Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Ministries|Thu, Oct. 02 2008 07:32 PM EDT

Thousands of California Christian Youth Empowered to Defend Marriage

By Kenneth Chan|Christian Post Correspondent

“If sexual orientation or sexual attractions were the basis upon which we were allowed to marry then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry six-, seven-, eight-year-olds. The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after [same-sex] ‘marriage’ was instituted in Massachusetts - he’d have to be allowed to do so,” responded the former lesbian of 19 years.

“Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any combination would have to be allowed,” she continued. “We have to understand the big picture.”

Adding to Schneider’s response, McPherson said, “If you’re talkin’ about just ‘love’ then anything goes and then you throw out all rules.”

“Then dominoes start happening,” he continued, noting how Satan understands how to break down the family and break down the culture.

“It’s way bigger than just these two people ‘loving’ each other. If ‘love’ is only the criteria, then anything goes,” he said.

Another question placed before the panel was regarding the difference between having two mothers or two fathers versus having one mother and one father.

“What’s the difference? They’ve got loving parents. Isn’t that okay?” the question stated.

While panelist Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason recalled panelist Schneider’s earlier note of studies on parenting that say children do best psychologically, emotionally, socially, and even physically when they’re raised by the parents that conceived them in the context of marriage, he pointed to a need that most people know to exist through simple observation.

“I’m not a sociologist. I’m not a psychologist. I’m just a human being. But you don’t need to be wearing a white coat to know that kids need a mom and a dad,” he said.

And while he praised single parents for their efforts, Koukl said children who grow up without a mother or without a father often know in their heart that something is missing.

“I know what it’s like when single parents have to raise kids,” said the apologist, whose wife was the single parent of a 16-year-old when they married.

“And many people in this audience and those listening have been raised in circumstances – where they haven’t had a mother or father maybe through death, maybe through a divorce. And they know the loss that they feel,” he continued.

“Now people in that circumstance often do a sensational job, like my wife did, to make the best of a difficult circumstance. And my hat is off to all single parents,” Koukl stated. “But why would we want to engineer that on purpose and make it the law of the land that we can deprive a child of a mother or a father?

“This doesn’t make any sense. They deserve better,” he concluded.

Wednesday’s event was one of three planned simulcast events in support of Proposition 8. Others include a broadcast presentation for pastors and Christian leaders that took place last Thursday, Sept. 25, and a future broadcast presentation to churches Sunday, Oct. 19.

Churches that participated in the simulcast Wednesday had signed up with the Mountain View, Calif.-based Church Communication Network, which broadcast the event via satellite and provides programming in an array of ministry areas.

Other live and video guests Wednesday included Ron Luce of Teen Mania; skate pros Brian Sumner and Christian Hosoi; and Kyle Loza, pro freestyle motocross rider and X Games gold medalist. The youth-oriented evening also featured music by rock groups the Katinas and Stellar Kart.

On the Web:
iprotectmarriage.com.

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jcn, if young people taking a stand against sin is bigotry then I guess God is the biggest bigot of all.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:49 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    The kids think they are standing for righteousness but what they do not realize is that the word homosexual does not exist in Scripture. What they are standing up for is tradition and the church has grown by breaking with the traditions that have existed.

    It is interesting that these young kids know nothing about what it means to be gay or lesbian (and yet many do but won't adnmit it). I can guarantee that in that crowd there are hundereds who are wrestling with this issue and are just afraid of the reaction of their peers and their church. Down the road they will come out and see how misinformed they were.

    Why are people afraid of two people of the same sex loving one another? Is that not possible in many peoples eyes or is it that gay men are only about sex? God has called us to love and to love one another. Where in world has this unjustified bigotry come into play in the church and into politics. Oh I get it it's the politics of fear.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I dont have another personality. Sorry.

  • Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wow, now Prophet is talking to his other personality...yup, he's lost it.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Please keep the insults out of the discussion, please.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, its not a disorder, which you'd also know.

    I put you down because the way you present yourself leaves so much material! You then try to crack on me, but its on things that make no sense, such as saying my responses don't make sense, when in fact you are actively trying to not understand them. Its quite pathetic and silly.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    And who are you to call it a disorder? Homosexuality could be called a genetic disorder.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Not really. They are both sins.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Porphet, you claim you are a Christian, but you are actively looking for things to put me down on, things that are really quite inconsequential. I also think its funny that you crack on things I have already pointed out are your weaknesses, which again prooves my point that you thrive off the ideas of others.

    Incest and homosexuality are 2 very different things which you will not let yourself understand. I have explained it plenty of times, and if you bothered to do any research into incestuous relationships compared to gay relationships, you would see the differences in terms of incestuous relationships being disordered in terms of brain chemistry.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mike,
    You said "I cant stand when a straight person says "well isn't your love enough?"

    Well, I can't stand it when a homosexual says that their relationships are about love, but an incest couple relationship isn't.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    Incorrect again. I said it could happen. You said "Its not illegal to speak out about homosexuality."
    I know it's not illegal to speak out against homosexuality. But someday it may. If you notice my post said "Here's another scenario that is quite possible in time."

    So, again you show that you do not read what is written...you read what you want to read. That is why I asked you to re read it, but you were content to remain wrong. That's your choice, and it affects only you.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    arit, I flagged you for using offensive language. To answer your question, I look at another man and think he is attractive, just as any married straight men does, but I would never want to act on it because I am in love and committed to my partner, and know that what we have as a connection could never be matched by anyone else.

  • Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In your previous post you said it will happen. I said it won't, and explained what the circumstances were in Canada (which, by the way, I don't agree with.) Prophet, of course marriage is about a bond for life! Its a shame many couples cannot pull themselves together to do that, but there is the symbolic understanding that when you are married, you make a vow "until death do us part." Yes, marriage provides 2,400 benefits which will protect me, my partner, and our future children in terms of health care, legal rights, inheritance, etc. but actual marriage is a bond that "domestic partnership" just doesn't offer. I cant stand when a straight person says "well isn't your love enough?" as if throwing us a bone to keep us quiet. Isn't love just enough for you? Why do you need to get married? You could have children with your partner outside of marriage. The answers are the same..."Because we know we're the ones for each other, because we want the legal protections."

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If anything, allowing gay marriage will strengthen morals in the country because it is giving more to the bond of love for life instead of having multiple partners for life."

    When Satan tempted Eve he said (paraphrased) "Eating of that tree won't kill you, it will make you like God."

    I see he still uses the same lie today. And what does marriage have to do with remaining faithful? That's the only way homosexuals can remain with one partner is if they are bound by something other than their own love? Love isn't good enough to keep them together? I know, I know...gays want the same "financial" perks that come with being married. Why don't you say that instead of saying that being married will keep homosexuals from "multiple partners" (which is a false statement). Marriage has no more to do with keeping homosexual couples together than it does with keeping heterosexual couples together. The divorce rate among homosexuals would equal that among heteros.

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    You said "Its not illegal to speak out about homosexuality."

    Can you please tell me where I said it was illegal?

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...I am able to think critically about situations whereas you place everyone you dislike in the same box and refuse to have an honest conversation about it.

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You think that adult incest relationships are gross and disgusting too. How does that make you any different from me?

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am quite satisfied with my post, thanks

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    How did I know you were going to say that? Probably because I know you read half a line of my comments and then make up the rest.

    Please re read my previous post, and then reply with something close what I said.

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Its not illegal to speak out about homosexuality. The reason the Canada case was sensationalized was because it was tied to the suicide of someone. You are trying to make things a bigger deal than they are. Incest will not become legal, as we know it harms children. Gay marriage does not effect you, it just goes against your beliefs. If anything, allowing gay marriage will strengthen morals in the country because it is giving more to the bond of love for life instead of having multiple partners for life. You look at gays as if we're some foul beings who thrive off creating chaos and hosting mass orgies, but that simply shows your ignorance to the community.

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Her's another scenario that is quite possible in time. Homosexuals are given their "rights", and soon it becomes a crime to speak against homosexuality. It's already been tried in Canada. See, you think that I think that as soon as homosexuals get their rights, that all hell is going to break loose. No. It's starts slowly. Here's a couple analogies that maybe will help you understand.

    Rome didn't fall in a day. Or a year. Or a decade for that fact.

    How do you eat a sandwich? One bite at a time.

    How do you boil a frog? Put it in the pot and slooooowly turn up the heat.

    All these activists know that the "BIG steps" aren't the way to get things done. Ten little steps is much more effective then one giant step.

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mike,
    I know you don't think it is. Carnally minded people wouldn't think it is. It's going the way they want it. But when compared to God and His desires, yes it is very morally bankrupt.
    Homosexuality does affect me. I drops this country spiritually lower, and farther from God, which in turn affects me.
    Homosexual marriages become legal. And then incest (though you don't believe it, it will happen), and then transgendered want their rights, then another immoral group. I know you can't see past point A to points B, C, or whatnot. But it's there. It's one of satan's biggest lies. "Oh, let them have their way. It won't affect you. All these other things won't happen. You're just making a mountain out of a mole hill."
    So, we allow it. Then all these things that people said wouldn't happen, do. Then it's too late to change our minds. The concrete is set, and we are knee deep in it.
    And the concrete keeps pouring.
    Here in Colorado it is legal for a man to use the women's bathroom. And vice versa. That ain't right. That is point C already...the transgendered, transexual activists getting their way.

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I wouldn't say we're morally bankrupt. I think YOU think it is. The point I am trying to make is that many evangelicals feel that their beliefs should trump everyone else's, which is what happens in a theocracy. One religion rules over the country, and no one has the right to believe anything else. You are trying to make things which do not effect you, such as gay marriage, illegal because it goes against your beliefs. Why should your beliefs have power over mine when not having gay marriage will effect my life, but not yours?

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:01 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    You said that this country is turning into a theocracy. Actually, this country is morally bankrupt. So you are equating "morally bankrupt" with God.

  • Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I never blamed God for the decline of the country, but many "christians" are trying to turn this country into a theocracy, starting with GW Bush. My post made perfect sense, I'm not sure you had the sense to read it.

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    Oh. I just reposted it because you didn't read it the first time. Or maybe you were trying to ignore it. Whichever the case may be, your response was off, and you missed the point completely. Next time I'll just tell you to read my post again. That should clear up any confusion.

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm wondering why someone decided to flag me. I said nothing inappropriate, nor did I copy and post like Prophet, which he was flagged for. Arit, who are you talking about?

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685 do you still have the hots for bruce? do tell.

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Government, while ultimately upholding a code of morals, represents all citizens, including those who choose not to believe in God."

    That's it's weak spot.

    "Unless we are in a theocracy, which this country is turning into..."

    Far from it my friend. Unless you consider an increasing divorce rate, pornography at your fingertips, strip clubs, paganism, post-modernism, greed, rising teen suicide, rising crime rates all around, national financial ruin, etc, etc, as being a theocracy.
    Please don't blame God for the declination of our once powerful country. That's man's fault, not His.

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In true Christianity we give up our rights. So what's all the hubbub about rights?

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    igh, Jesus said give to Caesar was is Caesar's. Government, while ultimately upholding a code of morals, represents all citizens, including those who choose not to believe in God. Unless we are in a theocracy, which this country is turning into, your religion ideals cannot influence the government to the point of only giving the rights to citizens you feel God would have bestowed.

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mike2685, I would be very much in favor and support strengthening domestic partnership laws since I know a number people who for a number of reasons are living in a non-sexual relationship with another person who would indeed benefit from such laws and rightfully so. Case in point is my sister-in-law who went through a very abusive realationship with her former husband and has no desire to be with a man at this point and time in her life, she shares her home with another woman who went through a similar situation and I'm sure they would benefit from such laws.

  • igh »
    Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike, True rights are expressed in what God teaches as True. When we accept this and are Truely converted, then we follow this Spirit, this line of logic and thinking in all things. Government is no less our arena of building on Righteousness then mission trips. This is a real witness when we do what Jesus did in all aspects of our lives.

    True rights express the loving ways of God, and it benefits all, the Believer, and the unbeliever. But the unbeliever doesnt 'see' nor does he 'hear' but uses the True Liberties God gives for his own ends. This is a Spiritual Bondage. They do not enter life, but by there leadership lead many to eternal hellfire right along with them.

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In essence, you believe in your right to have your rights expressed, but believe other's should not have a right to their rights if they go against your beliefs?

    Try saying that three times fast :)

  • igh »
    Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I do not believe in 'rights'
    I believe in what God says is RIGHT!!

    Too many call for their 'rights' "gimme this and gimme that its my right!"
    The whole time not knowing what True Freedom is.

    Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
    Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
    Isa 61:3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified."

    Now listen very closely, if you do not preach LIBERTY then you preach BONDAGE!
    Cleverly disguised as liberties but in reality are FALSE LIBERTIES! You go into bondage and all who follow, this means you will indeed stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgement and be damned.
    Do you want this? Go and Preach the True Liberty in Christ Jesus! And build on that Eternal Rock!

    2Peter 2:18 "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through
    much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
    2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
    2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus
    Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
    2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
    2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

  • Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...someone gave me a thumbs down for that?

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:49 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Believer, would you support those? Too often, conservatives shut down any kind of domestic partnership benefits to try to shut down homosexuality (which is quite foolish) and don't realize that they are limiting their own rights as well. Its a shame how few people truly look into political discussions.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I have heard that it was legal in Vegas. I wasn't sure if that was true. That is really sad.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " drawn the line at making prostitution "

    it is legal in some places.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I think one of the issues here is not whether the Bible call homosexuality sin, it's whether our government (as well as the public) calls it a sin.
    Lust is a sin, but yet no one makes an issue out of porn and adult stores and stip clubs. Why? Because the government says it's okay.
    I'm glad that they've drawn the line at making prostitution and drunk driving illegal (but not drunkeness which the Bible also calls a sin). But I know that many would like to make prostitution legal, which promotes adultery.
    But the overall point is that the government is apparently exalted above God by many so called Christians. If they can get the government to approve of their behavior their conscience will be at ease.

    I'm not sure, but I think God is the one we'll answer to when we die, not our government.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, so work on getting better domestic partnership laws passed to include those benefits and rights.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer, it is not for acceptance or recognition at all. I want the same rights, and domestic partnerships offer very, very few benefits compared to the benefits from marriage (I believe there are over 2,000.) If I could get those rights, or if any best friend/companion couple could, I would be fine with that and don't care about the language of it.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yes, what you either fail to see or choose not to acknowledge is that homosexual activists have an agenda in getting same-sex marriages/unions legally approved. They want their lifestyle to be accepted and approved as a legitimate lifestyle. If all they are concerned about is getting the same benefits and rights as heterosexual couples they should be pressing for domestic partnership laws which would give them the very benefits and rights they are looking for.

  • igh »
    Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yes_I_am_a_Jew said:

    "igh, there's a word we Jews have for someone like you. It's schmuck. I happen to be a registered Republican, just one who ascribes to the ideas of small government and fewer taxes rather than the moral legislation. "

    Um, well what about the Ten Commandments are they Moral Legislation? Should we ignore them when we consider what is Right and Wrong?

    The Question i want to put to you is this:
    If you dont let God work through you establish a nation built on HIS WORD, then you are building one built on YOUR WORD. Now i would rather build on the ROCK.

    No one who worships God in Spirit and in Truth can separate himself from his guidance and Truth. Can we tell the Holy Spirit in us to leave when we enter a public building? OR can we tell Jesus we cannot be his Servant when in public office?
    We can no more separate ourselves as God's Children and Representatives then take out our soul, mind, and heart and put them in a locker till quiting time.

    Something for you to meditate on.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " it has something to do with recognition and acceptance."

    That's the crux of the issue. Not simply providing benefits.

    If we remove morality from law, then there is no need for law.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But I'm not going to argue about incest anymore. It's already proven how narrow minded and judgemental homosexuals are. I don't need to beat a dead horse.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jew,
    You said "There are currently no bills being proposed to allow them nor much of a public outcry to that effect. It's a red herring and you all know that."

    When it is an issue in 5 or 10 years, will you be supporting it?

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As the argument goes, I believe it has something to do with recognition and acceptance. That being said, I really don't care what you call it so long as the results are there. I'm a pragmatist at heart and protecting these couples and providing the same benefits and rights are what I'm concerned about, not how you name the institution.

    This fight isn't going to end any time soon and the middle road would at least provide a workable status quo until there's an acceptable resolution to both sides.

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yes, there are ways we can provide these benefits to not only homosexual couples, but to two people who are living together who are simply close friends and who don't have any sexual attraction to the person they are living with. Why not pass laws that allow for domestic partnerships with most if not all the benefits a married heterosexual couple receive rather than call them same-sex unions or marriages?

  • Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    At its most base level, and the one that the government should be keeping most in mind when determining this matter, marriage is about being entitled to and receiving certain benefits. There is favorable tax treatment, extension of medical coverage, inheritance priority, medical proxy rights, and a host of other benefits/rights. That's what this fight is all about. Forget issues of propriety and morality, this is about conferring government benefits on couples. Benefits which Christians see fit to deprive tax paying citizens of. I repeat my assertion that denying rights to some because of your beliefs (and not theirs) is both wrong and unamerican.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Church
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links