to repent and obey God’s prescriptions for holiness, fostered and sustained in genuine Christian community. We are not set up for it. Our lives are not ordered to live in the way that God has called us, and frankly, I am not sure how they would or could be. But I suspect that others feel like me, which is to say, even if we knew the answer, we might not go for it. It would mean too many changes. It would look too odd. It would really cast us as “aliens and strangers” on the earth. (1 Peter 2:11). We would have to “consider others more important than ourselves.” We would have to “lay down our lives for each other,” including all of the personal and financial resources it takes to do that.

But didn’t Jesus die to kill our sin? Isn’t that what’s “good” about “Good Friday?” Jesus died to slay the false gods – big and little – in our hearts, and in our communal lives as the Body of Christ. Perhaps we ought to reflect in a more sustained way, as God’s people, on what it would mean to slay “the big god” called radical, autonomous individualism, particularly as it pertains to our sexual lives. Maybe we should, maybe I should, expend some energy contemplating the beauty of holiness within the shared life of God’s people, bound by God’s authority; the beauty of holiness, consecration, generation of new life within marriage, and reflection of Christ’s love for His Church. I ought to consider the witness this would then present to the world: the generosity of God Himself. I think it would be good to turn my thoughts to these things, and to encourage others to do so as well.


27 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It doesn’t matter if gay parents are worse than straight parents. There aren’t enough straight parents to adopt all the children in foster care. Why do you keep denying this fact? We aren’t comparing straight parents to gay parents here. We’re comparing gay parents to no parents in foster care. Even if Christians found evidence that gay parents hurt the children more than straight parents it does not matter because foster care without parents would be a lot worse than having gay parents. You keep denying the facts.


    March 29, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    • Without invitro fertilization and surrogacy by gay parents, their children WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST. Even if you took away every child from lesbian invitro fertilization and gay surrogacy, again there aren’t enough married heterosexual or single parents to adopt these children. The kids would be placed in foster care for the rest of their childhood without parents. To argue that foster care without parents is better than gay parents is just plain ridiculous. Just because gay parents are “living in sin” doesn’t mean they would have a worse influence than the foster care system. There are millions are married straight parents “living in sin” and the government doesn’t take their children away. You are merely discriminating against homosexuals. Why don’t you advocate that married straight couples living in adultery or pornography get their kids taken away? How is this not hypocritical that you ONLY care about the sin of gay parents and not straight or sinlge parents?


      March 29, 2013 at 1:36 pm

      • Are you referring to my post, Manny? Funny, I don’t even mention the things you’re talking about. Sounds like you’re having a dialogue with yourself, rather than me. So since I did not write about anything you bring up, I have no comment.


        russell and duenes

        March 29, 2013 at 4:17 pm

      • Yes, I am referring to your post actually. I’m referring to the part of your post where you say gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized because society would acknowledge the notion that the genders of your parents don’t matter. It annoys me when conservatives keep spilling out lies from Fox news that gay adoption deprives children of having a mother and father. If there were enough heterosexual married couples adopting, this claim would make sense and I agree I would rather have children have a mother and father than two parents of the same gender. However, that isn’t a feasible option because there are still half a million Americans in foster care that need a home and a gay home is better than none at all.


        March 29, 2013 at 6:18 pm

      • Manny – I don’t watch FOX news…ever. I never said anything about adoption depriving children of a mother and father. Please read my posts. My thesis was that the same-sex marriage proponents promote junk science. Deal with that assertion please.


        russell and duenes

        March 30, 2013 at 6:04 am

  2. D is right to say you don’t really deal with the post. It seems like you just want to rehash unsound arguments with no authoritative derivation. Here are my questions to you, dealing directly with your comments.

    1. “It doesn’t matter if gay parents are worse than straight parents.” How do you know?
    2. “There aren’t enough straight parents to adopt all the children in foster care.” How do you know this? Are you sure?
    3. “Why do you keep denying this fact?” You haven’t supplied facts, you have offered opinions.
    4. “Even if Christians found evidence that gay parents hurt the children more than straight parents it does not matter because foster care without parents would be a lot worse than having gay parents.” Really? Have you experienced this? Done research?
    5. “You keep denying the facts.” They haven’t been presented.
    6. “The kids would be placed in foster care for the rest of their childhood without parents. To argue that foster care without parents is better than gay parents is just plain ridiculous.” Foster Care includes having parents. It is the new parents who ‘foster’ the care.
    7. “There are millions are married straight parents “living in sin” and the government doesn’t take their children away. ” Agreed. And your point?
    8. “It annoys me when conservatives keep spilling out lies from Fox news that gay adoption deprives children of having a mother and father.” Where does he cite Fox News?
    9. “If there were enough heterosexual married couples adopting, this claim would make sense and I agree I would rather have children have a mother and father than two parents of the same gender.” Why does this change your argument?
    10. “A home and a gay home is better than none at all.” Foster Care provides a home as does Adoption.


    russell and duenes

    March 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm

  3. R, these are the facts I showed D over facebook: Half a million kids are in foster care in the US at any one time. This cancels out the coming of new kids and the going out of adopted kids. This is the post I sent over facebook… : Half a million children in America don’t have ANY PARENTS because not enough straight and gay couples along with single parents are adopting. Read about the horrors of the foster care system and you will easily see why being raised by gay parents is better than having no parents. Kids deserve a family and these abused children shouldn’t be called “less than” in having gay parents who can’t get married. Gay marriage would give these kids social and economic protection. Without this protection, these kids are vulnerable. It’s unlikely that the government will separate economic rights from the word “marriage.” This means that gay couples who raise children will not receive tax exemptions, social security or immigration benefits, and housing benefits to give these kids a healthy life. Even if the economic benefits were to be separated from the word “marriage,” how would you feel if you hopped between foster care centers like a piece of crap and then a gay couple dedicated everything to you? Would you want their emotional bond to be called “less than” and your family to be called “less than” as a result of the legal status of your parents’ relationship? These kids have already suffered enough problems so don’t make it worse by invalidating their family in denying their parents the right to marry.

    Foster Care: An Uncertain Future For Half A Million Children
    When Enrique Montiel was 9 years old, he and his four siblings were taken away from their parents, and placed into the foster care system. He remembers the fear, sadness, confusion and longing. “We were put into a car and as I looked out the back window I watched my parents disappear into the distan…

    Foster Care: An Uncertain Future For Half A Million Children
    When Enrique Montiel was 9 years old, he and his four siblings were taken away from their parents, and placed into the foster care system. He remembers the fear, sadness, confusion and longing. “We were put into a car and as I looked out the back window I watched my parents disappear into the distan…
    Want to see more from The Huffington Post?

    Foster Care: An Uncertain Future For Half A Million Children
    When Enrique Montiel was 9 years old, he and his four siblings were taken away from their parents, and placed into the foster care system. He remembers the fear, sadness, confusion and longing. “We were put into a car and as I looked out the back window I watched my parents disappear into the distan…

    I don’t understand how you can read this and still think gays are worse off as parents than foster care parents/assistants/whatever you call them that come and go and don’t really love and support the children.

    There is no evidence that gay parents are worse than straight parents, but even if they are gay parents are most certainly not worse than foster care.

    This article shows the mistakes in the research by Regnerus(I’m assuming you know about him) that gay parents fare worse than straight parents.

    This again shows there isn’t any evidence of “the horror of gay parenting.”

    My point isn’t that gay parents are necessarily the same as straight parents. My point is that if gay parenting is as bad as conservatives make it out to be, we would have evidence after 20 years of research that would show it worse than the foster care system. We don’t have evidence if gay parents are better/worse than straight parents, but I think it’s safe to say that if gay parenting was really that horrible, we would be able to show it worse than that horrible article on the foster care system.

    My point about saying many married heterosexual couples are living in sin is to say that you can’t play favorites and discriminate only against gay couples adopting children. Sin is sin. Just because you are more uncomfortable with homosexuality than straight sin doesn’t mean you can only discriminate against gay couples and not other couples who are living in sin as well.


    March 29, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    • Would you rather have children encounter all of these problems over gay parenting?

      “Foster children are also more likely to experience physical and mental health issues. reports that foster children have a greater likelihood of health problems, even when compared to groups of children who are also disadvantaged, including those on Medicaid and those supported by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).”

      ” Casey Family Programs, a foundation that focuses on foster care policies, reports that 65 percent of foster children experience more than seven school changes during K-12.”

      “For every move, a child loses six to 12 months of educational instruction, which is detrimental to academic achievement,” Kathy Ledesma, the National Program Director of AdoptUSkids says. But, she elaborates, that inroads have been made and the system is now seeing greater stability. “It is still not good,” she explains, “but it is much better.”

      “Sadly, some of these children do not survive these difficulties. A Center for Family Policy & Research report estimates that in 2009, 1,770 children died from either neglect or abuse, 80 percent of which were under the age of 4.”

      And if these abused children should be placed in gay households over foster care, shouldn’t their family deserve to be given actual respect and dignity especially after the children have suffered so harshly? I don’t understand how you can call yourself a Christian and sit by while abused children should obviously be placed in gay homes over foster care and when these kids do, they should be respected and not called “less than” or “not a family” because their parents can’t get married.


      March 29, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      • Your argument assumes that children in gay parenting situations won’t experience all of these things…and more besides. But you simply haven’t shown this. And my post was dedicated to the proposition that at this point in time, you CAN’T show it. There’s not enough data. That’s the point. Your argument about “gay parenting situations being better than foster care” has no merit, because it has no empirical data upon which to stand.


        russell and duenes

        March 30, 2013 at 6:08 am

  4. If foster care was worse than gay parenting why do these researchers say this? :

    “In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.”

    “In fact, the only consistent places you find differences between how kids of gay parents and kids of straight parents turn out are in issues of tolerance and open-mindedness, according to Goldberg. In a paper published in 2007 in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Goldberg conducted in-depth interviews with 46 adults with at least one gay parent. Twenty-eight of them spontaneously offered that they felt more open-minded and empathetic than people not raised in their situation.”

    “In a study published online Jan. 11, 2012, in the Journal of Marriage and Family, Goldberg interviewed another group of 49 teenagers and young adults with gay parents and found that not one of them rejected the right of gays and lesbians to marry. Most cited legal benefits as well as social acceptance.”

    Now these assertions may very well be wrong in comparison to the success of straight parents, but it is highly unlikely that they are wrong in comparison to foster care. If foster care leads to such obvious horrible consequences as “losing 12 months of instruction from 65% of children changing schools 7 times,”
    “foster children having worse mental health than even disadvantaged kids under Medicaid,” and “1,770 kids dying of neglect and abuse,” and these haven’t been found among gay households by now they aren’t in gay households. Why would researchers make the assertion that gay parents are just the same as straight parents if in fact they were so much worse than foster care in the first place? That makes no logical sense. My point is that foster care is so horrible and the consequences of it are so obvious that if gay parenting was in fact the same way or worse, we should be fond of this by now. Comparing straight parents to gay parents has been difficult to do because some researchers say there are no or little differences, while others say gay parents make a significant difference for the worse. However, I doubt if there has been EVEN ONE researcher who said gay parenting was so bad that the kids might as well have no parents in foster care. You can’t use the excuse, “we don’t have enough evidence so we should leave the children in foster care.” In doing this you are hurting more children because of your fear mongering. You can’t admit that the only logical reason you have for not wanting children in gay households is because you don’t like homosexuals and are deathly afraid of “their supposed evil.” Meanwhile half a million children are in foster care begging you, Mr. Duenes for a loving home and you deny it to them because of your antipathy toward homosexuals in the first place.


    March 30, 2013 at 11:07 am

    • Manny – I think you’ve missed the point of my entire post, which is this: There are plenty of “studies” out there on “gay parenting,” and virtually none of them has any scientific value. They are all faulty. The sample data simply does not exist from which to make meaningful conclusions. If you want to cite from them, that’s fine, but I don’t accept them. They are not scientific, rather they are ideology masquerading as science, a point I made rather forcefully in my post, but which you seem to have ignored. So please don’t keep quote “studies” at me. Get back to me when you’ve properly ascertained whether each and every one of those studies can stand up to serious and rigorous scientific scrutiny. Further, the field is rife with ideological preference in favor of “gay parenting” being just as good as any other kind of parenting. Scientists who publish otherwise are castigated and threatened with expulsion from the academy (see Mark Regnerus’s study. Look him up, if you dare).

      And frankly, Manny, it sure would be nice if you stopped putting thoughts and attitudes in my mind which I don’t hold. I don’t disrespect you in that way, attributing attitudes and thoughts to you which you have not expressed. I’m not doing any of the kind of damage which you suggest. Further, you have absolutely no basis for saying that I “don’t like homosexuals.” You don’t even know if I have any homosexual friends. You are simply not privy to any of my other relationships, be they with homosexuals or not. So let’s stop with the personal attacks, shall we!

      I don’t deny foster children a loving home. They lack a loving home, if they do, for reasons that have little if anything to do with same-sex marriage being legal or not.


      russell and duenes

      March 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm

      • You mean the study by Regenerus whom actually admited himself his gay parenting study was flawed? Some science you uphold.


        March 30, 2013 at 4:25 pm

      • If Regenerus himself admitted his flaws, why wouldn’t his study be wrong? Also, same sex adoption and same sex households have everything to do with the legalization of gay marriage. By not legalizing same sex marriage, you are maintaining the notion that gay households and their poor children from foster care aren’t families or are families that are “less than.” Jesus loves all families and he knows that all families suffer from immoral sin – not just gay ones.


        March 30, 2013 at 4:30 pm

      • Regnerus admitted that his study was flawed, as they all are. That’s quite clear, but not at issue. You don’t read my stuff too well. What I said was: NO study is really reliable. The point about Regnerus, fairly understood, is that he was castigated and practically run out on a rail simply for even hinting at the fact that gay parenting might be detrimental. How much objective truth can we expect in that kind of ideologically charged atmosphere?


        russell and duenes

        March 31, 2013 at 11:52 am

      • Heterosexually married couples in adultery and pornography are still called families. Why is homosexuality in different of a sin? You are merely singling out that one sin. Single parenting isn’t what God intended either and we still call single parents and their kids families. Not giving gays rights to marriage calls them out that they are not families and are “less than.” This is the sin of conservatism.


        March 30, 2013 at 4:36 pm

  5. Also, if there’s any organization that knows what it’s talking about in terms of the health of children it’s the American Academy of Pediatrics. How is the American Academy of Pediatrics “not real science?” The organization is non-partisan and does not vow support to the Republican or Democratic Party yet it believes same sex adoption and marriage are best for children. How is the AAP giving into the liberal ideology of same sex marriage when it’s main goal has always been to do what’s best for children. How is the AAP’s research of same sex adoption and marriage not scientific, but mere ideological evidence?


    March 30, 2013 at 8:08 pm

  6. Manny,

    After another long thread of interaction, we come once again to the same impasse. D and I are interested in arguments that come from the Scriptures. We care deeply about God and His risen son Jesus. We are followers of Jesus who believe what the Scriptures say to be indisputable. We may argue circumstantially at times as well, but want our original arguments to come from the Scriptures and through them. You are arguing from a societal and individual point of view. You derive your ideas from Manny and society at large. This is obviously very common and we are both aware of the predicaments that follow as Postmodernism is every where. We get it: you think homosexuality should be considered normal and that giving homosexuals extended rights is critical. We don’t. There is the impasse. Your postmodernism vs. our Christian worldview. I pray that God will work in your heart and mind so as to bring glory to Himself. We just are coming from vastly different places.


    russell and duenes

    March 31, 2013 at 10:50 am

    • I don’t want homosexual marriage legal because I want homosexuality normalized. I want it legal because without it, gays and their families are not being treated with respect. Why do you think there’s gay suicide and why do you think homosexuals are much more prone to suicide than heterosexuals? It’s not because we aren’t accepting homosexuality. It’s because we aren’t accepting them or at least the religious right isn’t. Homosexuality is a sin; we get it. However, you wouldn’t tell Rush Limbagh to stop living in sin. He’s on his fourth marriage yet you wouldn’t cast him out of your church for not repenting of his sin of remarriage. Yet if he got married to a man, you would shout at him that he’s going to hell for living in sin. You are a hypocrite. Also, how dare you tell me I’m not a Christian. You have no idea how hard my life is because you bozos accept the remarried and divorced who are technically still “living in sin,” but not the homosexuals because apparently their sin is subjectively worse to you?!?!? You haven’t walked a day in my queer shoes. If you truly understood how much hurt and shame you install in homosexuals, while maintaining a sense of acceptance of the remarried and
      divorced, you would quit your lost cause. America has spoken. Christians my age have spoken. The AAP has spoken. Not all of us want homosexuality accepted, but we all agree we want homosexuals accepted. When I die and go to heaven at least I can say I truly love and accept gays. When you die, God will surely judge you for all your singling out of homosexuality as worse than other sins and rejecting homosexuals, while accepting the remarried and divorced simply because their sin is relateable to your own so you are comfortable with it. Your worldview isn’t even Christian: it’s one of hypocrisy where whoever’s sin you can relate to, you sill accept, but whoever’s sin you don’t undersand, you reject and condemn to hell. My God doesn’t judge you more simply because your sin is more uncommon. Unlike you, Jesus accepts everyone. Love wins!


      March 31, 2013 at 2:27 pm

      • ‘still


        March 31, 2013 at 2:36 pm

      • There’


        March 31, 2013 at 2:41 pm

      • There’s a huge difference between the acceptance of homosexuality and the acceptance of homosexuals. I want the latter, not the former. You guys want neither and that is a sin. You accept Rush Limbaugh for remarrying four times and would gladly welcome him into your church without telling him to stop living in sin. However, the second his “pretend fifth marriage” is with a man you would reject him and call him out on his sin. Not accepting homosexuals is a sin. I pray that God would help you repent of your sin of not accepting homosexuals so that you can follow God more greatly. I dare you. I triple dog dare you to just examine yourself and ask if you really accept homosexuals and God maybe just maybe will reveal to you that you aren’t accepting gays.


        March 31, 2013 at 2:46 pm

      • Concur with everything R said. I have treated you with respect and kindness, both in person, and really, here as well. I have never accused you of holding positions you do not claim to hold. You do not have any justification for saying what I would or wouldn’t do with someone like Rush Limbaugh were I the pastor of his church. Further, you don’t know anything about my acceptance of homosexuals or the lack thereof. As R said, I’ve been dealing with very specific issues here. If I wanted to deal with issues of how we ought to treat homosexuals, under our laws, who want to raise children, then I would have written about that. If I wanted to discuss visitation privileges and estate tax issues, then I would have raised them. But I haven’t raised them, hence, you don’t know what I think about them.


        russell and duenes

        March 31, 2013 at 3:24 pm

      • I never said you were not a Christian, I said you don’t have a Christian worldview. Those are not the same things at all. You can rant all you want, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation. For example, you calling me a bozo doesn’t phase me at all. You haven’t’ walked a day in my shoes either. You can be disrespectful all you want, but it doesn’t change anything for me. Just like Mr. Duenes, I put a lot of time into helping you over the course of your high school career. I went out of my way to connect with you and get to know you. I would have done the exact same thing if I knew you were gay. I wanted to see you grow and succeed. And despite your obvious anger, I still do. So your disrespect clearly shows me what you think about those efforts.
        Lastly, and I mean lastly, you have no idea what I feel, think, or believe in regards to the treatment of gay people. What I have stated so far is that gay marriage is clearly unacceptable according to Scripture. I have said nothing to the plight of gay people other than that. As for your other accusations, I think that divorce breaks God’s design and it should be illegal. I think that pornography should be illegal. I think abortion should be illegal. Lying is already illegal when it comes to local, state and federal law. I also think you and I have more common ground on the issue of caring for gay people than you would ever realize because you are too busy emotionally venting rather than engaging.

        russell and duenes

        March 31, 2013 at 2:56 pm

      • And I think Rush Limbaugh is a windbag.

        russell and duenes

        March 31, 2013 at 2:59 pm

      • The Chrisian worldview is a lot more relative than you think. Just because I think differently about the legalization of sin than you doesn’t mean I have a different worldview than you. I just simply think there are certain sins in which the government would namely have a hard time
        regulating: homosexuality and abortion. It’s not that I don’t think these are sins. It’s just that I believe these sins should be a matter of personal over governmental or societal discretion. 1 in 3 women get an abortion. How the hell are we supposed to stop that? If I could stop abortion I would. However, is the government supposed to arrest one third of the female population? Since abortion is murder, should we execute one third of the population. Both of you two are known to equate a fetus to the same human status as me or you, yet can you honestly tell me we should give a third of the female population the death penalty? If you make abortion illegal and we had NO WAY OF PUNISHING IT, won’t women merely do the same thing they’re doing, but through the same unsafe abortion procedures of the 1950 and 60s? You can’t just end 1 in 3 women aborting there babies. You have to have a punishment for abortion and without that pubishment women will continue to have abortions, but through unsafe and hazardous procedures. So should we arrest one third or women? Fine them? Death penalty? What do you suggest? There isn’t an easy way for the government to regulate abortion so we must restrict it as much we can, but it won’t ever be permanenly illegal.


        March 31, 2013 at 3:25 pm

      • Ahhh I had horrible grammar in that last comment, sorry!


        March 31, 2013 at 3:28 pm

      • My overall point is that the legalization of gay marriage, abortion, and other sins aren’t “black and white issues.” There are problems with both being for or against the legalization of any of these sins. There is harm in being opposed or supportive because there are consequences. Thus, the question of whether certain sins should become legal or not is relative. One doesn’t not have a Christian worldview simply because they think gay marriage and abortion should be legal. It’s not a clear cut black and white issue!


        March 31, 2013 at 3:42 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: