Brody File
“[T]here’s no room for us to consider gay marriage”
Reverend Franklin Graham: “The family is the backbone of society, and if you take the family away and there’s no way you can have a family with two females or two males. If you just think biologically about how God made us, our plumbing, is completely different. He made us male and He made us female. But God is the one who gave marriage and when you go to Genesis 2 and God made Adam and Eve and there said the man is to leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife, and they become one flesh, and there’s no room for us to consider gay marriage or same sex marriage because that is redefining what God gave us.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/category/marriage/
There are some excellent articles here on marriage.
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Few on the gay marriage side acknowledge that the plumbing argument is a pretty strong one.
Paul-Cincy on November 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Still not a federal issue
Zaggs on November 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM
Exactly.
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Geez… haven’t we been through this a thousand times?
If we’re going to expand the definition of marriage such that we abolish the opposite-sex requirement, and if the basis for doing that is “fairness”, then it won’t be long before we have to abolish the couple-only requirement, and further expand the definition of marriage to include multiple partners.
When we do that, we will have expanded “marriage” to the point where it’s lost all its meaning. We will have defined out of all meaning or importance the single most important social institution the world has ever known.
Given that, plus the fact that 31 states have voted it down, plus the fact that at most, this affects 2-3% of the population, how is it that we’re even discussing this as something conservatives should consider? Have enough conservatives bought the lie that this is a “justice” issue akin to the civil rights movement?
greggriffith on November 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Whether we condone gay marriage or not, the percentage of people within families remains the same. Two gays marrying each other doesn’t cause your and your spouse to break up. lol. So for the GOP to fight and die on this hill – for these reasons – is asinine. The occurrence rate of homosexuality is constant. So whether they marry or not is irrelevant to how many people straight people marry and have kids.
If you want to “protect the nuclear family” get rid of no fault divorce laws and stop admitting so many young women to college who then go on to earn nice incomes thereby allowing them to put off marriage and having children until it’s too late. That is the real reason why the nuclear family is dying in the affluent west. Of course, addressing those causes is somewhat – shall we say – problematic.
keep the change on November 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM
Some libertarians keep pushing the issue and muddying the waters by calling themselves conservatives.
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM
This is where I am also. As usual, the Right and Left are talking past each other. The Right says gay marriage isn’t marriage, and the Left is saying, it is if the government says it is.
Paul-Cincy on November 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM
Let’s just start rebuilding now. Sorry Reverend, if this issue is something you feel strongly enough to make you stay home or vote for someone else, so be it.
The only gay married couple I know voted for Romney and Bush, and has two beautiful kids. Great people, great family. You’re wrong Reverend, you dont have to agree with it but it’s certainly not going to take anyone’s family away. Hopefully you can see that some day.
Dash on November 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM
I don’t believe in gay marriage personally but I’m more concerned about an over powering federal government – it’s a states right issue.
MoreLiberty on November 16, 2012 at 9:41 PM
The Left always sees government as the final arbiter of all things. The Right appeals to faith, history, and civilization.
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Is there a typo of some sort here? Perhaps you meant to say that one member of the couple has two kids? Or that they each have one kid? Obviously the way you described the situation can’t be accurate–that’s not even biologically possible.
Mr. Prodigy on November 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM
This.
jjraines on November 16, 2012 at 9:46 PM
At root your comment is a propaganda technique known as Transfer.
INC on November 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Homosexual marriage is an unding. It simply isn’t, no matter the current opinions of the bright boys. The wisdom of the moment usually ain’t all that wise. Marriage is the lifelong union between a man and a woman.
Scribbler on November 16, 2012 at 9:49 PM
Should not even be a state issue, but since it is, I am on the side of keeping things between a man and a woman elevated above things that happen between two gays men and two lesbian females.
The two same sex groupings are an abomination of the gift God gave us. They are intended to thwart his desire of humans being fruitful.
astonerii on November 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Is not, double stamp it no erasies.
I’m trying to determine the root of yours though. You seem to believe the Government has some sort of religious bearing on marriage judging by your bolded quote:
But it doesnt. Governments confer special rights and incentives to married couples for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with the Sacrament of marriage. It’s because married people are more stable, produce offspring which become future taxpayers and are generally more productive. All of those are social benefits gay couples can and do provide, so there’s no reason to exclude them.
As for the catholic church or other religious organizations, no I dont expect they’ll be allowing gay marriage anytime soon, but that’s not what we’re discussing.
Dash on November 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Yes.
No.
In the normal course of events, a same-sex couple cannot and will not ever produce children.
That’s the difference.
Once you take that out, there is no magic. Society is not helped in the least by gay married couples, and any attempt to argue about current couples being helpful only indicates that they can be without marriage being involved.
northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Normal course of events my sister and brother in law wouldnt have had her twins, the owner of my gym and his wife wouldnt have had his daughter, multiple friends wouldnt have had their kids. Many on the “last try” too.
As I said I personally know only one gay married couple and they have two beautiful children. Great family.
Dash on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Gay marriage is what will stop the American Caliphate. There is no way that once they get it everywhere and someone says that all gays not just married ones are to report for execution under sharia. That is when there will be a war that sends them back to the stone age everywhere. The F-35 will be pink cameo and under a rainbow flag.
tjexcite on November 16, 2012 at 10:21 PM
THIS.
The battle is not truly about what man defines as marriage. Because the definition of marriage was not made by man, and we have about as much ability to change said definition as we have to repeal the law of gravity. And this is entirely excluding the destruction of religious freedom that WILL follow if the perverts win the day.
To reword a very old joke “If Congress says two men, two women, and one man and one woman are all married, who’s married?”
The answer is “The one man and the one woman, because you can call the others ‘married’ but they aren’t.”
Wonder if the self-proclaimed stubborn fool will show up on this thread and show how much smarter he is than Rev.Graham?
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 10:21 PM
But how does the opposite of you want happening affect the populace in any way? If you use “pissing off god” or a similar argument, then muslims can ban pork for everyone for the same reason.
You’re not god and therefore by the teaching you seem to follow, you do not judge anyone.
Zaggs on November 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Obviously I have to do other things and can’t read every thread at HA, but I smelled a rat because I’ve never seen him post on other threads, but certainly loves his hobby horse.
22044 on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 PM
I keep pointing to those laws as one of the top reasons American men are refusing to marry.
When you can easily get laid without marrying and not have to worry about losing the house, car, kids, and bank account to your partner even if you’ve done nothing wrong, you can file “men aren’t marrying” under “water is wet”.
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM
On many other issues, I’d agree with you…as I believe in small federal govt and stronger states rights. But, the core of the gay marriage debate is about constitutionality…specifically the Equal Protection clause…therefore making this a federal issue. States may have differing criteria for issuing a marriage license, such as minimum age requirements, but marriage in one state has to be recognized by all of the states, should a couple move from one to another.
The mistake so many people make when it comes to the whole gay marriage issue is that, as I’ve repeated time and time again around HA over the years, this has nothing to do with any religious faith, or about changing anyone’s “definition of marriage”. Whatever you personally believe about gays and marriage, or whatever your religious convictions are, or whatever you define “marriage” as, doesn’t change one bit.
“Marriage” has been redefined again and again around the globe over the centuries…both in secular and religious contexts. Tell any bride-to-be that she better be a virgin on her wedding day or else…and that she’s to be the property of her husband…and you’re likely to get yourself a black eye. But that’s what marriage was at one time…but that’s changed. So the whole “redefine marriage” shtick is a moot point.
Again, this is about secular marriage. Period. And equal treatment under the US constitution. Period. Some of you can strawman all you want about “slippery slopes” and “redefining marriage”…but in the end *giggety* to oppose gay marriage because you don’t like it?
Sorry…but if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. I don’t like scrapple…it disgusts me just thinking about it. But I don’t want to see it outlawed, some people actually like that garbage *shiver* so hey, go buy it and eat it. And it won’t affect me a bit.
JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM
To address the theme of some other comments – I agree that marriage should remain an issue with the states.
22044 on November 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM
FTFY.
We don’t have a choice but to participate. If we do not actively oppose the gay fanatic agenda, the institution of marriage will become a joke and we’ll be persecuted for speaking out against their perversions. Bank on it.
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Except because marriage is a state law, it only has to provide equal protection under its law. Though one thing religious conservative could do is trade the acceptance of marriage licenses for gays from other states if democrats accept gun licenses from all states.
Zaggs on November 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Funny how libertarians rail on about how there is no difference between the democrat party and the GOP, then in the next breath demand that the GOP adopt the democrat’s social platform in it’s entirety.
Once again the dishonesty, “homosexual mariage doesn’t effect straights, until it does then too bad bigot!”
You always, always leave that last party out – why?
Rebar on November 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Gay couple don’t inhibit straight couples from popping out offspring. Heck, how do think us gays got here?
Although gay marriage is a secular idea, not a religious one, I have to add: God’s greatest gift to mankind is love…like the love Jesus Christ has for all His children, saints and sinners alike.
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.–Gal 5:14
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the law.–Rom 13:8
JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM
THe sodomite quoting scripture?
Circle squared.
tom daschle concerned on November 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Rebar on November 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Oh how cute, the little Satanist can make up slander against a man he’s not worthy to shine shoes for.
MelonCollie on November 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
tom daschle concerned on November 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM
The problem is not most of the people, but the crack-headed laws passed. No the photographer should not be guilty of anything for refusing to photograph a same sex marriage. But because of the definitions within the New Mexico Human Rights Act, they won’t win until they take the case out of New Mexico and challenge the act’s definition of a “public accommodation” and of course how amendment 1 of the US constitution should trump anything New Mexico passes.
Zaggs on November 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM
I oppose liberals and left-wing fanatical gays and gay activists groups probably more than you will ever know. And believe me…I’m not shy about it. And you don’t need gays marrying to see that heterosexuals have done quite well all by themselves in making marriage a “joke”.
Stop categorizing everyone by
JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM
tom daschle concerned on November 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM
The fact is, being able to sue folks is the primary driving force in the progressive homosexual agenda for gay marriage.
All you need to do, is look at England and Canada to see what’s in store for us in a few years, if the GOP falls for the trap of endorsing homosexual marriage.
Rebar on November 16, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Once the godless leaders of this country ratify UN resolution 16/18, those who “worship” Jesus Christ as the Son of God, will be officially be made criminals, so there is your agenda sodomites. Go for the gold.
tom daschle concerned on November 16, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Then you admit that marriage has no value and that gays and lesbians marrying will not in any way benefit society.
It always amuses me to watch gay-sex marriage supporters whine about how they need the benefits of marriage right as they trash it and insist that it has no benefits.
northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Uh huh. Everyone you know has abnormal fertility and could never have conceived a child on their own; furthermore, this is generalized to every single heterosexual everywhere.
If that were truly the case and every single heterosexual couple was as completely infertile as a same-sex couple, we wouldn’t be here. But since we are, how about coming back to the reality and admitting that same-sex couples are ALWAYS infertile, while opposite-sex ones are RARELY infertile?
I swear, gay-sex marriage supporters are completely ignorant of biology.
northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM
They are not ignorant.
They are simply lying.
Rebar on November 16, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Interestingly enough, though, not a single one of those changes has affected the basic formula: male-female.
Think about that. Has every single civilization prior to you been emphatically stupid? Or, more likely, did they try promoting gay-sex relationships and find out it didn’t work?
Wrong.
The Second Amendment is established law and constitutional right, but states are under no compulsion whatsoever to recognize each others’ gun ownership laws, or to grant “full faith and credit”. This despite it being a CLEAR Federal law that the right of people to bear arms shall not be abridged.
There is no Constitutional guarantee or right to marriage to whatever you are sexually attracted. Therefore, the fact that states may CHOOSE to recognize each others’ marriage ceremonies does not COMPEL them to recognize each others’ definitions of marriage.
northdallasthirty on November 16, 2012 at 11:32 PM
What the heck does this even mean? Are you mentally stable and healthy?
Did you just ask me if I was worthy to shine shoes for satan?
good grief.
tom daschle concerned on November 16, 2012 at 11:44 PM
The term “marriage” doesn’t inhibit anyone from coupling together.
What is the etymology of the word marriage? Is it more important for a nation of law to protect/abide by Amendment I than it is to play semantics with a term that has no bearing on whom one chooses to couple?
anuts on November 17, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Oh, but if you have a grocery store and you don’t stock scrapple, I will sue you because I have a right to it.
cptacek on November 17, 2012 at 12:36 AM
Is there evidence that gay couples are more stable, produce offspring and are more productive? I highly doubt it.
cptacek on November 17, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Two perv threads in one evening. I hope AP doesn’t go for a trifecta.
platypus on November 17, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Nice quotes but that means we need to determine what God means when He commands us to Love one another. You are insinuating that those that oppose Gay Marriage aren’t loving their neighbor or loving one another. That argument doesn’t follow from those verses.
chemman on November 17, 2012 at 1:21 AM
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
This simple question is at the core of the dispute. The superficial answer, of course, is “5.” The correct answer is “4.”
And the reason is simple: a tail is not a leg. You can call it a leg, but you can’t make it a leg.
The same-sex marriage advocates universally adopt the position that if the government decides two men can be married, then it’s a marriage. In effect, marriage is whatever the government calls it.
It’s not a states’ rights issue. It’s not a federal issue. It’s a “none-of-the-government’s-business-in-the-first-place” issue.
Marriage is not a creation of government. It’s the other way around. The first governments were extensions of the family — first of the tribe, then of the community.
Family created government, not vice versa.
When a government declares two men to have a marriage, the only thing it accomplishes is to hurt itself and everything it touches. It can’t magically create a marriage simply by declaring two men “married.”
There Goes The Neighborhood on November 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM