This issue is a bit more vague, a bit harder to argue, but one that I think should be argued. My main argument against allowing homosexuals to get married is that it adds a plasticity to the definition of marriage, that once followed, cannot logically be stopped.

The argument centers on what should the definition of marriage be? Who should that include? Traditionally marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. The union of two men or two women was not recognized.
However, that definition is being changed, and same sex marriages in many states is being recognized.

Now, the reasoning behind the original definition was based on most importantly, religion, along with cultural reasoning. But the argument from the homosexual camp is that the state cannot enforce religion on its citizens, and that you cannot legislate morality. I have to disagree. As I stated in the Abortion article, every law on the books is someone’s legislated morality. To some people, they find the murder of others to be allowed in their morality. And yet, the government enforces its morality on those people.

But here is where the real trouble steps in. Now, we are redefining marriage to allow the union of two consenting adults, even if they are of the same sex. But if the original definition of marriage has no absolute meaning, why should this new definition have any truth to it as well? Why can it not, logically, be extended to include two consenting people, even if that is an adult and a child?

Should we allow a man to marry a little boy, if both consent to it? If not, why not? Because once we say that the current definition of marriage has no absolute meaning to it, then the one we insert for it can be changed just as easily.

I, on the other hand, believe morality to be an absolute, that something is inherently right or inherently wrong, and that we either conform to that belief, or we don’t. As such, I believe our definition of marriage either complies to an absolutely moral standard, or it does not.
One response would be that the world isn’t just black and white. And my response would be that morality isn’t a color wheel.

Capital punishment is one of those areas where I feel that the support for it has dropped because people have lost the moral courage to do what is right.

I can hear it now “Oh, you think it courageous to have armed guards escort a helpless man, and have him led to a room, strapped down, and murdered by the government?”
Yes I do. Just in the same way that I believe that it takes much more courage and toughness to punish a child, than it does to let them do whatever they want.

There are a few different reasons why I believe that capital punishment is necessary. For one, its biblical. Too often people try to argue that in the Bible that it says “Thou shall not kill”. That is not quite right.
In Hebrew, the word used in the Ten Commandments is ratsakh, which refers only to illegal killing, i.e. premeditated murder or manslaughter. In the Jewish Mishnah, has been written this: “Why was only one man (Adam) created by God? � to teach that whoever takes a single life destroys thereby a whole world.”
Life is so sacred to God, that the only punishment that is just is to take the offenders life. Also, many Christians seem to be against capital punishment, solely because it was written in the Old Testament, and somehow it shouldn’t apply. But Gods command to Noah came in Genesis 9:6. It was a law predating Mosaic covenant, and was not part of the ceremonial aspect of the law. Christ did not abolish the Old Testament, but fulfilled the Law, meaning that the ceremony, the sacrifice, and our sin were done away with. That doesn’t mean he abolished the Ten Commandments, or His moral will.

I am also for capital punishment because it is the only just response to murder. Imagine that your neighbor steals your car, and gets to keep his. How is that just? The same thing with murder. It is unjust that when one person takes the life of another, they should be allowed to enjoy what they have deprived someone else of. How is that just?

Also, capital punishment is a deterrent. Some will say no, its not, but I like Ernest Van De Haag’s idea. Lets punish murders done on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with capital punishment, and the rest of the week we will punish it with life in prison. What days do you think murders are going to go down?

Lastly, capital punishment is NOT about revenge. I don’t believe in revenge, and I think when we execute someone, we should do so sadly, and not out of anger or spite. It is a duty we do because its just, not because we are sadists who enjoy the murder of other. That is why I am for making executions as painless and quick as possible. We are taking someone’s life. We shouldn’t celebrate that. We should mourn the need to.

Basically, your stance on capital punishment speaks about how you value human life. Do you think it something that is so violent and despicable of a crime, that the punishment must fit the crime? Or do you think that one person dead really isn’t all that big of a deal?

However, if you believe that man was created by God, that morality is a reflection of His will for the conduct of people, that our meaning has its only context in Him, and our destiny is one we choose, freely, between Him and everything not Him, then those beliefs should determine how you act.

Granted, I do allow the exceptions. We are not strictly rational creatures. Sometimes, we know what is true, and yet our actions are colored by how we feel. We know a certain girl is trouble, who will bring us more pain than pleasure, and be a constant thorn in our side, until we are around her. Then, all we feel is the emotion.

Or there is simply moral weakness. Sin is pleasurable. No one denies that. Sin must have pleasure, in order to snare us. But pleasure was God’s invention. But, because God is orderly, He has set rules which instruct us on when and how certain pleasures are permissible. Just as medicine generally has a beneficial effect, not all medicines are good, and many are sometimes bad.

Now, of course, one must agree with theism in order to even agree with the above. But atheism isn’t a choice we have, if we intend to remain logical and honest.

If there is no God, then where did everything come from? Yes, that is an age old question, and seemingly, there is a problem. If the universe came from God, then where did God come from. Who created the Creator?

If we, however, actually look at the logic of the question, we can see where that child’s riddle falls apart. We all know the relationship between cause and effect. Every effect must have a cause before it. This is one of the basic rules of the universe. But, just because it is one of the rules by which we live and exist, does it follow that God must follow those rules? Is that not like asking if God is subject to gravity, or digestion, or any other natural law or order.

Or another example. You watch a football game. This game has players, a field, and entire environment, and it is, for all intents and purposes, a system. Now, you are outside of this system. Do you have to follow its rules? If you get up, walk to your refrigerator, grab a can of soda, and sit down, are you now in violation of any of the rules of football? Of course not.

The same way with God. He created the universe apart from Himself. He is not part of the system, but outside of it. He, however, created physical rules by which all things inside the system are subject. He does not have to have a cause, because the very notion of cause and effect, the rule of it, is limited to within our system.

Now, however, if an atheist says, that the earth has always existed, they do not have a logical escape from that question. They must show how a system which is based on cause and effect had no cause, but all effect. They move the problem they face of a self existent God to a self existent universe. The problem however is that a self existent God is above the universe, while a self existent universe must be subject to its own laws.

Lets branch off a bit. Perhaps you believe in a god, just not the God of Judeo-Christian faith, or perhaps you believe in God, but you cant swallow that Jesus is the only way to salvation or that Jesus was God. I, however, do, and am willing to try to prove it. So here we go.

Jesus Christ existed. That much is certain. His life has been proven, and we find non-biblical references to him in a few places. Not even serious atheists question the existence of Christ.
Second, Jesus Christ claimed to be God. All throughout the Bible (and the Talmud) Jesus claimed to be God. That’s why they killed him. For blasphemy.

Third, Jesus rose from the dead. This one is a bit harder to swallow for most people. Many people just don’t believe that ANY miracles are possible. Some don’t believe that this miracle happened. So lets look at it.
If you don’t believe any miracles are possible, then that is a separate issue. If you believe God exists, you must believe in miracles, because if God is omnipotent, then he can work around the rules of nature.
If you believe that this miracle didn’t happen, then you are on much less secure ground.

First of all, we know that the body was not in the tomb. If Jesus body was still in the tomb, the High Priest and Jesus’ other enemies would have said so. Instead they claimed that the disciples stole the body. Now that statement is a bit hard to swallow. We are to believe that a few Palestinian peasants and fishermen overcame a group of highly trained Roman soldiers?
But if they DID take Jesus body, that means that they lied about Christ rising from the dead. This again makes no sense. They didn’t gain anything by lying. What they DID get was imprisoned, killed, harassed and persecuted. And not once did any one of them recant, or say it was all a lie.

Something happened to make 12 frightened and terrified fishermen and peasants into fearless preachers who faced their own deaths with peace.

Now, some of you believe that the Bible is unreliable, that it has been changed, and errors have crept in. If that is the case, where is the original version? You can only say something is changed if you know the state of the original. So where is it? And what did it say?
In fact, you cant answer that, because most people who claim this only do so because things in the text bother them, so the say it HAD to have been changed. But did it? Is it possible that when the writers say they saw Jesus raised from the dead, that they meant it? Is it possible that they in fact DID say it?
Its not only possible, but probable.

We have more textual evidence for the accuracy of the Bible than we do for the works of Plato.
The Bible, by far, has the most archeological support and textual backing than any other ancient book.

In conclusion, I would like to say this: I am not an apologist, or a theologian. I have no formal training or schooling in either area. As such, I refer you to the following books, because people much wiser and smarter than me argue the subject much more powerfully.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
The Case For Faith by Lee Strobel
Resurrection by Hank Hanegraaf
Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft

Abortion is murder. I know that is an unpopular and sometimes clichéd statement in Western society, but nevertheless its true. When someone claims that they believe women have the choice to do what they want with their bodies, I have to agree. But how does that give them rights over another’s body? There is another body inside of hers that she does not have a choice over. The fetus is not part of the mother, but inside the mother. Here is the distinction. I am inside my clothes, I am not part of my clothes. I am inside of a building, but I am not part of the building.

Here is the argument, broken down simply:

1. What is in the womb is alive
2. What is in the womb is human in nature (it has human DNA, not whale DNA or fungus DNA)
3. What is in the womb is innocent of any crime
4. Therefore, what is in the womb is an innocent living human being.

What a woman wants a choice to is to kill another person. Argue all you like, but this right is not one a person has over another.

Now, there are many different questions about this that I get asked, and I will attempt to answer them here. Remember, I am not anyone’s judge. But just because I cannot judge (condemn) a person, I can judge (discern) what is right.

What about in cases of rape and incest?

I dont believe that abortion is right in even those extreme, and very sad instances. This is always reacted to by women as cruel and ignorant, but let me defend my position. When a woman is raped, something horrible has happened. But does killing the most innocent party involved somehow make it right? The child has done nothing wrong, yet many would execute it.
I cannot know the feeling of rape, nor the feeling of having a child in me that was caused by such a terrible thing. But my understanding isn’t required for my defense of the child. None of us can know what it feels like to be aborted. None of us can know the feeling of being ripped from our mothers womb piece by piece. But our feelings play no part in determining right or wrong.
I am not saying that it would be easy, fair, or even enjoyable. But what I am saying is that aborting the child that is a product of rape is no less murder because the mother was a victim. It only adds one more victim, and one who’s blood lies on the mothers hands.

What about cases in which the child is born handicapped or mentally impaired? The child cant have a normal life.

First, let me ask you, please define normal life. Then once you do that, let me ask, how do you know your definition is correct? Who are we to determine who has a normal life and who does not? Some people would say that obese people cannot have a normal life. Some could say that children with glasses cannot lead a normal life.
Now some would say that the obese and those with glasses can have productive lives, and still do something. True, but why should we determine who lives and dies based on how useful they are to us?
Here is what I am saying: Having or being a mentally handicapped child cannot be easy. I would never make light of others struggles. But there is something seriously wrong with this world when we would execute someone because its “too hard” to be alive. Winston Churchill once said “A kite flies higher against the wind”. Struggles shape our character, and make us better people.
Or simply put, I could never, nor do I think anyone else should be able to, presume that unless someone else’s life fits into their idea of normal, that they will kill them.

But the fetus isn’t conscious/intelligent/aware/breathing, etc…

When you are asleep, you are neither aware nor conscious. I shouldn’t be able to execute you because of that.

As for intelligent, let me say something. We cannot kill someone because of the amount of intelligence they have. Having more intelligence or knowledge does not give someone that right. Ill give an example. I say this not to brag, but to make a point. Ever since I was a kid, I have taken placement and aptitude tests, and I am what’s known as 90th percentile intelligent, meaning I am smarter than 90% of the people in the country (well, at least academically…). So does that mean that since I am smarter than most people in this country, do I now have the right to kill 90% of the population? If not, why not? I am more intelligent, and I could make a case that their lives will never be as productive or meaningful as mine.

The fact is, someone’s mental ability is not a reason to execute them.

You’re not a woman so you’ll never understand.

Ill never understand what exactly? How it is to be a woman? Of course I wont. Nor will a woman understand how it is to be a man. But when talking about morality, and actions that are right or wrong, gender has nothing to do with it. If it was, then some things that are wrong for men will be okay for women and vice versa. Also, that allows us all to create our own standards of conduct, rather than relying on a universal absolute of right and wrong.
Also, if men cannot understand the argument of abortion, and are not in a place to decide on its legality, then the ruling of Roe v Wade must be overturned, because all of the justices in the decision were male.

I wouldn’t have an abortion myself, but I think it should be legal…

Well, then let me ask you this: why wouldn’t you have an abortion? Is it because you feel its wrong? If so, why do you think that something you feel is immoral should be legal? You can say you do not want to impose your beliefs on others, but are not millions of women imposing their belief that abortions are moral on unborn children?
Is that not like saying, “I couldn’t molest a child myself, but I think people should have that choice”?