Gay Marriage? The Real Issue

One of the most heated and important debates which continues at a furious pace is this talk of Gay marriage, and what really defines marriage. Marriage is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." Notice two definitions are given: one for heterosexual relationships, and one for homosexual relationships. This was just recently added after former President Bush stated that "Marriage is between one man and one woman.." Well… who is right? The definition of marriage is found in the Bible – the Book of Genesis – the very place it was created in the Garden of Eden. "When God first created man and woman, He also established marriage and the family relationship on which every society is built through the ages. Genesis 2:18-25 provides the blueprint for a biblical marriage relationship. It gives us clear guidelines to have fulfilling marriage relationships as God originally intended."http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/References/OT/Pentateuch/Genesis/03Man_Woman/Genesis02_L04_Marriage.html

So, if this is in fact the case, and marriage is designed by God and is intended for one man and one woman, I ask, where then does the debate really lie? Some would argue it’s about equality and the right for one man to wed another, or vice versa with women. Others would say marriage ought to be defined by the people who are involved in it. But neither of these so-called points seriously tackle the issue. The real issue is homosexuality itself. Many are afraid to address it out of political correctness, others are afraid of losing votes, while still some are not sure about what to do concerning homosexuality. Any homosexual would turn their nose up at the mention of the Bible and what it says concerning the issue. And rightfully so. As a Christian man, one who lives to serve Jesus, I bear witness to the fact that many so-called "Christians" have taken the Bible out of context and misquoted and misrepresented what the Lord Jesus was trying to accomplish. While in the Bible, and according the Lord, homosexuality is indeed wrong, how we go about explaining that to people absolutely matters. When people hold up signs that say "God hates fags" or "You queers will have your place in the lake of fire" what kind of message does that send? What about those people who are curious about pursuing a relationship with Christ? What do they think when they see people representing a belief system that teaches love, while practicing hate?

Having addressed Christianity and homosexuality, let me close with this quote and statement. "Consider the obvious problem of survival for individuals who allegedly possess a gay gene:individuals who have partners of the same sex are biologically unable to reproduce (without resorting to artificial means).  Therefore, if an alleged “gay gene” did exist, the homosexual population eventually would disappear altogether.  We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a “gay gene” as the causative agent in homosexuality.  The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified.  Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation.  Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge."  http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

With the above information, and extensive research it is easy to see that those who favor homosexuality, and homosexuals themselves, have only two options to explain homosexuality. Since science has extensively proved it is NOT genetically linked, the only other option is that it is a behavior. If it is in fact a behavior, then it has no basis of becoming a law, or a foundation of respectable value. While I do believe two men and two women can have a very strong love for one another, I do not believe the way they choose to sexually identify and fulfill themselves is a basis for protected rights. If homosexuality is not genetic, but rather a behavior, then there cannot be a law to protect it, and thus, gay marriage cannot exist. Yet, who will stand up and address this issue?

Abortion

Abortion

I have been thinking a lot about the issue of abortion - both the natural and scientific approaches. So I've decided to use sound reasoning and science to explain why I personally feel there is no true just cause for abortion under general circumstances. Because this is a highly volatile issue, I've decided to find the top reasons favoring abortion, and explain the flaws and my disagreements.

1. Statement: Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.

Rebuttal: Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life. When the egg is fertilized by the sperm, they cease to be an egg and sperm, but have given way to a living human being.

2. Statement: The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?

Rebuttal: I feel this statement is pretty self explanatory. Not only does it state that human life begins at conception, but the fact that conception is indeed a fertilized egg would clearly agree that this is also a form of abortion. The fact that more are being created than used and then discarded is a case of ethics.

3. Statement: Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women.

Rebuttal: This case of the “woman’s” choice is a tough one. The reality is, both men and women share equal parts in creating a child. It takes both to make that happen. It’s strange how if she chooses to keep the child the man has to pay, but if she wants to abort the child, it’s her choice and the man doesn’t get a say so simply because he isn’t carrying the child. Adoption is VERY MUCH THE alternative to abortion if the woman and man don’t want to provide care for that child, I can guarantee someone is always willing and wanting to.

4. Statement: Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth.

Rebuttal: The vast majority of doctors who specialize in abortion will almost always persuade and ease the woman into deciding for abortion. While they generally do not affect future pregnancies, there is no way for that doctor to help that woman with the mental trauma that follows a decision of exterminating a part of her. About 88% of women on the other spectrum who are deciding to get an abortion, who first get an ultrasound and see the living child inside of them, choose NOT to follow through with the procedure

5. Statement: In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations.

Rebuttal: Less than 5 percent of all pregnancies are due to rape and/or incest. Additionally a poll taken of women who have had abortions in the past have all stated that NONE of them have forgotten the choice they made and still today live with guilt as a result, some 40 years later.

6. Statement: Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion.

Rebuttal: The reality is abortion is NOT a contraceptive. However, it is a way out of responsibility - and the wrong way at that. If abortion is OK, and reinforced, that is reinforcing promiscuity, and thus there is no real consequence for the actions of careless sex, with the exception of STDs. Ultimately the human life becomes worthless.

7. Statement: The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

Rebuttal: Abortion, though I am very much against it, is NOT a government issue, neither at the federal or state level. The decision ought to be up to the mother and father of that child. If the father is not present, I believe everything should be done to weigh in on the benefits of giving life and hope to that child, as opposed to never giving it a chance through termination. Ultimately, the government should not have a say so, nor should federal funding be used for abortions.

8. Statement: Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different than funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth.

Rebuttal: This is a gross overstatement. Rich women do not have federal assistance because they can afford health coverage from insurance companies, the vast majority of which do NOT cover abortions. Secondly, the rates in which to funds these types of operations will continually increase. Funding abortion is very different from funding a war, primarily because they are two different sides of the spectrum. The vast majority of this funding doesn’t go towards abortion, it goes toward other social programs for those who have lost jobs, and is essentially spent however politicians choose.

9. Statement: Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave school, receive inadequate prenatal care, rely on public assistance to raise a child, develop health problems, or end up divorced.

Rebuttal: This statement is flat-out false. The vast majority of unwed teenage mothers who become pregnant often were depressed or have had disadvantaged lives and negative mindsets PRIOR to becoming pregnant. Many are already NOT enrolled in school, and the amount of state funded social programs that will provide the correct health procedures for the women and unborn children are what a good portion of your tax dollars go to pay for. To say in the statement that all these stem from unwanted pregnancy is false.

10. Statement: Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome.

Rebuttal: There was no evidence of post abortion syndrome because guilt is not registered as a syndrome under the APA. Abortion creates stress just as well as pregnancy does. It is a normal human reaction to the fact that a being totally dependant upon you is growing inside of you!

From about the mid 1940’s to present day, there have been about 10 million abortions in the United States. The glaring problem is, an entire generation has been wiped out as a result. This is a working class that would stimulate the economy, take on the deficit burden, create new ideas and a promising future, and pay into social security, which we are very much hurting on currently. The true reality of abortion is, it is NOT necessary. Many will use rape and drugs, and say these children will come out disabled. And that is a sad fact of the choices people make. Fortunately there are people with big hearts and dedicated spirits to help those who are disabled and in need. It is their jobs and more importantly, their desiress. When we tolerate and reinforce abortion, we are losing jobs, our morals, and above all, we place a price tag on the worth of a human being.

Bible Burning?

Bible Burning?

Have you ever noticed how the media frowns and jumps back in gasps of horror when a pastor, group leader of some kind, or even an ordinary person decides they will burn a Qur'an? There's almost a national outcry, and immediately, the person is called intolerant, they are a hater. However, why isn’t the same reaction given when people decide to burn Bibles? Why is it that the liberal media criminalizes Qur'an burning and turns their head when someone decides to burn the Holy Bible? Do they not know that this nation was founded and has its base on biblical principles? There are literally hundreds of videos on YouTube displaying people burning Bibles and in doing so, they verbally speak hatred of God and Christians.

Quite honestly, I think the liberal media is so bent on being accommodating and politically correct, they are willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms and liberties all for the sake of comfort. Appeasement, if you will. I will say this: appeasement has never worked and never will, in any case. If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll come back for milk. Giving in to appeasement is giving in to a type of terrorism. It won't work in the Middle East, it didn't work in Europe, and it will not work in America.

There cannot be a double standard! It’s either all okay to burn, or none of it is. You cannot preach hatred to the man who burns the Qur'an, and preach heroics to the man who burns the Bible through silence. Do the two men not have the same right in destroying the texts because of their beliefs? Why then is one viewed negatively and the other neutral? I condone neither act, and firmly believe Jesus is Lord and His Word is the Holy Bible. However, that doesn't give me the right of way or fuel to burn a Qur'an. You don't bring people in or win them over that way. You drive them out. Open your eyes and stand up for America. Pray for this great and mighty nation and its leaders. America.

Islamic Place of Worship or Trophy?

Islamic Place of Worship or Trophy?

It appears to me that many people all over the United States are still in awe over New York's leaders’ decision to go ahead and allow the building of the Islamic place of worship. President Obama made it very clear in his speech that it is the job of America to uphold the freedoms and liberties our nation has struggled day in and day out to maintain. The very blood of our service men and women spilled upon the altar of freedom so that we might have an abundant life, and a land of opportunity. I couldn't agree with the president more on that statement, but hardly the issue. The issue here is not whether Americans want to allow the Muslims to worship freely as they please wherever they please. After all, many of them are American citizens born right here in America.

The real issue here is the LOCATION of the building. I suppose there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of reasons Americans could deny and withhold the Muslims the right to build in that area. However, not without the cost of being portrayed as a racist, or even prejudice by the liberal media. What our well meaning liberal friends fail to see is that these Islamic radicals and those pushing for the mosque to be built next to the WTC memorial, are using our own constitution against us! Don't believe me? Consider this, General Petraeus said that any burning of the Qur'an would endanger US troops because it would be viewed as an act of hostility from America. In this case, he is absolutely right. Our men and women are in hostile land. It is a natural response. However, the Imam who is heading the New York Mosque said these same exact words, but he changed it a bit. He said that our actions would bring about violence in and to America.

While I DO NOT condone the act of Qur'an burning, it is easy to see that this is not a warning but rather a threat. He went on to say any act to halt or stop the building may result in violence. So my question then is, what value is the voice of the people? Yes America was built on the idea that all men and women were created equal with equal rights and opportunities under the law. However, as Reagan said, "We are a nation with a government, not the other way around." We own the government. We tell IT what to do. Or that is how it should be. Regardless Islamic radicals in America hide behind the very laws and liberties we put in place to protect our citizens. It doesn't help that our liberal counterparts reinforce this notion all on the feeling of being politically correct. The whole purpose to this argument is America is not racist or intolerant of others beliefs or practices. While we as a nation might not agree with it, we harbor an environment where people are essentially free to do as they please in many respects. So America's cry is not, "Do not worship Allah in New York." America's cry is "Worship as you please, but build the mosque elsewhere."

If The Muslim citizens here in the United States, born foreign or domestic, cannot see the significance of the 9/11 attacks and the location of the mosque, then I suppose they have not earned the right to build there in the first place. It is not that Americans have grown prejudice of Islamic radicals through passing time, rather when Islamic radicals stand up against and threaten America politically and physically with acts of violence, these so-called fundamental Muslims do nothing about it. When was the last time you saw a group of Muslims opposing a radical group for terrorist attacks? When has there ever been a public gathering or demonstration? The most they say is "This is not Islam. Islam is peaceful". Anyone who has ever read and studied the Qur'an will see that, even in context, the text is violent and aggressive naturally. Like Newt Gingrich said, the Nazi groups would NEVER have been allowed to build a place of gathering and fellowship at a holocaust memorial site. Why then do our nation’s leaders think it’s OK to build a mosque there in light of the attack on America? I tell you the truth, if we allow this building, and this kind of guilt trip behavior to continue here in the last greatest country on Earth, we are in trouble. We might as well call that mosque a middle finger to America and a trophy to radical Islam.