Before You Decide to Hate Me

Take five minutes to listen to what I actually think and, more importantly, why I believe it.

I don't oppose same-sex "marriage" because I hate gay people. Rather, I believe in the conjugal meaning of marriage.

By Jennifer Hartline Published on August 20, 2017

CNN has shamefully chosen to revive the Southern Poverty Law Center’s wretched map purporting to give the names and locations of hate groups around the country. The problem is, now ranking right up there with the KKK and the Nazi’s, according to SPLC, is anyone who is considered “anti-LGBT.”

Which must mean anyone who isn’t waving a rainbow flag with gusto. I guess that’d be me.

But before you decide to hate me, take five minutes to listen to what I actually think and, more importantly, why I believe it. 

I don’t oppose same-sex “marriage” because I hate gay people. Rather, I believe in the conjugal meaning of marriage.

You may see marriage as simply an agreement between any two (or three, or four…) people; a romantic contract. Perhaps you think the commitment of love is all that matters. But marriage is much more than that.

I believe in the ontological nature of marriage as something that simply cannot be changed, for once it is changed, it is no longer marriage. Marriage simply can’t exist without the conjugal union of man and woman. The two become one in a literal, physical way, which makes visible an invisible reality. “They are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Matthew 19:6)

The truth about marriage cannot be erased just to accommodate the romantic ideas or feelings of this or that group of people.

I’m Not Interested in the Wants of the Adults

Further — and this is critically important — marriage is about children. I’m not interested in the wants of adults. I’m interested in what children need, and what we are obligated to give them.

Children are the natural, intended fruit of marriage. Our obsession with contraception has caused us to forget that. We’ve come to see children as an unfortunate side effect of our sexual exploits; something we should avoid at all costs. We see them as an accessory we can add to our lives at the time and place of our choosing. Or we seem them as a commodity we can purchase and manufacture in any way necessary.

I’m really not all that interested in adults’ wants. I’m interested in what children need.

Children need mother and father. Neither is expendable or replaceable. Two “moms” or two “dads” is not an adequate substitution. That placates the adults, and validates their sexual preferences, but it robs the children of what they genuinely need and have every right to expect. It serves the adults. It is an abusive deprivation for the children.

In addition, our no-fault divorce culture has caused unspeakable harm to generations of children who’ve seen their families torn apart, their lives left in chaos. They bear unseen emotional wounds they dare not admit to, because the motto is, “The kids will be just fine,” as long as Mom and Dad are happy.

No, I can’t survey the wasteland of the family and applaud the move to ruin marriage itself. That will only destroy the family unit even further.

Not Anti-Any Person — Just Anti-Madness

I resist the “LGBT” ideology, yes, but not because I am “phobic” or hateful. Well, I do hate the demonic delusion that humans come in an endless variety of sexualities and genders. It is the most harmful lie the human mind has ever surrendered to. The proof is that we are willing to allow our little children to be chemically and surgically butchered in order to satisfy it.

Supposedly reasonable adults have swallowed the irrational fantasy that a man can become a woman. They believe a man can become pregnant and give birth. They think a pre-schooler must be taught his penis need not make him male if he really wants to be a girl instead. We are bewitched by pure madness. 

I still believe in objective reality. I still believe that our physical bodies are not irrelevant to who we are, but rather, our bodies tell us who we are. God has created the human person male and female. That’s it.

If there’s no rational order expected within an individual person, how can we possibly have order within society at large?

Sex is a biological, physical reality; gender is the social expression of that reality. There is no such thing as a male woman or a female man. Nor any of the other dozens of invented, absurd gender assignments that are now to be embraced under penalty of law.

This new sexual devolution is built around chaos and nonsense. Its central tenet is that the human body is meaningless and sex is malleable according to ever-changing feelings. Nothing is objectively real or constant. There is only disorder and confusion.

If there’s no rational order expected within an individual person, how can we possibly have order within society at large?

I Believe in Order, Purpose, Innocence, and Reality

I believe in the beauty of the human person, male and female, created purposefully for each other. I believe the differences between male and female, as designed by God, are good, healthy, and necessary. I believe in the human family which has its only solid foundation in the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman for life, for the benefit of their children. I believe in the needs and rights of children.

I believe in the sexual complementarity of male and female and the mystical truth it reveals. I believe in the purpose of human sexuality as ordered toward procreation, properly expressed in the security and sanctity of marriage.

Sexual acts that are contrary to the obvious purpose of human sexuality are wrongly ordered — they are disordered — thus, they are not part of God’s plan for the human family. God does not create disorder.

I believe in preserving the purity of our children, and the need to fiercely protect their latency period. Instead, the “LGBT” agenda insists that even our toddlers must be indoctrinated into the sexual madness. That is heinous and abusive.

I will call shame on every adult who would suggest to the mind of a child that she should question her sexual identity, ignoring the reality of her physical body; and persuade little ones that they might not be who they think they are. In fact, I can’t think of a more hateful way to treat a child.

The “LGBT” ideology is physically and morally incoherent and destructive. It isn’t hateful to oppose what is irrational. Love for the human person demands it. 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Az1seeit

    One correction. It’s not the ‘obsession with contraception’ that has made culture forget marriage is about children. It’s the obsession with SELF! Self gratification with IMPUNITY…commonly known as licentious behavior….is the altar upon which our children, human flourishing and actual reality has been sacrificed. This is heartbreaking to watch and will destroy our civilization as it has every other it has infected. Father, have mercy on the innocent, gather your flock to yourself and come quickly.

    • Mensa Member

      >> [it] will destroy our civilization as it has every other it has infected

      This seems like serious history revisionism. During the “Golden Era” of both Greek and Roman civilizations, they were pretty liberal about homosexuality.

      Rome decline was associated with the conservative, rural (and anti-gay) barbarians.

  • Alfy

    I agree 100’percent with Mrs Heartline. Thank you for the article.

  • GPS Daddy

    The rational was that “science” has proved that people are born gay. When science did not cooperate with that they are now saying that a person is born with a spirit that has the opposite gender to their physical body… what is interesting is that even atheists are using this argument.

    • Mensa Member

      >> The rational was that “science” has proved that people are born gay

      I’m old enough to have followed the gay rights movement since the 80s. I don’t remember either science of “science” claiming that.

      I do remember MANY gay people saying it. This is not any more scientific than straight people saying that they always liked the opposite sex.

      It’s not hard science but it is evidence for social science. Why do both gay and straight people think they were born that way? It’s a commonality in both groups that is very widespread.

      I have a theory. What’s your theory?

      • GPS Daddy

        >>I’m old enough to have followed the gay rights movement since the 80s.
        I don’t remember either science of “science” claiming that.

        Oh, please. I had countless arguments on how homosexuality was in the dna right up to when ssm marriage was decided at the supreme court. There are numerous “scientific” peered review papers claiming this. However, there are just as many that call those findings into question. This does not detract from that fact that the LGBT movement gained much in our culture by claiming they had “science” on their side. And there was many scientists that tried to produce the results but failed.

        If we were having this discussion 5 years before ssm we would be discussing how homosexuality is in the dna.

        >> Why do both gay and straight people think they were born that way?

        It’s the fall of man. It a spiritual and heart condition.

        But let me ask you this, MM, why are you going to heaven?

        • Mensa Member

          Do you have training in science? You don’t seem to understand how it works.

          You seem to be fighting a straw man than actual science.

          Identifying a DNA component to homosexuality is not the same as saying that gays are “born that way.”

          Here is the APA’s statement on sexual orientation which is mainstream science:
          There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an
          individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian
          orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic,
          hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual
          orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude
          that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or
          factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;
          most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual
          orientation.

          There are lots of theories, of course. Mine aligns with the above.

          When I asked you your theory, you gave a personal theology and then used ad hominem attack.

          Your original post attacked science. Do you have a scientific theory about why so many straight and gay people think they were born that way?

          • GPS Daddy

            >>then used ad hominem attack

            At no place did I use an ad hominem attack. You asked me what my theory was. I gave it and its the biblical answer. Homosexuality is a spiritual and heart condition like it or not.

            However if you want some science behind that then I offer up the science on brain research how that research show that how we think combined with our choices governs our our desires. Change your thinking and change your choices then your desires will change.

            But if you consider that to be an attack then I have every right to consider this an attack:

            >>Do you have training in science? You don’t seem to understand how it works.

            So be consistent, MM.

            >>Here is the APA’s statement on sexual orientation which is mainstream science

            This does not detract from my original post’s claim that the LGTB movement shouted loudly for YEARS that its in the genes.

            >>Your original post attacked science.

            No it did not.

            So now to the question in my last post: why are you going to heaven?

          • Mensa Member

            Why are you asking questions about my salvation? That’s ad hominem. It has nothing to do with science.

            I responded to your original post in hopes of having a discussion around the science of this issue. I was happy that you finally came up with something I could respond to:

            “However if you want some science behind that then I offer up the science
            on brain research how that research show that how we think combined
            with our choices governs our our desires. Change your thinking and
            change your choices then your desires will change.

            I think I’m a little familiar with the research you are alluding to. You theorize that a person thinks their way into being straight or gay. (A more common belief is that all people are born straight and they think their way into being gay.)

            It’s hard for me to imagine how either teory could have any sort of scientific backing.

            Children start feeling sexual attraction at an age where they haven’t thought much about it either way. That certainly was true for me. I barely knew what sex was, when I started being attracted to girls. I’ve heard gay people say similar (but reverse) things.

          • Mensa Member

            And I’m happy to answer your question about my salvation, even though we both know why you asked.

            I’m saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

            How about you?

          • Mensa Member

            P PS:

            I can’t read your reply, I gotta log off and eat Sunday dinner. I’ll try to come back later tonight.

          • Dear Mensa Member.

            Why do you keep posting as Mensa member instead of with your actual name? I’m asking because of the following information from Mensa web sites.

            1-“Membership in Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test … There is no other qualification or disqualification for membership eligibility.”

            In other words, a 40-year-old racist bigot who didn’t even graduate from high school–and never had a full-time job–could become a Mensa member, right?

            2-“With more than 50,000 members, American Mensa is the largest national Mensa operating under the auspices of Mensa International … an estimated six million Americans are eligible for Mensa membership.”

            How exclusive could a group be if six million people in this country are qualified to join? The United States Senate is limited to 100 members–now that’s exclusive. National Football League teams can have rosters with a maximum of 53 players in season. Multiply 53 players by 32 teams, that’s 1696 total. But 6,000,000 potential Mensa members–is that really a big deal?

            Not to mention that less than one percent (50,000+ out of 6,000,000) of US residents who qualify have actually joined Mensa. Why is that? Could it be that most people who qualify are savvy enough to realize that people who are focused on their own IQ test scores might not be very interesting company?

            Suppose a person lacked confidence in their ability to communicate but wanted to encourage others to agree with his point of view. Wouldn’t listing graduate degrees from leading universities be more effective than just claiming to be in the top 2% of the population on some intelligence test? For example, a person might identify as: MBACal86 PhDStanford92.

            On the other hand, people versed in critical thinking may prefer to evaluate what they read primarily based on the quality of the thinking, and credibility of the facts presented. Having certain credentials doesn’t guarantee either an author’s integrity or the validity of what is published. See the Retraction Watch website and the research paper available online titled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False by John P. A. Ioannidis.

            It’s time to show some intestinal fortitude, Mensa Member, and start posting under your real name. That’s my advice, not to just you but to everybody. People are less likely to make abusive or poorly thought out comments if they’re not hiding behind an alias. Personal accountability is a good thing.

          • GPS Daddy

            Forget something?

            Your response is a canned statement. A true Christian will go a deeper.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>even though we both know why you asked

            Talk about judging someone’s heart. Like I said in my previous post. I have every right to ask the question to test the spirit I’m dealing with. That is biblical… here is an assignment for you, MM. What scripture gives me that right?

          • GPS Daddy

            >>Why are you asking questions about my salvation? That’s ad hominem.

            That a bunch of hogwash, MM. Total, complete hogwash. In no way is asking you why your going to heaven an ad hominem attack. But it is a pertinent question to you claiming your a Christian. A person claiming to be a Christian but is unwilling to give their testimony is NOT a Christian.

            A true Christian will give their testimony in a heartbeat. Here is mine:

            Jesus has rescued me from this body of sin that I currently live in. The sin in me has tarnished EVERYTHING about me. Nothing good lives in me without Jesus.

            Now to your response: I’m saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

            That is a canned statement. How about going a little deeper.

        • Patmos

          (a response to Mensa member, reply not allowed directly to his moderated post)

          “I’m old enough to have followed the gay rights movement since the 80s.”

          Which aligns well with your photo.

          HEY STREAM STAFF, BAN Mensa Member ALREADY! THE GUY IS AN OBVIOUS TROLL!

          • GPS Daddy

            Yea, thats true. And while he it a troll and not likley open to the gospel I learn much from understanding the “arguments” which, I hope, gives me further insight into their thinking.

          • John Connor

            Why? Because he has a different outlook than yourself? Hypocrite

          • Patmos

            “Why? Because he has a different outlook than yourself? Hypocrite”

            No, because he is masquerading as a Christian, trying to sway people away from the truth of God’s word. It would be one thing if he were honest, but he is not. He has already been caught in a number of lies, suddenly claimed to be Evangelical when he isn’t, and now is claiming to be an age which doesn’t line up with his photo.

            I saw the same thing happen with the push to pervert marriage: Websites being flooded with people pretending to be Christian when they weren’t.

            Mensa Member doesn’t have an outlook, he has an agenda being pushed by his fake persona. He is a troll pure and simple.

          • John Connor

            Your opinion only. Who are you to say who’s a christian and who isn’t?

          • Patmos

            “Your opinion only. Who are you to say who’s a christian and who isn’t?”

            When you don’t measure up to and even contradict God’s word, guess what? You’re not a Christian! It’s pretty simple really.

            Mensa Member has not only failed that test, but has lied here repeatedly, and shows all the signs of being a troll. It’s so blatant now that I don’t see how anyone could miss it.

          • GPS Daddy

            Jesus is the one who says… however, its not hard to assess. Christians are commanded to judge.

          • Jim Walker

            Its useless reasoning with these people because they are not here to debate but to ridicule and insult.

          • GPS Daddy

            A different outlook that has put many who disagree with it out of business. Is your outlook worth financially devastating a 70-year old lady?

          • John Connor

            She broke the law. Period.

          • GPS Daddy

            I see. So you think that total financial devastation is just punishment for not providing flowers to a wedding?

          • GPS Daddy

            So John Connor, not willing to answer my question?

            So you think that total financial devastation is just punishment for not providing flowers to a wedding?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What law ? She had every right as a business owner, the rights that come with that and the rights that come with the fact that she is a citizen of America, to do business transactions with who they choose and not being forced to go against their will.

          • John Connor

            Public accommodation laws say differently

          • Shaquille Harvey

            And laws regarding businesses, the owners and employees as well as the constitution also say something different.

          • John Connor

            Funny but the courts seem to be on the side of public accommodation laws.

          • GPS Daddy

            Still waiting on your answer to this question, John Connor:

            So you think that total financial devastation is just punishment for not providing flowers to a wedding?

          • John Connor

            It was her choice to break the law. She deserves no sympathy.

          • GPS Daddy

            You must have a lot of pain to have such a dark heart.

          • John Connor

            Not at all. I have a great life!

          • GPS Daddy

            Liar

          • John Connor

            Prove me wrong

          • GPS Daddy

            You’ve already given the proof.

          • John Connor

            Not at all. Married 18 years with teenage daughters. 20 years in pediatric medicine. Live on a small horse farm in Texas. You don’t even know me and have the audacity to call me a liar. Good grief.

          • GPS Daddy

            Yep, I can call you a liar for you have lied. How do I know that? Your heart is dark and bitter. Your willing for a 70-year old lady to be financially devastated because she would not provide flower to a wedding. That is a very dark heart. If the reverse were true and a homosexual florist refused to serve me I would NOT bring a lawsuit nor would I want that person to be financially devastated. I would leave and find someone else. The danger of bitterness is that we reach a state when we get comfortable with the bitterness. Even desiring it.

          • John Connor

            She knew the rules and regulations when she went into business. Our laws prevent her particular brand of discrimination. Nobody wanted to force her out of business. She took us back to the 1950’s as well as her friend Kim Davis. It’s funny that there is such a short list of issues like Stutzman started. I bet it’s because most people have no issue with providing service or product for fee.

          • Chip Crawford

            She is a law breaker, sir, age n/a and your lady designation may not be shared by all. Since the finances are strongly alleged, with evidence, to be extorted, investigation, grand jury, indictment, and all such legal redresses are appropriate, followed by jail in the likely prospect of a guilty verdict. The matter set a national precedent of someone being above the law in the strongest terms thus far, with the same family, by the way, so it is actually in the national interest, that this be rectified with a just and equal adjudication.

          • Jim Walker

            Please also include John Connor.

          • John Connor

            Adults are talking.

          • Jim Walker

            That’s correct John so please listen.

    • Jim Walker

      MM said that he is neutral towards LGBT community.
      So far, I have not seen 1 post from him agreeing with us but every single post he stand on their side.
      Is that neutral ?
      He claims to be a young man but he is old enough and have followed the gay movement since the 80s ?
      This fellow is as counterfeit as a $3 bill.

      • GPS Daddy

        Agreed Jim. I’ll come back to your comment in the near future. Let it play out some more.

      • GPS Daddy

        So the course has played out with MM. MM will not give a true testimony of his/her’s faith in Jesus. So I have tested the spirit and MM failed miserably. I expected as much. What MM and other LGTB activists don’t get is that they cannot continue to bully our society without a pendulum swinging back hash against them.

      • GPS Daddy

        Also, what MM does not realize is I had full control of the debate up until MM stopped responding. I posted my initial comment for MM with the goal of turning it to a spiritual discussion.

  • Mensa Member

    Here is where liberal Christians like me have a problem with conservative Christians like Ms. Hartline.

    We don’t like her imposing her (we believe) non-biblical view of marriage on others.

    I’m very uncomfortable the with rise of fertility cults in the church. I honestly believe this is a growing heresy in the church and I have right to speak out against it.

    But, it crosses a very dangerous line if I tried to enforce my opinions with civil law.

    I can hear the “moral equivalence” people already — “but we have to bake a cake for gay people!”

    This is a total red herring argument. Gay business people also have to obey public accommodation laws! Just like straight people! They can’t deny service to someone just because they are heterosexual.

    The real equivalent would be for gays to pass laws dictating that only same-sex marriage is legal and heterosexual Americans are second class citizens. (obviously, nothing even remotely like this is happening.)

    While I strongly affirm Hartline’s right to believe that marriage should only be for child-bearing heterosexuals — and her right to express that believe — I draw the line at her trying to enforce it by civil law.

    • Mensa Member

      And, PS, I don’t hate you.

      But, you are not trying to take my equal rights away. When you do that, some people are going to get very angry. Some might even hate. I’m against hate but I can also understand why gay people might hate those who try to rob them of happiness and full citizenship.

      • GPS Daddy

        Equal rights of the LGTB movement are based on the premise that being gay is like skin color. It cannot be changed. This is a category mistake therefore no right exists despite the findings from court rulings. Judge do get things wrong. And they have in this case.

        • Philmonomer

          Equal rights of the LGTB movement are based on the premise that being gay is like skin color. It cannot be changed.

          Sexuality is complicated. Most gays experience no meaningful change. That was why those conversion therapy places shut down.

          This is a category mistake therefore no right exists despite the findings from court rulings.

          Homosexuality is a real thing.

          Judge do get things wrong. And they have in this case.

          Obviously, I disagree.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>Most gays experience no meaningful change

            Not true.

            >>Homosexuality is a real thing.

            Never said it was not a real thing. But the association with skin color is a category mistake.

          • Philmonomer

            Not true.

            Why should I believe you, instead of, say, Alan Chambers (former president of Exodus International) who said that he believes sexual orientation could not be changed?

          • GPS Daddy

            You don’t have too…

          • Philmonomer

            Ok, you’ve given me no reason to believe you, and I’ve provided reason to believe you are wrong.

  • Philmonomer

    Further — and this is critically important — marriage is about children. I’m not interested in the wants of adults. I’m interested in what children need, and what we are obligated to give them.

    If this were true, you’d be ok with saying marriage is not possible for those couples where the woman is past childbearing age. But I suspect the author of this piece isn’t willing to say that.

    This is because we all know marriage really isn’t (only) about children. For lots and lots of married couples, children are irrelevant (as they either chose not to have children, can’t have children, are past child bearing age, etc.)

    • Mensa Member

      Extremists are often reluctant to go fully down the path of their beliefs.

      To use the term “conjugal marriage” as a definition is new to me so I don’t want to say too much but the literal term would not exclude gay or infertile couples.

      But I suspect it’s a loaded term meaning procreation.

      • Philmonomer

        Yup. It is. Conjugal marriage just means it has to be a man and a woman. (Ironically, it means that a man who has been, say castrated in some sort of freak accident, can never get/be married. But they aren’t willing to say that either.)

        • Shaquille Harvey

          How ? The bases was the union of one man and one women, so there is no dramatic Change.

          • Philmonomer

            I’m not sure I understand your comment. The basis of marriage is conjugal union. The two fleshes become one. In my scenario, that isn’t possible.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            How is it not possible?

          • Philmonomer

            The man is castrated. No conjugal union is possible.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            How and why not ? What stops ?

          • Philmonomer

            I don’t believe this is a serious question. If it is, you need to Google “conjugal union.” Once you’ve done that, I think you will have your answer.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            I have looked at the definition already

            Again what stops the man from marital bond here ?

          • Philmonomer

            Please provide, here, the definition of “castrated” and the definition of “conjugal union.”

          • Shaquille Harvey

            I don’t think I need to give the definition of castration as I am sure both of us already know what that means. However I will give the definition of conjugal union;
            ” conjugal – Legal Definition. adj. Pertaining to marriage, the state of being married, or the relationship between a husband and wife. n. The sexual relationship or relations between a husband and wife.”
            If the case, only sexual relations were tthe sole complete embodiment of the marital union then issues may arise and while it effect the castrated mans marriage I would state the marital bond is not at all not possible and at hand as is the case of a whole the relationship(s) between husband and wife is neither broken nor beyond repair or incomplete. The two become one flesh when stated, while sexual intimacy of course does play into marriage and child bearing is a big factor in Christendom it is not at all the whole picture of marriage here.

          • Philmonomer

            If the case, only sexual relations were tthe sole complete embodiment of the marital union then issues may arise and while it effect the castrated mans marriage I would state the marital bond is not at all not possible and at hand as is the case of a whole the relationship(s) between husband and wife is neither broken nor beyond repair or incomplete. The two become one flesh when stated, while sexual intimacy of course does play into marriage and child bearing is a big factor in Christendom it is not at all the whole picture of marriage here.

            This is fine, but then you are saying the marital bond isn’t necessary for a marriage. Gays and lesbians would agree with you! What is necessary for a marriage, and why?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Um no I’m not saying marital bond isn’t necessary for marriage I stated that it had a huge factor and of course of intimate role in marriage just not the whole picture of marriage. By this I mean marriage especially to Christians was/is the complementary framework of the one man and one women and all that goes and comes with this. Through this comes the family and joining of the two sexes and so on.

          • Philmonomer

            So you do need a marital bond (and by marital bond I mean vaginal sex) for there to be a marriage?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            If, when speak of the union of man and women, yes however there’s more to the marriage than just this or by this, though intimacy does still play a huge role. By complimentary union I speak of the physical, emotionally, mentally, spiritually and in a sense a completeness of the union of the two sexes.

          • Philmonomer

            So there can be no marriage without vaginal sex, and a castrated man cannot get married?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Um no read what I stated, sex and intimacy wile play a huge part in marriage is by no means the whole picture, what is is the complete and complimentary bond of the man and women as well that ‘all’ that comes with this.

          • Philmonomer

            For the life of me, I can’t figure out if you think there needs to be vaginal sex in order for there to be a marriage.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            As I stated before sexual intimacy as in many aspects of the physical as well as procreation are big factors in marriage but not the whole complete picture. The complete picture is the complimentary union between the one man and one women, Which delves into the physical, spiritual, mental etc , and all that also comes with this.

          • Philmonomer

            I think I’m not going to get an answer. It was a yes or no question.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Yes, in regards to the sexual union and intimacy, however not the whole picture as there is more with it(marriage). Perhaps re read if nescessary

          • Philmonomer

            Thanks for your responses.

    • Paul

      “…you’d be ok with saying marriage is not possible for those couples where the woman is past childbearing age. ”

      I’d like to hear Jennifer’s response to that as well.

      • Alfy

        Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

        But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

        All Christians believed this until 1930 , The Lambeth Conference changed history.

        • GPS Daddy

          Very good point. Contraception has divorced sex from procreation. It gives a false sense of security that when chattered leads to the other problem we have int he West: immediate resolutions… in this case called abortion.

    • GPS Daddy

      Your missing the point. Marriage is many things but children and a central part of it. A marriage may not have children but that does not detract from its meaning or purpose. To call something that is not DESIGNED to have children marriage tears down the sanctity of marriage. Marriage has already been torn down by divorce for decades in the West. SSM is putting the final nail in the coffin. With marriage being destroyed the family will not survive.

      The only hope we have is for the major part of the people in the West to embrace traditional marriage and family. Children from those families will then need to rebuild society, a daunting task.

      • Philmonomer

        Your missing the point. Marriage is many things but children and a central part of it. A marriage may not have children but that does not detract from its meaning or purpose.

        I think it does detract from its meaning or purpose. Why allow the elderly to get married? They cannot possibly have children. So clearly marriage must be about something other than having children. Clearly the meaning of marriage cannot be about children (if it was about children, you would be ok with prohibiting the elderly from getting married). But you allow for an exception. Why allow an exception (for the elderly) but not allow an exception for gays?

        To call something that is not DESIGNED to have children marriage tears down the sanctity of marriage. Marriage has already been torn down by divorce for decades in the West. SSM is putting the final nail in the coffin. With marriage being destroyed the family will not survive.

        This is all just your opinion. Obviously, I disagree. I think marriage will actually be strengthened by allowing for SSM.

        • GPS Daddy

          >>This is all just your opinion

          No its not. Its natural law.

          • Philmonomer

            I guess time will tell as to whether the “family will survive.”

          • GPS Daddy

            The family will survive… the gay movement will die out because it cannot reproduce. Families will go through hard times but these hard times IS breeding young people who want to “do it right” in marriage and family.

          • Philmonomer

            I suspect gays and lesbians have been around for all of the history of humanity. They haven’t died out yet.

          • GPS Daddy

            You missed the point of my comment… you seem to do that a lot. I never said gays would cease. We live in a fallen world. Man is sinful and homosexuality is a common sin (but no worse that any other sin). My point is that the LGTB movement will die because they cannot procreate and pass the “values” on. The upcoming men and women are even more desiring to do family right… one man and one woman raising their children is a loving home.

          • Philmonomer

            You missed the point of my comment… you seem to do that a lot.

            I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I’m fine with letting this conversation go.

          • John Connor

            Funny but gays have been around since the beginning of time. Guess that debunks your theory

          • John Connor

            Mine has done fine since marriage equality was put in place.

          • John Connor

            Natural law?? Rubbish

          • Shaquille Harvey

            How rubbish?

          • GPS Daddy

            Yes, John… if your male then you are DESIGNED for a female. If you are female you are designed for a MALE. Like it or not that’s the way nature is…. natural law.

          • John Connor

            Your natural law has zero to do with marriage.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Yet the natural law has been the basis for marriage and for the family throughout human history. I think is the one thing that creates and procreates children into the world.

          • GPS Daddy

            Wrong again John. Natural law have everything to do with marriage. You, John (assuming your a male) are DESIGNED for a female.

          • John Connor

            Not at all. Marriage is a civil contract. Natural law has nothing to do with it. Neither do any supernatural beings

    • Jennifer Hartline

      The conjugal union of man and woman is always ordered toward the natural, procreative purpose as God intended, even if the man and woman involved are naturally at an age where childbearing is no longer possible. That’s the normal state of the human body at a certain age. It doesn’t mean their male and female sexuality is not still properly ordered. Homosexual acts are never properly ordered for this reason. Male was not created for male, but for female. The design of the human body clearly dictates the purpose of our sexual organs.

      • Philmonomer

        That’s all fine. But the point of the comment was that marriage is about children. If no children are possible from the union, then there is no reason to allow for a marriage.

        • Jennifer Hartline

          Their childlessness is not due to any action on their part, but a natural outcome of age. Rewind the clock 20 years and this couple would likely be having children. The point is the natural ordering of their sexuality. They still have a valid marriage.

          • Philmonomer

            Huh? That doesn’t really make any sense.

            Why does a “natural outcome of age” matter? The point is that they cannot have children.

          • GPS Daddy

            Philmonomer, this is an issue about identity…

            I think we should eliminate veterans day. While a veteran use to be a warrior, they no longer are. Instead we should just honor the warriors….

          • Philmonomer

            You are going to have spell this out, if you think it is a meaningful reply.

            Obviously, we could eliminate veteran’s day, and just have current members of the military day. If the basis of veteran’s day was “currently in the military,” then we clearly have a problem.

          • GPS Daddy

            Again, its identity. Your arguing based on function. An old couple cannot get married because they can no long function in the child bearing role. Ok, then by that same logic I argue that veterans should not be honored because they are no longer in the role of a warrior.

            Bottom line, Philmonomer, is that marriage is about identity. Children are an inseparable part of that identity.

          • Matt Federoff

            Philmonomer…the argument you are making can be negated by it’s inverse. You may at times encounter an opposite-sex couple that is not fertile. You will NEVER encounter a same-sex couple that is fertile. That it what is meant by the “intrinsic” nature of the first union (and therefore the intrinsic unnaturalness of the second one).

          • GPS Daddy

            Excellent point, Matt, but you responded to my comment. You might want to respond to Philmonomer.

          • Philmonomer

            But we allow for those who are infertile to get married. That is, we make an exception for them. Why make an exception for them, but not for gays?

            The “intrinsic” nature of things is just nonsense, designed to get to the result that you want (that is, gays cannot get married).

          • John Connor

            They have the same options available as any infertile couple has….

          • Jennifer Hartline

            Options? You mean to requisition a child and have it manufactured for them? Children are not a commodity. No one has any “right” to a child. Children, however, have inherent rights. To deny a child mother or father by design in order to placate the sexual preferences of the adults is abusive.

          • John Connor

            Nonsense. It’s been shown that gays can provide just as good of an environment for child raising as heterosexuals can. Show me your research that proves the abuse you claim.
            Nobody is requisitioning a child. What is the difference in an infertile hetero couple adopting or using ivf or surrogates and a gay couple doingthe same?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Where and what of other unions then that have more than two parents?

          • Philmonomer

            Again, its identity. Your arguing based on function. An old couple cannot get married because they can no long function in the child bearing role. Ok, then by that same logic I argue that veterans should not be honored because they are no longer in the role of a warrior.

            The reason put forward in the article was that “marriage is about children.” The article said the function of marriage is children. Why allow marriages that cannot have children?

            With regard to the veterans day, the point of the holiday is to honor people who are and used to be in the military. The point of marriage is to honor people who . . . . (fill in the blank).

          • GPS Daddy

            You are using the argument of function to try and dismiss the argument of this article. That reasoning is faulty for marriage is not about function but identity.

            My veterans analogy is valid based on the logic of your rebuttal to this article.

          • John Connor

            Wrong. Many marriages are either unable to have children or have no intention of having kids.

          • GPS Daddy

            Wrong. Marriage is about identity. If the couple cannot have children the point is that they are male and female. This relationship is the foundation of natural law and spiritual law. Natural law in that it take exactly ONE man and ONE woman to procreate. The man is the father and the woman is the mother. The child has the RIGHT to be raised by their birth father and mother. Marriage is also the foundation of spiritual law as well. I leave that to a different discussion.

            The health of a society is based on how healthy the family unit is. Life requires that the mother be a mother. The father is the protector and provider. Even in today’s culture this rule applies…

          • John Connor

            Nope. The child does not have the right to be raised by both parents. Gays can provide just as loving of an environment as heterosexuals.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Why ? What evidence do you have for this or is this an assertion?

          • GPS Daddy

            You are soooo wrong on that John. A child has every right to be raised by their birth parents. If their birth parents are not available then they have right to be raised by a mother and father. What is not acceptable is that they are raised by two mommies or two daddies. That is an abuse to the child.

          • John Connor

            Nope. Gays function very well as parents. No reason for them to not have families. The abuse aspect is your opinion.

          • GPS Daddy

            Nope. Children have that right and your view or opinion changes nothing.
            I’m not going to say that there are not gays who are not loving or doing well at parenting (of their own kids). But they do bring harm to their child by the choices they have made.

          • John Connor

            They bring absolutely zero harm to their kids. That’s ridiculous. Show me where kids have a right legal or otherwise to be raised by their biological families

          • GPS Daddy

            Its interesting that your homosexuals always go to man’s law. It obvious from natural law that they do. This is why social services works hard to keep children in families that has issues. But you reject anything and everything that speaks against your sexual appetite.

          • John Connor

            I’m a straight white male. Mans law is what we have to go by…there are. I other laws.

          • GPS Daddy

            Ok, never the less, you have a hart issue, John. You claim that you don’t. That’s a lie. Are you really willing to go and tell the grand children of that grandmother that she deserves to be put on the street because she would not supply flower to a wedding?

            Has dark is that.

          • John Connor

            No I’m not. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. She refused to play by the same rules that everyone else has to follow. She deserved to be fined but not run out of business. O

          • John Connor

            For gay folks, the natural order is to be attracted to the same sex and their marriages are just as valid as yours and mine.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Okay what of bisexual unions then ?

    • Jennifer Johnson

      Properly understood, marriage is, among other things, about total self giving. For fertile opposite sex couples couples, this includes giving their fertility to each other, also known as being open to life. If a woman is past childbearing age, she has no fertility to give, so she is still capable of giving herself totally to her husband.

      Also, orthodox Catholics don’t presuppose a right to pregnancy-free coitus.

      • Philmonomer

        You’ve offered another reason as to why you are against SSM. That’s fine (actually, I disagree with it, but it’s a digression)–the point at issue here is that “marriage is about children.”

        I’ve shown that if you really believed that, you’d be ok with not allowing marriage for women who are past child bearing years.

        If you saying that a women, who is past child bearing years, can “give herself totally to her husband,” and that makes marriage for her ok, then you’d have to explain what that means (as I literally don’t know what you mean).

        It seems to me you are saying “she is a woman, so she can get married.” But that isn’t any sort of explanation. Moreover, it doesn’t explain why gays can’t get married.

        • Jennifer Hartline

          Marriage IS the conjugal union of man and woman. Two men cannot become one flesh; neither can two women. There is no conjugal union between two people of the same sex.

          • Philmonomer

            First, you’ve abandoned the idea that “marriage is about children.” Now, you say marriage is about “conjugal union” (so those who cannot have children can still get married.)

            Second, you say “Marriage IS the conjugal union of man and woman.” I say “Marriage is NOT the conjugal union of man and woman.”

            I say a man who has been, say, castrated by a freak accident can still get married to a woman. (I believe, to be consistent, you have to say he cannot get married.) Moreover, if you are going to start allowing exceptions, why allow some and not others? Why is it ok for a castrated man to get married, but not for two women to get married?

            In the end, all you have is “Because God said so.” If that’s your own personal understanding, that’s fine. But that isn’t any sort of reason for a non-Christian to accept (or for the courts to accept, or for our Government to accept).

            Finally, if you are willing to say “Marriage is for those who have proven they can procreate (or adopt). Once the woman is pregnant (or adoption proceedings have started), then you can get married.” I’d agree that that is reasonable, and a rational basis to say “marriage is about children.”

          • Jennifer Hartline

            There is only one sexual union that results in children, and that is the union of man and woman. That is the conjugal union, that is the essence and the purpose of marriage. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the first cell of society.
            The answer is both/and. Marriage is the conjugal union of husband and wife, and that union is properly ordered toward children. Natural infertility due to age, or even infertility due to disease takes nothing away from the man and woman’s still-properly-ordered sexual union.
            You may object to this reasoning on emotional or self-interested grounds, but the reasoning is sound, logical, and obvious.

          • Philmonomer

            There is only one sexual union that results in children, and that is the union of man and woman. That is the conjugal union, that is the essence and the purpose of marriage.

            Argh. If you honestly believed that, then why do you let people who cannot possibly have children get married? The conjugal union that can result in children is what marriage is about. If the union cannot result in children, then it cannot be a marriage.

            You are saying “it doesn’t matter if the conjugal matter can result in children.” The important thing is the conjugal union itself. Then it isn’t about children! You are letting those get married who have no desire or intention (or ability) to get married. Why let elderly couples get married, but not two women?

            Marriage is the conjugal union of husband and wife, and that union is properly ordered toward children.

            Can a castrated man get married?

            Natural infertility due to age, or even infertility due to disease takes nothing away from the man and woman’s still-properly-ordered sexual union.

            1) Well, I think it does. It teaches people that marriage isn’t about children. If we let people get married who are naturally infertile due to age, or disease, or choose not to have children, we are telling the world that marriage is about something other than children. Instead, it is about a union between two people, where no children are necessary. It is about an emotional commitment–or something else. Whatever it is it isn’t about children. This teaches the world that maybe it’s ok for two men or two women to get married too, because children aren’t necessary.. What is necessary is the emotional commitment (or whatever it is that 2 elderly people have when they get married. Gays look at that and say “I have that too. Why can they get married, but I can’t?”)

            2) By the same logic–that is, the logic that says it’s ok to get married when no children are possible, because “it takes nothing away from the man and woman’t still properly ordered sexual union,” I think it’s ok to let gays get married because it still takes nothing away from the properly ordered sexual union of heterosexuals. That is, gays and lesbians are properly ordered toward the same sex, just like heterosexuals are properly ordered toward the opposite sex. That is, we learn that it is right and proper to seek marriage (union) with those whom we are attracted too–and want to raise a family with.

            You may object to this reasoning on emotional or self-interested grounds, but the reasoning is sound, logical, and obvious.

            I object to this because you have no reason to let the elderly get married. The only reason you’ve given is that “it takes nothing away from the still properly ordered sexual union.” First, I don’t even really understand what that means. All it really seems to me is that “the elderly can have sex in the same way as younger married couples can have sex.”

          • John Connor

            Not at all. Many marriages have zero intention of having children. Your reasoning is biblical only. No gods needed for marriage

          • Philmonomer

            Then a castrated man cannot get married.

          • John Connor

            No religion needed for marriage. No procreation needed for marriage. Your opinion only.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Religious and marriage have had long connection to one another as did the procreation union.

          • John Connor

            But no requirement of religion. Religion had zero to do with my wedding 18+ years ago.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Did not say 100% marraige has a completely relation with marriage especially now in the modern era however in the past this was not the attitude. The union has been seen as a divine act and intervention in many ways.

        • Jennifer Johnson

          Total self giving means not withholding ourselves or parts of ourselves from our spouse.

          Let’s work backwards by starting with a newly fertilized embryo. Where did that embryo come from? I’m sure you would agree that it came from a sperm and an egg. Now, what is owed to that embryo in terms of respecting its ontology? I would argue that the only way to respect that embroys ontology is the (preexisting) marriage of its own married mother and father.

          Marriage, the one-flesh union of a man and a woman, respects the ontology of the children conceived therein.

          • Philmonomer

            Total self giving means not withholding ourselves or parts of ourselves from our spouse.

            Great. Gays and lesbians can do this too. We can have total self giving in a heterosexual marriage, or a homosexual marriage.

            Let’s work backwards by starting with a newly fertilized embryo. Where did that embryo come from? I’m sure you would agree that it came from a sperm and an egg. Now, what is owed to that embryo in terms of respecting its ontology? I would argue that the only way to respect that embroys ontology is the (preexisting) marriage of its own married mother and father.

            Great. So if gays and lesbians have no children, they can get married (just like the elderly).

            Marriage, the one-flesh union of a man and a woman, respects the ontology of the children conceived therein.

            If you want to say that marriage is only for those who have conceived children, I’m fine with that.

          • Jennifer Johnson

            I have a reply here that has not yet been approved. Not sure why that is.

  • Patmos

    Contact The Stream to have the fake Christian troll Mensa Member banned:

    https://stream (dot) org/contact-us/

    (link is at the bottom of the page)

    He (or she) is likely an LGBT activist, or a representative of some other anti-Christian group. His posts run counter to God’s word, he has lied here repeatedly, suddenly started to claim he is an Evangelical, and now claims to be of an age that does not line up with his photo.

    Allowing him to continue to post here is not allowing a person’s opinion, it’s allowing a deceitful agenda to pollute the comment section.

    • John Connor

      It’s sad that anyone would advocate censorship on a public forum. Quit worrying about others and post your comments.

      • Chip Crawford

        It’s sad that anyone would come on a public forum without the openness to discuss, but to ALWAYS lobby for the opposite view. We don’t have to go for it. Please don’t tell us how to think about it and what to do.

        • John Connor

          Please quit trying to censor the opposing view.

    • SophieA

      I agree with you that MM is a despicable troll, and that’s what the blocking feature is for. Increasingly The Stream comment section has become almost solely responses to fend off these trolls. Sharing ideas and opinions is useful and edifying, but going down a troll rabbit hole is a waste of time.

    • Mensa Member

      Please stop attacking me.

      And, in obedience to a clear commandment from God, please stop bearing false witness about it.

  • Jim Walker

    I’m with you Jennifer.
    I never believed I will experience the persecution during my lifetime, I guess this is only the very beginning and I really need everyone of us pray fervently for our kids and future generations to cling on to Jesus tightly, they will be in for a tougher life ahead. Jesus come quickly !

  • Shaquille Harvey

    “Here is where liberal Christians like me have a problem with conservative Christians like Ms. Hartline.

    We don’t like her imposing her (we believe) non-biblical view of marriage on others.”
    Except Mensa, what mrs Hartline’s views that she’s expressed, the union between one man and one women, have been treated as the biblical view of marriage especially in terms of Christendom for roughly the last 2000 years

    “I’m very uncomfortable with the rise of fertility cults in the church. I honestly believe adding heterosexuality to salvation is a growing heresy in the church and I have right to speak out against it.”
    How is the one man and one women holy union a heresy, especially in regards to what is defined as marriage in Christianity, in the church? Where do you get this from ?

    “But, it crosses a very dangerous line if I tried to enforce my opinions with civil law.”
    Civil law? Except people people have been doing this for quite some time now. Also what has this implication got to do what the conclusion of what is marriage in Christianity?

    “I can hear the “moral equivalence” people already — “but we have to bake a cake for gay people!

    This is a total red herring argument. Gay business people also have to obey public accommodation laws! Just like straight people! They can’t deny service to someone just because they are heterosexual.”
    “Red herring”? Expect no one is denying service to general gay persons rather to gay wedding ceremonies which goes against on worldview convictions and religious liberty. If gay bussiness owners can’t deny service does that mean they have to now bake a cake for a traditional biblical marital function then ?

    “The real equivalent would be for gays to pass laws dictating that only same-sex marriage is legal and heterosexual Americans are second class citizens. (obviously, nothing even remotely like this is happening.)”
    How is/ was the country not legalising gay marriage treating homosexuals as second class citizens? If this was the case the we are not only treated them as this but also and continuing treating polygamists, polyandrists, bisexuals who wish to marry more than one partner also as second class citizens then, so where is the outcry?

    “While I strongly affirm Hartline’s right to believe that marriage should only be for child-bearing heterosexuals — and her right to express that belief — we liberals and moderates draw the line at her trying to enforce it by civil law.”
    Except you liberals wish to force those Christians to go against their biblical worldview and convictions and punish them if they don’t comply.

  • Paul

    Jennifer, I’ve read your article a few times now and I think you’ve got something a bit off. For me the foundation of marriage is found in Genesis 2:18

    Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

    You say you are not interested in the wants of adults but God is.
    The first priority here was resolving loneliness, offspring came later. And in God’s infinite wisdom He created woman as the correct companion for man. Offspring is the result of that companionship but not necessarily the purpose.

    Someone might try to then say their homosexual relationship is fine since it is fulfilling companionship but that violates God’s design. As the saying goes, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The right companion for a man is a woman and vice versa. Thinking otherwise is as you say madness.

    Childless married couples still fully fulfill the primary purpose of companionship. Whether it is right to purposely be childless is debatable. I think that depends on the reasons.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Thanks, Paul, for your comment. I hear you. But WHY is Eve suitable for Adam? Yes, male and female are complementary in every way, suited for each other. But the most obvious proof is that Eve’s physical body in every way complements and completes his. Together, they are one flesh.
      The reproductive system in humans is the only bodily system that is only half in each person. No human person has the whole system. We need the other half for it to be complete. And the *purpose* of our sexual organs is reproduction. That is the primary purpose. It binds us emotionally and is wonderfully pleasurable as well, but the first purpose is procreation.

      • Paul

        I hear what you’re saying but that doesn’t change Gen 2:18. For children to be the primary purpose of marriage then Gen 2:18 is suggesting woman is just a means to an end, that it’s the kids who resolve loneliness rather than the companionship of man and woman but I don’t find that in the text.

        You’re absolutely right that man and woman need each other but I think that goes far beyond just reproduction.

      • John Connor

        It may be their first purpose but not a necessary one. Couples have the right to choose not to have children and in those cases the sex is all about pleasure. This is no reason to deny gays the right to what we have in marrying the one they love.

      • GPS Daddy

        Jennifer, keep up the good work.

  • Boris

    We don’t hate you. Love the Christian, hate the Christianity. How does that feel Jenny?

    • Shaquille Harvey

      Love the fundamental Christ myth anti atheists but not the ideology or rhetoric.

  • Concerned Christian

    “I resist the “LGBT” ideology, yes, but not because I am “phobic” or hateful. Well, I do hate the demonic delusion that humans come in an endless variety of sexualities and genders.”

    Have you ever asked yourself why you’re considered to be a hateful person? I would say it’s maybe because you’re using your fear to control someone else’s life. Prisons are full of kids born by heterosexual people. Kids whose lives were basically ruined the day they were born. Most molested kids are girls. Normally, it’s by a heterosexual man that they know. This certainly includes members of churches. Plenty of single moms have some relationship with the church. The highest teenage pregnancy rates are in the south. The divorce rate for Christians is as high for the church as it is for non-Christians. Yet, none of those people/sinners think you hate them. You also don’t tell any of those people that they are making a mockery of marriage, the family and kids.

    However, you seem to somehow blame the LGBT community for your lack of control over your own house. You then use your failures to try and control their lives. Members of the LGBT community don’t hate Christians. Quite a few have some affiliation with church. But the perception when listening to Christians is that the reverse may not be true.

    Instead of being defensive, we should ask why do I feel they hate me and what can I do to build a bridge. If the answer is they have to change first, let’s just wait and see how that goes?

    • Shaquille Harvey

      1. If you’re comparing the numbers of heterosexuals to homosexuals then the numbers will be high a lot of times considering the number of heterosexuals is higher than a population of homosexuals.

      2. True divorce is high and the church should say something more but that does not mean the church approves highly of this nor does that give any credence to the change towards biblical sexuality.

      3. As for LGBT community not hating Christians then why, may I ask, do so many in the LGBT community and their activists wish to call anyone or silence anyone who disagrees or does not celebrate them then ?

      4. I agree the church and Christians should build a bridge and try and talk and listen however Christians can only go so far. It has to be two ways they to will have try and the same and understand the biblical stance on the LGBT issues.

      • Concerned Christian

        for points #2 & #3, they want to marry and some Christians don’t want them to. So by force of law, you’re trying to treat them as second class citizens. Christians are the only group in America that claim the legal right to discriminate against others.

        When i was growing up divorce, fornication and adultery were considered the LGBT sins. That has changed in a such a direction that four of the seven past republicans to seek the presidency:

        Reagan
        Dole
        McCain
        Trump

        Have either been divorced and/or committed adultery. But if you’re a member of the LGBT community you’re the one that’s somehow ruining america.

        Look, we can both agree that the LGBT lifestyle is sinful. But, I believe that people have the God given right to sin. I also believe that if you can’t lead by example, “do as i say, not as i do” doesn’t work.

        • Shaquille Harvey

          “for points #2 & #3, they want to marry and some Christians don’t want them to. So by force of law, you’re trying to treat them as second class citizens. Christians are the only group in America that claim the legal right to discriminate against others.”
          How do they become second class citizens if not legalised same sex marriage? True Christians don’t agree to gay marriage but why when Christendom states homosexuality to be a sin? Also there are also other groups such as polygamists, polyandrists, bisexuals etc who can’t marry are they also now still second class citizens ?
          Christians aren’t the only ones who disagree to same sex unions though.

          “When i was growing up divorce, fornication and adultery were considered the LGBT sins. That has changed in a such a direction that four of the seven past republicans to seek the presidency:

          Reagan
          Dole
          McCain
          Trump

          Have either been divorced and/or committed adultery. But if you’re a member of the LGBT community you’re the one that’s somehow ruining america.”
          I don’t know how divorce, fornication and adultery were considered the LGBT sins considering biblical they were treated in their category and they were considered separate sins throughout Christendom.
          As I stated I do agree that sins are also wrong especially when done by others in the Christian faith.

          I agree that we can’t force others to come to Christ or can’t force them from stop sinning but that does not mean we must stop presenting and spreading the gospel to them. I agree also Christians must start becoming Christ ian’s and start being examples for the faith.

          • Concerned Christian

            In terms of second class citizens, the issue boils down to benefits. Marriage gives you benefits that living together doesn’t. All the LGBT community is asking for are the same legal protections that married couples, jewish, muslim, atheist, etc. get.

            Also, i know this was confusing on my part, but i wasn’t comparing LGBT as a sin to divorce, adultery, and fornication. I was trying to say those were the ones that all ministers focused on in terms of sending you to hell when i was growing up.

            The argument isn’t made as forcefully now as it once was. In part because that message scared people but it didn’t give people the Godly tools needed to defend themselves. Now the focus is on homosexuality. I don’t think it will work there either.

            I believe it’s important that we teach the why behind why God does not want us to fornicate in the first place. Then give people the Biblical tools they need to prevent the behavior. Not out of fear but by understanding that you’re too good to commit the behavior. Then we can address homosexuality through that context.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            All the LGBT community is asking for are the same legal protections that married couples, jewish, muslim, atheist, etc. get.

            And to punish anyone (read: Christian) that says no.

          • Concerned Christian

            So in your mind, rights are zero sum. In order for one group to get rights, another group has to lose them?

            sort of like blacks or women getting the right to vote diluted the rights that white men had in setting the direction of the country?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            sort of like blacks or women getting the right to vote diluted the rights that white men had in setting the direction of the country?

            Comparing sexual behavior to skin color or gender is totally false and negates your argument.

            And the fact you did it in the first place tells me you are not a Christian.

          • Concerned Christian

            ok

          • John Connor

            Nobody is being punished Jason Todd or is it Matthew Mason?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “In terms of second class citizens, the issue boils down to benefits. Marriage gives you benefits that living together doesn’t. All the LGBT community is asking for are the same legal protections that married couples, jewish, muslim, atheist, etc. get.”

            FALSE! The State of WA passed a Referendum that was pushed by the LGBTQABCXYZ+50 Alphabetians that was basically “Everything But Marriage”. Meaning they got EVERYTHING but Marriage. Every benefit. Every protection. Everything. They just did not get a Marriage License.

            And you know what happened? Less that 10% – I think it was like 3% but not sure – of the number of folks who passed it actually even signed up and registered for the Domestic Partnership whatever.

            And your “second class citizens” argument fails on its face! There are LOTS of reasons why people get denied privileges and even certain rights. That doesn’t make them a second class citizen.

            But hey, thanks for showing Monica Mares and Caleb Peterson who have a natural urge and sexual attraction towards one another that they didn’t choose should be allowed to marry. Did God intend for them to act on it? THEY ARE MOTHER & SON!! Better let ’em marry! We sure don’t wanna have them FEELING like second class citizens!

            Todd Nickerson has a natural urge and sexual attraction that he certainly didn’t ask for and definitely didn’t choose. Did God intend for him to act on it? He is a self-proclaimed pedophile that has urges towards children.

            Most states have the “Age of Consent” set at 16yo & some as young as 13. So a 50-some year old dude “falls in love’ with a 16yo and they “consent” to be married. Thanks for telling us you think they SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY! Better let ’em marry! We sure don’t wanna have them FEELING like second class citizens!

            Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak spent 15 years as father and son in the eyes of the law. The couple, together for more than 50 years married in Pennsylvania. Thanks for telling us all you think that’s just hunky dory too. Better let ’em marry! We sure don’t wanna have them FEELING like second class citizens!

          • Concerned Christian

            I actually have pondered that one and this one as well:

            Romans 7:14-21:

            ====================================================
            14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

            21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
            ====================================================

            Not every sinner loves darkness, most of them are lost. We can either condemn them for their behavior or work with them to understand it.

            God gave me the choice to choose or reject Him. I’m not gay but there were plenty of sins for me to choose from. Instead I chose Jesus. He showed me what I’m supposed to be. No one can take that away from me because “I Know that I Know that I Know”.

            All I’m saying is that instead of telling someone how nasty, dirty, and ugly they are, let’s help them see themselves through the eyes of Jesus.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, if’n you wanna call God a Liar, ya go right ahead but not me! i really have no clue as to why you’d cite those two passages as it’s unlikely you intentionally wanted to contradict yourself or show that you’re double-minded. God says that “every sinner loves darkness” and that’s good enough for me. Pretty arrogant of you to reject God’s Truth and rely on your own wisdom.

            And we don’t condemn anyone. They are already condemned.

            “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20)

            Now those are the very words of Jesus. Reject them and call Him a Liar at your own peril.

            I see and hear what you are saying quite clearly and I am telling you that you should STOP trusting in your own wisdom and understanding and start trusting – COMPLETELY – in Christ and His wisdom and understanding. You really want people to see themselves thru the eyes of Jesus? Do you? Then read John 16:8-11 and remember those are the words of Jesus Himself again.

            Jerome is spot on with his comments. Every time you say anything you show yourself not to be a Christian and more of a Poser. You know that you know that you know? Well, that’s what the folks in the Matt. 7:21-23 line say too. They actually call Jesus “Lord” to His face!

            I suggested it before and I’ll do so again. Best to humble yourself, surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ, stop being your own god, destroy the ‘jesus’ (small ‘j’) idol you’ve created in your own image according to your own ways, will, and wisdom, beg Him to save you and make you a new creation, and then get into a Bible-believing church where you can submit to godly leaders who can properly disciple you as you are commanded to do.

          • Concerned Christian

            I’m going out on a limb here and say that you personally know more fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners, than you do members of the LGBTQ community.

            Have you been as informative to them?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Who doesn’t? Given that the LGBTQABCXYZ+50 Alphabetians comprise a whopping 6% at the most of the population.

            Yes, I have. So what’s your point? Or was that just Distraction, Diversion, and Denial. All weapons of The Enemy.

            Easier to do that I suppose then deal with Reality and the salient specific points I made.

          • Rusty

            Ever notice that Christ said to “render unto Caesar” that which is Caesar’s? The modern state exists, it maintains peace (or, at least, a particular balance of violence) and is a reality – it possesses an authority that would not exist if God did not permit it. However, we are not required by God to obey unjust laws, only those that the natural law requires. The state-governed institution of marriage is not the same thing as the Christian or even traditional form of marriage. The social and legal benefits of state marriage are secondary (for the Christian) to the religious and moral benefits.

            I used to believe that providing same-sex unions with analagous rights and benefits was proper in civil society until I understood that this constitutes a great scandal – it represents a form of approval or even encouragement of sodomitic relationships. This is not a duty we owe Caesar.

            When the modern state encourages sinful conduct, Christians risk committing a mortal sin by supporting such laws. Supporting same sex marriage “rights” is no different than supporting abortion “rights” – each represents supporting a violation of a commandment.

    • Alfy

      I would say she’s hated because the definition of love and hate have been changed. Society has turned back to a hedonistic lifestyle. Love is not sacrifice anymore , love is what feels good, hate is what feels bad. We have thrown natural law out the window , and truth along with it.

      • Concerned Christian

        those definitions haven’t changed at all. I look at gay, straight, religious, non-religious and all want to get married. because all want to have that one person that completes them. the person that they’re willing to sacrifice for.

        Christians want to decide who deserves to be loved and how. The hedonistic lifestyle has been around since the beginning of time. The Romans certainly took it to a different level during the time of Jesus and the disciples. This was during the time of Nero and Caligula, yet, we don’t read how bad the Romans were because the disciples were busy spreading the Good News!

        God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust. God will come and separate us at the appropriate time. Until then, we can and should live with all men peaceable.

        • Alfy

          We love everyone ! Truth without Love is cruel, Love without Truth is abandonment!

          Go forth baptize , and teach them my commandments ! Adultery is a sin. We all agree. For 2000 years Christian marriage has remained the same , one man one women. Nothing can change this.

          • Concerned Christian

            so where does it say that loves controls. telling someone that their behavior is sin is fine. Telling someone that i’m justified in controlling you because of your behavior is a form of bondage.

            Jesus nor the disciples ever advocated preventing someone from sinning. Be it the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery.

            Jesus was even specific in what to do if someone doesn’t receive you. Kick the dust off your heels and move on.

            One last point, nothing has to change your definition of marriage. But the state decides who and who is not married. Christians created this problem when they decided to make it a legal secular agreement, i.e. the State issues the marriage license as opposed to keeping it a religious ceremony!

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Jesus nor the disciples ever advocated preventing someone from sinning.

            No, He only said not to sin.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Jesus nor the disciples ever advocated preventing someone from sinning ”

            Sorry, but that is just plain dumb. My first thought was, “Oh boy, another Liberal with the line “Jesus never said anything about SSM or two homosexuals in a committed, loving relationship” but I don’t think that’s what you were saying. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just another by-product of the Easy-Believism/Seeker-Sensitive false gospel that is so prevalent today.

            YES, Jesus AND the disciples (including the Apostles and Biblical writers inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down) advocated for preventing someone from sinning. Numerous times. I’m gonna take just one passage though and use it to highlight and emphasize the flaw in your thinking.

            Open your Bible and read Matt. 22:36-40. That passage right there ought to open your eyes if you are a Christian. Now look at Romans 6:23. You know, that book that you said doesn’t say anything about how bad the Romans were. Now, using those two passages as bookends let’s look at a couple of scenarios in the middle.

            First, let’s say you have a child. And you’ve told that child, “Don’t go out in the street. Do NOT play in the street and do NOT go anywheres near the street!” Now, 15min later you look out the window and your child has disobeyed you. Not only that but there is a car coming down the street toward your child. What do you do? Stand at the window and watch them get run over while thinking to yourself, “Well, Jesus never advocated that I prevent them from sinning. I guess they got what they deserved.”

            Second, you have a neighbor. And their house is on fire. What do you do? Go inside and call the Fire Department? Why, who knows, maybe the Fire Department can save them! Go over and knock on the door and ask to come in? Maybe yell a few instructions for them to follow? And when they don’t come out, kick the dust from your heels and move on? Hey, if they wanna stay inside and commit suicide, who are you to prevent them?

            One other thing I’ll reference is Romans 13. Oh, there’s that book again. Now whattaya ‘spose God said what He did in Verses 1-5? Especially 3 & 4?

          • Concerned Christian

            i think your earlier post was deleted. But here was my response:

            Great post. i mostly agree with what you said. i believe the last point “or state will recognize” is the sticking point, however, we do have common ground on other issues that are negatively affecting the family. This is where i plan on spending my time. 🙂

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What do you mean by “or state will recognise”?

          • Concerned Christian

            It was a comment from the missing post. I think they was saying that it doesn’t matter what the church or the state recognizes but what God recognizes. Alfy, please correct me if i’m wrong.

            In response, i was saying that i believe that LGBT marriages should be recognized by the state which is indeed different from the church recognizing it.

            Also, we have more common ground than that one issue and that’s what I’m concentrating on.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          “those definitions haven’t changed at all. I look at gay, straight, religious, non-religious and all want to get married. because all want to have that one person that completes them. the person that they’re willing to sacrifice for.”

          You are sorely deceived or deluded in a number of ways. First, the definition has changed. Just look at your own words. There is nothing “gay” about it. Why not be truthful and call it for what it is – “Homosexuality”. The answer: Because it is self-condemning That is why the homosexuals don’t use it and that’s why they don’t anyone else doing so either. Secondly, there is only ONE Person that can completely anyone and that is God. God said He would make Adam a “suitable HELPER”. He did NOT say He would make Adam a Completer. Third, if you truly believe that homosexuals “marry” so they can sacrifice for each other you are more deluded than you possibly know. Homosexuals want “marriage” because they are trying to legitimize the illegitimate. This is why the “Everything but Marriage” laws didn’t last. Once they got that it wasn’t enough and I think they probably knew it all along. The homosexuals want “marriage” to satisfy their lusts. They want to be accepted and approved of just like everyone else. They are trying to appease a guilty God-given conscience (assuming, of course, it hasn’t been totally seared yet) and find contentment and that is something that will NEVER happen. And your thinking that they want “marriage” so they can sacrifice themselves for another is a public testimony of just how lacking your theology is and your understanding of Man and Hamartiology.

          “Christians want to decide who deserves to be loved and how. The hedonistic lifestyle has been around since the beginning of time. The Romans certainly took it to a different level during the time of Jesus and the disciples. This was during the time of Nero and Caligula, yet, we don’t read how bad the Romans were because the disciples were busy spreading the Good News!”

          Buddy, you need to pick up a Bible and read it. I will pray for God to illuminate your mind to the truth of His Word. You have no idea what “Love” is. “Love” doesn’t aid, support, or in any way participate in the death and eternal torment of another.

          Do you love your neighbor enough to tell them they will spend Eternity in the torment of the Lake Of Fire if they don’t confess, repent, and surrender as a slave to Jesus Christ?

          And that can include Silence.

          “God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust. God will come and separate us at the appropriate time. Until then, we can and should live with all men peaceable.”

          Yes, He will. And until that time we are to separate ourselves from them. Again, you need to pick up a Bible and read it. In fact, you say, “God will come and separate us”. Why “us”? You seem to think you’re a Christian. Why is that? What do you think it means to be a Christian?

          I look forward to hearing your answer to that question but in the mean time I will tell you that one can NOT stand in opposition to Christ and be following Him. It is a contradiction in terms. One can NOT be a Christian and accept, approve, endorse, or support in any way that which Christ condemns. There is NO such thing as a “homosexual Christian”. It’s an oxymoron. They can NOT exist together because they are totally incompatible by definition. And there is NO such thing as a Christian who puts folks on the Wide & Easy Path that leads to the Lake Of Fire.

          If you think you can, then I suggest you read Matt. 7:21-23 and look at those who call Jesus “Lord” to His face and do hear His reply to them.

    • Jerome Horwitz

      Have you ever asked yourself why you’re considered to be a hateful person?

      Pardon?

      Homosexuality is a sin. Period.

      Members of the LGBT community don’t hate Christians.

      If I could post photographs here, I would show just how exactly you are full of it.

      Instead of being defensive, we should ask why do I feel they hate me and what can I do to build a bridge.

      Who cares if or why they hate her or me? It’s not our problem.

      If the answer is they have to change first

      Okay…so…are you saying Christians have to change?

      • John Connor

        Just opinions…nothing more

        • Jerome Horwitz

          Can you dispute anything I said?

          • John Connor

            Homosexuality is only a biological variant of human sexuality. Nothing more. Your 2000+ year old text means something only to those who believe it… no one else.
            Where’s your proof that all members of the LGBT community hate christians? Just religionist rhetoric. I could post many examples of christians showing their “love” towards the gay community but it doesn’t mean that they all hate gays.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Homosexuality is only a biological variant of human sexuality. Nothing more.

            Problem: Homosexuals cannot procreate.

          • John Connor

            Sure they can. IVF, artificial insemination, and surrogates.
            No evidence or proof that any supernatural beings exist.
            Sure there are just as there are christians who hate lgbt.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            1) Two people of the same gender cannot create life through s**. Sperm and ovum MUST be present. That is by design. So, no, they cannot procreate.

            2) Supernatural beings?

            3) Christians hate the behavior and the agenda. People who claim to be Christians, like the folks at Westboro Baptist, hate the people. They are not Christians.

          • John Connor

            1. Neither can infertile couples…your argument is moot
            2. gods
            3. I hear from those on these forums how they’re the only real christians on a regular basis. Agenda…lol. The agenda is to have the same rights as you and I have…nothing more.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            1) Infertile couples aren’t by design. Strawman fail.

            2) You are perfectly free to argue that in hell. Otherwise it isn’t relevant.

            3) Don’t care what you think. I know what Christianity is and isn’t. It’s in the Bible you don’t read.

            4) The pride parades all by themselves make you a liar.

          • John Connor

            1. Matters not
            2. Sure it is
            3. Was a christian for 17yrs. Yup, I’ve read it.
            4. Again, that’s not every single gay person…fail

          • Boris

            “Christians hate the behavior and the agenda. People who claim to be Christians, like the folks at Westboro Baptist, hate the people. They are not Christians.”

            That is The No True Scotsman Fallacy. If Christians could just recognize logical fallacies there would not be anymore Christians. Eliminate stupidity and you eliminate religion.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            The No True Scotsman Fallacy doesn’t apply. The New Testament of the Bible defines Christianity and nothing else.

            Nothing.

            Else.

            If we eliminated stupidity the sociopolitical left would disappear.

          • Boris

            The New Testament is the most retarded collection of nonsense there is.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Glad you think so. Be sure tell God that when you stand before Him.

            If you think hell is going to be great, you’ll love the lake of fire.

          • Boris

            That comment proves that Christianity only appeals to the base human emotion of cowardice. Christianity preys on the widely held superstitions and fears of the scientifically ignorant offering them a solution it does not have to a problem that does not exist and only survives because the dead cannot come back and demand a refund. I’m quite sure that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed and that the gospels are allegories a little too deep for the literal minded and the unwashed to understand. You’re a sun worshiper and don’t even know it. It’s a New Age religion. Where do you think the fish sign comes from? Did you see the eclipse? Then you saw the crown of thorns. Duh.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Why are you here, if not for self-assurance? It’s not like your open contempt for Christians and Christianity is going to make anyone turn into an atheist.

            If you are going to act this way, expect it in return.

          • Boris

            Atheists don’t need self-assurance. We live and work among believers our whole lives and get along just fine. We don’t need positive reinforcement from other like minded people. You don’t see atheists getting together once or more a week singing, worshiping, praising, screaming, crying, rolling around on the floor blabbering, listening to someone tell us how to live and what we must all believe, or else. That’s your deal, not mine. I read these articles to see what the unthinking people on the far right are being told to believe by their various cult leaders. Know your enemy.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Yes, you do. You come to these places for your own benefit. You know there’s a God and it scares you, so you come here to tell everyone there isn’t so you can feel better about your poor wittle retarded self.

          • Boris

            I’m not a coward so the empty threats of OTHER PEOPLE have no effect on me. I’m not afraid of your boogyman. I told you already why I read the articles on this site. You are welcome to lie to yourself about this so you can feel better about your poor wittle retarded self.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            I’m not a coward

            So you don’t fear eternal damnation? You really should.

            I told you already why I read the articles on this site.

            Did you? Whatever explanation you gave, if it wasn’t that you come here to insult people of faith to make yourself feel good, you are a liar.

          • Boris

            My parents did not believe in heaven or hell so that isn’t a belief I have ever held. Let’s get this straight. You believe that I should fear eternal damnation so obviously you fear eternal damnation or you would not be a Christian. On what evidence should anyone fear eternal damnation? Don’t avoid this question. Homo sapiens are a species of ape along with Chimps, Orangutans, Gorillas and Bonobos. Hylobatidae and Pongidae make up the superfamily of Hominoidea. I have no reason to doubt that because a lot of different people discovered this over a long period of time. There’s plenty of proof that it’s all true. I have no reason to believe what you believe which is just stuff a lot of different people made up over a long period of time. Angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, talking animals, sticks that turn into snakes and somehow you wonder why people more intelligent than you are just can’t believe it.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You aren’t intelligent. You’re a fool.

            You’re a fool in living like there’s no God.

            You’re a fool in thinking we came from monkeys.

            You’re a fool in thinking you are going to convince anyone here to become an atheist.

            And I noticed no one else is saying anything on my side of the argument. This is most likely because they got tired of your shenanigans and blocked you.

            I am going to join them and let you scream and yell and cry for attention.

          • Boris

            You lost another debate with an atheist. You have to live that.

      • Concerned Christian

        I would say that adulterers, child molesters (ministers,priest), fornicators, liars, etc. don’t feel that way about the church. The reality is because the church doesn’t feel that way about them.

        I don’t have to agree with you or like anything about you to be civil with you. That’s the change I’m referring to.

        The people most antagonistic towards Jesus were the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

        Now i can understand the Sadducees because they were “sad you see”! 🙂

      • Mensa Member

        >> Homosexuality is a sin. Period.

        Even Dr. Brown doesn’t say that. He accepts that celibate homosexuals are not sinning.

  • davidrev17

    Relax Jennifer…you’re in greatly blessed company! And may our Heavenly Father continue to bless your diligence in faithfully speaking about His righteousness.

    What difference does it make anyway, when otherwise “fallen,” unregenerate people lacking the necessary Holy Spirit-imparted understanding, wind-up taking offense to those “ambassadors for Christ” like yourself – faithfully declaring His truth?

    We’ll always be misunderstood, hated, disparagingly ridiculed, and thus rejected by those “of this world.” (Just read some of His inscrutably “chosen” Messianic credentials, in Isaiah 53; of which is actually the “mantle” bestowed upon ALL those of whom He calls His own children!) We must always remember what the “creature” did (and even said) about the Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, when He walked among us, as well as what He taught His disciples; since people had even bizarrely claimed that He was “demon-possessed” and/or “out of His mind”! We really ain’t so smart.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:10-12)

    “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:24-28)

  • Paul

    The dilemma with your premise is you alienate some legitimate marriages. You said:

    Marriage simply can’t exist without the conjugal union of man and woman.

    And

    Marriage is about children

    In that light do you consider a childless marriage to be legitimate? I’m not talking about counterfeit homosexual ‘marriage’, I’m talking about God fearing spouses who have been unable to conceive for a variety of reasons, or elderly newlyweds. They may not even be able to have sex let alone have kids. Saying marriage is about kids completely alienates these families and further saying they might have had kids really doesn’t make it better.

    None of what I’m talking about is a defense of fornication, homosexuality, buggery or any of the other foul deviance people come up with that is contrary to Gods design. But I’m hoping you’ll see what purpose Gen 2:18 is fulfilling and understand how hurtful your words can be to a segment of God fearing married men and women unable to have children.

    • Jennifer Johnson

      “Marriage simply can’t exist without the conjugal union of man and woman And Marriage is about children”

      Have you presupposed a right, entitlement, or obligation to pregnancy-free coitus? I think you might have, because once that presupposition is eliminated, it should become clear why those two statements are not contradictory.

      • Paul

        Hardly, nor can I comprehend how you would get that idea from my comments. I’m recognizing the reality some couples face and looking at what the scripture has to say.

        • Jennifer Johnson

          OK, just checking. I did read your comments and couldn’t tell one way or the other. That presupposition is so widespread that I can’t assume somebody doesn’t have it. Unless I’m conversing with an orthodox Catholic, I must ask.

          Sex makes babies. That is the principle, the presupposition. The fact that it does not make babies in rare cases does not change the principle. Phrased another way: we don’t take the exceptional cases (unwanted infertility) and make a principle out of them.

          • Paul

            Yes, I understand sex typically results in babies and that the proper context of sex is in marriage. However my perspective as informed by Gen 2:18 is that marriage is first about companionship between a man and woman and that it may result in children. That is an important distinction from what was originally opined in the article.

          • Jennifer Johnson

            It’s true that one of the purposes of marriage is companionship. But if we make that the sole principle for marriage, we end up with no principle governing the proper context for the procreation of children.

          • Paul

            I’ve never said to make it the sole principle for marriage, but it was the start. Kids come later…hopefully.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      The reason for the childlessness is key. If a couple is infertile through no fault of their own, nothing they have done, but due to disease or impairment, their sexual union is still *ordered* properly toward procreation, even if for reasons outside of their control procreation does not happen.
      If Bob and Jane got married, consummated their marriage, lived happily for two weeks and then Bob was injured and left paralyzed and unable to have sex ever again, of course they are still validly married, and their union still brings the two of them great joy and comfort. Everything about their union is still *ordered* properly and as God designed.

      • Paul

        You’ll need to explain that more fully because it provides little reassurance or comfort to the childless couple if in fact marriage is about children.

        • Jennifer Hartline

          I’m not sure why you think there’s no reassurance in that. Marriage is the foundation of the family. It’s the prerequisite for bringing children into the world. Just as no one with any sense would build a house without laying a solid foundation, so children and the family require a solid foundation — that is marriage.
          If a couple is unable to conceive due to disease or injury, their foundation remains intact. Many couples in that circumstance adopt children.

          • Paul

            Some seek medical help but I believe you have condemned some of that as well.

          • Jennifer Hartline

            What medical help have I condemned?

          • Paul

            IVF

            stream(DOT)org/turning-extra-embryos-jewelry-must-stop-manufacturing-children/

          • Jennifer Hartline

            True. IVF is morally wrong because children are not a commodity to be manufactured. We cannot separate procreation from sex. We have no right to sex without babies or babies without sex.

          • John Connor

            We have every right to sex without children. We also have the right to separate sex from procreation. These are nothing more than manufactured opinions.

      • Paul

        Also, using your example if Bob was paralyzed before getting married to Jane, unable to have sex would you consider that legitimate?

        • Jennifer Hartline

          The couple must be able to consummate the marriage at least once, or it is not valid. (Even civil law has recognized the necessity of consummation to make a marriage.)

          • Paul

            OK, so when were Joseph and Mary wed and was their marriage valid when Jesus was born?

            As for civil law, I suggest you avoid that basis, it varries by jurisdiction and now validates sodomites in some places as well. Bad choice.

          • Paul

            You may have missed my earlier reply to this among all the back and forth so I’ll repost:

            OK, so when were Joseph and Mary wed and was their marriage valid when Jesus was born?

            As for civil law, I suggest you avoid that basis, it varries by jurisdiction and now validates sodomites in some places as well. Bad choice.

  • John Connor

    Not JUST procreation…..

  • Jeremy L

    Jennifer, if you’re honestly going to use the “conjugal union” argument, you’re going to have to say that a man and a woman who cannot have vaginal sex (i.e., because of injury or something like that) can never really be married. What if a woman is in love with a man who has lost his lower half in some freak accident? What then? No marriage for them, in your opinion? Same with the “it’s all about the kids” argument. Are you proposing heterosexuals who marry and never have kids by their own choice need to be punished? Do their marriages need to be annulled? Are their marriages “not real”? Branching off of that is your next point: “kids need a mom and a dad”. Well, do you condemn single (heterosexual) parenting? Should we outlaw single-parent adoption? Should we take kids away from single parents and place them in a new two-parent, heterosexual household every time something like the death of one of their birth parents occurs? At the end of the day, what really makes a family? Gender? Numbers? Or love? Overall, if you don’t condemn the heterosexuals who are single parents (by choice or circumstance) or who remain childless by choice or who can’t have vaginal sex, then you’re a massive hypocrite who holds glaring double standards. I don’t think you’ve made a very good case to the SPLC that you don’t hate gays.

    • Rusty

      1. The Catholic church will not marry couples who cannot consummate their marriage; This has always been the case, for serious theological reasons. I urge you to investigate the Church’s reasons, they are readily available via the internet.
      2. The contraceptive mentality (which the author refers to) changes the very nature of sexual congress, eliminating the possibility of lasting fruit from that congress (i.e. children, the product of love). Western countries have decided to outsource child bearing to less developed countries since modern Western couples are not prepared to have enough children to replace themselves. Do you disagree? This, of course, takes place in an environment of unprecedented wealth and prosperity as a society (especially compared to historical alternatives and to less developed countries). The richer we are, the fewer children we have.
      3. The author points out that the rash of divorce and broken marriages are a bad thing, and single parenthood is one of the negative results of that social phenomenon. Do you disagree?

      The author doesn’t condemn anyone – that is a canard YOU have suggested.

      The bottom line is, human beings are tempted to substitute pleasure (especially sexual pleasure, which is extremely powerful) for the sacrifices that real love demands. Our Western society has made sex its god, and the LGBT political machine is all about conflating the person with their particular desire – my identity is based on who I want to have sex with. Therefor, you cannot be critical or unsupportive of my desires, or you are discriminating against me.

      Christians say “NO” to this. Sex is so powerful and so important it must be mastered and disciplined, or it will readily degenerate into selfish and licentious conduct. This is why Christ told us that indulging in lustful thoughts is as bad as actually committing adultery. There is no “right” to sexual gratification, so it is hard to understand why there should be a right to societal approval for the manner in which someone gratifies their sexual desire.

      Marriage, as an institution, is not about approving one’s romantic or sexual choices – this is a modern phenomenon. Romantic love is sentimental, pleasant, and ephemeral – it is not the rock of Caritas that is Christian love. The Catholic marriage is between 3 people – the husband, the wife, and Christ. Christ’s love is indispensable for the lasting success of the marriage, as the romantic early stages of that relationship will certainly be challenged over a lifetime of marriage.

      Then again, Christianity is full of paradoxes – to achieve eternal life, one must deny the self; LGBTQ is entirely about the self – it is subjectivity personified. To the Christian, only true love for the “other” (i.e. God) can provide lasting happiness, not the subjective gratification of desire that is manifested in the LGBTQ sexual agenda.

      • Jeremy L

        1. “The Catholic church will not marry couples who cannot consummate their marriage”. That’s really, really, really stupid and horrible. Only a heartless inhuman beast would deny marriage to a loving couple because they cannot consummate the marriage. If anyone is worshiping sex, it’s you and all the Catholics who espouse this soulless, unfeeling, materialistic teaching. You will never deceive me into thinking the heart doesn’t have the power to uphold a marriage.

        2. “Children, the product of love”. Since when did procreative sex ALWAYS equal love? Children, in fact, are sometimes the product of lust. I imagine many Catholic children are the product of lust, considering the cold, detached, sex-based Catholic view of marriage. “Western countries have decided to outsource child bearing to less developed countries since modern Western couples are not prepared to have enough children to replace themselves”. I don’t even know what this means. Are you saying there’s some person shortage in the Western world, because there clearly isn’t. Contraception is not doing any harm to anything. And it doesn’t cancel out the love of couples who use it.

        3. Loving single parents can do just fine for their kids. Single parenthood as the result of divorce can indeed be difficult. But single parenthood is not always “negative”. Do you campaign against single parent adoption? “Two-parent heterosexual household” is NOT the only way to successfully rear a child.

        “Sex is so powerful and so important it must be mastered and disciplined, or it will readily degenerate into selfish and licentious conduct.” This statement only suggests to me that you are obsessed with sex and are unusually prone to selfish and licentious conduct yourself.

        “the sacrifices that real love demands”. Gay couples can’t feel and act sacrificial love for one another? Wrong.

        “Christ’s love [religion, you actually mean] is indispensable for the lasting success of the marriage”. Countless heterosexual and homosexual couples love each other genuinely and stay married and are faithful without religion. “You can’t feel real love until you practice my religion” is an evil thing to say.

        “LGBTQ is entirely about the self”. This is another evil thing to say. You are entirely wrong to generalize like this. A gay relationship can be as much about selfless unconditional love as any other relationship. It isn’t all about sexual gratification. The fact that they cannot produce children with their sexuality does not mean their sexuality is useless and evil.

        In short, your insistence that marriage is about having sex to have kids is frankly stone-hearted. Your idea that all non-procreative sex is selfish is bizarre and serves no purpose other than to unfairly stigmatize those who have such sex. Your theology seems based around harshly judging and unfairly categorizing people as selfish and evil based on something so arbitrary and trivial as whom they have sex with. Ironically, you say one’s sexual desires are irrelevant to their person, and yet you appear to say that we can determine who is selfish and who is not and who is good and who is bad by looking at their sex lives. How pitiful is that?

        • Rusty

          Sigh. Your comments are emotional and utterly subjective. If you took the time to understand instead of condemn, you might see why the Church is right. However, my intention is to explain, not to try to convince you; clearly, you do not hold orthodox Christian beliefs, so your obligations towards God and your fellow human beings will not be evident to you. Political considerations (liberalism, cultural Marxism etc.) are incompatible with orthodox Christianity because they are about the assertion of the human will, not the existence of unchanging truth.

          • Jeremy L

            I am not coming from a place of liberalism or cultural Marxism, but from a place of empathy and justice. When did I say I’m all for the unrestrained “assertion of the human will”? I am not advocating sexual anarchy, I am defending loving couples! What you see as your “obligations towards God and your fellow human beings” is really just you using religion as an excuse to stigmatize and disenfranchise people whose sexual relationships, marriages, and family structures you don’t like for no reason other than they are allegedly “selfish” and “broken” and violate the “orthodoxy” that you assert “God” cares so much about. And you don’t even give any explanation as to why “orthodoxy” is good or how you can say for a fact that LGBTs and others are selfish. You are not the first Catholic/Christian to whine at me that I “just don’t understand”. But I understand perfectly, because you’ve made yourself perfectly clear. All of your views are based on prejudicial assumptions and blind faith, making you subjective and emotional yourself. You’ve “explained” your beliefs well enough. You think you are “of course” right because you think you possess the one, objective “truth”. But how can you know that the church is right? It seems you eat up the church’s “truth” either because it lines up with opinions you already had or because you think following and proclaiming this “truth” will get you your coveted spot in heaven. Whatever.

          • Rusty

            Yes, “…What is truth?…” John 18:38. Oh yes, Pontius Pilate said that didn’t he.

            “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

Inspiration
Joy in the Hurricane
James Randall Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us