Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 161 results found
The Supreme Court will soon be ruling on whether or not the Constitution allows for defining marriage as one man and one woman. If you’re the kind of person who cares about treating people fairly and having just, principled laws, this is not the time to depend on feelings or vague ideas you’ve picked up in the culture about marriage. This is the time to think carefully.
Here’s a challenge Alan hears a lot: Doesn’t the fact that numerous “former homosexuals” have gone back to living gay lives prove that it’s impossible for a person’s sexual orientation to change? What are your thoughts on this one? Leave your comments below, then Alan will respond on Thursday.
The objection that pro-life advocates or organizations aren’t really pro-life because they don’t also advocate [fill in the blank] is one you’ll encounter. Scott Klusendorf responds to this "single issue objection" in The Case for Life:
When a person’s mind conflicts with his body, which should we help him to change? While speaking at the ERLC National Conference last month, Denny Burk said: At the heart of the transgender revolution is the notion that psychological identity trumps bodily identity. In this way of thinking, a person is whatever they think themselves to be. If a girl perceives herself to be a boy, then she is one even if her biology says otherwise.
Remember when I said we should expect to see more efforts to erase the distinction between men and women?
In a review of Anthony Esolen’s new book, Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity, Matthew Franck explains the unintended effect same-sex marriage will have on friendships in our society:
Here in California, our governor and attorney general refused to defend our democratically-established constitutional amendment maintaining the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
[Please see updates below.]
In an article on Public Discourse, Christopher Tollefsen writes of Aquinas’s three natural-law-based reasons why incestuous unions ought to be forbidden, and one of those reasons touches on an aspect of incest I hadn’t thought of before:
Comparing opponents of same-sex marriage to those who opposed interracial marriage is common, but not accurate. As I’ve posted before, the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates actually have more in common with those of interracial marriage opponents. Frank Beckwith explains: