However, the two can be seperated, conherently. It can be argued (persuasively, I think) that both being Pro life, regarding abortion, and being for gay rights, are examples of being for human rights, generally. ( and this is true regardless of whether one accepts all aspects of the gay rights “agenda”. One could be a conservative Christian, and merely believe that gays/lesbians, deserve equal rights in employment, civil unions, rather than marriages, equal access to housing, etc.).

Also, most gay rights advocates accept that, truth exists, and that morality is, not relative. They claim that, gays/lesbians, are that way, due to genetics. This is an objective claim, that is either true, or false. They also claim that, it’s wrong to discriminate against gays/lesbians, which implies moral realism (realism, in the sense that, morality is objectively true, and not arbitrary, or situational), this is congruent with the notion that, killing the fetus is objectively wrong. Both the bad treatment of gays, and the killing of fetuses, are examples of objectively wrong behavior.

Here’s why. There are common worldview issues underlying both gay rights and abortion rights advocacy. In short, both groups believe that it is up to humans to define what it means to be human.

Abortion is permissible (some say) because no one from on high declares the fetus to have intrinsic moral worth as a human. That would be a very strong argument if it were true.

Homosexual practice is permissible (some say) because no one from on high declares man-woman sexuality to be normal and normative for humans. That, too, would be a strong argument if it were true.

(Understand, please, that I’m speaking in very brief form here. I can’t take time now to fully develop these points.)

Not every argument against abortion or SSM is overtly, immediately theological, but every such argument rests on a theological foundation. They all take it as true that God exists, that he is good, that his goodness is revealed and is knowable through Scripture, conscience, and nature. Take away that foundation, and everything we know even from nature and conscience collapses.

These things go deep, and the depth matters.

*Some of you will get the pun there: it’s a music theory thing. (The traditional “Amen” ending for hymns is one example of a “plagal cadence.”) I apologize to you who were unaware of that and therefore couldn’t get the pun. I should apologize even more to those of you who know enough about music to have caught it.

For the Family Research Council to devote considerable time and attention to marriage is entirely appropriate. It’s what they’re called to do.

What matters most about the gay “marriage” thing is not just same-sex couples sharing a home and certain legal rights. It’s all that comes with it: the demonizing of those who disagree, the way they distort Scripture and nature to make their case, the violations of conscience they’re forcing on Catholics in Massachusetts and innkeepers in Britain, their view that sexual morality is entirely a matter of private opinion, the corollary view that sexual behavior has no objective moral dimension attached to it; and beyond all that, the witness of history that civilizations that accept these kinds of things as normal and customary do not survive.

I don’t know why the Family Research Council should not devote some attention to that.

indded, considering the significance, moraly, of abortion, it seems ludicrous to spend time arguing about consenting adults, of the same sex, who love each other.

What’s wrong with devoting an organization devoting its time and resources to same-sex issues?

So let me get this straight.

Christians spend far more money on charity than on politics – unlike the left wing opponents who are the ones accusing them of being “obsessed” – but that doesn’t matter because maybe Christians actions follow a different pattern?

Oh, and don’t forget, maybe they’re just donating money but thinking bad thoughts as they do so!

Yawn.

For example, it may be that conservative Christians donate more dollars to charities for the poor then charities to help gays (and that’s probably because the number of charities for the former dwarf the later), but the opposite may be true in terms of time spent engaged in political activism.