WILL LOVE CONQUER ALL?

 A battered woman was encouraged to return to her husband with the advice that, “Love conquers all.” However, she was found dead several months later.

Perhaps love will not conquer all. One woman suggested that the wife simply had failed to love completely enough. In other words, the fault was hers and not the batterer’s.

On another occasion, a young professional woman confidently informed me that if we truly practiced love, we would not need the police or even the military. Love would overcome the hardest of hearts. No reminders of serial killers, Hitler, Genghis Khan, or Stalin would convince her otherwise. It seemed that she was convinced that, because love has meant so much to her, it can cure everything. One size fits all.

Well, if it is as simple as that, why hasn’t the “love message caught on?” Why are there still wars and criminals? She was convinced that greed and corruption had undermined attempts at loving. However, I didn’t get to ask her my next question: “Why hadn’t love overcome the ‘greed and corruption?’”

The youth, especially, are convinced that the answer is simple – love. However, even adults believe this way. Just today, I read:

• The Bishop of Stockholm has proposed a church in her diocese remove all signs of the cross and put down markings showing the direction to Mecca for the benefit of Muslim worshippers. 

It is not that she is unaware of the problems. In the same article, Chief Superintendent Torsten Elofsson illustrated that the red carpet need not be rolled out for the Muslims. On their own, they are making themselves quite comfortable in Sweden:

• “Years ago you could go with two officers, no problem. Now you have to send four officers and two cars – if the fire brigade want to go, they have to take a police escort. They throw stones and try to stop the fireman from putting out fires.

• “They sabotage the police cars. You can’t leave them unguarded – when you come back to it you find the windows smashed and the tires deflated. It isn’t quite a no-go zone, but we have had to develop special routines to go there”

Politicians are very aware of these disturbing facts. However, they have managed to convince themselves that love will overcome. Just make the Muslims feel accepted and loved, and they will reciprocate with love. Never mind that we find no examples of this in the Western world or even throughout history. Faith in the power of love seems to be impervious to any evidence.

We now treat our children with “unconditional positive regard.” Schools refuse to do anything that might bruise their self-image or feelings. Shame, let alone corporal punishment, is entirely rejected in favor of love – the carrot without the stick. However, as many have reported, we are raising a generation of heathen. Disciplinary problems are accelerating.

From where did this emphasis on love come? Not from the Romans and the Greeks. Historian Rodney Stark commented that their love was very limited:

·       “Classical philosophy regarded mercy and pity as pathological emotions—defects of character to be avoided by all rational men. Since mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it was contrary to justice.”

Love and mercy has been a central theme of the Christian Church. The Christian theologian Tertullian (200AD) claimed that:

·       “We Christians have everything in common except our wives. It is our care of the helpless, our practice of lovingkindness that brands us in the eyes of many of our opponents. ‘Look,’ they say, “how much they love one another.’”

Aristides of Athens added:

·       “If the brethren have among them a man in need and they have not abundant resources, they fast for a day or two so as to provide the needy man with the necessary food!”

Even the pagans commented on Christian love. Lucian (190 AD) observed:

·       “The earnestness with which people of this religion help one another in their needs is incredible. They spare themselves nothing for this end.”

Emperor Julian, an opponent of Christianity:

·       “Ordered the creation of hospices saying, ‘It would be shameful, when the Jews have no beggars, when the impious Galileans feed our own people along with their own, that ours should be seen to lack the help we owe them.’” (How Christianity Conquered the World)

Julian was not alone in noticing Christian love. The Western world has become convinced of the primacy of love.

From where did the emphasis on love among Christians come? Jesus, in concert with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible (Lev. 19:17-18), taught:

·       Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?  And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? (Matthew 5:44-48)

However, Jesus also taught that love had to be accompanied by wisdom and discernment. In the same Sermon, He warned that love had its limitations:

·       "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)

There were times when love would not conquer all, when the disciples would have to pack up their pearls and move on:

·       If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:14-16)

His disciples would have to be “shrewd” about giving their riches. They would have to exercise discernment, because love would not overcome all obstacles.

The disciples were not to naively “hang in there” with indulgent love, expecting that it would conquer all. Instead, they had to be mindful of the dangers:

·           Then He [Jesus] charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven [teachings] of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." (Mark 8:15)

Jesus didn’t instruct his disciples to merely befriend and love the Pharisees until they’d come around to the truth. Instead, there were people from whom they would have to flee, because love would not prevail with them:

·           "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

The New Testament often acknowledges that love will not conquer all. In such cases, the believer is counseled to depart (Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 3:5-6; 2 Thess. 3:14; 2 John 1:10-12).

Love is powerful, but it must be guided by wisdom. When it is not, it becomes indulgence and enablement. Secular culture has embraced the idea of love but not its accompanying and necessary wisdom. This has brought upon the West the fruits of decay and destruction.

REFUGEES, CHRISTIAN LOVE, AND FAVORITISM

A couple of Eastern European nations have been charged with showing “favoritism” for only wanting to take in Christian refugees. This of course raises an important question about the nature of Christian love - should it show favoritism? Or instead, should it treat everyone equally?

However, it is clear that Christian love discriminates. Let’s just look at a few examples:

• AS CHRIST AFFIRMED, WE HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS OUR PARENTS: Matthew 15:4  For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’”

• WE ALSO HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY: 1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
  
  
• HUSBANDS SHOULD DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF THEIR OWN WIVES: Ephesians 5:28-30 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

It has even been argued that the best way to love our children is to first love our wives. We can also infer that the best way to love our neighbors is by first loving our wives and children. If this is so, favoritism is understandable.

While the husband is supposed to favor his own wife, it is also true that Christ favors His own bride – the Church. If He favors His own people, why shouldn’t we!

• JESUS DISCRIMINATED IN FAVOR OF HIS BRETHREN:
• Matthew 12:48-50 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

• Matthew 25:40 “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”

• TRUE BENEVOLENCE MUST BEGIN IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH: Galatians 6:10  So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t love those outside of the Body of Christ. Instead, we are commanded by Christ to love our neighbor. And the church has been faithful over the centuries to this calling. Professor of Sociology Robert Woodberry performed extensive research on missions:

• “Woodberry already had historical proof that missionaries had educated women and the poor, promoted widespread printing, let nationalistic movements that empowered ordinary citizens, and fueled other key elements of democracy. (Christianity Today, Jan/Feb 2014, 38)

Woodberry states:

• “Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in non-governmental associations.” (39)

Nevertheless, showing favoritism is not only rational but is also biblical. Jesus showed favoritism for His brethren, and so must we!

• By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (1 John 3:16-17)

In fact, according to Jesus, we must love one another, because the world will not:

• “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you… If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:12, 18-19)

Love must start at home, especially for the Christian refugees who are fleeing for their lives. Nevertheless, we must still love the people of this world, but we must do this with wisdom. It is one thing for me to personally take a risk by extending myself to a dangerous but needy person – a potential jihadist. However, it is entirely another thing to coerce my neighbor to take such a risk. This is now what is being required of us Americans by our government by taking in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees.

The Center for Security Policy poll recently found that:

• Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%). …

• A quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

• A full 25% of those polled agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.

It is in love that we discriminate, even within the church where we exercise excommunication (Matthew 18:15-20) and other forms of tough love:

• For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)

This kind of tough love is necessary for everyone so they do not lapse into idleness. In light of the Islamic teaching to take over the world to impose an Islamic Caliphate, placing everyone under Sharia Law, Christian love must also be a tough love. It should seek a stable, permanent, and peaceful solution for those Muslims genuinely in need, perhaps by assisting Muslim nations to take them in. In these nations, they would be able to live according to Sharia. Based on the above survey, Christian love is duty- bound to protect the innocent from the great numbers of Muslims who are committed to  violence to get their way.

Perhaps the best thing for those in need is a demonstration of how we Christians love one another. Jesus taught that the world would recognize that we are disciples of the Savior by our love for one another:

• A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)

It is often our failures to demonstrate this kind of love that keeps people away from the church. Daniel-Rops was a professor of history in Chambéry, then in Amiens and finally in Paris. Although brought up as a Catholic, he became an agnostic by the 1920s. Why? According to Wikipedia:

• When he considered the misery and social injustice around him, and the apparent indifference of Christians to those they called their brothers, he questioned whether Christianity was any longer a living force in the world.

Perhaps this is why Jesus prayed:

• “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:20-23)

At the basis of evangelism is discipleship – our endeavoring to love one another. When the world sees this, they will perceive the reality of Christ in the midst of His Church and perhaps believe. What better gift can we bequeath to the world!

How do we love our brethren? By praying for and reaching out to those in need in particular ways, especially at this time of overwhelming crisis

Let us pray for all refugees but especially for our brethren, as Jesus did:

• I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you [Father] have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)

Jesus also prayed for those who were not His brethren, but He favored the brethren. We too must!

We are those who must love the entire world, even in the face of their hatred of us. It is therefore essential that we support one another. Strangely, Christians castigate other Christians for showing such favoritism. Lord, help us!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Discrimination, and the First Amendment

The US Supreme Court recently upheld Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty. The crafts store chain had charged that the Affordable Care Act required them to violate their faith by requiring them to provide insurance to their employees covering birth control and anti-abortive pills.

However, many complained that this decision provided Hobby Lobby and others with a license to discriminate. In an interview with Katie Couric, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lamented:

• "I certainly respect the belief of the Hobby Lobby owners. On the other hand, they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women."

Ginsburg didn’t explicitly claim that the decision granted employers the right to discriminate. However, she claimed something more extreme - that the decision granted Hobby Lobby the “right to foist that belief on… women.” Does it?

The Hobby Lobby (HL) owners have a constitutional right to live according to their religious faith. While some have claimed that such guarantees do not apply to businesses, others have pointed out that if these guarantees apply only to our private lives, they are useless, meaningless, and the First Amendment is just a waste of ink.

It is unclear how Hobby Lobby’s rights “foist [their] belief… on women” any more than the Affordable Care Act does so. Rather, isn’t Ginsburg foisting her beliefs on the entire nation! By simply not providing insurance that would cover birth control, it is hard to see how HL is coercing anyone to believe in a certain way.

All laws discriminate. They either prescribe or proscribe certain behaviors. If this is so, then the more appropriate question is this – “Which laws discriminate in a needful way and which don’t.”  Is coercing employers to provide birth control insurance absolutely needful?”

We respect business owners’ rights to discriminate all the time. Many stores have signs reading, “No shoes or shirt; no service!” We respect that and don’t haul the shop-owner into court for discriminating. Why the double-standard when it comes to Christians refusing to partake in what they regard as sinful!

Hobby Lobby has not been given the right to discriminate. Women never had the right to require these drugs from their employers. HL had withdrawn no privilege. Following Ginsburg’s logic, all employers had formerly exercised discrimination – the foisting of their beliefs by not providing for birth control. This is ludicrous. Besides, HL has not been given the right to forbid their employees from purchasing such drugs. If this had been the case, Ginsburg would have had a basis for her argument. Ironically, it is Ginsburg who discriminates against HL!

A government that wants to win the allegiance of the governed must provide guarantees against unreasonable encroachments. The USA had thrived by virtue of the belief that government should respect freedom as long as it did not seriously impinge upon the public good. The historian, Edwin Scott Gaustad, quotes perhaps our most un-Christian Father to this effect:

• “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” It follows therefrom that mankind should do all that it can to keep minds unshackled and un-coerced. Let us consider, Jefferson noted, that if an all wise and powerful God restrained himself from coercing either the bodies or the minds of men and women, how utterly absurd it must be for “fallible and uninspired men” to arrogate to themselves the right to exercise “dominion over the faith of others…Be it enacted,” therefore, “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” One will suffer in no way for his or her religious opinions; on the contrary, all persons “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” And whatever their opinions, this will in no way affect their citizenship or their rights. (A Religious History of America, 119).

Ginsburg’s disdain for the free exercise of religion is at variance with the sentiments expressed by Jefferson. For almost two centuries, our nation honored these very sentiments. For this reason, the Supreme Court was reluctant to enforce conformity, even when it would come at a great cost to the nation. It deemed that a dissenter of religious conscience could opt from fighting for his nation. The Court and the nation rightly understood that compelling conformity in non-essential areas would breed alienation, contempt, and disdain for authority. In contrast to this, the Affordable Care Act would have compelled people of conscience to violate their conscience.

Must our freedom of religion be safeguarded? Is it essential to the well-being of this nation? Clearly, Justice Ginsburg doesn’t think so. However, in his 1796 Farewell Address, the beloved George Washington reiterated this broadly accepted sentiment:

• Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Thomas S. Kidd, God of Liberty, 112)

According to Washington and the vast majority of the Founding Fathers, morality could not prevail without the belief in God. If this is so, should not our freedom of religion be safeguarded?

Same-Sex Marriage, Equal Rights and the Redefinition of America

Same-sex marriage (SSM) is now before the United States Supreme Court. The State of California had, by popular vote, passed Proposition 8, limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. However, it was subsequently overturned by a California court as “unconstitutional.”

The plaintiff, Paul Katami, had been prevented from marrying his gay partner in California. His appeal is based upon the contention that laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples represent discrimination – the denial of his rights:

• "Stigma is stigma. And discrimination is discrimination," Katami told CNN. "I think that any time there's discrimination in the country, it needs to be addressed and it needs to be taken care of. And that's why we feel that anytime in our history when there's been racial discrimination or sexual discrimination of orientation, or in particular marriage at this point, that we always bend toward the arch of equality."

Katami compares apples and oranges - marriage discrimination to “racial discrimination or sexual discrimination.” However, this equation fails to compute. While SSM is about behavior and a new institution, the other forms of discrimination pertain to the very nature of the person – their race and sex.

It is not enough to allege “discrimination.” All laws discriminate against one form of behavior or another – paying taxes, operating motor vehicles… Instead, this question must be adjudicated, not in terms of whether or not they discriminate – they do discriminate – but rather whether the laws discriminate in a just manner.

Katami claims that laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples are unjust:

• "This is about our equality," said Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs in the California case. "This is about our freedom and our liberty. So we are not trying to topple marriage. We are not trying to redefine marriage. What we are trying to say is that equality is the backbone of our country."

Is SSM really a matter of equality? Homosexuals are free to marry anyone they want in their own churches. Instead, the issue is about legal and social acceptance and the promotion of a lifestyle that is highly self-destructive in terms of just about every indicator – lifespan, suicide, domestic violence, substance abuse, STDs, depression, and other mental health issues.

If Katami and other proponents of SSM are serious about “equality,” why aren’t they talking about “equality” for polygamists? Why should they be the subject of discrimination?

I raise this issue because in order to assess the coherence and viability of a principle – “discrimination,” “rights,” “fairness” – we need to examine how it plays out in related areas. Why should “equality” just pertain to SSM? And if this principle of “equality” is to govern our understanding of marriage, on what basis can “equality” be denied to minors? So far, I haven’t heard any proponents of SSM bring minors into the equation. If they did bring minors and pedophiles into the equation – and they should if we are to rationally weigh whether or not “equality” is a morally coherent concept – the public might awaken to its frightening implications.

Such “equality” would mean that there could no longer be a basis to deny anyone their “rights.” Fifteen people could thereby demand their “right” to marry one another. To deny such an appeal would then be no less discriminatory than denying SSM!

And how then could society deny the “right” of a father to marry his daughter or a mother her son? Wouldn’t this be a denial of their “equal rights?”

However, such “rights” would undermine traditional marriage and family. What then is to prevent a daughter from being groomed as a sexual or “marriage” object for her father? Why shouldn’t he groom her from an early age to satisfy his sexual appetite? Isn’t this his “right?”

And what is to protect the wife in this sexualized world? What is to prevent the husband from taking on additional younger wives? Isn’t this his “right!” And opposition to this would also constitute “discrimination!”

What is to prevent teachers from grooming their students as sexual objects? Can we “discriminate” against this behavior? Can we deny them their “equal rights?” And how could the parents protect their children against this when they are enticed by their attractive teachers? Wouldn’t the parents be violating the “rights” and “choice” of their children?

If our marriage laws and sexual codes are unjustly discriminatory, then we need to comprehensively examine the claims of the SSM proponents regarding such concepts as “discrimination,” “fairness,” and “equality.” However, this kind of dispassionate examination is precisely what is being obstructed. Instead, shouts of “homophobe” resound from our institutions of “higher learning.”

Meanwhile, Katami claims that, “We are not trying to redefine marriage.” However, the promotion of such “rights” and “equality” destroy marriage’s protective walls. They also prevent the parent from protecting their children against sexual predators, who now are claiming their own “rights.” When any limitation, taboo, or boundary becomes “discriminatory,” traditional marriage and family become indefensible.

As the tide of public sentiment begins to turn in their favor, the SSM proponents now claim that SSM is the will of the people. However, is it truly the will of the people or the result of systematic indoctrination and manipulations by the power-elites – the media, the court and the university?

Marsha Segelstein, a former senior producer for CBS News, paints a sinister portrait of the pro-gay program:

• They thus are able to insinuate that opposition to gay marriage equals discrimination or hate speech. Tactics that…label opponents as bigots and homophobes and…characterize homosexuals seeking “marriage” as victims have been largely successful. In many cases, those who have publicly voiced opposition to gay marriage have suffered serious consequences. (Salvo, Spring 2013, 20)

The consequences can be brutal. For instance,

• In October 2012, the Chief Diversity Officer for Gallaudet University, Angela McCaskill, was placed on administrative leave for signing a petition supporting the placement of a referendum on the ballot in Maryland. The referendum was to give voters the opportunity to approve or disapprove of Maryland’s “marriage equality” law, which had instituted gay marriage in the state. Through a sign-language interpreter, McCaskill told reporters that she had been asked by a faculty member whether or not she had signed the petition. “In this very moment, she [the faculty member] determined that this signature meant I was anti-gay.” (21) 

In this hostile and repressive atmosphere, it is no wonder that many who oppose SSM are running for cover, and their voice is not heard. Threats of violence and even death are not uncommon. A 14-year-old who testified before the Maryland State Senate was threatened”

• “If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise”… Another attacked her family… “her parents should be exterminated”… “And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what it’s like to be harassed and bullied.” (21-22)

The bullying has also taken on tangible forms. Gay activists had been able to obtain a list of Proposition 8 supporters. As a result, they vandalized churches and even stalked supporters at their places of work. Terrified supporters were coerced into making tearful apologies. Others were forced to resign:

• Scott Eckern, director of the California Musical Theater…eventually resigned after news of his $1000 donation spread… The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, was forced to resign when his donation of $1500 was revealed…A 67-year old restaurant employee who had donated $100 had to take a leave of absence from work after opponents launched protests against the restaurant. Businesses large and small – from hotels to insurance companies to private dental practices – were targeted with boycotts and protests. (22-23)

Even an elderly woman was targeted as she carried a large cross:

• Several men surrounded her and yelled in her face, and one of them knocked the cross out of her hands and stomped on it. (23)

Intimidation is a powerful change-agent. Along with massive doses of propaganda, it can influence the vote and even deprive many of their livelihood:

• A marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan…explained to a gay couple wanting to be married that he had religious objections to performing the ceremony. He offered to find someone else, and the couple was married. (23)

However, that wasn’t good enough. Now he and many others are facing suspension. Many college students are also facing suspension for the unpardonable sin of expressing their beliefs, and many college Christian groups are being disenfranchised from college campuses. Christian businesses are being threatened with closure because of their stance against SSM.

Not only does the gay agenda threaten to redefine marriage, it threatens to redefine the entire nature of our free society along with our freedoms of speech and religion. If we want to see what this redefinition looks like, Segelstein suggests that we look no further than Canada:

• Their experience shows that much is at risk: tolerance for religious beliefs, loss of parental rights over their children and moral upbringing, the very concept of heterosexuality as normative…and the basic freedom to practice religion without government interference. (24)

With the backing of mental health professionals, the pedophile community is also claiming discrimination and their entitlement to equal rights. Now, in many school districts, parents cannot exempt their children from pro-gay “sensitivity training.” If this trajectory continues, parents will soon have to subject their children to pro-pedophile “sensitivity training.” And why not! Pedophiles are likewise “born this way and have no alternative.” How then can a freedom-loving society discriminate against them, while not discriminating against gays! It cannot! If the door is opened to SSM, then it must be opened to everyone else who claims such a “right.” Soon, parents warning their children against the advances of pedophiles will also be guilty of “hate speech” and “pedophobia.”

Besides, if gay sex can be construed as something beautiful, so too will pedophile sex! (According to some, pedophile sex offers a valuable service to children!) They both depend upon the same logic - freedom of choice, an immutable sexual orientation, non-discrimination and equal rights.