Part 3: Who Would Jesus Vote For? (Really, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Barack Obama)

(originally published on LiveJournal)

livejournal01Nine European countries now granting marital rights to homosexual individuals have collected statistics which provide a clear warning to America. 

Except that they don’t. When I went looking for the statistics, it’s clear that they’ve been misinterpreted or refuted.

I also found this article, which is a more academic response to this type of allegation.

While a high percentage of traditional married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory.  A study in the Netherlands, found that the average duration of a homosexual marriage was l.5 years.  Same sex marriage is legal there.

I can’t find the study to which you’re referring. But, according to other statistics, the average marriage lasts 7 years, and at least half of all married couples divorce, at least in the US. Also, you can’t compare marriage to “relationships”, as marriage and relationships are different.  (Which is why we need to recognize same-sex marriages in the first place.)

Another study  ( reports:

a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship

b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon

c) In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following “break up” statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%, married heterosexuals=4%

While a high percentage of traditional married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a high degree of promiscuity.  The Dutch study found that committed homosexual couples had an average of 8 sexual partner outside of the relationship per year. 

Again, not so. That gay people are more promiscuous than straight people is a myth.

This is from the same study I cited above:

 In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)–they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.

In another set of studies, the first (n=2664) showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years. In fact, the authors of this paper report that “homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate” 

Homosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence.  Lesbians, for example, suffer more that 4 times the level of violence as do traditional married women.

Where do you get this statistic?

When I search for “domestic violence in homosexual relationships” I find links to information such as:

A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock.  Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents.  Homosexual marriage in these countries has created the amoral value that marriage is irrelevant. All family studies have clearly shown that the best environment for children is to be raised by a married mother and father.  A society which wishes to prosper must do all it can to protect marriage for the sake of its posterity. The statistics on crime, drug abuse, violent behavior etc. on children living in single parent homes due to divorce, etc. has been published repeatedly. 

In Sweden, you don’t have to be married to get the benefits of marriage. I have a very good friend who is Swedish. Her brother and his girlfriend waited until after their first son was born to be married. It’s just the way things are there. Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with it.  Further searching indicates that correlation doesn’t prove causation.

–  The Netherlands is not the only European country that is experiencing soaring out-of-wedlock birthrates: “the same rapid rise in nonmarital births that we see in the Netherlands in the 1990s also occurred in other  European countries that initially had low nonmarital birth rates. Nonmarital births have soared in Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary, Lithuania, and several other eastern European countries — all countries that do not allow same-sex couples to marry or register.”

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly falsely claimed that in Sweden, “marriage between men and women declined drastically since gay marriage was legalized there.” “These stats are irrefutable. They’re government statistics,” O’Reilly insisted. In fact, recent demographics show that since Sweden passed its 1994 “Registered Partnership Law” establishing same-sex civil unions, marriage rates have increased. O’Reilly’s false claim was apparently a reference to an argument byStanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution. But Kurtz’s analysis of the statistics has been debunked.

The long-term trend in Scandinavia has been lower marriage rates, higher divorce rates, and higher rates of nonmarital births.This has been a trend lasting at least two generations — long predating registered partnership laws adopted in 1989 (Denmark) and 1994 (Sweden). The trend has mainly been cultural and social. To the extent that law has made a difference, one would expect the liberalization of alternatives (cohabitation) and exit (no-fault divorce) to be the key legal developments contributing to these changes in marriage and divorce rates. In both Denmark and Sweden, these legal changes occurred between 1969 and 1980, and the data in Tables D-1 and S-1 reveal a close correlation between these particular legal changes and lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates. Less dramatic legal changes, such as state support for working women with children, have also contributed to rising births of non-marital children

If you are concerned about your gay friends, this bill will not take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners.  Under California law, they “shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses (Family Code #297.5)  Proposition 8 will not change this.

Proposition 8 is titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.[1][2] It is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot. If passed, the proposition would amend the California Constitution to remove the legal ability of same-sex couples to marry. 

It is clear how a Christian is called to vote on Proposition 8.  I am a Christian.  I chose to honor the God who redeemed me.  I will vote yes on proposition 8.

Christians are called to love one another, to treat every person as he or she would expect to be treated. I am heterosexual. I can marry. I get all of the advantages and disadvantages of being married. Every person should have these rights.

Concerning your endorsement of Obama for President, I have this to state.  Obama’s voting record shows that he is pro-abortion. He voted more than once against the ban on partial birth abortion.

There is no such thing as partial birth abortion. No doctor or medical establishment recognizes it. Partial birth abortion was a PR name given to the medical procedure Intact Dilation and Extraction. 

Intact Dilation and Extraction:

Most of these procedures are performed on fetuses who are dead already. That is, the baby would be stillborn. Unfortunately, numbers aren’t kept, so I can’t find how many of IDXs are performed per year. Each side argues that the other side is inflating or deflating the numbers. 

Other reasons for performing an IDX:

  • The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect.
  • The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman’s life in severe danger.
  • The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman’s health and/or disable her.
  • The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus. 

This ban stops the practice of delivering a child 3/4, punching a hole in the back of the head, and sucking out the brains.  A gruesome way to die.  Obama’s vote shows he approves of this horrible procedure.

The Myth of Partial Birth Abortion:

He also voted against the bill that would have demanded the victim of a botched abortion be given medical treatment.  His vote said let the victim slowly die.

THAT IS FALSE! This was recently brought up on another forum of which I am a member. I won’t go into the entire deception, but here’s what Obama has to say about it:

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

When Obama was questioned on the issue of abortion and out of wedlock births, he had some interesting responses. On when life begins Obama said, “it is against by pay grade.”  If he can’t even answer this question, he should not be a Senator, much less running for President of the United States.  if life doesn’t begin at conception, why do couples who don’t want children use contraception.?  Another response:  “Look, I got two daughters-nine years old and six years old.  I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”  The very child you and Max adopted according to Obama should not have a chance at life.

Why do couples who don’t want children use contraception? What else are they supposed to do? I don’t want to be pregnant, ever, regardless of when life begins. 

As I’ve said, I’m not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. I really do pray that more women will choose adoption over abortion or parenting in an unhealthy situation. That said, there are a number of reasons why abortion exists. I remember reading an article about a conservative, anti-choice woman. She found herself pregnant with twins. They were sharing one heart. If both twins were carried to term, neither would have lived. The woman drove to Iowa to abort the pregnancy.

Should two babies have died there?

Abortion is too complex a subject to be politicized. It should be between a woman, her doctor, and her God. 

I think a lot about what would have happened if Jack’s birthmom had given in to her step-mother’s demand to have an abortion. However, between God and S, the “right” decision was made. But just because it was right for us, doesn’t mean it’s always right. My choice is to promote adoption, contraception, and sex education. If the anti-choice groups could do that, instead of bombing clinics or trotting out tired (and often incorrect) statistics, we’d probably have many, many fewer abortions.

I’m sure you are well acquainted with the church (UCC) that Obama has been a member of for over 20 years, and the statements of Jeremiah right, so I need not go into that.  Some facts on his church:  The UCC is a strong advocate of abortion, openly endorsing abortion-on-demand a full two years before the Roe v. Wade decisions of 1973.  They openly opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion.  The UCC also holds positions that favor Palestinians above Jews.  The UCC was the first denomination to ordain an  openly gay minister and to call for recognition of homosexual marriages as far back as 1976.  Currently some 200 openly  homosexual UCC clergy serve in various ministries or pastorates.  The UCC does not embrace fixed absolutes especially on moral issues.  Obama supports his churches positions.  If a candidate does not embrace the moral absolutes established by God (which is so in Obama’s case), I would never vote for that candidate for any office, much less president of the United States.

“UCC congregations are involved with mission in many ways. In the United Church of Christ, we affirm that, although the congregation is the fundamental unit of mission, mission is not just local. We are connected to one another, across boundaries of neighborhood, class, race, and national border.”

I actually favor Palestinians too. Both they and the Jewish people have a right to the land there. It’s incredibly sad and convoluted the horrors that have been taking place there. My best friend, Penny (who happens to have a PhD in Atmospheric Chemistry, specializing in climate change) is active in an organization that promotes the rights of Palestinians. While I don’t wholeheartedly agree with her, it did cause me to open my mind to the plight of the Palestinian people.


  • gay marriage,
  • obama,
  • politics,
  • religion




Oct. 1st, 2008 03:14 am (UTC)
You really went to town on chick.
But you know she won’t listen.
That’s the worst part, I think.I used to be like that.
Then I graduated high school and went to college.Although I suppose had I stayed at my first college, I would still be that way. Only older.


Oct. 1st, 2008 05:48 pm (UTC)
Yikes indeed! I can’t imagine you as a conservative member of the religious right.


Oct. 1st, 2008 07:29 pm (UTC)
Whoa, now.
Even in my most religious days, I was NEVER a Republican.
I attended a Christian college and STILL needed to fight with people sometimes.Me as a Republican?!
*shudder*That’s a “hell no”, thank you very much.


Oct. 2nd, 2008 04:33 am (UTC)
Oh! I’m sorry I misunderstood. I feel much better now!


Oct. 1st, 2008 07:36 pm (UTC)
Whoa, now.
Even in my most religious days, I was NEVER a Republican.
I attended a Christian college and STILL needed to fight with people sometimes.Me as a Republican?!
*shudder*That’s a “hell no”, thank you very much.


Oct. 1st, 2008 10:58 am (UTC)

According to her statistics about gay marriages, military people should also not be allowed to be married. Military marriages lasting 20 years or more is very rare. There is a high level of promiscuity and a majority of the married people I know only got married because the woman got pregnant. In this last case almost all of those marriages have ended in divorce.

also regarding your thought on abortion:
“Abortion is too complex a subject to be politicized. It should be between a woman, her doctor, and her God.”

I have to disagree with you in one last respect. I think the man should also have a say in whether or not an abortion is performed. He did help get that baby in there, he should have a say on it’s fate. HOWEVER, if he fights against an abortion he should be fully willing to raise the child himself and not throw that upon the mother who did not want to do so in the first place. There are times when I agree it’s best the father not know like in cases of rape. I am not pro-abortion by any stretch of the imagination, but I am alot more open to the idea than I used to be.

I’m not looking to start an argument here just wanted to state my opinion. I am open to friendly discussion though 🙂


Oct. 1st, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC)
Re: Men. I did think that, but it just sounded better with just the woman, doc, and God. I tend to agree that a man should have a voice in the process, with exceptions for abuse situations.


Oct. 1st, 2008 02:08 pm (UTC)
I believe your formatting needs some work; on my fpage, this post is about 4700 pixels wide.


Oct. 1st, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC)
I don’t know how to fix that.


Oct. 1st, 2008 05:48 pm (UTC)
Even if the Bible is (was) totally inerrant as originally written, it has been translated hundreds of times since then. I remember reading that, in the Hebrew Bible, there is one number of words, but when it was translated to Greek, there was a much higher number of words.
You also do have to think context. So much of Paul is about context. Anyway… thanks for the comments!

One thought on “Part 3: Who Would Jesus Vote For? (Really, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Barack Obama)

  1. Pingback: Who Would Jesus Vote For? (Really, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Barack Obama): Part One | Holding to the Ground

Tell me what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s