Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Why Marriage is Important and Should NOT Be Tinkered With

I have been spending alot of time on various websites studying and debating issues that are near and dear to my heart such as protecting traditional marriage and the plausibility of the theory of climate change. The following is a response I wrote to a well-meaning advocate of same-sex marriage over at Pajamas Mediawho couldn't fathom what all the fuss was about or what harm 2 people who love each other getting married could have on anyone else. It went on a bit longer than I anticipated, but it describes well my heart for marriage and children:

For centuries, the institution of marriage, whether the law recognized it or not, has been between one man and one woman for the primary purpose of bearing children. Why is this good? Because if people weren’t getting hitched and having kids, we wouldn’t be here. It’s a matter of survival.

Fact: Children grow up healthier and more balanced when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are in a committed relationship (marriage).

I am describing the ideal situation for the main benefactor of marriage: children. They are the next generation. If we screw them up, our society is also screwed.

The 60’s (the “me” era, sexual revolution, feminism, Eastern religion…) ushered in a whole new concept of relationships that are very sexualized, and sex has become more about personal gratification than procreating. When people get counseled in preparation for marriage, they are invariably told to “plan” their families; don’t have kids right away, take a vacation, see the world before you get “weighted down” with offspring. The parenting philosophy of today is centered on the parents; making sure they get lots of “me” time and rest, because after all, mommies and daddies are better mommies and daddies when the are in a good mood and aren’t all worn out from parenting, right?

My point is, marriage is ultimately about children, and children have become an after-thought, something to do when the “real fun” is over. This also applies to same sex marriage and what I described as the ideal environment in which to raise children. Let's say 2 committed, in love, homosexual men decide they want to get married and make a family. It’s the American dream, right? So it sounds fair, just let them do it. To accomplish this, we loosen up the definition of marriage a little, what’s the harm? Ted and Steve buy a house together, make out their wills and share a common name as a sign of their love and commitment.

The next logical step is to have children… but here we have an obvious problem, don’t we? The newlyweds have no choice but to adopt, so they do. Or maybe they find a woman big-hearted enough to be artificially inseminated with either of their sperm and carry the baby to term. Voila! Ted and Steve are a white picket fence and a dog away from the complete American dream! And why shouldn’t they have all this?

1. Marriage isn’t recognized and supported by the state so you and I can “pronounce our undying love”. This is drivel we inherited from the generation of “me”, who are focused less on serving their fellow man than fulfilling their own personal desires.

2. The children that will result from either being adopted and raised by Ted and Steve, or the surrogate situation I described will not be raised in the “ideal”, so why do it? Ted and Steve have very compelling reasons for wanting children. They are driven by their desire to paint the perfect family picture and prove that “family” can mean more than it has traditionally. They want to make a powerful political statement about their community. The problem with these motives, regardless of how noble they may sound is how self-centered they are; parenthood should be child-centered, not parent-centered. If you want kids for any other reason than to serve them, then you are starting off on the wrong foot and shouldn’t bother.

This same thing applies to single people wanting children, unmarried heterosexuals who don’t want to marry, or any other situation you can dream up that ISN’T 2 biological, opposite sex people.

The real reason marriage is so good for America is that it creates and fosters the next generation so in 20 years there IS an America.

We should remember that God originally defined marriage, and He loves it dearly. Changing it's definition is no small thing and the impact will not be a good one should it happen.


Mr. Grey Ghost said...

Excellent letter! The whole point of modern-day liberalism is to end Christianity, that said, its no wonder that same-sex marriage has become so normalized.

Outside the Box said...

Hmmmmm, where to begin??
There's just soooo much!

I don't think it's accurate to state that liberalism is about ending Christianity specifically. However, in my experiences liberalism tries to be based on reason, whereas I've noticed the majority of people who claim to be conservative-Christians use emotions (unknowingly) as the basis for their decisions.

I would say that ending Christianity is more of an indirect result, rather than the main objective. Of course, I've never been to a meeting or anything, so I could be way off.

Outside the Box said...

I should start this comment off by stating that we are in total agreement about what marriage is about, the importance of it when it comes to raising children, and their role in our society.

However, here are my criticims/comments, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1: "For centuries..."
This gives the impression that before the popular version of marriage there wasn't anything else, which of course is false. As for as I understand polygamy has the title when it comes to the oldest, most popular form of marriage in history. I'm not claiming to favor it. I just don't think your statement is fair.

As for a "matter of survival", I'm certain if you made marriage illegal with the death penalty backing it up, there'd still be people procreating left and right.

Paragraph 4: I think our society's problems with relationships, marriage, parenting, etc. are far more complicated than simply blaming it on the 60's (i.e. "damn Liberals").

(I'm short on time, so I'll stop here, but I'll be back soon.)

Bullfrog said...

Regarding the obvious anti-Christian bias from the Left; well, it's OBVIOUS. I'll move on...

Bullfrog said...

Liberalism is based on reason, which is less reliable than what Christians should base their decisions on: the Bible, which I believe to be the inerrant word of God and THE source of wisdom for how we should live. Emotions change with the tide, the Bible does not.

Bullfrog said...

My "centuries" remark was a generalization not meant to describe every man-woman relationship. Hebrew law required marriage, and even made it a requirement for a widow to marry her deceased husband's brother, arranged marriages are part of the ancient traditions of many cultures. Why? Because the marriage relationship provides, primarily an environment for our species to live on, but also facilitated the handling of property and several other benefits.

I wouldn't argue that not marrying makes people less apt to procreate, I would only argue that procreation without marriage makes for a less stable society.

Certainly the 60's era is not SOLELY responsible for every problem we have with relationships and marriage, and I wasn't implying that; but the more I read, the more I realize ALOT of damage was done to marriage, human sexuality, and relationships in general, married or not. I will happily provide specific examples if you care to discuss this in more detail.

Jonathan said...

When G-d showed himself to Moses as a bush that burned and was not consumed, Moses asked Him/Her "what is your name" and G-d said "I will be what I will be". He/She didn't say the words that most translations use "I am what I am".

G-d is a verb. To claim to speak for G-d as you do below:

"We should remember that God originally defined marriage, and He loves it dearly. Changing it's definition is no small thing and the impact will not be a good one should it happen."

is, at best taking the name in vain. Remember Romans 12:19-21. "...Don't become snobbish but take a real interest in ordinary people. Don't become set in your own options..."

Bullfrog said...

Jonathan: I appreciate you stopping by and sharing your opinion.

You should know that everything I believe about marriage, and in a more general sense, the way we need to live our lives to be content and have peace with God comes from one place: The Holy Bible, which I believe to be the inerrant word of God Himself and an expression of His character and desire (2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12). I made my statement about how God views marriage in confidence, being firmly persuaded by His word that what I said was true.(Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2:16, Matthew 19:3-5, Mark 10:6-8, 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,10,11)

If you think your legalistic omitting of the "o" from His name somehow wins you favor with Him, you are mistaken. He has made a way that you can be fully accepted into His family and be given an imperishable inheritance through Jesus Christ, so the "law" you have written for yourself about how to use His name only has value in proving you need grace.(John 5:39,40)

I am His child, bought with the blood of His one and only Son, Jesus Christ, (i Corinthians 6:20) so I have been given the right to go into HIs throne room boldly and call to Him, "Abba, Abba", which means, "Daddy".(Galatians 4:6)

The verse you provided, Romans 12:19-21 is about how the Christian who has been transformed by God's mercy should carry themselves, specifically, to hate evil and to overcome evil with good.

Your translation is broken.

Jonathan said...


If you read further in Romans 12:9-21, Scripture says:

"If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink. For in that way you will heap coals of fire on their heads."

If your translation of Scripture is not broken, and you are a follower of Jesus Christ, isn't it Biblical to support marriage equality? If not, you are not fighting "evil" as Jesus taught. Perhaps He taught that, because that is how we are to behave if we are "in Christ". To do otherwise, is to risk our salvation, for what if what we think is evil is actually good? Then we have violated the most important commandment, to love G-d, and to love neighbor as self.

Bullfrog said...

It is not up to me to decide what is right and wrong, it is up to God. According to the Bible, His design was that a man and a woman should come together "as one flesh" and be fruitful, filling the earth. The problem with redefining marriage is that it ignores the importance of procreation and lowers marriage to simply an expression of the emotions that one person may feel towards another. Marriage is not about expressing your love, or just having recreational sex; it is about family.

The "family" you are promoting always involves a 3rd person to bring children into the situation. This is, as stated in my original post, NOT in the best interest of children or ultimately society.

Aside from the obvious moral argument, you can make a purely social argument against re-defining marriage. The Bible only proves it is God's law that is written on man's heart that is the root of the social stigmas which result in laws being written to prohibit behavior that would interfere with liberty.

Loving my neighbor as myself does not mean accepting or supporting all of their behavior, especially if it contradicts the word of God. In fact, I believe it means primarily telling the truth, which ultimately will set them free.

Jonathan said...


First you say:

"It is not up to me to decide what is right and wrong, it is up to God. "

and then you contradict yourself and say:

"Loving my neighbor as myself does not mean accepting or supporting all of their behavior, especially if it contradicts the word of God. In fact, I believe it means primarily telling the truth."

After saying that it was not up to you to decide what is right and wrong, you did just that. If you are not engaged and listening to "ordinary people", you can't discern truth.

That's why I quoted Paul to you.

"...Don't become snobbish but take a real interest in ordinary people. Don't become set in your own options..."

Please meditate on this. I can't do much more to help you.

Bullfrog said...

Jonathan, your ears are closed.

I said it is not up to me to decide, and that is true. It doesn't mean I am unable to quote God's word where HE says explicitly what is right and what is wrong.

The way I engage ordinary people is by telling them about salvation that can be found in Jesus Christ, who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

I have no problem listening to folks, but the ultimate source of objective truth is the Bible, not the opinions of men. What I believe to be true is what is stated in God's word.

If you continue to ignore the real meat of my argument, this will (and actually has) deteriorate into an endless back and forth where you debate against your own "straw man".

You also are now obligated to show me, in God's word, where He approves of marriage between other than 1 man and 1 woman, and where those who are His children should accept what His word calls evil.

Jonathan said...


Thank you for being patient and for catching my typo " Don't become set in your own options [opinions]..."

The Bible doesn't explicitly define "same-sex" marriage, but it does describer historical evolution from chattel property marriage to "marriage equality".
See the rape of Dinah story for one of the worst depictions of marriage as property/political arrangement.

The Bible shows how the polygamous "marriage" of the Old Testament is superseded by the "equal marriage of the New Testament. Many parables from Jesus advocate for the equality of spouses regardless of their gender. Jesus defines adultery as having lust in a man's (or woman's) heart. He breaks with the idea that a wife "belongs" to her husband's brother should the husband die when he says "in heaven, they are all equals".

My comments to you were not meant to convince you that you will find "same-sex marriage" in the Bible. I visited to explain two things:

1. There are Christians who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered, and are married. They are not "evil". They are part of the body of Christ.


2. There are Christianly ways of living our lives. Participation in an American political movement to oppose marriage equality - even if you think that marriage equality is proscribed by Scripture - is to oppose the His Word. This opposition is snobbish and centered on opinion, not on Scripture.

If you are married, you must surely know how difficult it is to not commit acts of adultery in the heart and to be pure, always. This I believe to be the true root of opposition to marriage equality. It's the fear that same-sex couples can teach other-sex couples what it means to have a truly equal partnership in marriage.

Bullfrog said...

"Many parables from Jesus advocate for the equality of spouses regardless of their gender." - Name one.

You imply that, although the Bible doesn't explicitly describe same sex marriage, it implies it. I would argue that there are many verses (of which I am sure you are already familiar) that call homosexuality "sin". On the other hand, there are many verses that explicitly describe heterosexual marriage, so I believe the meaning is pretty clear assuming no pre-conceived bias.

I am aware that there are people who live the homosexual lifestyle and yet call themselves "Christian". Certainly, all Christians struggle with one sin or another, including me. But I do not willingly pursue a lifestyle in said sin which is a different matter. Any person who does not renounce homosexuality while claiming to be in Christ has had their heart darkened by sin as described in the first chapter of Romans and given over to their lust.

Last time, I am not interested on sharing my opinion with you, because that has little worth; I am more concerned with sharing the truth as set forth in the BIble regarding salvation through Jesus Christ. Nor is your opinion of any value to me, but rather what you can tell me about what is spelled out in Scripture regarding this matter.

Let me also offer hope, that those who Paul described in Romans as "given over to lust" were not given over arbitrarily, but that they might know the depth of their need for the gospel and that God desires to have mercy in the hour that mercy is required.

Jonathan said...


You ask - "Name one"

The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, "Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?" He said to them, "Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.' So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together."
- Mark 10:3-6

"...When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven"
-Mark 12:18-25

The seven husbands do not "own" the one wife.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
-Matt 16:19

Nor do visit your blog to share my opinion, but to share the Holy Spirit as it speaks Truth to me. I am speaking from experience because I am speaking about my own life. You are speaking mere opinion, because you are speaking about me, and I know what truth is and what opinion is when the I am the subject of discussion.

This statement of your is pure unadulterated opinion.

"Any person who does not renounce homosexuality while claiming to be in Christ has had their heart darkened by sin as described in the first chapter of Romans and given over to their lust."

Remember your first criticism of me?

"If you think your legalistic omitting of the "o" from His name somehow wins you favor with Him, you are mistaken."

But the Orthodox Jews never spell out the name of G-d. "God will be what God will be"? Does God's Word change over time? Does it advance with historical context? Are you being legalistic about sexuality as the Jews are about dietary laws?

Would you favor the "marriage" of two older people who are beyond child bearing age. Can people marry who have no intention of raising a family? What "lifestyle" do they live? Are they given over to lust?

Bullfrog said...

You have made the point that men and women are equal, but you have failed to prove that homosexual marriage is implicit in the Biblical treatment of marriage. You believe equality between men and women in the marriage relationship implies that men can marry men and women can marry women? The burden of proof is still on you.

Your experience and mine is myopic compared to the riches of God's word. The Truth is not experiential; the Truth is Jesus Christ, a Person. I am sharing with you what the Bible says about marriage, not my opinion of you, Jonathan. I don't know you at all, so how can I have an "opinion"?

I have made my beliefs clear based on what I believe to be contained in God's word; if I am incorrect, then correct me.

It is true that the Jews were well versed in the Law of God and kept every one. Even going as far as inventing hundreds of additional laws that would guarantee they never broke the original 10 commandments. How did Jesus respond to them? He called them a "brood of vipers" and "white-washed tombs"; a stern rebuke indeed because Jesus understood that the only value the law had was as a task master, leading sinners to HIm where they would receive mercy in their hour of need. That is why I said that your legalistically not typing the whole name of God has no value to you because through the new covenant, Christ has made a way for you to approach the throne of the Most HIgh with boldness, as a son and beneficiary of the full inheritance! You don't need to cower before God in fear because any man who is in Christ is clothed with the righteousness of CHrist HImself!

Until you can show me in the Bible where God accepts homosexuality, I will not address your comment about "sexual legalism".

If 2 people decide to get married without children in mind, but only for the freedom to engage in sexual intercourse and/or to reap tax benefits, then they have bought the cultural sexualization of marriage that has been going on at least since the sexual liberation movement of the 1960's. For this they will not be condemned, but as a parent, they are missing one of the greatest joys God gives us in this life.

I would never argue that people who are unable to procreate should not be allowed to marry. However, this does not apply to the homosexual relationship, because as a matter of simple biology, the ability to procreate has never been part of the design. To compare to same sex people with 2 senior citizens or a heterosexual couple where either the man is impotent or has a low sperm count or the woman is barren is lame.

Jonathan said...


Your interpretation of what the Bible says about marriage *is* your opinion, just as your statement that my argument "is lame" is your opinion.

We have different interpretations of what the Bible says. I believe that Jesus elevated the heart (brain) above all else. Your interpretation appears to be stuck in Old Testament purity laws which focus on sexual behaviors and what it means to cleave and become "one flesh".

Regardless, you must accept that different people have different interpretations and that those interpretations are based on personal experience and revelations from the Holy Spirit. You've admitted that even if you believe that marriage equality is "evil", that Christians should give their enemies "a drink of water" if they are thirsty. It's incumbent on you to explain why that is not the case when it comes to secular political activism against marriage equality.

Bullfrog said...

Allow me to qualify my "lame" statement, as I meant no offense to you personally; this is an argument that I have heard numerous times from people who are sympathetic to the cause of re-defining marriage.

The basic biology of men and women is such that, when they come together sexually, they have the potential to make offspring. 2 men and 2 women do not have this same potential. The point of making the comparison is to rebut the perception that heterosexual and homosexual couples are "the same" due to at least this 1 glaring difference. Notice I didn't say they weren't equal as I would define equality; and that is I believe every living person has a God given right to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You start by saying that my interpretation of the Bible regarding marriage is my opinion, and you have no doubt about this. You then offer that different people have different interpretations of the Bible based on personal experience and revelations by the Holy Spirit. This is a contradiction. Either way, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and the absolute, objective truth. This means if 2 people have a disagreement about what a particular verse says, 1 of those people is right and the other is incorrect. Certainly there is only 1 Holy Spirit, so if we both have that Spirit we should be in agreement.

The value of experience as it pertains to Biblical interpretation is only beneficial in revealing a depth of understanding of a particular Biblical concept, but it doesn't change the interpretation. I may have a clearer understanding of what the Bible says about suffering due to having experienced much suffering, while another person who has not suffered much in life may not have as clear an understanding; this doesn't mean what the Bible teaches about suffering has a different definition for each person.

Not sure how the basic kindness of "giving a cup of water" applies to re-defining an age old institution that has been the foundation of every society since the beginning of time.

Here are some verses from the Bible regarding homosexuality that leads me to believe God considers the act to be an abomination:

Leviticus 18:20-23 - 20 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Assuming you are correct about the irrelevance of Old Testament purity laws, this would mean that no only is homosexuality now acceptable, so is bestiality, and child sacrifice. Please explain what you think it means to "cleave" and "become one flesh".

Leviticus 20:13 - 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

Romans 1:26,27 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

In the New King James version (the above is taken from the New International Version), the word used to describe the homosexual is "effeminate", which is the Hebrew word "malakos", which means "soft" and refers to men who are taken to homosexual acts.

Jude 7 - 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I believe homosexuality is as, but not more than, contemptible as fornication (sexual intercourse outside of marriage) and therefore is not included in God's definition of marriage. It should not then be included in the laws of our land.

Jonathan said...

Bullfog says:

"this is an argument that I have heard numerous times from people who are sympathetic to the cause of re-defining marriage."

Jesus says:

"Do ye not yet perceive nor understand? Have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?"

Bullfrog, you have just redefined marriage. Jesus said that marriage is from the heart, but your heart is hard. Jesus has spoken to you through people who have testified that they *are* married. But you refuse to hear their voices.

And you claim that you know His Word, yet you reject the Holy Spirit. If you are married, please send my condolences to your wife and tell her that I pray that some day you will give your heart to her and see her as an equal, and that some day, your heart will soften and you will re-marry her and celebrate for the first time in your life the "re-defined" marriage that Jesus taught us.

Bullfrog said...

I have respectfully tolerated this conversation and shard with you, in a sincere way from my heart, what God SAYS about marriage. You have chosen to make this personal, as personal as it could be, as you have insulted the person whom I am one with in body and spirit.

Don't you ever, in your life think you know and understand my heart for my beautiful and Godly wife; and don't you EVER mention her again. She deserves the utmost respect and you, sir, are not worthy of her, so I suggest you go your own way and politely ask you never to return to my blog again.

You know all the truth that is necessary to repent, the rest is your choice.

David Weintraub said...


Jonathan obviously struck a nerve when he spoke personally to you about your own marriage. That is understandable.

Can you see why others might also find it offensive when you dismiss their marriages - or, if you prefer, covenant partnerships - as nothing but "emotional attachments," or even worse, driven merely by "lust"? You are talking about real people, people who have made sacrifices for each other, who would lay down their lives for each other, and people who have gone through their own struggles to understand and embrace how God has made them. How can you dare to insult other people this way, people about whom you know nothing at all, and then react in this hysterical manner when your own marriage is mildly remarked upon?

One more question, Bullfrog. Are your hypothetical non-fertile hetero couples marrying out of "lust"? If they know full well that their sexual union can't result in pregnancy, but choose to have sexual relations anyway, how could it be anything else according to your framework?

I don't mean this personally, but I find attempts to explain away this contradiction lame.

Bullfrog said...

David, Jonathan didn't bring up my marriage. He brought up my wife, and basically said he felt sorry for her for being married to me. He assumed to know my heart towards her and called our marriage a "sham". I have, and am willing to continue to, take disrespect and even the occasional "low-blow" in the interest of discussing important issues; but my wife, who I love dearly and can't imagine being without, is absolutely off limits. You have been warned and you should know that you are already on "thin ice" as well because it appears you have come to succeed where your friend failed.

Regarding your statement about me dismissing "marriages", your premise that marriage is whatever you want it to be is incorrect. Marriage has been an institution for centuries, and has traditionally been between 1 man and 1 woman, primarily for the purpose of making a family and furthering the survival of human beings. The relationships that you describe as "marriages" are not that in any sense of the word, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to change the law to include those relationships.

I am not pretending to know the heart of every couple who desires to be married, so I cannot say whether it is for lust, or emotional attachments, nor am I against homosexual people. What I am against is re-defining marriage because of the social ramifications that I detailed in my original article. This is not an emotional issue, it is an issue of changing the laws of the state of California, so your point that homosexual people are living in committed, loving relationships, caring for each other, etc, has no bearing.

The reason laws have been written to support marriage is because the government recognizes the inherent benefit to society of 2 people forming committed relationships and procreating. I find your attitude toward changing the definition of marriage as cavalier, and you (or Jonathan) have yet to present a compelling argument that would make me change my vote for Proposition 8 this coming November which will effectively nullify the decision of the activist judges in the California Supreme Court who thwarted the expressed will of the people of California who already decided, in a mandate, that they wanted marriage in their state to be defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.

I will take it a step further and allow that the law stays as it already is and that Prop 8 fails, which is certainly possible, but seemingly unlikely based on past votes on this very issue and current polling numbers.

Is this environment good for the children that will be raised in it? Whether those children are adopted and raised by a homosexual couple or just familiar with it as it becomes more normalized, will it be a benefit or a detriment?

That marriage should remain as it is, and the deleterious effects to children if it does not, is the basic premise of my article. Jonathan refused to deal directly with that premise and made a purely emotional argument, trying to drag the very word of God along; So far you have acted in a similar fashion, but I challenge you to attack the premise of my article.

Bullfrog said...

" tao said...
You know Bullfrog, I have read your argument about marriage being good for kids....and making that a defense against gay marriage.

Now, if you want me to believe that you sincerely believe that then I will as soon as you develop a movement to ban divorce and start supporting a constitutional amendment against divorce. We both agree that divorce causes more issues for children than any other single issue is raising healthy children.

While you are at it go after about banning it and maybe following shia law and a public stoning for adulterers.

If you follow public polls you will see that only about 10% of our population would benefit from gay marriage while 48% of our hetrosexual marriages end in divorce and 63% of all currently married (that would be hetrosexuals) admitted to having affairs....

Financial troubles are also a very serious issue in regards to marriage, family, and kids...thus should our society ban financial troubles?

Its easy to view gay marriage as a is harder to view divorce and adultery that way because most likely you live next to and or work with people or go to church with these people, ones who have had divorces and or committed adultery.

It is easy to criticize the "me" generation but let us not forget that they were raised and instructed by parents from the "greatest generation" those folks that fought in WWII and then daddy worked and mommy stayed at home...the perfect child rearing environment according to you...

I have nothing against the religious argument that you espouse, I am just waiting to see its sincere application in a manner that truly impacts the goals that you claim to aspire to. The trouble is that it is easy to claim a religious perspective as long as the consequences do not effect you personally or the majority of the people who profess to believe as you do. But as long as we focus the argument on gay marriage we keep the focus off of divorce and adultery....which might infringe upon the majority.

So, get bussy Bullfrog...denounce divorce and adultery....and start attacking divorce support groups and churches and states that allow is our children and the future of this country at stake...

11/16/2008 8:56 AM"

Bullfrog said...

So what you are assuming is that I approve of divorce because I haven't blogged about it, so let me set the record straight: I hate divorce. In case there is any doubt: I believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality, adultery, and divorce are all sinful. God created marriage and cherishes it, and so should we. The effect of divorce on society, part of which is dysfunctional child-rearing, is a consequence of ignoring that.

Constitutional amendments banning making divorce illegal? There are pros and cons to that which I will not go into here, but overall it might make people think a little harder before entering into a marriage contract.

So now you have vowed that you will not take me seriously about the marriage issue until I lead the charge against divorce. Well, I suppose that is your choice, but it doesn't make for a very compelling rebuttal. Shia law, and death penalty for adultery? I assume you are being sarcastic.

I would like to know where you got your polling information, because my understanding is that the gay community makes up alot less than 10% of the population of this country. Their hope is to get it to that number, which is why they recruit so aggressively.

The Bible also teaches that we are to consider others above ourselves, and to love our neighbor the same way we love ourselves; so the "me" generation couldn't have gotten it more wrong.

As to whether I am sincerely applying what I believe, I have done all that I can to marry the right way:

- My wife and I were friends before marriage for a year. We courted, meaning the extent to which we allowed ourselves to express our affections physically was by holding hands or a brief embrace as a goodbye.
- We did not live together until after marriage, and tried not to be alone in private.
- Obviously, we didn't have kids until after marriage (see 1st bullet)
- We married before God, knowing that He was bringing us together, and take very seriously the contract that we made.
- We will raise our children the same way

Aside from that, I write letters to representatives, vote my conscience, and argue for the protection of marriage whenever possible.

That is the effort I put into protecting marriage.

Divorce being commonplace only reflects how far we have strayed from God's moral code, and I cannot, as a matter of conscience sit idly while we take another giant step toward destroying marriage by changing the definition.

What is funny to me is, and so far your argument is no exception, is that the gay community hoists the responsibility on traditionalists like me to explain why we should leave marriage as it is. Homosexuals, and others who sympathize with this cause are the ones asking for the change and asking for everyone else to make an exception, so I think they (and you) need to start making a compelling argument for re-defining marriage.

TAO said...

Bullfrog, there is alot of society that could not pass the test of biblical scripture. My issue with using biblical scripture for a "drawing in the sand" of a moral position is just that...its just a line in the sand. A line that keeps moving.

I personally believe that children should be raised in a loving home. I think we have too few loving homes today.

I am a very religious person but I believe that my religious beliefs are mine and between myself and God. Just like your example of the relationship that you and your wife have is an example of your religious beliefs and the strength that your convictions obviously reflect in your life. I could sit here and layout my life and how it follows biblical teachings also...and I could layout a big long list of sins I have committed too.

I have also traveled around the world and experienced many different cultures and religions and I have to come respect them as much as I respect my own religious beliefs.

I now live in the south and I cannot help but notice that beliefs of compassion and concern do not always translate into action. On the block I live on there are two ministers and their families and two gay couples that own couple lives next door to me. My beliefs have taken a sharp turn since they have moved in.

But if you are going to preach against gay marriage and use children as a motivation (and I believe that if you read the bible especially the part about go forth and multiply) you might want to expand that beyond the traditional concept of kids....two hearts in love and bonded to each other can multiply on many more levels than just children.

As someone who has had cancer at a very young age and cannot have kids I realize that my marriage of 25 years was truly a gift from God. We just figured that God wanted us together for something more than just childrearing...and while we would have loved children it was not meant to be....

So, we have multiplied in a different way than just a literal reading of one line of the bible...

You do not need to bear children to be fruitful to the world and or your society....or to your God.

If you do believe that children are the sole purpose of marriage then start posting about the sins of divorce and adultery and lay off gay marriage. I cannot help but believe that the love my neighbors share with each other is much greater, and truly a gift from God, than what I have witnessed from hetrosexual couples in my neighborhood over the last 20 years. My home has been visited numerous times by neighbor kids as their parents fought through fact all of them always visit at least once a year and a few actually have closer relationships with me than they do their own fathers....

I have learned to trust my heart to find God's word...and thus I do not spend as much time as I used to reading the bible looking for quidance.

Bullfrog said...

Tao: Why are you so pro-gay marriage? As I already stated, my conscience will not allow me to, "lay off". You keep trying to make a larger issue out of divorce and adultery and trying to convince me that if I REALLY cared, that would be my focus. I have already articulated my side of this issue.

Clearly, you are defending what you believe to be the rights of same-sex couples to legally marry. You still have not answered the fundamental question about the premise of your argument: If marriage is in trouble, as you readily admit, how does re-defining it strengthen it?

Are kids just as well of in a same-sex, non-biological home than a biological home?

And don't bring the, "totally abusive, dysfunctional biological parents" vs. "affluent, well-adjusted same-sex parents" argument, because it misses the point completely. Let's assume both situations are normal, working, contributers to society, k?

Bullfrog said...

Tao: Morality depends on a moral code. My moral code is the Bible. How else are we to measure right and wrong unless we have a non-moving plumb-line?

TAO said...


That is YOUR moral code. Now, lets say you moved to Saudi Arabia or China...would YOUR moral code still be THE moral ocde?

How does a society develop A Moral code for all members of a society if not all members believe in the same bible and or read and comprehend the bible the same way you do? There was a show on television last night about polygamy and those people based their whole argument supporting polygamy with bible verses, one after another...just like you do.

Parts of Albania have a code that takes the eye for an eye concept to another level....even though they now have a legal system to prosecute crimes.

You have YOUR moral code and it is true for you and you alone. Now, how does society develop a moral code when, like my town which has a mosque and two synanages develop a moral code that also is acceptable to athesists.

Lets not forget that not everyone reads and believes the bible in the same way that you do and they are no less believers and or christians than you are.

Bullfrog said...

Tao: You have touched on the concept of relative morality, a subject that is certainly compelling to a philosopher, but doesn't really work in the real world.

If "my morality" is different than yours, what keeps them from overlapping?

Psalm 19:7 - The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Bullfrog said...

Tao: People misuse the Bible all the time. Your polygamy example proves that as the Bible documents the practice without endorsing it. Folks make the mistake all the time of assuming whatever subject matter the Bible covers is implicitly endorsed there. It's also easy to forget necessary context when you have a particular ulterior motive.

Our country was founded on the moral code explained in the Bible, and it has served us well. The only reason it has ceased to do so is that collectively we have walked away.