Why the Christian view of marriage matters, and the real impulse of some gay activist regarding marriage

This discussion took place here, in my own country, Australia, where even our Prime Minister is not married, and does not look like she is going to in the long term, happily living with her "partner" The direct link is here for the audio.

What I will post, however, comes from the Stand to Reason (STR) Blog.

July 31, 2012
Same-Sex Marriage Won't Be Enough
Last month, at a Sydney Writers Festival panel discussion on the question, “Why get married when you could be happy?” Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen had this to say about same-sex marriage:

It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist [cheers from the audience].
That causes my brain some trouble. And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally….
[After my divorce,] I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three…. And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

This just illustrates the fact that the institution of marriage is inextricably connected with children and reflects an unchangeable reality: One man + one woman = children. The reproductive system is divided in half—the man has one half, the woman has the other—and when they come together, the result is a whole, functioning system that creates children. Therefore, the state protects the union between a man and a woman. By doing this, the children are legally protected.
Gessen wants to fight for marriage to legally include different types of relationships because she wants the government to declare there is no difference between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one. But there is a difference. A very important difference based on the unchangeable realities of biology. A difference that’s relevant because it’s at the very heart of the institution of marriage. A difference that justifies the government treating the different unions differently.
So Gessen is conflicted. She wants the unions to be treated the same, but she recognizes that, by nature, they create fundamentally different situations. And since the institution of marriage can’t accommodate a union that has only one woman and one woman (because another person—a man—is needed somewhere in the picture in order for a family to be created), she understands that an entirely new legal system must be created in order for the government to be able to address her situation.
So here’s the thinking (a summary in my words, not hers): “I want all unions to be treated the same, but since we’re not the same, due to biological realities beyond our control, and since marriage can never work for the union and children I have, we need to drop marriage and come up with a new idea so we can all be the same under that new system.” Or even more succinctly stated, “You shouldn’t have marriage because we can’t have marriage.”
Marriage can’t be separated from biological realities. And that’s why this upheaval won’t end when same-sex marriage is accepted—why Gessen’s ultimate goal is the end of marriage.
I’m glad to hear her honesty about this.

[HT: John Sandeman (click to see more quotes from the panel)]

So, for all of those who so fiercely defend same sex marriage, would you like to move into this new type of understanding?? What if you get divorced, and then you find that your ex's new hubby or wife has full custody, just like you??

Better think again, since you don't seem to know what you are wishing for.

Look at hate fill speech, but since it is not dealing against gay marriage, apparently is ok

ABC’s The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren’t in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: “anyone who eats S–t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ”.

But as she is apparently defending gay marriage, it is ok to wish your enemies death.

The hypocrisy of these people is overwhelming. And then they say we, the ones who believe in the proper understanding of marriage are hate filled!!!

Bob Larson exploiting his own daughters and young girls for attention

This is totally madness. I guess that Larson wants to copy Philip's daughters that prophesied in the book of Acts.

If you want to read more about this crazy new trend, you can read it here.

I wonder where in the Bible we find to put the Bible in people's neck, head, or anywhere else in order to get a demon out. Also, where do you see in the Bible somebody using holy water to cast out demons.  Totally madness. How can you be holding the Bible in order to claim its authority, while doing things that the Bible talks nothing about, holy water and Bible bashing demon possessed people?? That is beyond me!!!


Watch the video, and be "sensationalised".

A clown, an attention whore who is desperate to stay in the spotlight.

The Colbert Report, dead for at least one week. I was hoping for its final demise...

I am no fan of the Colbert Report. Albert Mohler has said again and again, that young people (actually, people my age, but I am not that young anymore) take mainly their news from the show, and therefore, repeat the idiocies mentioned there. Goes to prove that people watching the "Report", lack a sense of judgment, or critical thinking.

Anyway, last week ABC News informed us that the report would not be recorded due to unforeseen circumstances. I was soooo happy.

Then, it was reported the reason why the "Report" was  not to be seen for a while. The reason given was that Colbert's mom was sick. That he is very closed to his mom, and was very private about it.

Well, I hope she does get better, she is 91. But it serves him right. He has trashed many people in his show, and I bet some of them would be pleased to see him off the air for a while.  But I guess, he may be also thinking that some people he has trashed, wouldn't mind seeing him suffer for a while, even if it is something tragic as his own mom.

“They are a very private family,” said a source. “It’s not surprising that he did not want anyone to know what was going on.”

His is not the only "private family". He thrives on incurring on people's privacy, and making fun of them. Yet, he wants to take care of his at all costs. Another big time hypocrite. 


I don't think that anybody in their right minds will make fun of Colbert and his mom, but I hope that he takes the occasion to think all the damage he has made to people in his diatribes against them, and how their moms feel when they listen to Colbert putting down their sons and daughters.


But I guess he doesn't care.


I, for one, would like the show NEVER to come back on air. But I guess that mindless people are the majority, and sometimes, the mob rules.