Speaker: Jon Dykstra, editor of Reformed Perspective magazine

Breakfast made by: Phil & Rebecca Geusebroek

Outline

Read: Ps 37:7-11, Prov 26:4-5 Rom 1:18-25

Objective: To map out a two-step stratagem that Christians can use to talk in a godly and effective manner about the issues (and in particular gay marriage) with their neighbors, co-workers, etc.

Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed?

Bad (because they are secular) arguments:

1. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­TRADITION - Slavery was a tradition. Some traditions are bad, so tradition for tradition's sake is a bad argument.
2. UNDEMOCRATIC - We are being insincere (we are lying) when we object to gay marriage this way since we believe it is bad regardless of what the majority think.
3. NOT NORMAL - What is normal? Is being Canadian Reformed normal? And isn't sin, in this fallen world, all too normal? So this is a silly objection.
4. WILL LEAD TO POLYGAMY - legit reasoning, but all too soon people are going to answer, "So what?" We have to be clear why polygamy is also wrong
5. HURT CHILDREN - Another true argument (so better than UNDEMOCRATIC), but not much research to look to, so hard to prove
6. AGAINST MY BELIEFS - Not an argument at all since no reasons are given. Won't convince anyone else.
7. JUDGES SHOULDN'T MAKE LAW - if this was our real objection, then we should be happy now that MP's are making the law. But we aren't happy, are we?
8. AGAINST BIBLE - only Christian argument so far, but will anyone listen?

Arguments for gay marriage

1. WRONG TO DISCRIMINATE - If so, then why are you still discriminating on the basis of numbers? Why only two? Why not one?
2. MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE AND COMMITMENT - What about two older widowed sisters living together? Why can't they get benefits under this criterion?
3. WHY NOT? - The most prevalent argument isn't an argument at all. They want to change things, so they should be required to explain why.

Two problems with our arguments against gay marriage

1. DEFENSIVE - In a debate is always easier to attack than defend, and too often Christians get stuck defending as opponents pick our arguments apart. Instead of always answering questions we should be asking.
2. NO FOUDATION - we know that no one wants to hear about God so we oblige them and try and base our arguments on anything except God. But gay marriage is ultimately wrong only because God is against it. So all other arguments, if they aren't built on this sure foundation, will be easy to pick apart.

Two ways to talk Christian about issues in general
(On issues that have a clear Christian stance)

1. SHOW THE TRUTH - show them what the Bible says, or more generally what God says (you don't have to quote chapter and verse to explain a godly principle).

Strengths: It's God's word - nothing more powerful
Weaknesses: Very few people are willing to listen

2. EXPOSE THE LIE - attack (question) their false beliefs

Strengths:

• We are on the offensive, questioning them, a much easier task
• All anti-Christian beliefs are lies, so are opponents are stuck defending lies

• Even a liar can expose someone else's lie. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses can expose Mormon lies. So exposing a lie doesn't mean you've pointed them to the truth.
• Infinite number of lies. To expose a lie you have to learn a bit about it and unfortunately there are an infinite number of lies. To show the truth you need know only one thing, the Bible
• Our sinful nature means even our logic is flawed and tainted. Even after we expose a lie people may illogically cling to it.

Just the facts ma'am

Facts are hard to come by in this debate. Here's a few. On February 1, the Liberals introduced an act that would redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. This bill will be up for debate for the next several months. But…

• The Conservatives are not defending traditional marriage. Stephen Harper has proposed that homosexuals be given everything except the word "Marriage". He wants to "enshrine the legal rights and privileges for same-sex partnerships."
• Despite what the PM has said, the traditional definition of marriage has not been ruled unconstitutional. When asked that question, the Supreme Court refused to answer.
• In the legislation the Liberals promise to protect religious rights, but as REAL Women pointed out, "religious rights are matters of provincial jurisdiction only and that the federal government has no authority over them."