Can’t stand O’Reilly and he was an absolute idiot tonight.
However, he does have a point.
We shouldn’t be making our argument against same sex marriage based on our religious convictions. The left will just vilify us and claim we are forcing our religion unto them.
We need to use empirical evidence about the effects of same sex relationships on children.
There’s plenty of evidence showing the benefits of a nuclear family. Children born out of wedlock or to single parents homes face an uphill battle, and the fact is supported by an impressive amount of data.
Where’s the data on same sex relationships? I’ve seen a couple conflicting studies, but I haven’t seen any serious undertakings about this topic. I believe the data will favor traditional marriage.
This empirical evidence is how we can defend our views.
“We shouldn’t be making our argument against same sex marriage based on our religious convictions.”
What no one has mentioned here is that Laura Ingraham is a devout Christian. She wears a cross necklace whenever she appears on Fox. For her not defend religious argument against gay marriage would be hypocritical.
That said, she is aware as anyone of the empirical evidence of damage to children of gay parents. And she probably would have got to that if BOR hadn’t blown up.
You have good points. The passages in the Bible refuting homosexuality have no meaning for the un-churched. Knowing the full meaning of these readings takes some Holy Spirit discernment which the un-churched lacks and they are not going to listen to any teaching that gets them up to speed.
However, there is the approach that makes the case for heterosexual marriage in terms of natural law. That case, by the way, is the basis of our Constitution. The progressive culture at work in our nation desperately needs to move away from situational ethics and towards understanding of what is good for the human race.
For a good start at the natural law argument, go here: