Bundle Up, Girls!

Last year, when I debated Andrew Sullivan over same sex mirage he claiming to see it, and me claiming not to, for is it not a mirage? one of the arguments that I advanced was this one: Given the premises and arguments of same sexery, we have absolutely no reason to limit marriage to two persons only. Andrew wanted to say no, no, no, and that two persons only was traditional and sacrosanct like anybody cares about that these days. But that was his position anyhow.

In the aftermath of the debate, one of the questions raised to me (from friendly quarters) was whether I was treating same sex mirage as the slippery part of the slope, and polygamy as the bottom of the slope. But Abraham and David were polygamists, and so why would polygamy a deficient form of marriage, to be sure, but still recognizably marriage be treated as the reductio ad depravationem of another practice that the Scriptures universally treat as detestable. Is this not backwards somehow?

Point taken, but there are still several ways to defend this argument o mine and it should be defended. The first is this. The point is not that plural marriage in itself is worse than same sex mirage, but rather that the defenders of same sex mirage like to draw arbitrary and capricious lines whenever it comes to the definition of marriage, and they have absolutely no coherent reason for doing so. When an opponent of same sex mirage is asked to defend his position, he says sure. God made the human body, He created us male and female, the two complement one another in exquisite ways, and together they carry the image of God (Gen. 1:27). When a homosexual activist is asked to defend his opposition to plural marriage, he will say sure. Because math and hate.
Whatever standards for marriage the advocates of same sex mirage still arbitarily have (for whatever reason) they should be made to defend. The point is to make it evident that they have no defense. If they say there should only be two people, make them say it, and them make them say why. If they say the age of consent should be eighteen, make them explain why it shouldnt be seventeen. Their trajectory is evil, but this point is simpler. Their trajectory is capricious and ad hoc.


I am fully aware that once the goal of same sex mirage is realized, a bunch of people who had been professing themselves horrified at the idea of big love will suddenly discover themselves evolving on the subject. Yay evolution. We know how the drill goes. Action A is proposed, conservatives predict Consequence B, advocates of Action A say ho, ho, ho, what a maroon, Action A is enacted, Consequence B arrives on its scheduled flight, the conservatives issue an indigant press release pointing this out, advocates of Action A and defenders of Consequence B say ho, ho, ho, what a maroon, and announce the introduction of Legislation C. This aint my first rodeo.

I also realize that this involves a tangle of inconsistencies on their part, and that it is not possible to build a civilization on the foundation of such inconsistencies. This is quite true, but their goal is not to build a civilization their goal, in case you hadnt realized it by now, is to tear one down. The inconsistencies dont bother them. They want to demolish Christian civilization. And in this endeavor they are doing quite well, with a bunch of help incidentally from metrosexual hipster Christians, filled to the brim with thots about serious phillums, the kind with the sort of art nudity that makes you think Heidegger was on to something.

So the point to be made here is that homosexual activists do know how to pressure us to modify marriage into an unrecognizable state, but if someone were to ask them to define marriage de novo and please explain to us why we should accept this definition of marriage, they have absolutely nothing to say. What is marriage and why?

The definition of marriage either comes from outside ourselves (from Gods Word and from natural revelation) or it is an arbitrary arrangement according to the pleasures and whims of those participating in it. And if it is according to the whims of however many people can fit on a California king-sized bed, I dont see why Andrew Sullivans peculiar and very personal hang-ups should dictate to these deeply committed five it was six but Suzy fell off any kind of limitation on their love.

Well, there is another problem. It starts with the voluntary desires of all those participating in it, but it always ends in accordance with those controlling the institution. I have in mind here Boko Harams approach to marriage, which does not take into account the wishes of the abducted child brides. I also have in mind the supine cravenness of the Western elites, who just award Iran a seat on the UN Womens Rights Commission. Time to bundle up, girls!

Either we control the definition of marriage or we dont. If we dont, it is time for some Bible study, and serious research by sociologists who dont have the gun of political correctness resting on their collective temple. The coolness of the metal helps them to concentrate. If we do control what the definition of marriage is, then lets be done with laying down laws of any kind. What right do we have to put the lusts of others in a cage? Unless, of course, doing so gratifies our lusts returning to the Boko Haram point.

But other than that, what right do we have to dictate to any future generations? Maybe they might want to replicate what Herodotus wrote about that time, and build a society that required all its women to serve a public service stint as a sacred prostitute. I am sure we could come up with a slick way to sell it. We could call it something like AmeriWhore.
Nothing is worse than this namby pamby nihilism. Nothing more tepid than warmed over moralism from ostensible atheists like Sam Harris a moral landscape, forsooth! If you are hoping to murder God, then at least pretend to have done it, and face the consequences. You will have to go mad like Nietzsche did. But if you dont want to do it, then come back to Jesus.
It should not be surprising, but children growing up with same sex parents show a much greater likelihood of being all screwed up. Allow me to wait for a moment to let the shouting die down because this is the point in the debate where the shouting usually starts. People like me dont deserve to be answered, being beneath contempt and all, and so we advance the science by shouting that the science is settled, and people like me are science-deniers. I hope to get to the details of this in a future post, but it is a fact that children who grow up in homes headed by two women or by two men are significantly more likely to have been abused.

This is the point where my argument will be deliberately misrepresented, alleging that I am saying that it never happens with heterosexuals, or that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Of course I am not saying that. But I am saying something that should be noted, and which is likely to be just as offensive.

People who reject biblical morality, and who reject the authority of right reason in the natural world, are much more likely to transgress those boundaries all of them. This is the reason the risks are significantly higher. Even though not all homosexuals are pedophiles, all pro-homosexual arguments are pro-pedophile arguments. Name me one that isnt. Born this way, check. Deeply felt urges and yearnings, check. Whos to say whats normal, check. There is not one pro-homosexual argument that cannot be enlisted in the service of toppling the next taboo, whatever that remaining and increasingly lonely taboo might be.

One other point. A second way to defend my plural marriage argument is by noting that the problem confronting the decadent western world is not going to be the occasional renegade Mormon. The problem is not how many women live under some little roosters roof in a rural county of Utah. The pressing problem is Islam. There is no way to open the door to polygamy without simultaneously opening the door to Sharia law and that really is dangerous. The secular West does not know what it stands for anymore, and following Chestertons dictum, it will therefore fall for anything. The only exception the secularists recognize is Christianity they wont fall for that, not until God unleashes His sovereign reformation despite their wishes. But in the meantime, the Islamic fundamentalists will continue to go through decadent Western societies like a hot knife through butter. And Sharia law really would be the bottom of a bad slide.

Share on Facebook27Tweet about this on Twitter4Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, off-topic, or semi-Pelagian.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

49 thoughts on “Bundle Up, Girls!

  1. Doug, if youre really worried about sharia law, one of the most effective ways to prevent it is to demand strict separation of church and state. That way, Omar cant marry his nine year old cousin and her twin sister for the same reason a Christian baker cant refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. What evangelicals fail to appreciate is that separation of church and state is as much for your benefit as it is for the benefit of unbelievers; if and when Muslims actually achieve political power in this country, youre going to be mighty glad that they cant use the state to push their religion on you any more than you can use it to push your religion on the rest of us. Otherwise, your entire argument rises and falls on Christians continuing to be the dominant religion, and thats not something I would bet the rent on.

  2. I think its funny the Eric believes people will follow a piece of paper once they are in power who have no idea why or how that paper was written. We have an entire political party who has no regard for that document, and to think if a more radical group gained control that they would somehow show reverence for this same document is bordering on the laughable.

  3. if and when Muslims actually achieve political power in this country, you’re going to be mighty glad that they can’t use the state to push their religion on you

    Perhaps Im being obtuse, but why cant they, again? Because theres a piece of paper created by and rooted in philosophies and values that they utterly reject, that says they cant?

  4. Eric the Red, Noooooo! It wont work!

    There is no neutral spiritual ground! There is no neutral position from which the state can make moral and social decisions and judgements! An attempt to move towards spiritual and moral neutrality always fails, because neutrality is simply a mask worn by moral chaos!

    There is no position from which to make good moral and social decisions other than the right moral and spiritual position. There is no such thing as a morally and spiritually neutral position. Having no position is impossible! Believing that you have no position is foolish and immoral, and leads directly to horrendous injustice and inhumanity!

    Your skepticism and intellectualism should make you able to come to this understanding objectively, but you insist on perpetuating these illogical and inhumane claims! Why?!

  5. @Eric The Red

    You have it precisely backward the separation of church and state [sic] is precisely why people should be allowed to refuse to provide services to which they have moral objections. The idea that the prohibition on congress passing laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof means that the government must force people to do things which their consciences forbid is so silly as to lead me to believe that perhaps you arent being serious?

  6. Approximately 2/3s of the earths population belongs to a faith/religion that frowns upon homosexuality. http://chartsbin.com/view/3nr

    Eric has consistently maintained that as a Humian Utilitarian that he only wants what is best for the most people.

    Welcome to the faith, Eric.

  7. Polygamy actually presents a unique problem. In a normal society you have roughly a 50-50 sex ratio. With monogamy this works out, each man gets a woman and vice versa. But polygamy allows one man to have e.g. 5 women, which leaves 4 other men out of luck. This causes enormous social problems, and this effect isnt caused by revisions within the context of monogamy, such as gay marriage.

  8. @matt

    What kind of misogynist demands that polygamy must be only of the one man, many wives variety? Who is to say that one of a mans several wives cant have several husbands of her own? Or why not just one woman with several husbands? You are opposing an archaic, patriarchal structure on the benevolent, egalitarian, free-love dynamic of the future.

  9. This point simply cant be stated enough.

    Back in my college days at Indiana University, I took Arabic for a year from an Egyptian man who had gained his American citizenship by volunteering to serve in the US army. (I still havent figured that one out, but anyway) He was a terrible Arabic professor, but he was very knowledgeable about the history, politics and culture of the Middle East, and thats what he spent most of our class time talking about. I came to understand during that year that the real threat we face as Christians in the West is not the pomo secularists. For the most part, they are, as Lewis would say, men without chests.

    The real threat is, indeed, Islam. Those men have chests, and they arent afraid to fight and argue and win.

  10. This causes enormous social problems,

    Nothing that cant be solved by sending all your unmarried young men to die in a pointless war with another countrys unmarried young men.

    It could replace the Olympics!

  11. I was looking on the blog for a timely review of Idahos recent gubernatorial debate. Should I vote for the biker guy now, or should I wait until he is on the presidential ticket?

  12. Eric the Red wrote:

    Doug, if you’re really worried about sharia law, one of the most effective ways to prevent it is to demand strict separation of church and state.

    Eric seems to adhere to a recent notion of separation that is promoted in government schools, regardless of the original meaning of the concept. It was the Christians who wanted assurances of separation of Church and State from the founding fathers (see Danbury Baptists). They didnt want the State posing as the Church (or vice versa). Today the State has not only invaded and usurped the realm of the Church, but also the realm and authority of the family. The State refuses to be separated from meddling in these other spheres, and, as a Statist, Eric seems just fine with that.

    Doug has pointed out that separation of Church and State has nothing to do with Erics project of separating God from the State. We can separate and distinguish the jurisdictions of family, Church, and State, but we cannot separate any of those authorities from Gods authority. There is no authority apart from God. He is the source of all authority. Christ rules the nations with a rod of iron. Rulers who refuse to bow and kiss the Son will perish in the way. God often accomplishes this sort of thing providentially, through economic collapse and invasion by outsiders.

    Eric also wrote:

    What evangelicals fail to appreciate is that separation of church and state is as much for your benefit as it is for the benefit of unbelievers;

    Evangelicals used to appreciate the benefits of separation of Church and State, before the notion was co-opted, and the Church abdicated to the State. The irony is that Eric thinks he has a clue to educate us about our failure to appreciate his program of further Statist expansion.

    Eric also wrote:

    if and when Muslims actually achieve political power in this country, you’re going to be mighty glad that they can’t use the state to push their religion on you any more than you can use it to push your religion on the rest of us.

    As a demographic matter, Muslims represent a greater long term threat, but the more immediate concern should be about the oppression in this country from Erics religion of secular humanism. That religion has held sway in government for long enough, and we and our children have become debt slaves. All of the Statist do-gooding is expensive, especially when you factor in all of the graft and corruption.

  13. Katecho, obviously there is no reason to vote for or against the pro gay anointed of God biker. Since God has promised him the presidency, how can any of our votes be of any consequence? I think that it is pretty obvious, given the president-in-waitings view on gay mirage, that God has changed his mind on the issue since he inspired that bit of scripture the cowboy so ably read.
    (sarcasm!)

  14. Silly Dougie. You are talking logic. You seem to believe individuals think rationally. Joel Belz from World Magazine wrote many years ago that once the ick factor was gone, any other objections to same sex mirage would be moot.

    Satan must be laughing up his sleeve because it is his old trick, did God really say? that continues to work down to this day.

    Sadly, I dont think it will be hard now to overcome the ick factor of polygamy, incest, pedophilia or any other number of perversions. Its all about love, dont you know.

  15. And satan repeats for the millionth time, Has God truly said? And we believers say, Hm, that apple looks good to me. Why not. Who will it hurt; lets be tolerant about this.
    *
    We are profoundly bent towards sin. Dead cert.

  16. In response to the objection raised by several that Muslims will just ignore the First Amendment, that comes down to whether we are a nation of laws or a nation of mobs. I suppose if a mob is strong enough to overwhelm the rule of law, then thats that. But thats hardly a problem limited to Muslims; once upon a time Christian vigilantes used to ignore the law too. And the solution is to empower the rule of law and ensure that it applies across the board to everyone.

  17. Timothy, whats best for most people, and what most people would democratically vote for, are often not the same thing.

  18. Mike, separation of church and state has two separate but equally important prongs. First, the state does not discriminate against religion. Second, the state does not give special privileges to religion. The problem with telling people they can ignore laws that are against their religion, is that any law you want to ignore, you simply say is against your religion.

  19. I have a theory that Eric the Red is a character created and played by Doug just to act as an object lesson for the thinking described in each of his posts.

  20. Timothy, what’s best for most people, and what most people would democratically vote for, are often not the same thing.

    I guess I should be grateful that you are there to make things all better. I feel safe now.

    Anybody know where I can by some onesies to snuggle up in?

  21. What kind of misogynist demands that polygamy must be only of the one man, many wives variety?

    No one demands it, it is just the likely outcome. Polygamy has been very popular throughout history, while polyandry is practically nonexistent.

    Who is to say that one of a man’s several wives can’t have several husbands of her own?

    You mean A married to B, B married to C, but A not married to C? I thought about that, but it would really never work, as property arrangements and such would be impossible to figure out.

  22. Eric said: that comes down to whether we are a nation of laws or a nation of mobs.

    That is almost the question. But what if the mobs write the laws? Without a Lawgiver, what does Erics enlightenment project recommend we do? Think lofty thoughts, everyone!

  23. Eric the Red wrote:

    Mike, separation of church and state has two separate but equally important prongs. First, the state does not discriminate against religion. Second, the state does not give special privileges to religion.

    Weve already noted Erics fundamental misunderstanding of the intent of separation of Church and State, but the irony continues. The State currently gives special privileges to secular humanism (itself a recognized religion). Statehouses have become its temples of worship. Theistic religions are being required to give way to this atheistic religion, except in designated religious freedom zones.

    Eric also wrote:

    The problem with telling people they can ignore laws that are against their religion, is that any law you want to ignore, you simply say is against your religion.

    This sounds similar to the way that judges in the 9th Circuit simply pronounce that something is unconstitutional, regardless of precedent and explicit intent with the founders themselves; or the way that amendments are simply ignored to promote the illusion of safety; or the way that immigration laws are ignored when the policy is toward amnesty; or the lack of congressional declaration of war is ignored whenever we feel like policing the world. When law is ignored at the top, it wont be long before it is ignored everywhere else too. The rule of law follows the trickle down effect. You even see this principle in the family, between parents and children.

    Was Eric in favor of homosexual cohabitations when sodomy laws were still on the books? Was Eric in favor of homosexual mirages before they were legalized? If so, then it seems Eric is in favor of ignoring laws that are against his religion. Now that his religion is asserting political sway, he seems to be a spokesman for patriotic duty.

    Fortunately for Eric, Scripture specifically instructs us to honor the established authorities insofar as they do not require us to commit sin. The State is pushing that line very hard with its profiteering over the poor, and creation of dependents and debt slaves. Christianity is not lawlessness, but we do recognize a higher law than the arbitrary swirling mob consensus that Erics materialism is left with.

  24. Doug -

    Brilliant and super helpful, especially this sentence:

    Even though not all homosexuals are pedophiles, all pro-homosexual arguments are pro-pedophile arguments. Name me one that isn’t.

    BUT: the gay folks over here in Portland (who are out late tonight celebrating an edict from the bench allowing them to marry legislation-be-damned) would say the slope doesnt slip all the way to pedophilia because pedophilia lacks a core element of their argument: two consenting adults let us do as we please and thank you.

    Would love to hear your thoughts on how to respond to that.

  25. Michael,

    lacks a core element of their argument: two consenting adults – let us do as we please and thank you.

    The point is that any core element to their argument is an arbitrary element that cant be defended based on anything external. Proponents of Biblical marriage have thousands of years of precedence; the testimony of Jesus, Paul, and others down throughout history; and natural revelation as external evidence in support of our position. Our argument is not based solely on feeling because we have external support for our position.

  26. Jon, if the mobs write that laws, then an independent judiciary is supposed to step in to put limits on it. And as much as you may despise the federal judges that are currently striking down laws against gay marriage, they are functioning precisely as they were designed to function: As a check against the majority when it starts to invade individual rights.

  27. Katecho, given the almost non-existent number of prosecutions for consensual sodomy when sodomy laws were still on the books, I think an argument can be made that that was never intended to be enforced apart from reminding gays that they were second class citizens. However, had I been a judge, and had there been a case before me of a gay couple being prosecuted for sodomy, and had I been unable under the precedents that existed at the time to find the law unconstitutional, I would have enforced the law. I wouldnt have been happy about it, but that would have been my job. Many judges today enforce the war on drugs even though they think its bad policy, as would I.

  28. Eric, mobs arent the only people who can ignore the law to the detriment of the people. Duly elected legislatures and duly appointed judges do it all the time. And when they do it, they dont say theyre overwhelming the rule of law, they say they are the rule of law. Why should Muslims gaining political power be any different from the Ninth Circuit, the White House, or Congress?

  29. I dont really understand the Muslim angle. What timetable are people really expecting for Muslims, currently at about 1% of the population, to take power? If it were feared that one day Muslims would institute Sharia law somehow, wouldnt the rational response be to end Muslim immigration, rather than do some unspecified thing about pro gay marriage rhetoric?

  30. Eric: Your belief in the magical powers of judicial robes to keep the man inside honest is touching, really. Almost as much as your belief in rights determined by, well, I dont know what. Shine on, sunshine.

  31. John, and Jane, theres nothing magical about it; its just plain old eternal vigilance applied in a different context. (And Jon, those rights are aquired by contract; its call the Constitution.)

    In order for Muslims to impose Sharia law, they would first have to elect a majority to Congress, and they would then have to have a majority on the Supreme Court to turn away a constitutional challenge. I dont see that happening within the lifetime of anyone here, or within the lifetime of the great-grandchildren of anyone here. If our demographics ever shifted to where that was a real probability, then this would already be a different country. Further, Muslims arent even monolithic on wanting sharia; the one Muslim member of Congress we currently have, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, is pro-gay and pro-womens rights. Which, if you think about it, really isnt that different from Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion.

    But if youre really worried about this, then you want judges who take an expansive view of individual rights and a strict view of church and state separation. As I see it, most of your objections to so-called activist judges is that theyre not allowing you to impose your beliefs on others by passing sodomy statutes or anti-gay-marriage laws. I havent really seen much in the way of Christians being told to affirmatively do things that violate their conscience, rare cases like the photographer and florist notwithstanding. And those cases make news precisely because they are unusual.

  32. Michael,

    A lot depends on what you mean by consenting adults. In the first place, the age of consent is variously 16 or 18 depending on where you are (it used to be much lower in some states) there is no magical switch that is flipped that changes a persion from cannot consent to can. A 14 year old girl sleeping with her 16 year old boyfriend is generally assumed to have given her consent and neither she nor he will be prosecuted. Its when the boy is 18 or 20 (or 40) that things get creepy. Its an ick factor sort of thing that weve seen can change rather quickly. All it takes is a few award-winning movies.

    But beyond that are the voices that cry out that all children have the right to determine their own sexual future, and to do whatever they feel is good, regardless of age. This lobby is not identical with the pedophile lobby, but most pedophiles would find their arguments congenial and useful in achieving their own goals.

    So citing consent as the difference is not enough, since the current boundaries of consent are socially constructed. Boko Haram has an entirely different concept of consent.

    And remember, a slippery-slope argument can only be seen to be a fallacy in retrospect. Those who see these things coming have at their back a non-fallacious example in the slide from the normalization of homosexual desire to gay mirage.

  33. If they say the age of consent should be eighteen, make them explain why it shouldn’t be seventeen.

    Society came up with the notion of the age of consent without the Bible. That is, unless youd like to provide a passage that suggests it is sinful for a 30-year-old man to marry a 12-year-old girl?

    In fact, most societies that are based on religious fanaticism (Islam and some sects of Mormonism) even encourage child brides.

    Try again.

  34. Regarding the age of consent, and whether or not it will be challenged to the advantage of perverted men, what about all those parents (and teachers and school systems and legislators, etc) who push for the right of their children to determine their own sexual identity?

    Homosexuals can argue all they want that they are not in alliance with pedophiles, but theyre riding in on the same sexual/gender freedom wave as the rest of them.

    If a parent claims that a child can pick which gender to be (or like), then I wonder how that same child cant determine when they will have sex at the very same moment that boy prefers Barbies and dresses, according to that parents line of thinking.

  35. So, perhaps homosexuals could have a defense against the slippery slope arguments IF (perhaps IFF is better) homosexuality could be taken individually, but that is absolutely NOT an option given to us its a package deal. Facebook gives you, what, 50 or so options?

    LGBTQIA or Bust!

    The P Im sure will hop on that VW bus of sexual freedom soon enough.

  36. all pro-homosexual arguments are pro-pedophile arguments. Name me one that isn’t

    The arguments for gay marriage and relationships have pointed to the demonstrable benefits seen in those relationships (health, happiness, affluence, longevity, etc) for those who are same-sex oriented and the frequent unhappiness and harm seen in coercing them into celibacy, reparative therapy or sham heterosexual marriages done for show.

    The argument is not primarily that one should be permitted to do anything merely because one has a biological urge to do so. Talk about a reductio ad absurdum biology must be weighed with other factors, and no one has suggested otherwise.

    There is no way to open the door to polygamy without simultaneously opening the door to Sharia law — and that really is dangerous

    How so? I can think of a myriad of reasons why, but they all look very similar to the types of things Christian fundamentalists bend over backwards to justify when it occurs in their own holy book: the oppression of women, taking the lives of people for trivial infractions, the silencing of dissent and of those who dont toe the theological line. If these things are objectively bad, then theyre objectively bad no matter which god (or God) theyre being used to please.

  37. Im not really worried about any of this, Eric, I just fail to see why supporting a certain view of separation of church and state is a prophylactic against certain abuses, when inconvenient rules and mores and constitutional provisions get cast aside all the time on the shifting sands of political expediency or popular opinion.

    Muslims arent powerful enough to subvert the existing order and most of them wont want to anyway is a completely different argument from supporting my view of church and state will protect you if the Muslims ever get powerful enough to subvert the existing order.

  38. A federal judge today struck down Pennsylvanias gay marriage ban which meansaccording to the Bloomsberg newssitethat 25 of the 50 states now permit same sex marriage. Does anyone think this battle is still winnable? Is it time to get back to trying to do something about the 4,000 abortions that happen every day?

  39. A federal judge today struck down Pennsylvania’s gay marriage ban which means–according to the Bloomsberg newssite–that 25 of the 50 states now permit same sex marriage. Does anyone think this battle is still winnable?

    Yes.

    “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

  40. Mao separated church and state, Stalin separated church and state, and in the US these days separation of church and state mostly means separation of Christians from our tax dollars.

  41. Is it time to get back to trying to do something about the 4,000 abortions that happen every day?

    Had someone called a halt to that?

  42. Jill Smith wrote:

    A federal judge today struck down Pennsylvania’s gay marriage ban which means–according to the Bloomsberg newssite–that 25 of the 50 states now permit same sex marriage. Does anyone think this battle is still winnable? Is it time to get back to trying to do something about the 4,000 abortions that happen every day?

    I confess I dont understand Jills comment here. Abortion is legal in all 50 states, and has been for 40 years now, yet Jill seems to be ready to call resistance to pomosexuality a lost battle. By her own criteria, the abortion issue should have been a lost battle decades ago.

    I honestly think Jill knows better than this. She knows that Christians dont resist homosexual perversion or abortion (which is another form of sexual perversion) for political reasons, to scratch a mark of victory for our party. This is about souls who are lost in sin, and need the freedom that only Christ offers. Now we may debate whether a top-down legislative approach is the best one (since mans laws do not change the heart). Some would argue that the positive, constructive, and transforming message of the gospel alone must change hearts, and then the laws will follow from the bottom up. Some would argue that abortion (and homosexual perversion) is a sober judgment from Gods hand and that we should extend Gods hand of mercy without requiring anyone to take hold of it, so that the consequences of their sins soften them to Christ. In any case, it is still a winnable battle even if its not a political one. Christs power is shown through our weakness, so it shouldnt bother us if we lose according to the way that political lobbyists keep score.

    The bottom line is this, we should not be declaring any sort of truce with sin in any form. Im afraid this is where Jill may be losing her focus. I hope she is not suggesting that we surrender and stop calling homosexual sin what it is, or start giving a warm compassionate welcome to such perversions within Gods house. If thats where shes headed, then she wants us to call darkness the light. We dont have permission to do anything with sin but resist it. That resistance doesnt have to take the form of political resistance, but it may not take the form of acceptance.