21 thoughts on “You’re only against gay marriage because of your religion- Conclusion”

1. The NFSS study is actually evidence of the need for same-sex marriage. It does not compare intact heterosexual households with intact homosexual households. Instead, it uses the bizarre classification of parents who have ever had sexual relations with someone of the same-sex.

   What purpose does that serve?

   Virtually all of the “gay” families under this classification would be broken households, with parents who were closeted many years ago with one parent eventually coming out after a heterosexual marriage–wrecking their family.

   This study does nothing more than show that broken homes are bad (both gay and straight)…not that gay parents are inferior. It is a reminder that “sham” marriages among closeted gay people is a bad thing for society. It is further support of the need for legal stability for all families.

2. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, PaulAlanRichardson. Time is precious and I see your comments as a gift.

   What NFSS did that was so ground-breaking (in this field) was to conduct a study using a representative sample, in contrast to other studies which were drawn primarily from small conveniences samples. Representative samples lead to a conclusion. Studies using convenience samples often begin with a conclusion and choose their participants accordingly. Before sweeping conclusions can be made about the outcomes of children parented within same-sex-led households, more such studies need to be conducted… using representative samples. Right now, there are very few children who are being raised in the kinds of households that you mention- ones where they begin with two same-sex parents and remain in that environment unbroken through adulthood. Given the small (but growing) percentage of US households which are same-sex-headed and raising children, it may be decades until researchers will be able to find a statistically viable random sample population of children who are not from broken homes. Given that reality, it’s curious that gay-marriage advocates trumpet the claims that children fare just as well as those raised in married man/woman homes. It’s going to take many studies of representative samples to make that assertion and have the science to back it up.

   You rightly address the need for commitment and stability within the life of a child. It is one of the several reasons why I traveled with two women on their trip to adopt their second child. They are able to give an immeasurably superior life to their girls over an orphanage. As far as I’ve seen, they also possess good parenting skills- setting boundaries, cheering for their daughters, allowing for age-appropriate independence, emphasizing education. Stability, parenting skills, involvement, love, and boundaries are all crucial. But is that the end of the story?

   The question really comes down to, are there real differences between men and women? Do those differences benefit children?

   • I appreciate the opportunity to engage in the dialogue.

     I have two thoughts in response:

     (1) The NFSS study was not more representative in the comparison that counts: intact gay couples. I agree that we have a serious problem with sample sizes in these studies But the NFSS study included only 18 such families–less even then most of the other 59 studies that you critique from the past.

     (2) Even then, I don’t understand how permitting gay marriage is akin to saying that there are no differences between men and women for child-rearing. As far as I know allowing gay couples the right to marry does not mean that children that would have been raised in heterosexual households with both biological parents will suddenly not live there.

3. Thanks again for your comments, Paul.

   You state “As far as I know allowing gay couples the right to marry does not mean that children that would have been raised in heterosexual households with both biological parents will suddenly not live there.” OK. Then let’s have gay marriage. And gay couples can raise the biological children that they produce.

   • Thanks for the response.

     I’m not sure I follow your point. So you now believe that gay marriage should be legal?

     To reiterate the passage of mine that you quoted: allowing civil gay marriage will not increase the instances of children being raised outside of their biological mother/father family. Therefore, I don’t understand how your concern about children being raised by their biological parents translates into a belief that civil gay marriage should be illegal.

     Best-

     Paul

4. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify, Paul. What I should have just stated plainly is that if same-sex marriage could be legalized without altering the claim (which is so basic to child well-being) that opposite sex parenting is ideal and that biology matters, then I would be more inclined to say, “hey same-sex marriage is just a private matter.” But that is not the reality. Legalization of gay marriage will obscure that narrative. To quote from the above article:

   “My greatest reason for opposing gay marriage is that it would obscure opposite-sex parenting as the ideal form of parenting. That’s an incredibly discriminatory statement- unless it’s true. In the states where gay marriage is legal, there is no framework to promote both fathers and mothers being involved in parenting. There is no lawful recognition of the unique and indispensable ways that fathers and mothers contribute to child-rearing. Adoption agencies have closed their doors because they have wanted to give preference to opposite-sex couples, but since that violated their state’s discrimination laws they could not. If heterosexual marriage is just some capricious arrangement, then showing a preference is ridiculous, malicious and bigoted. But if men and women parent differently and if that difference promotes child well-being, then the preference for placing children with heterosexual married couples is good policy.”

5. Thanks for the clarification and the continued dialogue.

   I think I understand your underlying claim, but I do not follow your logic in getting there. Your argument makes sense if you are renouncing anti-discrimination laws but not marriage statutes. Marriage laws and discrimination ordinances are wholly separate legal matters. The arguments underpinning each are different.

   How does allowing gay couples the right to marry destroy the idea that opposite parenting is ideal? You note that it’ll “obscure the narrative.” That is like saying that buying a McDonald’s cheeseburger should be illegal, but if it were allowed then it would “obscure the narrative” that obesity should be avoided.

   In fact, it is even less logical than that, because cheeseburgers have some connection to obesity. Legal recognition for same-sex couples has zero connection to heterosexual child rearing.

   You will be voting in a month and half on Referendum 74. I’m assuming right now you will be opposing it because you believe children are best raised by their biological mother and father. If your side is successful, what will happen? Will more children be raised by their biological mother and father? No. The only outcome is that gay couples will continue to be treated differently under the law. No one gains anything, but some people lose something. It does nothing but hurt your neighbors. I urge you to reconsider.

   Take Care-

   Paul

6. Thanks for the comments Paul. I have not done an adequate job of connecting the dots. I am going to borrow several excerpt from the paper “What is Marriage” which does a far superior job of making the connections between legalizing gay marriage and the social impact.

   Revisionists often capture this point with a question: “How would gay marriage affect you or your marriage?”29 … as even many revisionists implicitly agree, public institutions like civil marriage have wide and deep effects on our culture— which in turn affects others’ lives and choices. Thus, supporters of the conjugal view often respond to this challenge—rightly, we believe—that abolishing the conjugal conception of marriage would weaken the social institution of marriage, obscure the value of opposite‐sex parenting as an ideal, and threaten moral and religious freedom. Here is a sketch of how…

   No one deliberates or acts in a vacuum. We all take cues (including cues as to what marriage is and what it requires of us) from cultural norms, which are shaped in part by the law. Indeed, revisionists themselves implicitly concede this point. Why else would they be dissatisfied with civil unions for same sex couples? Like us, they understand that the state’s favored conception of marriage matters because it affects society’s understanding of that institution. In redefining marriage, the law would teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not bodily union30 or children,31 with which marital norms are tightly intertwined. 32 Since emotions can be inconstant, viewing marriage essentially as an emotional union would tend to increase marital instability—and it would blur the distinct value of friendship, which is a union of hearts and minds.33 Moreover, and more importantly, because there is no reason that primarily emotional unions any more than ordinary friendships in general should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two,34 these norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them. And less able to understand the value of marriage itself as a certain kind of union, even apart from the value of its emotional satisfactions, people would increasingly fail to see the intrinsic reasons they have for marrying35 or staying with a spouse absent consistently strong feeling. In other words, a mistaken marriage policy tends to distort people’s understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses are to form and sustain. And that likely erodes people’s adherence to marital norms that are essential to the common good. …

   Yes, social and legal developments have already worn the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. But recognizing same‐sex unions would mean cutting the last remaining threads. After all, underlying people’s adherence to the marital norms already in decline are the deep (if implicit) connections in their minds between marriage, bodily union, and children. Enshrining the revisionist view would not just wear down but tear out this foundation, and with it any basis for reversing other recent trends and restoring the many social benefits of a healthy marriage culture.

   Those benefits redound to children and spouses alike. Because children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents,38 the further erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children, forcing the state to play a larger role in their health, education, and formation more generally.39 As for the adults, those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society would be hit the hardest. 40 But adults more generally would be harmed insofar as the weakening of social expectations supporting marriage would make it harder for them to abide by marital norms…

   As we have seen in Part I.B, legally enshrining conjugal marriage socially reinforces the idea that the union of husband and wife is (as a rule and ideal) the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children—an ideal whose value is strongly corroborated by the best available social science…41

   If same‐sex partnerships were recognized as marriages, however, that ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and father; that men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways. In that case, to the extent that some continued to regard marriage as crucially linked to children, the message would be sent that a household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as appropriate a context for childrearing, so that it does not matter (even as a rule) whether children are reared by both their mother and their father, or by a parent of each sex at all. On the other hand, to the extent that the connection between marriage and parenting is obscured more generally, as we think it would be eventually,42 no kind of arrangement would be proposed as an ideal. But the currency of either view would significantly weaken the extent to which the social institution of marriage provided social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and children. And to the extent that children were not reared by both parents, they would be prone to suffer in the ways identified by social science.43

7. Many thank for trying to clarify the connection. I had previously read the study, but I re-read the sections you highlighted to try to better understand the argument.

   Though, I must confess that I cannot see how the above sections provide any more support for the underlying concerns. That is because the claims are simply generic assumptions that are not at all backed by evidence and are completely divorced from the reality of what would actually happen if gay couples were treated equally under the law.

   Essentially the above quotes are simply different ways to claim that fewer people would get married and more people would get divorced if gays are allowed to marry. That makes no sense. Some examples…

   “People would increasingly fail to see the intrinsic reasons they have for marrying or staying with a spouse absent consistently strong feeling.” — This is another way of claiming that more people would suddenly get divorced if gays were allowed to marry. That has zero evidentiary support and is not logical. Saying it with different words doesn’t make it more true.

   “Underlying people’s adherence to the marital norms already in decline are the deep (if implicit) connections in their minds between marriage, bodily union, and children.” — Again, another unfounded claim that apparently people will suddenly decide that they should get divorced if they are unhappy in a marriage because gay people are also allowed to marry. There are many reasons to argue that couples should not divorce on a whim, but allowing same-sex couples the right to marry will have zero impact on that.

   “The weakening of social expectations supporting marriage would make it harder for them to abide by marital norms…” — This is even less logical. If gay people are allowed to marry it would be “hard” for straight couples to stay married?

   “The message would be sent that a household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as appropriate a context for childrearing.” — This is simply inaccurate. Civil marriage laws have zero requirements of raising children, having children, or even being able to have children. If you are married you can get divorced in the exact same manner whether you do or do not have children. I’m at a loss to understand how allowing gay couples the right to marry suddenly means that the government does not care if biological parents raise their children.

   This really just seems like grasping at straws.

   I do not doubt your sincerity (or other opponents of gay marriage’s sincerity) in wanting to do the right thing. However, prohibiting gay couples from marrying makes no one’s life better while making some lives a bit worse. It is bad public policy.

   Thanks for the dialogue-

   Paul

8. Dear Paul,

   You write “…apparently people will suddenly decide that they should get divorced if they are unhappy in a marriage because gay people are also allowed to marry.” And “Legal recognition for same-sex couples has zero connection to heterosexual child rearing.”

   It seems as though you are saying that what we recognize and ‘legal’ doesn’t have widespread corporate impact on our concept of an issue. If that is what you are saying I would have to disagree. The legalization of abortion certainly changed the way we conceptualize pregnancy- now that fetuses are disposable, pregnancy (and the behaviors that lead to pregnancy) are often approached more casually. There is an appropriate social pressure that is applied to things which are lawful.

   As stated in What is Marriage: “Yes, social and legal developments have already worn the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. But recognizing same‐sex unions would mean cutting the last remaining threads.” There are all kinds of forces that are undermining marriage today, the last thing we need is to send the signal via policy change that a unique link to the bearing and rearing of children is not one purpose of marriage. Legalization of gay marriage would do exactly that.

   You are right, heterosexuals will likely not “suddenly get divorced” if gay marriage were legalized. But because gay marriage would not include the unique link to children, the result is an overall conceptualization that marriage as a whole (for gay or straight) is more of an emotional union. We would lose that legal framework that recognizes the incredible value of both fathers and mothers being involved in parenting. And a legal recognition of the ideal for childrearing is an important piece of the much-needed social pressure that spurs us on to commitment when we are inclined to seek temporary gratification elsewhere or escape. Now, if these marital norms were being advanced in all the most popular sit-coms, then we’d really have a shot at affecting the concept of marriage. Instead, it is the glorification of gay marriage and child-rearing which is prominent within media and thus the growing acceptance of gay marriage and the “any two will do” attitude toward parenting.

   California has proposed a bill that would allow a child to have three parents. It was spurred from a messy situation in which a child’s two “parents” (a woman and her wife) were not able to care for a child. The biological father wanted to care for the baby, which it seemed was agreeable to all, except that the married status of the other woman trumped his paternity. The child was placed in foster care. Legalization of gay marriage will have implications beyond simply extending ‘rights’ to gay couples.

   On another thread after I asked “If marriage is redefined, how can we retain the idea that both mothers and fathers are vital to child rearing?” You reply: “Easy, keep doing what you are doing: advocating for the importance of intact heterosexual families, give sermons at your church about the benefits of mothers and fathers, joining support groups for those with these family issues, talking with friends about these issues, and much more. You could even have a special rule at your church that only heterosexuals can get married or only those who are able to have children can get married.”
   If it were only the children at my church who needed the involvement of both their mother and father, that would be a great suggestion. But since every child everywhere has this biological and social need, I’m going to advocate for public policy that supports man/woman marriage.

   Thanks for the dialogue and the patience to work through it all.

9. Many thanks for the reasoned response. I know that it is easy for those on both sides of the issue to state our own case and move on without actually understanding the other’s argument. I appreciate the chance to go back and forth–even though it may seem like we are re-hashing the same issues. 🙂

   You hit on three different issues in your response on which I’d like to comment.

   First, you offered the legalization of abortion as a comparison–suggesting that the legalization of abortion’s effect on pregnancy would mirror the effect of marriage. That comparison is not apt. Abortion changes the options for a woman while legalization of gay marriage changes nothing for others. You may be right to say that the legalization of abortion changed the idea of pregnancy for some women, because it fundamentally changed the potential consequences of getting pregnant. The legalization of gay marriage does nothing of the sort. It does not change anything for anyone who is or is not getting married. They can still get divorced in the same capacity as before, honor (or not honor) the vows as they see fit, and have (or not have) children as they chose.

   Second, I still do not follow your logic that children will magically not be raised by biological parents if gay marriage is allowed. You suggest legalization would “send the signal via policy change that a unique link to the bearing and rearing of children is not one purpose of marriage.” But that isn’t true. Allowing gay marriage does not mean that a unique link to child rearing is suddenly not “one” purpose of marriage. It still will be. But it is not the only purpose..not then or now. That is because you do not have to want to even be able to have children to get married now.

   The California case has zero connection to the legalization of gay marriage. Gay marriage is not allowed in California now. Discussions about the merits of policies related to adoption, child-rearing, and the like are separate legal matters.

   Third, I was not suggesting that you should only care about children in your church. Instead, I was suggesting that the concerns about these issues will not be solved by laws which force rules onto all of society. It is going to come from communities working together to share information on the benefits of stable families and individuals setting the example for others. It is not going to come from government. It goes back to the McDonald’s analogy. Limiting obesity will come from education about health, fitness, and nutrition, NOT laws that ban all food which might be dangerous in excess.

   Overall, we agree in the importance of intact families and pursuit of stability for children. But denying gay couples the right to marry does not advance that belief.

   Best-

   Paul

10. Thanks for the dialogue and the patience to work through it all.

    Thanks for the response and opportunity to continue the dialogue. The reality is that gay marriage will change the way the courts view marriage. California’s Three Parent law is actually the perfect example. Details here http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6197.

    It will also continue to change society’s views about family. I came across the below article and had to laugh. It’s about how father-daughter dances in RI have been banned as “discriminatory.” It’s just craziness. As a society, we should be begging for anything and everything that would strengthen a daughter’s bond and relationship with her father which is so vital to her social and emotional health. Out of a supposed deference to alternative families, however, encouraging the father/daughter relationship in the schools has become “discriminatory.” Because the positions of mother and father is unique and precious, it deserves distinct legal recognition.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-father-daughter-dances-gender-discrimination-20120918,0,2172144.story

    So, because we’ve been talking so much Paul, I’ve been thinking about you ever now and then. Crazy, I know. 😉 I don’t want to be assuming, so I’d like to ask your permission to bless you and pray for you and your partner. May I?

11. Of course, I appreciate the kind words and all good thoughts–or prayers–so long as they’re good-intentioned. 😉 My partner’s name is Kyle, btw. Also, I’d hate to refer to you as “askthebigot,” but you would mind sharing your first name?

    Thanks for the two examples; they provide interesting context. Though, I think they are both reminders that it is a mistake to pretend all issues related to “alternate families” are connected to marriage rights.

    First, I understand how you might be upset about the the RI story regarding father-daughter dances. I feel the same way. It’s silly to ban these dances. But it is not a matter of legal marriage equality–its a matter of anti-discrimination laws. You can support marriage for same-sex couples and still argue vehemently against these actions–I do. This may be the biggest misunderstanding between those of us on different sides on this issue. There is significant difference between support for a specific policy on a specific issue and support for anything bizarre that one can find in the news related to “alternative families.”

    Second, the CA case is incredibly misleading and the author of the article you wrote knows it. She spends considerable time delving into the sad facts of that specific case as if it was “proof” of the fact that all “alternative” families should no legal recognition. That is preposterous. Also, I have to assume that this writer is not a lawyer, because she seems to avoid entirely the fact that courts make decisions every single day about what is in the “best interest of children” with tremendous discretion. It is simply false as a matter of law to suggest, as she does here, that this proposed three-parent bill somehow drastically expands the discretionary powers of the court. In practical terms, it doesn’t.

    When I was in law school I worked for a time as a “guardian ad litem” for the court. Essentially, we were court-appointed positions that provided neutral feedback to the judge in various custody cases–mothers, fathers, grandparents, friends. Most of the stories were quite tragic, and it was our job to conduct all sorts of interview with the children, families, and other involved parties and make recommendations to the court on what should happen. I certainly sympathize with this tragic example, and the thousand of other sad cases. But, again, it has no bearing on the very specific issue of whether same-sex couples should be given the right to marry.

    In addition to all this, I want to share information on one aspect of this issue that we haven’t talked about yet–the actual benefits to society of same-sex marriage. Alas, I am being called away at the moment. I’ll try to add anther comment later on.

    Best-

    Paul

12. Hello again-

    I’ve finally got a free moment to finish sharing one more thought.

    Our discussion has centered entirely on the effect of gay marriage on children. You are against gay marriage specifically because you believe it will somehow be worse for children–particularly that it will minimize the number of children raised by a mother and father. I have criticized that characterization, as I cannot see logically or practically how that makes sense.

    But what I have failed to do is explain the other half of the argument. Not only do I think that gay marriage will not hurt children, but the opposite is true: denying gay marriage harms children.

    You mentioned that you went to China with a same-sex couples to help then adopt a child. Obviously, you wouldn’t have done so if you didn’t think it was in the child’s best interest to be raised by two women–as opposed to the child’s own parents or staying in an orphanage or whatever the situation was.

    But you think that it is best for that child for her new parents to be denied the right to marry? You believe that it is better that they do not have public recognition of the importance of the stability and commitment to their household to raise that child?

    Marriage is a public commitment that comes with a laundry list of legal shortcuts–social security benefits, hospital visitation benefits, automatic inheritance rules, tax breaks, and the like. Children obviously benefit, because the default rules seek to help keep the family together. That stability is important for all children, no matter what the gender of their guardians.

    Do you factor in the 250,000 children who are currently living with same-sex couples–the stability that they need and that marriage can provide?

    Marriages benefit society and benefit children. We should be seeking more of it, not less.

    Best-

    Paul

13. “Lord, I pray in whatever way they need it, that you please provide for and encourage Paul and Kyle today. You made them and you love them. Thank you for this opportunity to talk with Paul and for the civility of the dialogue.”

    I love the name Kyle. Best regards to him and thank him for sharing you with me for the purpose of this discussion.

    I love knowing others for who they are and I love to be known. However, I have a friend who advises users of blog and social media about security risks. And while I don’t believe you to be any kind of threat, there are conservative blogger (especially those who support traditional marriage in the public sphere) who have hired security- because unfortunately they need it. While I am clearly small potatoes, I will keep his counsel and not share my name here. But thank you for asking.

    Before I comment on the above I want to state clearly my love and adoration for my mother and her partner. While growing up, my mom and her partner (my dear friend) provided stability for me. They supported me in my activities and pursuits and altogether loved me. I love them unequivocally and am so grateful for the ways they give to me and my children.

    I look back on my life, now that I have some distance from my childhood, and I can clearly see that while my mom and her partner loved me and provided stability, there is a part of me that just wouldn’t be who I am without my Father. Even though we are on totally different pages regarding worldview he provided unstopping involvement and interest in me and my life throughout my childhood. His delight in me gave me great confidence and allowed my self-esteem to soar. I feel like now I could scoop out a piece of myself and say “See this? This is the part of me that my Dad made.” I would be a different person if a MAN had not been in my life. And not just any man. One that has been with me since birth, with all the history and context of my life as I have grown and changed.

    I love the two ladies that I traveled with. They were the first ones to whom I announced my pregnancy when I ran across the hotel hallway to share with them the results of my pregnancy test. After fanning my face for several minutes, one finally handed me the phone to suggest I call my husband. Will they offer a better life to their daughters than an orphanage? Yes.

    Here’s the rub. Once you leave the in-tact biological man/woman family, you have brokenness. Every other place that a child finds him/herself in is just different levels of brokenness. Those girls will experience much less brokenness with my two friends that in an orphanage. That’s why I went. (And I loved them, that’s the other reason.)

    But as a society, if we can’t acknowledge what is innate in every child (namely, that they are entitled to know and be known by their parents and that they desire a loving father and mother in their life) then we truly are spinning reality to affirm our own proclivities. We so want what we want, the way we want it, when we want it, that we are squeezing kids into a mold they were never meant to be in. And then- as you demonstrate- saying “but we need to legalize gay marriage to help the kids.” No. Deal with the issues that cause the brokenness- sex by kids (or adults acting like kids), divorce, cohabitation. Putting social pressure on men to man-up and protect their girlfriends (by not taking sex from them without committing their life to the woman first) and their wives by protecting, supporting and being faithful to them. Punishing people who hurt children. Telling women the truth that their worth lies in more than their sex appeal and that motherhood is of irreplaceable value. When there are no more children that need to be adopted out, then we know that we truly will have helped children.

    While we don’t live near each other anymore, I will give myself to my lesbian friends in any way that I personally can. But I won’t alter the narrative (a.k.a reality) that kids need fathers and mothers and our legal world should acknowledge that. We cannot legalize gay marriage and as a society recognize the supremacy of man/woman parenting. At the least, no model of parenting will be considered ideal. At most, those who state the reality that man/woman marriage and parenting is ideal will be labeled as bigots- a tendency which is already in full swing.

    A timely case in point: “France Set to Ban the Words Mother and Father from Official Documents”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9563543/France-set-to-ban-the-words-mother-and-father-from-official-documents.html

    I don’t know if there is any more ground for us to cover, it seems that we are beginning to repeat ourselves. But if there is, fire away. I truly wish you and Kyle the best.

14. Thanks for the well wishes. I suppose we may be finished, and I appreciate the dialogue.

    I simply do not understand how, as you say, “we cannot legalize gay marriage and as a society recognize the supremacy of man/woman parenting.” Of course we can.

    Best of luck-

    Paul

15. It only took me forever to take a look at this – I apologize for that. Anyway…You treated this topic with tenderness and fairness, having shown reasonable research. As for legalizing gay marriage, this should be a state thing and the Feds should not be involved, nor should they be pressured to be involved. I also believe that it is wrong for people to want a Constitutional amendment concerning marriage, especially since we are talking about a portion of people who are of a small portion of our population (like, 1.7% as of 2011). Geez, right wingers…leave it alone. There are far more damaging and pressing matters that need attention.

    • Thanks for your feedback. Honest Christians can come to different conclusions about how to vote on the issue, that’s for sure. We face two dangers, considering gay marriage to be the biggest social issue facing the church, or considering it a non-issue.

      Keep up the blogging friend!

16. “The true naturalist would contend that the conditions under which a child is conceived is most likely the ideal conditions within which to raise that child.”

    The true naturalist would also contend that the conditions under which an apple is grown are most likely the ideal conditions under which to eat the apple: in a farm, covered in horseshit. Or perhaps not. In either case, I don’t think that your statement follows. .

    • Very eloquent. Thanks for your comments. 🙂 My point is, can you give me an example from nature when the offspring of a species would thrive when removed from it’s parents?

17. I’m sorry, I should have said horse excrement. My apologies again.

Comments are closed.