Friday, September 14, 2012

Here Comes Incest, Just as Predicted

Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women'...
Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women's Sexual Fantasies (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Dr Michael Brown has written an article in which he points out that as much as supporters for same-sex marriage want to deny it - changing the definition of marriage will lead to many other taboos being legitimized. He wrote:

Simply stated, with the public endorsement of same-sex relationships, the endorsement (or at least acceptance) of consensual, adult, incestuous relationships is inevitable.

 Dr Brown shows that without a standard we have no reason to make any relationship taboo.  I think anyone with an interest in this should read this article. Dr Brown further comments:

A gay man and his partner once asked me, “But how can you say our relationship is wrong? We’re not hurting anyone and there is no victim.” I asked them, “Would you approve of two adult gay brothers having a relationship?” They both replied, “But that is so wrong!” Yet when I pressed them further, they could not say why their relationship was fine but that of two consenting brothers was not.
So, what’s it going to be? Do we hold the line on marriage as the union of a man and woman only, or do we eventually open the door to incest too?


Here Comes Incest, Just as Predicted
Enhanced by Zemanta

38 comments:

  1. Gay marriage and incest are two separate things and should be treated as such, even if you think one will "lead to" the other.

    If proponents of incest see the acceptance of gay marriage as an opportunity for them to push their view, that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    Cyclical monogamy with gay flings seems to be the "natural order" of things, at least for us hominids, so "Holding the line on marriage as the union of a man and woman" is holding the line in an arbitrary place. Holding the line in another arbitrary place doesn't mean the line would necessarily have to be moved again (unless we permitted it).

    What is fascinating, is how "culturally consistent" you are in your views.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your inconsistency amazes me, unless you are willing to admit that incest is just as viable and that there is no reason it should not be legal. Might as well add pedophilia to that list too. And Polygamy. And all fornication. And bestiality. I don't think you understand the argument. No one is suggesting that gay marriage and incest are the same thing. They are no more the same as rape is to murder. The thing that is common is that they are all sin. And condoning one leads to another. Drawing the line as defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not arbitrary - God did that when he set up human sexuality and procreation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who are we to change the natural order of biological evolution (if you accept macro evolution)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The thing that is common is that they are all sin.

    Since "hating" is a "sin", should we legislate "hating"? You're a democrat, right?

    And condoning one leads to another.

    Undemonstrated. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Your degrees were in science, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since "hating" is a "sin", should we legislate "hating"? You're a democrat, right?

    No we can't legislate hate. But Hating someone is still evil. Only Jesus can fix that. This is regarding the redefinition and legality of "Marriage" not hate. Do try to keep up.

    Undemonstrated. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Your degrees were in science, right?

    Dr Brown demonstrated that there is a correlation. Did you not understand his article? Once we watered down what marriage is so that fornication was okay and adultery is not shameful of course it lead to thinking that same-sex relationships are just as valid as a "marriage". The point is that if "marriage" is so fluid and arbitrary what makes polygamy, incest, bestiality, or incest wrong. And if they are not wrong then how do you think that society won't worsen?


    ReplyDelete
  6. No we can't legislate hate.

    Well, that's it then. Your slippery slope argument has no merit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Legislating hate has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage. Your argument has no logic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marcus; care to restate your argument?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Once we watered down what marriage is so that fornication was okay and adultery is not shameful of course it lead to thinking that same-sex relationships are just as valid as a "marriage". The point is that if "marriage" is so fluid and arbitrary what makes polygamy, incest, bestiality, or incest wrong. And if they are not wrong then how do you think that society won't worsen? Our society will continue to crumble if we continue going down this road. Incest and pedophilia will be just as legal as same-sex monogamous legal contracts pretending to be marriages because there will be no reason to make a distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is an assertion, not an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's a conclusion based on current events and the past 50 years of history. Dr brown is correct and you have no argument or point to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...and you have no argument

    That's right, but I didn't claim to. I take it from the above comment that you also don't have an argument.

    Care to try to rephase it again? This time as a syllogism?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you are not making a claim or a purposeful argument then I'd be wasting my time giving you my own since you missed Dr Michael Brown's argument.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I didn't think you could (which stands to reason give that you and Dr. Brown are just making assertion in this case)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Let me use language u may understand (but I doubt it): you want to make a challenge to a blog post pointing towards an article written by a scholar who way more qualified than you will ever be yet advance nothing except that you don't think you think that advocating incest has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage. You say nothing refutting or challenging any of the evidence Dr Brown presented. I'd say that your effort was pathetic but that would not cover how bad this really is. When you have something more substantive to write I will be give you further arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You really can't restate it can you? You know what they say, if you can't explain something to a six year old, you likely don't understand it yourself...

    Reread Brown's article, and point out for us where he makes an argument. Hint, he doesn't, but then again, you are known for not reading the articles you post and comment on...

    ReplyDelete
  17. You really can't restate it can you? You know what they say, if you can't explain something to a six year old, you likely don't understand it yourself...

    The problem is you don't understand Dr Brown. He is way more knowledgeable in this area so it stands to reason it's over your head. He stated his points and evidenced conclusions very well. Not his fault that you have no rebuttal.

    Simply stated, with the public endorsement of same-sex relationships, the endorsement (or at least acceptance) of consensual, adult, incestuous relationships is inevitable.

    Hint, he doesn't, but then again, you are known for not reading the articles you post and comment on...

    First: He's right and you are wrong. And Dr Brown provides the evidence.
    Second: Let's see what you are known for and i will quote.

    Marcus, I wanted to apologize for being an asshole. Everyone believes something for some reason and I'm sure your reasons are just as valid as anyone else's.

    Take care and Segen fur sie.


    Looks like you weren't being honest considering you haven't seemed to stop, have you?

    ReplyDelete
  18. You think I've been an asshole in this thread? You are in fact known for commenting on articles you've not read. Stating facts does not an asshole make, but if you think so, I'm sorry, but you should probably get a thicker skin.

    Now, back to Brown...

    The first paragraph is a question, if homosexual marriage is ok, is incest ok? (note he's not shown the two are equivilant).

    Then, he lists some examples of incest, in some (but not even most) they mention the acceptance of homosexuality as their justificaiton.

    Paragraph three is someone saying they don't care who sleeps with who. I'm not sure who it is...

    Paragraph four is about a movie I've not heard of...

    Paragraph five relates a conversation with two random people who are naturally disgusted with incest.

    Paragraph six is another question...

    Can you help me and explain exactly what his argument is? His post is merely assertion and if you don't think he's not primarily driven by agenda, regardless of how much knowledge you think he has, then you don't read him regularly on townhall.com.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You think I've been an asshole in this thread?

    Your words for your own consistent behavior, not mine.

    You are in fact known for commenting on articles you've not read. Stating facts does not an asshole make, but if you think so, I'm sorry, but you should probably get a thicker skin.

    No. You stated conjecture that I had not read the article while asserting that Dr Brown does not put for than an argument - showing thing that you didn't understand what he wrote. And admitting that you haven't made an arguments of your own. But that's obvious that you don't have one.

    Now, back to Brown...

    Yes.More proof that he's right and you are wrong.

    The first paragraph is a question, if homosexual marriage is ok, is incest ok? (note he's not shown the two are equivilant).

    Actually it looks like you think that there were 2 questions but the paragraph only has one question poised and points out that some have concluded that incest should be accepted as normal if same-sex marriages are normal. This is not equating the two. Where is your reading comprehension? Kindergarten?

    Then, he lists some examples of incest, in some (but not even most) they mention the acceptance of homosexuality as their justificaiton.

    You missed the point of the examples. Brown demonstrated that these are examples of people beginning to justify, condone, and accept incest! When there are people today saying that legalizing and accepting homosexuality will never happen and has no connection to accepting homosexuality. You know..uninformed and uncritical thinking people like you.

    Paragraph three is someone saying they don't care who sleeps with who. I'm not sure who it is...

    Nick Cassavetes is a Hollywood director, and being quoted in the paragraph you are referring to. Brown tells us this who he is in the first paragraph. I thought you read this article.

    Paragraph four is about a movie I've not heard of...

    That is why he's telling you about it. Duh! It shows that Cassavetes is promoting his ideas that incest is just as valuable as any relationship between adults.

    Paragraph five relates a conversation with two random people who are naturally disgusted with incest.

    And just how many people do you think today are not naturally disgusted by incest? And why would you conclude that they naturally disgusted with incest. Note that these were two gay men and meant to be representative of many such conversations Brown has had with proponents of gay marriage. If you are okay with it, why? If you are not, then why not? This was the point Brown was making. If you condone homosexuality then that means you must also allow for incest - that is if your consistent and you really believe that definition of marriage is arbitrary. Few people really live that way.

    Paragraph six is another question...

    The whole point of the article. Brown is pointing out that the line must be drawn somewhere and while many people would allow gay marriage they are still willing to draw it somewhere - anywhere but where God draws it.

    Can you help me and explain exactly what his argument is?

    Since you are slow: If you allow gay marriage you have no reason at all to limit any of the abominable things people do to satisfy their own lusts and call it love. Brown is showing that incest is already trying to be pushed "through the back door" while homosexuality is being paraded through the front.

    His post is merely assertion and if you don't think he's not primarily driven by agenda, regardless of how much knowledge you think he has, then you don't read him regularly on townhall.com

    Considering your inability to understand this article I doubt you can even begin to understand what Dr Brown's agenda is writing on townhall.com. You can't even see the clear and present evidence in this article. Rather pathetic.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your words for your own consistent behavior, not mine.

    And yet...

    Where is your reading comprehension? Kindergarten?
    uninformed and uncritical thinking people like you.
    I thought you read this article.
    Since you are slow:
    Rather pathetic.

    Actually it looks like you think that there were 2 questions

    No, it's a conditional statement, if/then, just like Dr. Brown used...

    Brown demonstrated that these are examples of people beginning to justify...

    Only in 2 of the 7 examples is this actually the case. Also, you used the word "beginning" as if incest is something new. It's in the bible, which predates US same-sex marriage by at least 2000 years for pity's sake.

    It shows that Cassavetes is promoting his ideas that incest is just as valuable as any relationship between adults.

    There was a movie with Burt Lancaster that did this, some 45 years before same-sex marriage was legalized in a US state.

    ...meant to be representative of many such conversations Brown has had with proponents of gay marriage.

    Data is not the plural of anecdote.

    ...anywhere but where God draws it.

    This is interesting, since, in your mythology, god doesn't actually draw a line anywhere and allows us free will. Given that god won't legislate morality in the here and now, why does your sect think it is justified in doing so?

    Brown is showing that incest is already trying to be pushed "through the back door" while homosexuality is being paraded through the front.

    What "Brown" didn't show is that the "pushing" of incest in the back door is necessitated by the "parading" of same sex marriage through the front.

    To conclude, the fact that the proponents of incest see an opportunity, does not constitute a case against what they perceive as having created that opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No, it's a conditional statement, if/then, just like Dr. Brown used.

    I quote you:


    The first paragraph is a question, if homosexual marriage is ok, is incest ok? (note he's not shown the two are equivilant).


    How is the equivalent to what Dr Brown wrote? It isn't.

    Only in 2 of the 7 examples is this actually the case. Also, you used the word "beginning" as if incest is something new. It's in the bible, which predates US same-sex marriage by at least 2000 years for pity's sake.

    You can't read my comments any better than you can read Dr Brown's article. "Brown demonstrated that these are examples of people beginning to justify, condone, and accept incest!" is what I wrote. I'm not talking about the practice of incest but the acceptance of it beginning to become mainstream. Which is the point of the article. And the Bible's condemnation of incest goes way farther back than 2000 years.

    There was a movie with Burt Lancaster that did this, some 45 years before same-sex marriage was legalized in a US state.

    I hadn't seen it. You are going to give a title and explain how Lancaster's movie pushes acceptance of incest to even begin to make your point relevant.

    Data is not the plural of anecdote.

    If you want more data (but I doubt you really do) read A Queer Thing Happened to America

    This is interesting, since, in your mythology, god doesn't actually draw a line anywhere and allows us free will. Given that god won't legislate morality in the here and now, why does your sect think it is justified in doing so?

    a. Prove the Bible is mythology
    b. I have never argued that you or I or any human being have free will. Have you not read the Bible. Of course God legislates morality. We can't but God can and does. That is why you are going to hell. God is against fornication of any kind. And this mess began with fornication and adultery became acceptable and shameless. The "slippery slope" does not begin with same-sex marriage - it's a continuation that has consequences.

    What "Brown" didn't show is that the "pushing" of incest in the back door is necessitated by the "parading" of same sex marriage through the front.

    So what now? Dr Brown's name is in quotes so now you have question about his identity or existence? Stop embarrassing yourself. Brown showed how incest is becoming tolerated and will become celebrated following the same pattern homosexuality has followed.

    To conclude, the fact that the proponents of incest see an opportunity, does not constitute a case against what they perceive as having created that opportunity.

    Here is the bottom line. Are proponents of incest advocating something that is wrong? If incest is wrong, why is homosexuality is not wrong? If you can answer that honestly then Dr Brown and I are wrong. But you can't answer that. Either you have allow incest is just as viable as homosexuality or you have to just resign yourself to being inconsistent

    ReplyDelete
  22. How is the equivalent to what Dr Brown wrote? It isn't.

    Me; "if homosexual marriage is ok, is incest ok?"

    Dr. Brown; "If all human beings should have the right to marry [...], as proponents of same-sex “marriage” constantly tell us, then why shouldn’t adult, incestuous couples enjoy that same “right”?

    Got it?

    "Brown demonstrated that these are examples of people beginning to justify, condone, and accept incest!" is what I wrote.

    And that's the case in only 2 or the 7 examples... Again, I have to wonder if he had a word count requirement for the article...

    a. Prove the Bible is mythology

    Obviously, that has less than nothing to do with the original point...

    b. I have never argued that you or I or any human being have free will.

    Well, I have no idea what your sect believes, plenty of sects believe in free will.

    Dr Brown's name is in quotes so now you have question about his identity or existence?

    No, I just had no idea why you were calling him "Brown".

    Brown showed how incest is becoming tolerated and will become celebrated following the same pattern homosexuality has followed.

    No.

    If incest is wrong, why is homosexuality is not wrong?

    There are consent issues with (most types of) incest that don't exist with (most types of) homosexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Got it?

    Yes, thanks for writing clearly...finally.

    And that's the case in only 2 or the 7 examples... Again, I have to wonder if he had a word count requirement for the article...

    First example is an article discussing if incest should be legal.
    Second example is a man challenging the anti-incest laws because he wants to have sex with his adult daughter on the grounds that it's wrong to outlaw some behaviors and accept other ones.
    Third example is supporting twincest.
    Fourth example a grandmother and her grandson and people are condoning it - more incest.
    Fifth is legal counsel condoning two brothers on their incest.
    Sixth is the fact that many legal challenges are being raised against laws against incest.
    Seventh is excusing incest on the grounds of "genetic attraction"

    Good evidence. Did you read these?

    Obviously, that has less than nothing to do with the original point..

    The Bible's validity is important here. You say that you can base your standards for correct sexual behavior based on what you think is correct. If the Bible is correct and God really doesn't agree with your standard than you are wrong.


    Well, I have no idea what your sect believes, plenty of sects believe in free will


    Just goes to show show how poorly you read. By the way a straw man argument is when you punt to a position that the other party does not hold and then attack it. You know like you did bringing up "free will" and trying to argue against my post. Sad. But I guess you have to go with what you got even when it's pathetic.


    No, I just had no idea why you were calling him "Brown".


    His last name is Brown. Duh! Did you read the article?

    Dr Michael Brown did indeed provide evidence supporting his conclusions in this article despite your inability to comprehend them.

    There are consent issues with (most types of) incest that don't exist with (most types of) homosexuality.

    You Didn't answer the question. Or Dr Brown's. Is incest wrong or not? How do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes, thanks for writing clearly...finally.

    Um... my quote was from the 18th... perhaps it has less to do with me writing clearly and you understanding?

    Good evidence. Did you read these?

    Yes, and only two of the seven mention same-sex marriage as a justification.

    You know like you did bringing up "free will" and trying to argue against my post.

    No, that was actually just an off the cuff idea I had about a free will granting god and the legislating of morality. I've since brought it up to more reasonable christians and although they didn't call me sad or pathetic, they've not been able to respond (hint; they usually wait until they have a good response before responding, partly why they are "more reasonable").

    His last name is Brown. Duh!

    Just seemed odd coming from a guy that insists his interlocutor refer to all apologists with their full title...

    Is incest wrong or not?

    ...(most types of)...

    How do you know?

    ...consent issues...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Um... my quote was from the 18th... perhaps it has less to do with me writing clearly and you understanding?

    I was referring to "The first paragraph is a question, if homosexual marriage is ok, is incest ok? (note he's not shown the two are equivilant)." Kudos for more clearly writing it.

    Yes, and only two of the seven mention same-sex marriage as a justification.

    And that is why you are confused. The point is that the cultural antagonism against incest is eroding and same-sex marriage is leverage in justifying incest.

    No, that was actually just an off the cuff idea I had about a free will granting god and the legislating of morality.

    I'm not granting that God does not have the right to give us a moral standard because we have free will. I don't even hold to libertarian free will which you are assuming. Your argument is invalid.

    I've since brought it up to more reasonable christians and although they didn't call me sad or pathetic, they've not been able to respond (hint; they usually wait until they have a good response before responding, partly why they are "more reasonable

    I didn't really mean you are sad or pathetic as much as your argument(s) are. You're an unrepentant and unregenerate sinner - you can't do any better. As for the "more reasonable" christian you have spoken to who have not been able to give you a good response - does "reasonable" mean being willing to humor you? Because I'm not willing to humor poorly reasoned arguments with bad premises.

    Just seemed odd coming from a guy that insists his interlocutor refer to all apologists with their full title...

    I have never made that insistence.

    Is incest wrong or not?

    ...(most types of)...

    What kinds of incest are right?

    How do you know?

    ...consent issues...

    Like what?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I was referring to "The...

    Yes, that was the quote, that you apparently didn't understand until the 23rd...

    And that is why you are confused.

    Wait, more than two of the seven mention same-sex marriage as a justification. You'll want to explain that one...

    I'm not granting that God does not have the right to give us a moral standard because we have free will. I don't even hold to libertarian free will which you are assuming.

    I don't think you understand. But like I said, I don't know, nor do I care what your sect believes about this.

    ...does "reasonable" mean being willing to humor you?

    No. I explained what "reasonable" means in my original comment.

    ReplyDelete

  27. Yes, that was the quote, that you apparently didn't understand until the 23rd...


    Misunderstanding is yours - of Dr Michael Brown.

    Wait, more than two of the seven mention same-sex marriage as a justification. You'll want to explain that one...

    I did. Didn't you read the rest of the paragraph.Guess not.


    I don't think you understand. But like I said, I don't know, nor do I care what your sect believes about this.


    I don't need to grant your misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about God and human will. You have the burden of proof of showing that God giving us moral standards is at odds with giving us free will. You can't. You can't assert a misunderstanding of free will as being true to argue against God and expect me to grant it. That is not just unreasonable but stupid.

    No. I explained what "reasonable" means in my original comment.

    Ah yes, "reasonable" means to you "usually wait until they have a good response before responding..." Then you have never been reasonable because you have never provided a good response in any of our interactions. And there isn't enough time for you to come up with one.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Reread your last post. Nothing of value was said, so we'll just call this one quits...

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's okay to admit that you don't know what you are talking about. You'd get more respect if you did.

    ReplyDelete
  30. So, what did your last comment accomplish?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Just Advice you should heed. Be honest with yourself: you have no argument (by your own admission). You don't really know or understand the multiple ways Christians understand "free will" (by your admission). You don't really have any basis for denying or legalizing incest than you do for same-sex marriage. What is your point? Why would you even begin commenting on any of this or raising " off the cuff idea" you "had about a free will granting god and the legislating of morality" when both free will and morality or clearly out of your depth?

    ReplyDelete
  32. you have no argument (by your own admission)

    I've offered no argument, simply critiqued yours. Don't get confused.

    You don't really know or understand the multiple ways Christians understand "free will" (by your admission).

    Of course I do. I have no idea what your sect chooses to believe.

    You don't really have any basis for denying or legalizing incest than you do for same-sex marriage.

    Of course I do.

    ...when both free will and morality or clearly out of your depth?

    They really aren't...

    ReplyDelete
  33. I've offered no argument, simply critiqued yours. Don't get confused.

    So your only purpose here is to critique my argument given that this post is merely posting a link to an article written by an expert scholar, you are really critiquing his article and not my blog post. You seem to be the one confused..and keep in mind that Dr Brown isn't correct because he has a Ph.D. He is correct because his argument is evidenced and it's not that homosexuality is the cause of incest. He's arguing that condoning homosexuality means that you have no basis to deny incest. His also saying that society is slipping into the position of thinking that there is nothing wrong with incest and some are using same-sex marriage as justification. By your own admission you didn't understand what Brown wrote and why. You are the one who wrote:
    Can you help me and explain exactly what his argument is? His post is merely assertion and if you don't think he's not primarily driven by agenda, regardless of how much knowledge you think he has, then you don't read him regularly on townhall.com.


    Of course I do.

    Then what are they? You have never said if you think incest is wrong or under what conditions it is right. OR why?

    They really aren't...

    Prove it. Where does the Bible teach that humans have free will? Where does the Bible teach that God never supersede the will of humans? (that would be a good start) Oh and why we are at it: Where does the Bible put the basis of morality? You have to be able to answer these in order to see if God's setting a moral standard is at odd with free will. On top of that how is God setting a moral standard the same as "legislating morality"? Well? Chop Chop!

    ReplyDelete
  34. by an expert scholar

    An Old Testament Scholar if I'm not mistaken. He's not exactly talking about the Old Testament here.

    ...his argument is evidenced...

    Again, "evidence" is not the plural of anecdote...

    He's arguing that condoning homosexuality means that you have no basis to deny incest.

    He's wrong.

    By your own admission you didn't understand what Brown wrote and why.

    You seem to be confusing "misunderstanding" with accusing someone of making assertions...

    ReplyDelete
  35. On top of that how is God setting a moral standard the same as "legislating morality"?

    The question, which I've been discussing with my reasonable christian friends, is (assuming god exists and morality is objective) if god gives us enough rope to hang ourselves, why does the state think it's in a position to limit the amount of rope given...

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is a question they've not considered and two of them have M.Divs. and are working towards Th.Ms, so perhaps you should swallow your pride, get a little humility and consider it for a moment.

    Especially since you are on record saying perhaps beer should be outlawed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. An Old Testament Scholar if I'm not mistaken. He's not exactly talking about the Old Testament here.

    Yes we are. Ever read Leviticus? Did You know it condemns homosexuality...and wait for it...incest!
    Oh and where is your book on this subject? Dr Brown has one.


    Again, "evidence" is not the plural of anecdote...


    There was more evidence in the article than anecdotes.

    He's wrong.

    Demonstrate why you think he's wrong

    The question, which I've been discussing with my reasonable christian friends, is (assuming god exists and morality is objective) if god gives us enough rope to hang ourselves, why does the state think it's in a position to limit the amount of rope given...

    God does not give us rope to hang ourselves. You are already dead until you are born again. You premise is faulty given the God exists and morality is objective. We deserve hell and condemnation from jump. We've already hanged ourselves. Jesus saves us from that. I thought you said you understood Christianity? Guess not.

    This is a question they've not considered and two of them have M.Divs. and are working towards Th.Ms, so perhaps you should swallow your pride, get a little humility and consider it for a moment.

    I think the hubris is yours. You are the one thinking you have found an albatross to hang around the neck of Jesus - as if no one had thought of that in 2000 years!!!!? It's not pride to point out the holes in your "logic". lol. I'm more than willing to swallow my pride but not the kool aid you are offering.


    Especially since you are on record saying perhaps beer should be outlawed.


    Yes I am. And I still think we'd have less problems if people would not drink to excess...but laws can't change that. It take the saving power of God from sin to change people's hearts so that they no longer drink to excess (yes it's God who delivers from alcoholism even it a person does not acknowledge God for it). That's what mercy looks like.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You are the one thinking you have found an albatross to hang around the neck of Jesus..

    Get real Marcus.

    ....but laws can't change that.

    Hmmmmmmmm...

    ReplyDelete