View Full Version : Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill
Michael Allred
09-09-2005, 03:44 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Wednesday he will veto a bill to allow gay marriage in the state and said the issue should be decided by the courts or by voters directly but not by the Democrat-controlled legislature.
A veto had been widely expected after California's Assembly on Tuesday endorsed gay marriage, the first time a state legislature had taken such a step. California's Senate passed the bill last week.
Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said the governor "believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship."
But since California voters approved a ballot measure five years ago defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the question of gay marriage should be put to voters again in a referendum or decided by courts, she said.
"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote," Thompson said.
Gay marriage is under review in California courts following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision in 2004 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- a move that set off a national debate.
California's Supreme Court has invalidated the San Francisco licenses, but left the wider issue of whether the ban on gay marriage is constitutional to lower courts.
Democrats admit the gay marriage bill was largely a symbolic gesture and had said they did not expect support from Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican grappling with declining voter support.
"It certainly seems like he wants the courts to make the decision for him, but we truly feel like we did the right thing," said Richard Stapler, an aide to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.
RATINGS SLUMP
Republican media consultant Wayne Johnson said it was inconceivable Schwarzenegger would have signed the bill because his approval ratings have slumped, leaving him with only Republican support. "The people who are his strongest supporters are among the least likely to support this bill," said Johnson.
Schwarzenegger faces an uphill struggle to convince voters to back ballot measures in an unpopular special November election he has called.
A Field Poll released on Wednesday found 56 percent of California voters are not inclined to support Schwarzenegger if he seeks re-election.
But voters hold the state legislature in even lower regard, one analyst said, allowing Schwarzenegger the opportunity to cast his veto of the gay marriage bill as a defense of existing state law.
"He can wrap himself in the rule of law and say, 'The people have spoken,"' said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, which tracks state political races. "This is probably one issue in which Schwarzenegger is probably a winner at a time when he has very few issues going his way."
So much for Arnold being a liberal eh? Considering his political career will come to an end when his term is up, he could have done something remarkable but instead chose to be a girly man and wuss out.
Red Heeler
09-09-2005, 06:00 PM
"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote," Thompson said.
Eh, isn't the legislature supposed to represent the people?
Unassisted
09-09-2005, 06:08 PM
"Democrats admit the gay marriage bill was largely a symbolic gesture..."
Symbolic, like the symbolic gay marriage ban ballot initiatives trotted out in battleground states last fall. Might as well call it what it is then... a wedge issue that will figure into statewide campaigning there next year - only this time, it may be hammered into place by both sides.
Falls City Beer
09-09-2005, 06:12 PM
When I'm governor of Pennsylvania, I'm gettin' rid of ALL marriages. Fair is fair, beeyatch.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-09-2005, 06:17 PM
[QUOTE=Michael Allred]So much for Arnold being a liberal eh? Considering his political career will come to an end when his term is up, he could have done something remarkable but instead chose to be a girly man and wuss out.[/QUOTE???????????? what exactly would be so remarkable about it?!?!?!?!?
The recall was a way for the GOP establishment to circumvent their right-wing base and get a more moderate candidate at the top and stop the GOP's bleeding in the Golden State. Unfortunately, Arnie's so despised that he's had nothing left to do but turn back toward that very same.
George Foster
09-10-2005, 01:00 AM
The recall was a way for the GOP establishment to circumvent their right-wing base and get a more moderate candidate at the top and stop the GOP's bleeding in the Golden State. Unfortunately, Arnie's so despised that he's had nothing left to do but turn back toward that very same.
To allow gay marriage under the equal protection clause of the constitution, you then must allow all marriages. This would include multiple marriage partners, me marrying my grandmother if we are both over 18, etc.
Think about it. This is true. You could not discriminate against anyone who is an adult who wanted to marry under "EQUAL PROTECTION." Is anyone here going to ague that I should be allowed to marry my grandmother? What's the difference? You can't say, "that's sick, or unnatural, you would be discriminating against us. You must take a law to it's logical conclusion, most liberals don't do that. "If it FEELS RIGHT, do it" is not the way to approach things.
If gay marriage is adopted in the US, There are several thousand people in Utah that are going to file a discrimination lawsuits under the same equal protection clause that the Gays used. Their agument would be sound. Again you can't say, "this is not right or it's not natural." What would be the difference between that opinion and those against gay marriage?
Can you imagine the health insurance nightmare if your employer had to cover you and both of your spouses? Or how about a divorce, who gets the property and kids divided by 3 or 4? What about child support? It would be crazy.
You can't say, "Oh this is a stupid agument, your a homophobe." Take the equal protection clause to its logical conclusion in relation to marriage. I'm right. Any and all marriage would have to be legal as well.
In November, those in Maine are going to be voting to repeal gay marriage there. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.
George Foster
09-10-2005, 09:11 AM
In November, those in Maine are going to be voting to repeal gay marriage there. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.
It will turn out like it has in the rest of the country. 65-70% against.
Falls City Beer
09-10-2005, 10:50 AM
To allow gay marriage under the equal protection clause of the constitution, you then must allow all marriages. This would include multiple marriage partners, me marrying my grandmother if we are both over 18, etc.
Think about it. This is true. You could not discriminate against anyone who is an adult who wanted to marry under "EQUAL PROTECTION." Is anyone here going to ague that I should be allowed to marry my grandmother? What's the difference? You can't say, "that's sick, or unnatural, you would be discriminating against us. You must take a law to it's logical conclusion, most liberals don't do that. "If it FEELS RIGHT, do it" is not the way to approach things.
If gay marriage is adopted in the US, There are several thousand people in Utah that are going to file a discrimination lawsuits under the same equal protection clause that the Gays used. Their agument would be sound. Again you can't say, "this is not right or it's not natural." What would be the difference between that opinion and those against gay marriage?
Can you imagine the health insurance nightmare if your employer had to cover you and both of your spouses? Or how about a divorce, who gets the property and kids divided by 3 or 4? What about child support? It would be crazy.
You can't say, "Oh this is a stupid agument, your a homophobe." Take the equal protection clause to its logical conclusion in relation to marriage. I'm right. Any and all marriage would have to be legal as well.
No. If you follow the establishment clause's logic, you don't arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is on a par with multiple partner marriages. You argue that polygamy is illegal because "it's unnatural" or whatever. You're wrong. The reason polygamy or polyandry is illegal has everything to do with property and beneficiary and inheritance issues.
And incest? The risk of deleterious genetic effects being passed on to the product of a consummated sibling relationship is excessively high. They would have to prove that one or the other member of the marriage was sterile.
So to put homosexuality on a plane with incest and polygamy is just wrong. Morally and philosophically and most importantly, legally.
westofyou
09-10-2005, 11:01 AM
So to put homosexuality on a plane with incest and polygamy is just wrong. Morally and philosophically and most importantly, legally.
An argument that demeans the natural love of a gay marriage and assigns it an "abnormal" tag by associating it with unnatural acts like unequal marriages (polygamy) and incest only has one real goal in mind.
traderumor
09-10-2005, 11:13 AM
An argument that demeans the natural love of a gay marriage and assigns it an "abnormal" tag by associating it with unnatural acts like unequal marriages (polygamy) and incest only has one real goal in mind.Incest only became "unnatural" as the gene pool moved further away from the first family, Adam and Eve. Homosexual relationships have never been natural as the Creator of all homosexuals has clearly made known:
(Romans 1:26 KJV) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(Romans 1:27 KJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And yes, I will trot out that argument as many times as you assert that homosexuality is "natural." ;) Truth is truth whether or not one accepts it as such.
Falls City Beer
09-10-2005, 11:21 AM
Incest only became "unnatural" as the gene pool moved further away from the first family, Adam and Eve. Homosexual relationships have never been natural as the Creator of all homosexuals has clearly made known:
And yes, I will trot out that argument as many times as you assert that homosexuality is "natural." ;) Truth is truth whether or not one accepts it as such.
I'd rather just avoid sloppy nonsense words such "natural" and "unnatural."
Ok. Then give evidence of the scientific/genetic link? ;)
Truth is we don't live in a theocracy.
Anyway, I can tell you that life continues at its generally happy and prosperous pace here in gay-marriage-friendly Massachusetts. Why it's like they let gay folks get married and everyone just carried on with their lives completely unaffected by it. Go figure.
traderumor
09-10-2005, 02:46 PM
Truth is we don't live in a theocracy.
Anyway, I can tell you that life continues at its generally happy and prosperous pace here in gay-marriage-friendly Massachusetts. Why it's like they let gay folks get married and everyone just carried on with their lives completely unaffected by it. Go figure.Well, once decadence reaches a certain level...
traderumor
09-10-2005, 02:49 PM
I'd rather just avoid sloppy nonsense words such "natural" and "unnatural."Heck, lets just quit using words altogether. Then we can start interpreting nods, grunts, arm farts, and scratches. And we might even invite some men to the debate. :)
Good points, M2. Maybe your state's men and women are just stronger and can resist temptations of unnatural acts and gay marriages better than states that don't allow gay marriage. That's why they need a law, because they all would be doing the nasty with animals.
Of course I'm being sarcastic.
Falls City Beer
09-10-2005, 02:56 PM
Heck, lets just quit using words altogether. Then we can start interpreting nods, grunts, arm farts, and scratches. And we might even invite some men to the debate. :)
Brilliant comeback.
TeamCasey
09-10-2005, 02:58 PM
Truth is truth whether or not one accepts it as such.
That may be YOUR truth, but not THE truth.
Falls City Beer
09-10-2005, 03:03 PM
That may be YOUR truth, but not THE truth.
Come on, TeamCasey, you should know better: this isn't the land of toleration, this is the land of good guys and bad guys, where right and wrong settle their differences at the OK Corral.
TC, I'm not tolerant of your Avatar, it gives me the creeps.
TeamCasey
09-10-2005, 03:16 PM
TC, I'm not tolerant of your Avatar, it gives me the creeps.
:laugh: I'm overdue to switch him out.
TeamCasey
09-10-2005, 03:20 PM
Traderumor and I acknowledge that we're on opposite sides of a few fences .... we don't take it personally.
Truth is we don't live in a theocracy.
No. We live in a democracy. And if the people of the state of MA, or any state for that matter, garner the signatures to make it a ballot issue (and they did), then it now is up to the vote of the people - that is what a democracy is all about. It wasn't legalized in MA by the people; but by an activist judiciary. The people had no voice in the matter.
No. We live in a democracy. And if the people of the state of MA, or any state for that matter, garner the signatures to make it a ballot issue (and they did), then it now is up to the vote of the people - that is what a democracy is all about. It wasn't legalized in MA by the people; but by an activist judiciary. The people had no voice in the matter.
Just the Constitution.
traderumor
09-10-2005, 03:46 PM
That may be YOUR truth, but not THE truth.I am not God, therefore cannot be a source of truth. I simply agree with the Bible's self-proclamation that it is the inspired Word of God and is THE truth. I didn't make the claim, the Bible does. I simply agree with the claim the Bible makes about itself. There is no such thing as MY truth, or YOUR truth, by definition.
traderumor
09-10-2005, 03:48 PM
Come on, TeamCasey, you should know better: this isn't the land of toleration, this is the land of good guys and bad guys, where right and wrong settle their differences at the OK Corral.You are a funny person to be talking about tolerating varying points of view.
Just the Constitution.
And a matter of interpretation too. One can try to hide behind the Constitution on alot of things.
RedsManRick
09-10-2005, 05:17 PM
Very long post -- feel free to skip. I'm writing this because I miss college, lol. I can't stand how the arguements of substance are rarely discussed. It almost always devolves in to name calling and semantics.
One argument I rarely hear get brought up is that the difference between homosexuality and gay marriage. Homosexuality is not being outlawed. The marriages between two persons of the same gender is. The government is not saying homosexuality is wrong. (I will admit however, that most of those who are against gay marriage believe this to be the case. But the government is not saying two men/women can't have a romantic relationship.) Let's moved past the idea that the government is attacking invidual persons and 'who they are'. The arguement here is what individuals should be allowed to participate in an instiution. This can be an issue of discrimination (in the negative sense of the word), but isn't necessarily. Only those under 21 can drink alcohol. Only those who are 16 can drive. This isn't because the government hates young people. It's because it(we) have decided that due to the specific nature of the instution itself, certain individuals cannot participate. Please don't confuse the fact that some people are discriminatory with the laws which are correlated with thier beliefs. Some people hate teenagers, that doesn't mean that's the rationale to keep them from drinking.
It is saying that the institution of marriage is by definition a union between a man and a women, not any two people. There are three aspects to marriage, and that is what confuses the issue. There is the relgious/moral aspect of two individuals pledging their lives to each other, under God. Then there is the social aspect of being recognized by the community and peers as a fixed couple, operating as a single unit. The label of being a "married" couple is viewed by some people as necessary for achieving this. The third is the governmental aspect, which bestows certain rights and responsibilities to the couple.
The problems arise because all of these aspects are combined in a single institution. A disruption of any of these 3 aspects can upset the instituion and those who support it. In the case of religion, mainsteam Christianity makes the claim that homosexuality is immoral. Making a promise to God obviously entails obeying the morals he's provided. To base a promise to God on a sin makes is contradictory on it's face. Of course, lying, jealousy, and murder are all immoral as well. Immoral does not necessarily mean illegal and visa versa. They certainly tend to correlate, but is it a causational relationship? You need to ask yourself, "is murder illegal because it is immoral or because of the effect it has on a stable society? When is lying illegal? Why is jealousy never illegal?" I personally would argue that any good law can be justified without religious moral reasoning. (I believe in the moral goodness of a stable society which recognizes the protection of certain enuerated rights) However, keep in mind the basis of the US Constitution is that our government exists for the purpose of protecting our "inalienable", "God" given rights. According to the US Government, murder is illegal because it interferes with your God given right to life.
The second aspect is the social recognition. There are those who wish to have gay marriage legalized in part so that the community at large will recognize their relationship under the same terms as a heterosexaul couple. They want to be able go to a party, or meet new people, and introduce their spouse as such. The terms boyfriend/girlfriend or partner have an implication of a lesser commitment than does the term marriage. I understand this claim. However, to use this as justification would be a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Verbiage in society changes to better reflect the conditions (see Nego -> Black -> African-American). Besides, there are boyfriend/girlfriends who are much more committed than some married couples, thus the basic assumption made by society is perhaps a bit ignorant and should not be used as any type of justification.
Lastly is the issue of rights -- the big one. Historically, the rights given to married couples are meant to aid the management of assests which the couple has accumlated. The idea is that the immediate family is behaving in such a way that their actions are intended for the support and betterment of the familiy rather than the individual. Those rights are meant to provide an environment which makes this collective action more efficient, and to protect the family from malicious action, or inability of action, by any one member. Essentially, it is recognizing the family as a type of cooperation. In this regard, it is logical to extend these rights to any individuals who so choose to enter in to such an agreement. Of course, the family also has the added aspect of the potential of adding a new member to the cooperation, who is immediately granted a stake in the cooperation for a period of 18 years, unless the couple chooses to petition the government to relieve them of such. One camp of the anti-gay marriage side, argues that because gay coulpes cannot naturally concieve, they have no reason to marry. However, many straight couples cannot conceive either, or choose not to. This arguement simply does not hold water. Furthermore, to claim a homosexual couple should not be allowed to adopt on moral grounds, ignores the severe failure of many heterosexual couples to successfully raise children and the ability of some single parents to succesfully raise children.
The only solution which seems to respect all 3 aspectsconditions is to more clearly differentiate between a relgious/social marriage and a governmental recognition of the creation of a family unit. Limiting the family unit as recognized by the government to just a man and women cannot be done without bringing in a purely relgious arguement. However, simply expanding classic marriage to all gender combinations is to blantantly disregard and impinge the link between marriage and religion, which freuqently holds the man/women aspect as a crucial, unremoval, tenet of the institution.
Semantically, asking a religious community to recognize gay marriages as "marriages" is just as disrespectful and offensive as the name calling and bigotry directed to the gay community and individuals.
Thus, I feel the government should recognize gay couples with the same rights accorded to married individuals, but in doing so should recognize and emphasize the purely legal aspects of such a decision. This includes calling such a recognition something besides marriage and letting society sort how it would like handle the semantic differentiation between the commitment of two persons to each other and the legal rights accorded to a "family" cooperation.
One comment on the idea of homosexuality being "natural" in regards to the religious discussion. Serial murderers have a "natural" proclivity to kill people. Other's have a "natural" proclivity towards lying or stealing. It is to some extent, a function of genetics which have predisposed individuals towards acting upon such impulses. Homosexuality may be a condition, but sexual activity is a choice. The bible states that two men lying together is a sin. It also says lust is a sin, as is deceit. There are plenty of people engaging in heterosexual lust everyday. Before you stand behind your pulpit and preach the gospel of homosexual sin, consider your own failings. Also, don't forget to hate the sin, and be clear not to hate the sinner. If two men wish to enter a marriage in which they remain abstinent, should they be allowed? If still no, should an abstinent heterosexual couple be allowed to marry?
Food for thought. Sorry for the length -- it was a fun mental exercize for somebody who has been playing way too much Playstation over the last few months.
(BTW, I almsot always vote Republican - I'm no left winger)
Chip R
09-10-2005, 05:36 PM
I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want to get married, get married in a religious setting.
Falls City Beer
09-10-2005, 05:39 PM
I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely.
I enjoy having my marriage legally recognized. We were married by a justice of the peace. My wife and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
westofyou
09-10-2005, 05:41 PM
I enjoy having my marriage legally recognized. We were married by a justice of the peace. My wife and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
We had all religious mentionables left unmentioned.
Falls City Beer
09-10-2005, 05:42 PM
We had all religious mentionables left unmentioned.
Yep. We specifically asked that God not be mentioned in the ceremony.
Michael Allred
09-10-2005, 06:17 PM
god god god, the bible, blah blah blah.
Michael Allred
09-10-2005, 06:33 PM
Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, under growing pressure from his conservative supporters, promised Wednesday to veto the gay-marriage bill passed less than a day earlier by the Democrat-led Legislature.
The Legislature's action trampled over Proposition 22, an initiative passed overwhelmingly in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage in California, said a spokeswoman for the governor.
"The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by a court decision or another vote of the people,'' said Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger's press secretary. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails the vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB849.''
Democrats said they weren't surprised by Schwarzenegger's announcement but were disappointed, especially by the speed of the decision.
"For a man who claims rather grandiosely to be 'following the will of the people' when he doesn't even allow the people to express his will to them as he does with every other bill is a deep disappointment to me," said state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica.
Condemnation from gay and lesbian rights activists was swift.
"Who's the girly man now?" said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "... Real courage and real leadership and real strength and real protection of those who are marginalized by the law should have come at hands of a governor who prides himself in his strength of leadership and his boldness."
While Schwarzenegger had hinted he would veto the bill, Wednesday's abrupt early evening announcement came as a surprise. "I'm not going to talk about that at all today,'' the governor said when he was asked about a possible veto at a morning meeting with Salvation Army volunteers in Sacramento.
At the same Sacramento stop, Thompson told reporters there was no hurry to make a decision on the bill. It would be handled the same as any other bill sent to the governor, she added.
But outside the Salvation Army warehouse, Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families talked about how important the bill was to the conservatives who recent polls show have become Schwarzenegger's strongest supporters.
"If the governor is going to keep his word and be the people's governor, he has to veto AB849,'' he said.
Schwarzenegger needs something to fire up his supporters heading into the Nov. 8 special election. With both his "Live Within Our Means" budget initiative and reapportionment revamp slipping in the polls, the governor can't afford to have any Republicans stay away on election day.
Conservative leaders such as Traditional Values Coalition lobbyist Benjamin Lopez already have suggested that if Schwarzenegger didn't veto the same-sex marriage bill, "many conservatives will stay home in protest."
By quickly promising the veto and accusing the Legislature of ignoring the wishes of Californians, Schwarzenegger could quickly find himself with plenty of supporters. While a Field Poll last week put the governor's approval rating at a record low of 36 percent, California voters were even less enamored with the Legislature, knocking its rating down to 27 percent.
"The governor can point out that he's the one person in Sacramento who's responding to what people said they wanted in a statewide election,'' said Kevin Spillane, a GOP consultant. "He can also talk about how the Legislature is more interested in same-sex marriage and driver's licenses for illegal aliens than it is in the meat-and-potato issues that affect the life of each and every Californian.''
It's a stand that could play well not only with Republicans but also with moderate Democrats and independents still unhappy at the idea of same-sex marriage and now angry that the Legislature has pushed aside their vote.
But Democrats are warning the governor that five years have made a big difference in the way Californians view same-sex marriage.
Two months before voters passed Prop. 22, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that likely voters favored a ban on same-sex marriage by 57 to 38 percent. In a poll taken last month by the same group, likely voters were split evenly on the question, 46 to 46 percent, although nearly 70 percent of Republican voters continued to disapprove.
"The issue has become more partisan, but that's a pretty major shift in public opinion,'' said Mark Baldassare, the poll's director. "If it came to a vote today, it could be a very close election.''
Schwarzenegger can win back moderates because "it's a chance for him to make history and stand up for equality,'' said Gloria Nieto, a member of the Democratic National Committee's gay and lesbian caucus and executive director of the Lyon-Martin Women's Health clinic in San Francisco.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said he wasn't surprised at Schwarzenegger's announcement, but he said the governor had missed a "rare and unique" chance.
"He missed a golden opportunity to stand on history and do what is noble and right," he said.
Democrats pledged to continue battling until Schwarzenegger actually signed the veto message.
Kuehl said supporters, including those in Hollywood, would continue to put pressure on the governor.
"There will be people he calls his friends who will call and try to influence him," she said. "A lot of people in the industry know this is the right thing to do and understand there is no reason loving couples shouldn't be able to be married in the state."
Regardless of what happens now, the fight for same-sex marriage is not over, added Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the author of AB849.
"The more the public becomes familiar with the issue, they move in our direction," he said.
Big ol' girly man.
I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want to get married, get married in a religious setting.
What happens when that religious setting won't do it? And an overwhelming majority of them won't due to the plain, literal decrees in the Bible which guides most church doctrine.
I belong to a church - and alot of churches follow this thinking - that won't marry two heterosexuals if the are living together prior to marriage.
Alot of people want that nice church wedding. But they just don't want to have to adhere to church teachings in order to get it. And when that is the case - let them go to a secular source.
I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want to get married, get married in a religious setting.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Michael Allred
09-11-2005, 02:28 PM
I think the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want to get married, get married in a religious setting.
and if you're not religious, then what?
*Some* people think religion, any religion, is downright silly and want no part of it.
and if you're not religious, then what?
*Some* people think religion, any religion, is downright silly and want no part of it.
Knowing Chip - I think he was trying to be somewhat sacastic and humorous. Don't take it so hard. :)
I am not God, therefore cannot be a source of truth. I simply agree with the Bible's self-proclamation that it is the inspired Word of God and is THE truth. I didn't make the claim, the Bible does. I simply agree with the claim the Bible makes about itself. There is no such thing as MY truth, or YOUR truth, by definition.
Sure, there's likely only one Truth, but I'm 100% positive you couldn't be farther away from it. Far as I'm concerned you're absolutely morally wrong on this.
Now I fully understand you have the same take on my position and that's fine. We don't have to agree. That's why I made the point that this isn't a theocracy. Frankly, neither one of us should be hostage to other's morality.
That's why gay marriage should be treated as a matter of law, which is supposed to be blind on matters of race, religion and sex.
And, again, apparently we haven't reached any sort of decadent tipping point here in Massachusetts. Haven't had orgies in the street or people deciding that the institution of marriage has lost all meaning. Like, I said it's like gay people started getting married and the only people it affected was them. Everybody just went on with their lives. Wow, it's like live and let live in action.
The only boogeyman in the closet with this is that of the people who think their morality/religion/fear/intolerance should dictate the laws that guide everyone else. I don't see why that should matter as a point of law as it's patently unamerican.
George Foster
09-11-2005, 06:06 PM
The only boogeyman in the closet with this is that of the people who think their morality/religion/fear/intolerance should dictate the laws that guide everyone else. I don't see why that should matter as a point of law as it's patently unamerican.[/QUOTE]
This is the argument that several thousand people in Utah are going to use if Gay Marriage is adopted nationwide. They will say, "your morality/religion/fear/intolerance should not dictate the laws that guide us. You allow gays to marry, under that say law you must allow multiple marriage." If you apply the equal protection clause of the Constitution to Gay Marriage (which is their claim in the courts), then you must apply it to Polygamy. If you don't you are discriminating against them and not being very tolerant.
This is the argument that several thousand people in Utah are going to use if Gay Marriage is adopted nationwide. They will say, "your morality/religion/fear/intolerance should not dictate the laws that guide us. You allow gays to marry, under that say law you must allow multiple marriage." If you apply the equal protection clause of the Constitution to Gay Marriage (which is their claim in the courts), then you must apply it to Polygamy. If you don't you are discriminating against them and not being very tolerant.
To which they'll get the reply that our legal system is built around two-person unions and the property, inheritance, divorce, child-rearing issues involved make polygamy completely inapplicable to the American legal system.
Legally speaking, polygamy doesn't have a leg to stand on. The main problem is that it violates the equality fundamental to our current marriage laws. It's nothing more than a red herring in the gay marriage debate. The one sets no precedent for the other.
RedsManRick
09-11-2005, 06:35 PM
What if my morality says it's ok to kill people? Why do you impose your morality on me, which says I'm not allowed to kill people? The imposition or morality argument fails to recognize that both sides of any issue espouse a morality of some type. Some people's morality is derived from religion, other's aren't. The US Constitution has stated that the Congress shall pass no laws establishing any specific religion from which our laws will derive their moral compass. This doesn't mean individuals cannot use a relgious justification for wanting to pass a type of legislation. In fact, many of our laws have such justification, it's just that so many people agree with it, that it's not an issue.
Somebody is going to have their morality upheld, and some other people aren't. The moral imposition arguement is pure BS.
Red Heeler
09-11-2005, 06:42 PM
What if my morality says it's ok to kill people? Why do you impose your morality on me, which says I'm not allowed to kill people? The imposition or morality argument fails to recognize that both sides of any issue espouse a morality of some type. Some people's morality is derived from religion, other's aren't. The US Constitution has stated that the Congress shall pass no laws establishing any specific religion from which our laws will derive their moral compass. This doesn't mean individuals cannot use a relgious justification for wanting to pass a type of legislation. In fact, many of our laws have such justification, it's just that so many people agree with it, that it's not an issue.
Somebody is going to have their morality upheld, and some other people aren't. The moral imposition arguement is pure BS.
If you go out and kill another person, then you have infringed on their Constitutional right to "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness."
Homosexual marriage does not infringe on any rights of any individuals outside of the marriage.
If you go out and kill another person, then you have infringed on their Constitutional right to "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness."
Homosexual marriage does not infringe on any rights of any individuals outside of the marriage.
Sure, just be all sensible like that.
Chip R
09-11-2005, 07:00 PM
Knowing Chip - I think he was trying to be somewhat sacastic and humorous. Don't take it so hard. :)Actually I was quite serious.
Michawl, you raise a good point. However, if government does not allow marriages, I'm sure you will see states allow civil unions. A lot of people are already on record as saying they wouldn't allow gay marriages but would allow civil unions between homosexuals. Or, I'm sure if you wanted to get married, you could find some church that would allow you and your partner to get married. Or some minister who got his certificate from a Cracker Jack box. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to start being religious and attend church. How many people have been married in a church and then never attend church again?
Dom Heffner
09-11-2005, 10:03 PM
What if my morality says it's ok to kill people?
Hmmm...
Let's see here. Killing is a non-consensual act, marriage is wholly consensual.
Yep, apples and oranges. :)
Falls City Beer
09-11-2005, 10:06 PM
Hmmm...
Let's see here. Killing is a non-consensual act, marriage is wholly consensual.
Yep, apples and oranges. :)
Legal ethics is virtually always centered around one question: does it harm? If it does no harm to one's person, property, etc, or doesn't lead to harm, then chances are it is or should be legal.
traderumor
09-11-2005, 10:15 PM
Hmmm...
Let's see here. Killing is a non-consensual act, marriage is wholly consensual.
Yep, apples and oranges. :)Unless the one you're killing happens to be growing and developing in a womb, then it doesn't matter. So much for consistency in "legal ethics."
traderumor
09-11-2005, 10:22 PM
The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals should be a sanctioned legal entity with all the rights and priveleges of a heterosexual couple, if they go the "legal ethics" route, is to determine that there is no harm, no foul in homosexuality in the first place. That is untrue, and I've presented my arguments several times as to why that is, and they are a little more than "the Bible tells me so." Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever. Well, except, don't kill, well no that's not even totally off-limits.
Hey, only four more days, might as well go out with a bang.
Falls City Beer
09-11-2005, 10:22 PM
Unless the one you're killing happens to be growing and developing in a womb, then it doesn't matter. So much for consistency in "legal ethics."
Do we really have to tolerate another lame attempt at catching people in "hypocrisy?" A fetus isn't a person. Plus more harm is committed by abridging a woman's freedom of choice than in preserving potential and contingent tissue inside said woman.
And here I thought we might get through a thread without abortion cropping up.
RFS62
09-11-2005, 10:31 PM
The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals should be a sanctioned legal entity with all the rights and priveleges of a heterosexual couple, if they go the "legal ethics" route, is to determine that there is no harm, no foul in homosexuality in the first place. That is untrue, and I've presented my arguments several times as to why that is, and they are a little more than "the Bible tells me so." Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever. Well, except, don't kill, well no that's not even totally off-limits.
Hey, only four more days, might as well go out with a bang.
How on earth could you possible know this, TR?
That's incredible.
And spineless jellyfish? No moral backbone whatsoever, just because I don't agree with your viewpoint?
You've outdone yourself this time.
Falls City Beer
09-11-2005, 10:41 PM
The thing that's going to win the day for gay marriage isn't going to be any politician's decision; it's going to spring from the almighty dollar--the marriage industry's (hello, conservative small business owners, hello) clamoring for this legislation. Which is fine. Sometimes the private sector has good built into its design.
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 12:24 AM
Unless the one you're killing happens to be growing and developing in a womb, then it doesn't matter. So much for consistency in "legal ethics."
You could be right, here, actually. Has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it is an interesting point.
I was wondering, though. If my pregnant wife tripped and fell down the stairs, killing her unborn human being, should she be brought up on charges of involuntary manslaughter?
After all, she did actually kill a human being, and in the moral universe you are trying to present, it really isn't any different than me accidentally running over a 5 year old standing at a bus stop.
TeamCasey
09-12-2005, 06:04 AM
Homosexual people exist. They are citizens of this country and deserve the same rights and protections as the rest of us. Wishing them away just isn't going to make it so, traderumor.
No one is "wishing" them away TC. I happen to work with two men who are in upper management here at Honda who are gay. I treat them with nothing but respect, and get along admirably with both. I don't look down upon them as if to say...."Ewwww, you're a homosexual, a despicable human being, and I want nothing to do with you." I don't look at them, or treat them, any differently then I would anyone else.
In fact, the evangelicals in my department (whom I am very close with) treat these two men with alot more dignity and respect then the unbelievers in our department do. I wish some could be sitting in the breakroom or cafeteria when these two men's names are mentioned or they enter the room. The whispering, the dereogatory and demeaning remarks - it's not pretty, and I don't participate, nor condone it.
No evangelical, who is true to their faith and allegiance, would condone any type of violence toward another human being out of malice and hatred - including those who are gay. And those who oppose gay marriage should not be seen that way.
I can differ and disagree, concerning the lifestyle, and not be what some like to throw around - a homophobe (whatever that is).
Yes - homosexuals exist. They have always existed. It is not homosexuality that is being outlawed. As it was stated earlier - it is the institution of marriage that is being defined and protected. Just because something exists, does not necessarily mean it is right or acceptable (and I'm not simply looking at it from a personal, individual level, but societal). There are an awful lot of people witin society, that have no relgious following/influences, who oppose the homosexual lifestyle. And no, I don't think they are ignorant or stupid either.
What someone wants to do in their private lives, and in the privacy of their own home, is their business. And if the private sector/industry wishes to extend benefits, etc. to homosexual couples, then that is their right, and I don't oppose that one bit. And if the people of a state want to sanction and legalize gay marriage, even though I pesonally oppose it, then let the people decide that- not some activist judicary, who uses their personal biases/ideology to interpret the Constitution as they see it, and IMO, overstep their authority.
Even as a Christian I am told to respect the law and governing authorities - even though I may not agree with that law, due to it's violation of Biblical/Christian principles. Above all, there must be order.
You could be right, here, actually. Has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it is an interesting point.
I was wondering, though. If my pregnant wife tripped and fell down the stairs, killing her unborn human being, should she be brought up on charges of involuntary manslaughter?
After all, she did actually kill a human being, and in the moral universe you are trying to present, it really isn't any different than me accidentally running over a 5 year old standing at a bus stop.
Yes, there is a difference. A HUGE difference - between accidental and premeditation.
Do we really have to tolerate another lame attempt at catching people in "hypocrisy?" A fetus isn't a person. Plus more harm is committed by abridging a woman's freedom of choice than in preserving potential and contingent tissue inside said woman.
And here I thought we might get through a thread without abortion cropping up.
Define "person"? And WHO assigns it that definition? When I asked you and others this question on the other thread, it was avoided. ;)
Medical science doesn't agree with you when tracking fetal development. But then, what does medical science know when it comes to ideological wranglings.
And if you want to talk (again) about "viablilty" - Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions; capable of living outside the uterus - then an infant newly born is not viable. Even by the broad definition given by the Supreme Court.
How about a premature baby in an incubator, born at 5-6 months? Not a person, according to your definition? Why is it that it's not viable while still in that womb, yet minutes later, when it passes from that womb, it's now viable? That newly born infant can no more sustain itself outside the womb then inside it.
And what about women who have C-sections? Funny - When a cesarean is necessary, it can be a life saving technique for both mother and infant. But acording to you, that baby wasn't a "person".
How about a baby born with a disability, such as Downs Syndrome? Viable?
Our is it an issue of life that has rights?
It's funny how that term equal protection is used and manipulated.
TeamCasey
09-12-2005, 07:17 AM
No one is "wishing" them away TC.
Baloney! (and you know it!)
It's a civil rights issue no different than a woman's right to vote or segregation. We just can't seem to learn from our own history in this country.
Baloney! (and you know it!)
It's a civil rights issue no different than a woman's right to vote or segregation. We just can't seem to learn from our own history in this country.
Im sorry. But respectfully, you're wrong concerning the "wishing them away" part. I've not seen anyone proposing legislation or putting forth bills to outlaw homosexuality.
And I, and many others, do not see it as a civil rights issue on the same level as woman's right to vote, segregation, or even slavery.
Most who oppose homosexuality see it as behavioral, and unrelated to ethnic or culture. Completely different.
TeamCasey
09-12-2005, 07:57 AM
Im sorry. But respectfully, you're wrong concerning the "wishing them away" part. I've not seen anyone proposing legislation or putting forth bills to outlaw homosexuality.
I'm not talking about legislation doing away with homosexuals. I don't even know where you came up with that.
I'm talking about bigots who make comments like these:
"Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever."
This immoral, spineless jellyfish says absolutely it's a civil rights issue, and nothing more.
But the "thorny" question about this issue is that IT IS an issue of morality. Those who oppose the lifestyle say/believe it is immoral, and not normal... and those who support it either say that is not an issue, or don't want the issue of morality injected into the discussion at all.
When it comes to the issue of morality - are there any societal lines/barriers? Obviously not. One generation says it's wrong. But that's only until a future generation comes along, professes "enlightenment", and then redefines those "lines" to their liking, and resets the barriers. And then, along the way, they label those past generations as ignorant and un-enlightened.
One can take that "equal protection" clause and stretch it to further extremes when one takes the definition of morality, and either strips it of any meaning, or continually broadens it to fit the current times live in.
People NOW may say these examples sound ridiculous; but a generation ago, those individuals would be saying the same thing about gay marriage.
How far do we allow our morality to slip, and then use the discrimination argument?
Why is it that even experts in the field of psychiatry have defined homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction/deviation and behavioral related? Are they wrong?
Can we deny the following when those individuals claim they are in a loving, caring, relationship? Are we being judgmental and discriminatory?
multiple marriages of any kind?
sibling marriage?
The fact is - the "nuclear" family has proved to be a stable and beneficial influence on society despite the social problems created by divorce. And to sight heterosexual divorce rate as a jusitification for gay marriage is simply ridiculous IMO. It would seem to me that responsible people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, would attempt to look at this issue in light of what is best for those that will be entering this world in future years.
Should children be taught that male/female sexual relationships are the same as male/male or female/female? Honesty requires that the children be taught the truth. The obvious truth is that they are not.
Why do homosexual couples, who wish to establish a union between themselves, insist on having the government allow them to be endowed with the same marriage title provided to heterosexual couples? Why are they not satisfied with being provided the same legal provisions in the form of a title called "civil union"? A single answer to both questions is obvious....They want society to consider their relationship normal.
My reading of the U.S. Constitution is that it guarantees freedom to individuals provided their actions do not infringe upon the freedom of other individuals. Thus, in regards to homosexuality, individuals with that preference are free to indulge themselves providing their indulgence does not affect the freedoms that non-homosexuals have. By claiming normality in their relationships homosexuals, and attempting to use the government to legally bless their unions, they hope to indoctrinate society to accept it as so.
In this process they are affecting one of the freedoms most parents desire to have for their children. That is to have them educated with the understanding of homosexuality that they consider to be self evident.
The best chance for the successful development of the child into adulthood occurs when both parents are deeply involved throughout the period of child rearing. Hence, marriage lays the foundation for the traditional nuclear family, whose basic constituents are a mother, a father, and a child and which is the primary unit for ensuring the procreation of human beings and the preservation of their societies.
But it is not on the same level as rascism or slavery, which involved ethniticity, not behavior.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 09:38 AM
How on earth could you possible know this, TR?
That's incredible.
And spineless jellyfish? No moral backbone whatsoever, just because I don't agree with your viewpoint?
You've outdone yourself this time.You know that my source is Scripture for categorizing homosexuality as sexual sin, therefore is truly incapable of being "true" love.
Dom, wouldn't negligence be necessary for a trip down the stairs by a pregnant woman to be considered involuntary manslaughter?
FCB, Dom opened the door with his comparison. The inconsistency of that position was too glaring to not walk through the door. Also, technology has made it clear that your "not a person" defense is old news.
TC, the issue isn't wanting people to go away. I just don't want the government in the business of legitimizing any form of sexual perversion with the marriage covenant. And bigot? Now who's being intolerant? ;)
Redsfaithful
09-12-2005, 09:57 AM
Now who's being intolerant? ;)
Hey, I'll admit to being intolerant of your views. Just like I'd be intolerant of racist opinions, or misogynistic opinions. They're disgusting, just like your views on this matter.
TeamCasey
09-12-2005, 10:05 AM
Yes, I'm intolerant of intolerance. Always have been.
To me, this isn't any different than anti-miscegenation laws. Just a different decade and a different discrimination.
The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals should be a sanctioned legal entity with all the rights and priveleges of a heterosexual couple, if they go the "legal ethics" route, is to determine that there is no harm, no foul in homosexuality in the first place. That is untrue, and I've presented my arguments several times as to why that is, and they are a little more than "the Bible tells me so." Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever. Well, except, don't kill, well no that's not even totally off-limits.
Hey, only four more days, might as well go out with a bang.
Met these two guys about a decade ago, both in their early 70s. They'd been together since the 1950s and one of them had come down with Alzheimer's. The other guy fed him, bathed him, changed him, held him when the terror of not knowing where or who he was sometimes overcame him and sat night and day beside the man's deathbed until he passed. Erotic love my ass.
I saw my grandfather do pretty much the same with my grandmother (though cancer got him before Alzheimer's got her).
It's immoral to reduce people to stereotypes that don't fit and it takes a world-class spineless jellyfish to hide behind some sorry excuse for a religion (in this case hate-thy-neighbor Christianity) in an attempt to block someone's access to the same rights and privileges afforded the majority.
You don't like gays and I doubt gay people ever will like you. Que sera sera. You don't approve of them, but then again plenty of people (me included) think your brand of religion is a blight on society. Yet I've got to let you have all the rights and privileges that this society affords decent people. "Anything goes" is always the lament of people who think they're on the inside trying to keep the bad stuff out, but, to me, you're one of those anythings that we've allowed to go. Would I rather people not pollute their souls and minds with such a hate-filled creed? Sure, but allowing people to do so if they wish is part of the price I pay for living in a free society.
Legally-speaking I've got to let you do your thing even though I'm right and you're wrong. I suppose I could devote time and energy to pushing you to the margins of society and denying you equal recourse to the law, but I'm too good a person to do that.
Bang. Bang.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 10:21 AM
Hey, I'll admit to being intolerant of your views. Just like I'd be intolerant of racist opinions, or misogynistic opinions. They're disgusting, just like your views on this matter.Bad, bad comparisons, but that never prevents someone from trotting those arguments out. Again, I'll let you do the research since I answer that issue every time the discussion comes up. I have suggested nothing that is discriminatory against a class of citizens that they cannot help, such as their race or sex. [Insert homosexuals are born that way argument here, then research my position on that as well.]
TC, no civil rights are violated. No one is stopping of age homosexuals from practicing their perversion just as no one is stopping folks from engaging in whips and chains sex and creating millions of dollars of pornography. But sexual perversion is what it is, and giving it special privilges as a family unit under the law is not best for the city I live in, the state I live in or the country I live in, IMO.
westofyou
09-12-2005, 10:27 AM
Hey, I'll admit to being intolerant of your views. Just like I'd be intolerant of racist opinions, or misogynistic opinions. They're disgusting, just like your views on this matter.
Yep, hate is a great motivator eh?
traderumor
09-12-2005, 10:36 AM
Met these two guys about a decade ago, both in their early 70s. They'd been together since the 1950s and one of them had come down with Alzheimer's. The other guy fed him, bathed him, changed him, held him when the terror of not knowing where or who he was sometimes overcame him and sat night and day beside the man's deathbed until he passed. Erotic love my ass.
I saw my grandfather do pretty much the same with my grandmother (though cancer got him before Alzheimer's got her).
It's immoral to reduce people to stereotypes that don't fit and it takes a world-class spineless jellyfish to hide behind some sorry excuse for a religion (in this case hate-thy-neighbor Christianity) in an attempt to block someone's access to the same rights and privileges afforded the majority.
You don't like gays and I doubt gay people ever will like you. Que sera sera. You don't approve of them, but then again plenty of people (me included) think your brand of religion is a blight on society. Yet I've got to let you have all the rights and privileges that this society affords decent people. "Anything goes" is always the lament of people who think they're on the inside trying to keep the bad stuff out, but, to me, you're one of those anythings that we've allowed to go. Would I rather people not pollute their souls and minds with such a hate-filled creed? Sure, but allowing people to do so if they wish is part of the price I pay for living in a free society.
Legally-speaking I've got to let you do your thing even though I'm right and you're wrong. I suppose I could devote time and energy to pushing you to the margins of society and denying you equal recourse to the law, but I'm too good a person to do that.
Bang. Bang.Ah, anecdotal evidence. Would not brothers or sisters or best friends also exhibit that type of behavior?
A free society is not allowing people to do what they wish. Some are still willing to stand up for the Biblical definition of the family, even though they understand that we do not live in a theocracy. Just like the laws of murder and theft are covered both in the Bible and in our legal system, so can be the definition of the family without insinuating that one must live in a theocracy for a univeral moral principle to apply. And that is what I consider the concept of one man, one woman for life, and children if one wishes to be the universal moral definition of a family. That was adopted by our nation from its inception and should continue to be the guiding principal behind the legal definition of a family. That position has nothing to do with hating a person because of who they sleep with. That is their business. But, if those people want the nation that I am a voting citizen of to change the legal definition of a family to accomodate who they're sleeping with, then I will speak against that. It is not a personal issue with them, it is upholding the definition of a family.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 10:38 AM
Yep, hate is a great motivator eh?
Yet, you blindly send it the other direction with no impugnity.
westofyou
09-12-2005, 10:43 AM
Yet, you blindly send it the other direction with no impugnity.
Nice try, I'm sorry I'm not hating on anyone, that would be too perverse.
Ah, anecdotal evidence. Would not brothers or sisters or best friends also exhibit that type of behavior?
A free society is not allowing people to do what they wish. Some are still willing to stand up for the Biblical definition of the family, even though they understand that we do not live in a theocracy. Just like the laws of murder and theft are covered both in the Bible and in our legal system, so can be the definition of the family without insinuating that one must live in a theocracy for a univeral moral principle to apply. And that is what I consider the concept of one man, one woman for life, and children if one wishes to be the universal moral definition of a family. That was adopted by our nation from its inception and should continue to be the guiding principal behind the legal definition of a family. That position has nothing to do with hating a person because of who they sleep with. That is their business. But, if those people want the nation that I am a voting citizen of to change the legal definition of a family to accomodate who they're sleeping with, then I will speak against that. It is not a personal issue with them, it is upholding the definition of a family.
Arguably the biblical definition of family would have polygamy running wild.
But you get to practice what you think the biblical version of family is while you pervert the teachings of Christ and make a mockery of universal moral principles.
And gays aren't asking to change the legal definition of a family. In fact they're asking for it to remain intact. The only people who've attempted to change that definition in recent years are the right-wingers who've pushed legislation to specify that marriage must involve a male and a female. Why have they done that? Because, legally, it really only requires two consenting adults and they know that sooner or later the courts will have to come to that position if they don't start constructing firewalls. That's what ballot initiatives have been about as well. Slavery would still be the law of the land had it been a ballot question (St. Paul speaks well of it in fact). Women wouldn't have the right to vote had it been a ballot question. For sure miscegenation would be illegal. It's a ham-handed attempt at frightening judges away from where the law inexorably leads.
Sooner or later this is going to be the law of the land and you're going into the pile with all the other haters in the history of this nation (all of whom claimed they didn't hate anyone). Those who don't know history are destined to become the sad, sick folks the future shakes its head at.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 11:25 AM
Nice try, I'm sorry I'm not hating on anyone, that would be too perverse.Nor am I. I have explained that, if you do not find that explanation satisfactory, that is certainly you're perogative.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 11:50 AM
Arguably the biblical definition of family would have polygamy running wild.
But you get to practice what you think the biblical version of family is while you pervert the teachings of Christ and make a mockery of universal moral principles.
And gays aren't asking to change the legal definition of a family. In fact they're asking for it to remain intact. The only people who've attempted to change that definition in recent years are the right-wingers who've pushed legislation to specify that marriage must involve a male and a female. Why have they done that? Because, legally, it really only requires two consenting adults and they know that sooner or later the courts will have to come to that position if they don't start constructing firewalls. That's what ballot initiatives have been about as well. Slavery would still be the law of the land had it been a ballot question (St. Paul speaks well of it in fact). Women wouldn't have the right to vote had it been a ballot question. For sure miscegenation would be illegal. It's a ham-handed attempt at frightening judges away from where the law inexorably leads.
Sooner or later this is going to be the law of the land and you're going into the pile with all the other haters in the history of this nation (all of whom claimed they didn't hate anyone). Those who don't know history are destined to become the sad, sick folks the future shakes its head at.
Arguably is right, as is the tired old slavery argument. Could you point me to the passage of Scripture that commands multiple spouses? Involuntary servitude is also nowhere sanctioned by Scripture. I think you know that people have misapplied Scripture over the years to support their own sinful desires. After all, that is what you are accusing me of.
Finally, I've said before that it very well could be the law of the land. So what? Does that make it the right decision? I'm told that George Bush winning the election says nothing regarding the correctness of that decision. I think the same applies here. I'm pretty sure that all could be in agreement that a nation's laws are certainly not a statement of absolute truth.
BTW, for those throwing the hate word around, you realize that sets you up as the moral authority. Funny how that works.
Chip R
09-12-2005, 11:52 AM
The fact is - the "nuclear" family has proved to be a stable and beneficial influence on society despite the social problems created by divorce. And to sight heterosexual divorce rate as a jusitification for gay marriage is simply ridiculous IMO. It would seem to me that responsible people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, would attempt to look at this issue in light of what is best for those that will be entering this world in future years.
And if you believe that is true, then why wouldn't you want homosexuals to have that benefit as well? Because they can't reproduce? If that's the case you should only allow couples who can or want to have kids to marry. Some families choose not to have children. Does that make them any less of a family? Maybe they choose to adopt. What's more noble than that? If a "nuclear family" is stable and beneficial, then gay marriage should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Perhaps gay couples would be less likely to cheat on each other or break up because of that marriage bond. Isn't that a big argument against gay marriage? That homosexual relationships aren't as stable as heterosexual ones because of the likeliness to cheat and break up?
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 12:03 PM
Yes, there is a difference. A HUGE difference - between accidental and premeditation.
Not the question at all I was asking.
I know there is a difference between the two. What I am asking you is that if a fetus is actually a human being, and abortion is equal to murder, then accidentally killing a fetus must be equivalent to involuntary homicide, which carries a legal penalty as well.
Just want to make sure your morals are where your mouth is.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 12:08 PM
Not the question at all I was asking.
I know there is a difference between the two. What I am asking you is that if a fetus is actually a human being, and abortion is equal to murder, then accidentally killing a fetus must be equivalent to involuntary homicide, which carries a legal penalty as well.
Just want to make sure your morals are where your mouth is.
I must be missing something. I understand a legitimate accident to be just that, not involuntary homicide. If its legally an accident, then negligence wasn't shown, correct? Thus, no involuntary homicide?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htmI doubt if going up and down steps while pregnant would qualify.
Arguably is right, as is the tired old slavery argument. Could you point me to the passage of Scripture that commands multiple spouses? Involuntary servitude is also nowhere sanctioned by Scripture. I think you know that people have misapplied Scripture over the years to support their own sinful desires. After all, that is what you are accusing me of.
Finally, I've said before that it very well could be the law of the land. So what? Does that make it the right decision? I'm told that George Bush winning the election says nothing regarding the correctness of that decision. I think the same applies here. I'm pretty sure that all could be in agreement that a nation's laws are certainly not a statement of absolute truth.
BTW, for those throwing the hate word around, you realize that sets you up as the moral authority. Funny how that works.
Can you point me to the passage of Scripture that specifically has God telling you that homosexuality is wrong? Seems to me the scriptural argument against homosexuality is as weak and conjectural as the scriptural argument for slavery (no one takes a stand against it). Misapplication of scripture to support your sinful ideas indeed.
I agree that our nation's law aren't the final authority on absolute truth. They're designed to allow for the orderly flow of life, even for those woefully wrong-headed/hearted people such as yourself.
At the core of this, you're not fighting for your right to conduct your life as you see fit. You're already allowed to do that. No one's stopping you. Heck, no one's even trying to stop you. You're fighting to have your morality imposed on others. Were the situation reversed and someone was saying that evangelicals were devious people, poisoning the minds of children and undermining the very fabric and civility of our society therefore they should not be granted the same rights as privileges as the good people of America, I'd argue against that too. I might agree with the sentiment and I certainly see the Pandora's box associated with legitimizing the folks whose ultimate goal is to institute their cock-eyed rendition of biblical law, but I have faith that right prevails over wrong when exposed to the light.
That's why modernity has it over the Dark Ages in spades. Neo-medieval religious movements would insist otherwise, urging people to cloister their minds. Then again, they've got a lot to lose if the light gets too bright.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 12:52 PM
Can you point me to the passage of Scripture that specifically has God telling you that homosexuality is wrong? Seems to me the scriptural argument against homosexuality is as weak and conjectural as the scriptural argument for slavery (no one takes a stand against it). Misapplication of scripture to support your sinful ideas indeed.
I agree that our nation's law aren't the final authority on absolute truth. They're designed to allow for the orderly flow of life, even for those woefully wrong-headed/hearted people such as yourself.
At the core of this, you're not fighting for your right to conduct your life as you see fit. You're already allowed to do that. No one's stopping you. Heck, no one's even trying to stop you. You're fighting to have your morality imposed on others. Were the situation reversed and someone was saying that evangelicals were devious people, poisoning the minds of children and undermining the very fabric and civility of our society therefore they should not be granted the same rights as privileges as the good people of America, I'd argue against that too. I might agree with the sentiment and I certainly see the Pandora's box associated with legitimizing the folks whose ultimate goal is to institute their cock-eyed rendition of biblical law, but I have faith that right prevails over wrong when exposed to the light.
That's why modernity has it over the Dark Ages in spades. Neo-medieval religious movements would insist otherwise, urging people to cloister their minds. Then again, they've got a lot to lose if the light gets too bright.
Unequivocally, both testaments are painfully clear. This is one of the things that gets me. If you don't care what the Bible says about something, fine, I can live with that. I understand that some folks could care less what the Bible says. But at least be genuine in what is very clearly said by Scripture rather than trying to play "the Bible doesn't say" game.
Leviticus 18:22 KJV
(22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Romans 1:26-27 KJV
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
As for forcing morality, that runs both ways in this and any other debate, and it is hard for me to understand how you and others don't see that. I say its a behavior that should not included as a legal entity, you say it is. It is impossible to be amoral, as hard as one may try to convince themselves that they are. Your moral code does not have a problem with the expression of homosexuality and believes it should be given marital status if one desires. That is a moral statement, one which you are attempting to force on me. Your argument is circular and gets us nowhere.
TeamCasey
09-12-2005, 01:00 PM
But no one is forcing it on you.
If you think that a homosexual marraige is perverse and against your beliefs, then don't marry another man. It's perfectly within your rights to make that choice. No one is forcing that on you.
You are forcing your beliefs on others who may hold a "truth" that differs from yours.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 01:33 PM
But no one is forcing it on you.
If you think that a homosexual marraige is perverse and against your beliefs, then don't marry another man. It's perfectly within your rights to make that choice. No one is forcing that on you.
You are forcing your beliefs on others who may hold a "truth" that differs from yours.Sure it is. Since I believe it is wrong for any person to engage in homosexual behavior, much less give the behavior legal standing as marriage, then passing laws that says the opposite is forcing a moral principle on me. It is that way with any law.
You know, I am also a citizen of this country. I don't lose the right to voice my opinion about what is right and wrong simply because I hold a Biblical worldview. That seems to be missed in debates such as this.
TeamCasey
09-12-2005, 01:39 PM
You know, I am also a citizen of this country. I don't lose the right to voice my opinion about what is right and wrong simply because I hold a Biblical worldview. That seems to be missed in debates such as this.
But no one is telling you you'd have to run out and marry someone that you don't want to. Your rights aren't being infringed upon at all.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 01:43 PM
But no one is telling you you'd have to run out and marry someone that you don't want to. Your rights aren't being infringed upon at all.I see you totally missed the point of the statement that you didn't quote.
tr, yeah, the Mosaic Code is fun and all, but I'm guessing you aren't attending a a church where animal sacrifices are offered up to the Lord either. There's a reason why it's in Leviticus and not Exodus, because it's an ex-post facto tack on to the story. That's why it was so easy for Christianity to chuck most of Leviticus. It wasn't God, it was what one Israelite tribe ascribed to God.
The second passage isn't God either. It's St. Paul railing on as he tends to do. He went to Greece where homosexuality didn't impress him anymore than the creation of what we now call western civilization. He rails against that too in the preceeding lines. Of course the religion's not called Paulianity (though I'd argue that for a good-sized chunk of folks that's exactly what it is). The guy never met Christ, never even saw Christ speak. So I'm not sure where he counts as an absolute authority on the subject. Seems to me, unless you worship Paul he isn't an absolute authority. Oddly he's also replacing the Mosaic Code in Romans.
As for forcing morality, that runs both ways in this and any other debate, and it is hard for me to understand how you and others don't see that. I say its a behavior that should not included as a legal entity, you say it is.
There's a fairly thick line between forcing and not forcing. You see, I'm not forcing anyone to bring their personal practices into accord with my morality. I'm specifically foisting nothing on no one. If gay people want to get married, that's their business. You can't claim the same. You're attempting to regulate someone else's personal life.
Again, I don't care if you agree with my tolerant position of homosexuality. I don't agree with a whole laundry list of stuff you believe. Don't know where you get amoral from. I'm perfectly comfortable asserting my own moral authority and calling out your immorality. I just don't expect you to listen or adjust for the error of your ways.
But, wrong as you are, your morality isn't being forced on me just because we have laws that enable you to pursue your lifestyle choice. You can make all the (im)moral statements you want and it really doesn't affect me. The only way it could is if your morality suddenly curtailed my rights, turning me into a lesser citizen. That's not the case. You can make moral statements. I can make moral statements. Gay people can make moral statements. That society allows for it isn't forcing anything on anyone. I can disagree and go about my business
Sure it is. Since I believe it is wrong for any person to engage in homosexual behavior, much less give the behavior legal standing as marriage, then passing laws that says the opposite is forcing a moral principle on me. It is that way with any law.
You know, I am also a citizen of this country. I don't lose the right to voice my opinion about what is right and wrong simply because I hold a Biblical worldview. That seems to be missed in debates such as this.
That's just profoundly confused. Again, I think your brand of religion is a blight on society and that it's wrong for any person to engage in it. I mean, that is my opinion, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be too happy if I fought to make your ostracization part and parcel of the law. Yet I'm willing to give you equal legal standing, even allowing you to get married and to pass on your perverse beliefs to your children.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 02:16 PM
tr, yeah, the Mosaic Code is fun and all, but I'm guessing you aren't attending a a church where animal sacrifices are offered up to the Lord either. There's a reason why it's in Leviticus and not Exodus, because it's an ex-post facto tack on to the story. That's why it was so easy for Christianity to chuck most of Leviticus. It wasn't God, it was what one Israelite tribe ascribed to God.
The second passage isn't God either. It's St. Paul railing on as he tends to do. He went to Greece where homosexuality didn't impress him anymore than the creation of what we now call western civilization. He rails against that too in the preceeding lines. Of course the religion's not called Paulianity (though I'd argue that for a good-sized chunk of folks that's exactly what it is). The guy never met Christ, never even saw Christ speak. So I'm not sure where he counts as an absolute authority on the subject. Seems to me, unless you worship Paul he isn't an absolute authority. Oddly he's also replacing the Mosaic Code in Romans.
There's a fairly thick line between forcing and not forcing. You see, I'm not forcing anyone to bring their personal practices into accord with my morality. I'm specifically foisting nothing on no one. If gay people want to get married, that's their business. You can't claim the same. You're attempting to regulate someone else's personal life.
Again, I don't care if you agree with my tolerant position of homosexuality. I don't agree with a whole laundry list of stuff you believe. Don't know where you get amoral from. I'm perfectly comfortable asserting my own moral authority and calling out your immorality. I just don't expect you to listen or adjust for the error of your ways.
But, wrong as you are, your morality isn't being forced on me just because we have laws that enable you to pursue your lifestyle choice. You can make all the (im)moral statements you want and it really doesn't affect me. The only way it could is if your morality suddenly curtailed my rights, turning me into a lesser citizen. That's not the case. You can make moral statements. I can make moral statements. Gay people can make moral statements. That society allows for it isn't forcing anything on anyone. I can disagree and go about my business
I'm not going to further the Biblical discussion. Homosexuality (sin in the Bible) and outward expressions of worship are two very different categories. It just cannot go anywhere because your comments about Paul do not recognize the inspiration of Scripture. That is a circular argument that I'm not going to engage in further.
Laws regulate personal life all the time (do you really need a list?), and the aim is the same with this issue is the same as the others--for the benefit of the society subject to the laws as a whole. Your (and others, like TC) rugged individualism blinds you from the fact that not all laws directly affect all people, but that doesn't mean that laws should only be evaluated on "well, does it directly affect me or not?" A good citizen will look beyond his own life and those of his household and attempt to ask for laws that benefit society as a whole. To do that, any citizen will use his/her worldview to make a decision and take part in the democratic process. To disagree with a certain position on moral grounds does not then make that person hateful, it means they draw lines and want their government to love what they love and hate what they hate. This shrugging of the shoulders that says "bully for them, it doesn't affect me" makes you part of the problem rather than an enlightened individual who lets people do as they wish. If that were truly the case, you would be fighting for no laws to govern our society so everyone could truly do what it right in their own eyes.
TeamCasey
09-12-2005, 02:17 PM
I see you totally missed the point of the statement that you didn't quote.
No, I didn't. I just don't think a "moral principle is being forced on you".
If we carried you kicking and screaming up to an altar and told you you'd had to marry M2, then you'd have a point.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 02:25 PM
That's just profoundly confused. Again, I think your brand of religion is a blight on society and that it's wrong for any person to engage in it. I mean, that is my opinion, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be too happy if I fought to make your ostracization part and parcel of the law. Yet I'm willing to give you equal legal standing, even allowing you to get married and to pass on your perverse beliefs to your children.
Do share. Where am I confused? I think this neutrality of your position while I am "attempting to shove MY morality down others' throats" that you and TC are trying to establish is nonsense.
Lets try this. Is "if it does not affect you, then you should not care about a law" a moral statement or not?
BTW, M2, like WOY, I find your description of me as a hater because of my views quite laughable and highly hypocritical considering the comments you have made toward my views.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 03:00 PM
Paint my position as you will, but here is a piece that provides an excellent summary of how and why I approach such subjects.
http://www.modernreformation.org/jwm92legislate.htm
Legislating Morality
by John Warwick Montgomery
© 1992, Modern Reformation Magazine (Sept. / Oct. Issue, Vol. 1.4). All Rights Reserved.
© 2004 All Rights Reserved. For more information write to
Modern Reformation
1725 Bear Valley Pkwy
Escondido, CA 92027
click here for email
ISSN-1076-7169
In the earlier days of our nation's history, this dilemma, though always present in theory, was not especially troublesome in practice, since the vast majority of people--the "men on the street"--at least gave lip service to the biblical faith. But now religious and philosophical diversity has reached such a point in the United States that attempts to promote any particular religious position are sure to draw fire from adherents of other views. And the Supreme Court, in its school prayer decisions and other similar judgments, has made plain that it will not tolerate even indirect means of "establishing religion" in subversion of the First Amendment.
This is precisely the agonizing situation which encourages Professor Singer in his Theological Interpretation of American History to argue that in choosing democracy we departed from biblical faith and that the only genuinely scriptural form of government is theocracy! He at least recognizes a very real problem: in any democratic society, the number of non-Christians can conceivably come to exceed the number of Christians, thereby permitting the elimination of biblical standards and the inevitable collapse of that society. Even the constitutional exclusion of "certain unalienable rights" from democratic revision does not solve the problem, for--as in the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, where the court redefined "person" in nonbiblical terms so as to exclude the unborn child from constitutional protection of his right to life--a non-Christian Supreme Court can reinterpret the Constitution so as to alienate the very rights supposedly removed forever from alienation. The answer, however, is hardly a theocracy, for the problem of "watching the watchers" is just as real there, and the possibilities of hypocrisy are considerably greater. But how can we deal with the secularization process in our existing democratic society, where the climate of opinion becomes less distinctively less Christian as every day passes? I suggest three fundamental ground rules.
(1) It is no solution to institutionalize Christian values, even if our Constitution permitted it, which it does not. America cannot be considered a Christian land in the sense that a specific corpus of doctrine has been incorporated into its founding documents: these documents establish a concept of freedom and of inalienable rights which is thoroughly biblical, but they expressly disavow the establishment of religion. If, therefore, misguided rightist Christians try to argue that nonetheless the founding documents do make Christianity our national faith (on the basis of general references to the "Supreme Being" and eternal principles), they end up promoting, not historic, biblical Christianity at all, but what Robert Bellah calls "civil religion," a vague national cult virtually indistinguishable from Deism--and that does Christianity more harm than good, for it obscures the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Moreover, as such widely diverse writers as Cushing Strout, Martin Marty, and Justice William O. Douglas have observed, the establishment of Christianity in England and elsewhere has done Christianity irreparable harm, since people no longer come to regard Christianity as a matter of free decision but as a state obligation, and therefore turn from it.
In The Bible and the Schools, Douglas noted quite properly that "what the Roman Catholics, the Baptists, or the Presbyterians can command of the public treasury, or in other public support, so in time can the Moslems or the Mormons as they grow politically stronger." A few years ago I gave politically conservative Harold John Ockenga some worrisome moments when at his "historic Park Street Church" in Boston I declared, as a Christian Education Conference speaker, that I fully agreed that prayer in public schools should be banned. It is perfectly obvious that such prayers either open up the possibility of Mormon or Moslem prayers, or promote "non-sectarian" prayers which are just as bad, since they are not Trinitarian prayers in the Name of Jesus (Col. 3:17). If we want to integrate historic Christian worship with the educational task, the parochial school is the remedy. We cannot expect the state to do the church's business. Where it attempts to do so or is made to do so, the result is utter confusion of Law and Gospel and the mixing of the Two Kingdoms. In C.S. Lewis' terms, Aslan (the Christ-symbol) and Tash (the Antichrist) are syncretistically blended into the monster "Tashlan." Marty is correct that ours is no longer the "placed" Christianity of Constantine or of the medieval "Corpus Christianum"; we have both the agony and the privilege, like the early Christians, of functioning in a pluralistic society as "strangers and pilgrims on the earth," having "here no continuing city, but we seek one to come."
(2) It is no solution to legislate non-revelational mores in the name of revelation, or to legislate even genuinely scriptural moral teachings when they do not have direct and demonstrable social necessity. Christians have as much a right as non-Christians to speak out and to influence legislation in our democratic society. The question is: how far should we go in exercising this right? On the negative side, they do neither the society nor the Gospel any service when they endeavor to legislate their own temporal values (such as prohibition, local liquor options, specific Sunday closing laws, and the like) as if these derived from Scripture. The result can only be a loss of respect on the non-Christian's part for the Scripture if he becomes convinced that the non-revelational idea really does come from the Bible, or a loss of respect for professing Bible-believers if he discovers it doesn't. And if Christians employ their majority status to legislate genuine biblical teaching which, however, cannot be demonstrated to the non-Christian to have social necessity (such as anti-profanity ordinances), they will surely drive the unbeliever away from the Cross by giving him the impression that Christianity is a religion not of the Gospel but of tyrannical legalism in which Christians force their peculiar beliefs on others whenever the political opportunity arises. As I stress in my book, The Law above the Law, Christians often forget that there is a Last Judgement coming that will right the wrongs which human legislation is incapable of rectifying. We must not get the idea that every moral truth in Scripture is to be implemented on earth by human sanctions. Our task in a secular society is not to force the society, come what may, into a framework for God's Kingdom, but rather to bring it as close as we can to divine standards consistent with effective Gospel preachment to the unbeliever.
(3) We should actively strive to legislate all revelational standards whose societal importance can be demonstrated to our fellow citizens, and where we are unsuccessful in legislating them we should do all in our power to create a climate of opinion in which they will eventually become acceptable. In many instances not only are the ethical concerns of the day pronounced upon by Scripture, but the validity of the scriptural position on them is independently demonstrable to a non-Christian audience. Thus, for example, open housing and equal pay for equal work (Acts 17:26; Gal. 3:28), stringent narcotics laws and rigorous enforcement of them (I Cor. 6:19-20), anti-abortion laws (Ps. 51:5; Luke 1:15, 41, 44)--in all these instances a powerful case can be made on scientific, social, and ethical grounds meaningful to the non-Christian, apart from the biblical justification for these same values. Christians have a holy responsibility to serve as lights in the world in such instances, and where they succeed in bringing about an elevation of societal standards they can point the non-Christian to the revelational source of their beliefs, thereby creating a powerful impetus for the unbeliever to consider the claims of Christ. Seeing their light so shining, the non-Christian will be impressed by their good works and glorify their Father in heaven (Matt. 5:13-16).
Tension remains, however, and it cannot be overcome in a secular society; it is the price of living in a fallen world. On the one hand, we must not permit the non-Christian to conclude from our political or social actions that Christianity is a religion of legalistic compulsion. Thus, in matters such as divorce legislation, we may well conclude, as I have argued elsewhere, that a parallel no-fault divorce ought to be available to those who want it, since to compel non-Christians to divorce according to Christian standards when they have married according to pagan standards is to lay upon them a burden they may not be able to bear. "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Yet, on the other hand, short of creating a stumbling block to the non-Christian that would keep him from the Cross, we need to push pluralistic America toward biblical values until it says "uncle"--for only by the maintenance of God's standards can we counteract the "leveling" process which brings us to lowest-common-denominator secularity and jeopardizes our very survival as a free people.
We must not, for example, conclude that because Christianity cannot be preached in the public schools, we can do nothing to prevent the teaching of Deistic civil religion, evolutionary secularism, Transcendental Meditation, or the latest religio-cultic fad. The same Constitution that protects obnoxious Mrs. O'Hair from having Christianity rammed down the throats of her offspring protects the Christian school child from metaphysical poison. Christians should scream bloody murder at school board meetings where their constitutional rights are being trampled and should litigate the issues in the courts when they do not obtain satisfaction. Positively, Christian teachers in the public schools have every right, as well as a clear moral obligation, to introduce the facts of biblical history and the objective accomplishments of the Christian church into their instruction, and they should encourage open, free, and non-evangelistic discussion of religious issues (in which the merits of Christ's Way will readily surface!) as a necessary part of liberal education. After a careful discussion of the legal and constitutional issues involved, attorney Christopher Hall rightly argues:
The manner in which educators evade a discussion of values indicates that there is danger of overemphasizing discretion. Given the nation-wide misunderstanding of the nature and extent of the court rulings in this area, it is all too easy for the Christian teacher to utterly fail to share his or her faith because they "do not want to stir up trouble." Put in these words, no Christian anywhere would want to "stir up trouble." Had the early Church thought of it in that way, Peter would not have defied the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1-20 and 5:27-29) and Paul would not have offended the "devout and honorable women, and the chief men" of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:46-50).
Harold O. J. Brown does not exaggerate when he speaks of the "passivity of American Christians" and the gutless manner in which so many professing evangelicals abrogate their responsibilities to their society in the interest of "not offending."
If we have any reason for existence as a nation, it is surely our historic stand for freedom--freedom without which living becomes mere existence--that freedom which is a necessary condition for the meaningful proclamation of the eternal riches of Christ. In Lincoln's most famous evocation of freedom, he did not limit himself to his own country, but declared: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." And Julia Ward Howe, a year earlier, made the essential connection between God's redemptive work in Christ and the national purpose to which we are (or should be) committed: "As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." Christians must not be content with their own freedom; nor should they be even remotely perceived to be out to undermine the freedoms of their unbelieving neighbors, but must never be satisfied until their neighbors enjoy the same peace, safety, and freedom as they. When we, as freedom-loving people, no longer are willing to die for the freedom of others, we shall no longer merit freedom for ourselves.
Dr. John Warwick Montgomery holds eight earned degrees in philosophy, theology and law, and is the author of more than forty books, including History & Christianity, Faith Founded On Fact, Human Rights & Human Dignity, and The Shaping of America.
For Further Reading
For examples of such argumentation relative to the abortion issue--which Professor Witherspoon of the University of Texas School of Law rightly considers the gravest moral and constitutional issue of our day--see the Human Life Review, and my contributions to Birth Control and the Christian, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Jurist.
Laws regulate personal life all the time (do you really need a list?), and the aim is the same with this issue is the same as the others--for the benefit of the society subject to the laws as a whole. Your (and others, like TC) rugged individualism blinds you from the fact that not all laws directly affect all people, but that doesn't mean that laws should only be evaluated on "well, does it directly affect me or not?" A good citizen will look beyond his own life and those of his household and attempt to ask for laws that benefit society as a whole. To do that, any citizen will use his/her worldview to make a decision and take part in the democratic process. To disagree with a certain position on moral grounds does not then make that person hateful, it means they draw lines and want their government to love what they love and hate what they hate. This shrugging of the shoulders that says "bully for them, it doesn't affect me" makes you part of the problem rather than an enlightened individual who lets people do as they wish. If that were truly the case, you would be fighting for no laws to govern our society so everyone could truly do what it right in their own eyes.
Sure, laws regulate our personal lives, no one's claimed they don't. All that the law requires is that they be applied equally. In this case the law is not.
And, once again, your lifestyle can be viewed as detrimental to society as a whole. We might have a better society if we paternalistically abridged your right to free assembly and your access to the airwaves. I can think of specific benefits to it. Problem is that would be a totalitarian move with no respect for the fundamental principles that form the basis of our society. So even if I could do it, I wouldn't because then I really would be part of the problem. I'd be the gestapo.
Plus, you're not concerned about society, you're concerned with society being as much like you as possible. You're concerned with making your morality the controlling fiat of the land. I have no such aspirations. We're all informed by our morals, but you've made it clear ("To disagree with a certain position on moral grounds does not then make that person hateful, it means they draw lines and want their government to love what they love and hate what they hate.") that you think your morals get to run roughshod. That's not enlightened, it's medieval.
Lets try this. Is "if it does not affect you, then you should not care about a law" a moral statement or not?
Your personal moral opinion doesn't affect me or anyone else, at least those of us who know enough to ignore it. The laws that govern this nation do. We don't get to ignore those. You get to have the former as the byproduct of freedom. The latter governs the extent of our freedom.
No one's stopping you from having your horrid little opinion, they're just saying that you need to have some boundaries. The piece you provided made a similar point - "We must not get the idea that every moral truth in Scripture is to be implemented on earth by human sanctions."
Like Chip, I'd argue that we've made a mess of equating religious marriage and government-sanctioned household creation. From your end I'd think it would be clear that what the State of Ohio deems a marriage is a sorry doppelganger for marriage as described in the Bible. If you didn't have a marriage certificate, would you still be in a marriage? Legally no, spiritually yes. And there's your division right there. We're talking about a paperwork function here. It couldn't be less spiritual. That's something people bring to it from a decidedly non-secular mindset.
Like the argument Montgomery makes about prayer in school and state-sanctified religion, governmentally-blessed marriage (pardon the pun) homogenizes marriage itself, demoting it from sacrament to a notary procedure. Seems to me the more sensible position would be to follow Chip's advice and let the government process paperwork while religion tends to morality.
RollyInRaleigh
09-12-2005, 04:04 PM
I admire your stand, traderumor, and agree with everything that you have said.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 04:18 PM
Your personal moral opinion doesn't affect me or anyone else, at least those of us who know enough to ignore it. The laws that govern this nation do. We don't get to ignore those. You get to have the former as the byproduct of freedom. The latter governs the extent of our freedom.
No one's stopping you from having your horrid little opinion, they're just saying that you need to have some boundaries.I have no idea how that responds to my question.
Larkin Fan
09-12-2005, 04:20 PM
Why is it that even experts in the field of psychiatry have defined homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction/deviation and behavioral related? Are they wrong?
Well, GAC, I hate to bring facts into your rant, but psychiatry and psychology DO NOT define homosexuality as a "sexual dysfuntion/deviation and behavorial related." The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders removed it from their listings years ago based on new evidence that proved quite the contrary. This is the book that all mental health training and protocol is based off of and is the definitive guide for the discipline. I've told you this before.
westofyou
09-12-2005, 04:22 PM
He at least recognizes a very real problem: in any democratic society, the number of non-Christians can conceivably come to exceed the number of Christians, thereby permitting the elimination of biblical standards and the inevitable collapse of that society.
To quote Jeff Tweedy:
Theologians don't know nothing about my soul.
Or as he had said prior.... Your heaven sounds just like my hell.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 04:31 PM
Sure, laws regulate our personal lives, no one's claimed they don't. All that the law requires is that they be applied equally. In this case the law is not.
And, once again, your lifestyle can be viewed as detrimental to society as a whole. We might have a better society if we paternalistically abridged your right to free assembly and your access to the airwaves. I can think of specific benefits to it. Problem is that would be a totalitarian move with no respect for the fundamental principles that form the basis of our society. So even if I could do it, I wouldn't because then I really would be part of the problem. I'd be the gestapo.
Plus, you're not concerned about society, you're concerned with society being as much like you as possible. You're concerned with making your morality the controlling fiat of the land. I have no such aspirations. We're all informed by our morals, but you've made it clear ("To disagree with a certain position on moral grounds does not then make that person hateful, it means they draw lines and want their government to love what they love and hate what they hate.") that you think your morals get to run roughshod. That's not enlightened, it's medieval.Try as you might to sit me in the corner with the "religious fundamentalist" duncecap on, but I am saying nothing more in my position than you are in yours. You want your government to love what you love, which seems to be freedom for individuals to do as they wish as long as it doesn't directly affect you as far as you can tell, and hate what you hate, and that is pressure from moralists to create a de facto theocracy. That is a moral position by any application of the concept. We have different morals, that is certain, and I find yours just as repugnant as you find mine, but we both have morals. You are also attempting to advance your morality and desire that your government do the same. All I am attempting to do is show your attempt to appear amoral, or perhaps neutral, is a facade.
I have no idea how that responds to my question.
My apologies. I misread the question. BTW I added more to that post concerning the piece from Montgomery, which I thought was a helpful addition to the debate).
To answer your question about whether that's a moral statement, like all things it depends on the context. If I were to say that a law doesn't affect me therefore I don't care whether anyone else gets access to the same rights and privileges I enjoy, that would be immoral. If I were to say a law doesn't affect me and does no perceptual harm to anyone, that's not a moral statement. It's just a statement. If I were to say a law doesn't affect me, but it will prove a beneficial remedy to others, that would be a moral statement.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 04:58 PM
Your personal moral opinion doesn't affect me or anyone else, at least those of us who know enough to ignore it. The laws that govern this nation do. We don't get to ignore those. You get to have the former as the byproduct of freedom. The latter governs the extent of our freedom.
No one's stopping you from having your horrid little opinion, they're just saying that you need to have some boundaries. The piece you provided made a similar point - "We must not get the idea that every moral truth in Scripture is to be implemented on earth by human sanctions."
Like Chip, I'd argue that we've made a mess of equating religious marriage and government-sanctioned household creation. From your end I'd think it would be clear that what the State of Ohio deems a marriage is a sorry doppelganger for marriage as described in the Bible. If you didn't have a marriage certificate, would you still be in a marriage? Legally no, spiritually yes. And there's your division right there. We're talking about a paperwork function here. It couldn't be less spiritual. That's something people bring to it from a decidedly non-secular mindset.
Like the argument Montgomery makes about prayer in school and state-sanctified religion, governmentally-blessed marriage (pardon the pun) homogenizes marriage itself, demoting it from sacrament to a notary procedure. Seems to me the more sensible position would be to follow Chip's advice and let the government process paperwork while religion tends to morality.
Where this issue fits into my "taking a stand" model is that strong families make strong nations. I see the definition of the family as a universal moral principal that is clearly stated in Scripture and can only be one man, one woman. A lifestyle clearly described as an abomination cannot be the basis for a healthy family structure in a nation, in the long run. It is a foundational issue in a society, not like smoking, drinking, or not doing stuff on Sunday's that the Revivalists brought to our fine country's history, which forever damaged the credibility of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas in this nation.
Chip R
09-12-2005, 05:00 PM
Where this issue fits into my "taking a stand" model is that strong families make strong nations. I see the definition of the family as a universal moral principal that is clearly stated in Scripture and can only be one man, one woman. A lifestyle clearly described as an abomination cannot be the basis for a healthy family structure in a nation, in the long run. It is a foundational issue in a society, not like smoking, drinking, or not doing stuff on Sunday's that the Revivalists brought to our fine country's history, which forever damaged the credibility of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas in this nation.So one parent households don't fit this description?
Try as you might to sit me in the corner with the "religious fundamentalist" duncecap on, but I am saying nothing more in my position than you are in yours. You want your government to love what you love, which seems to be freedom for individuals to do as they wish as long as it doesn't directly affect you as far as you can tell, and hate what you hate, and that is pressure from moralists to create a de facto theocracy. That is a moral position by any application of the concept. We have different morals, that is certain, and I find yours just as repugnant as you find mine, but we both have morals. You are also attempting to advance your morality and desire that your government do the same. All I am attempting to do is show your attempt to appear amoral, or perhaps neutral, is a facade.
We aren't a theocracy. Got a big, impressive document called the Constitution that lays that out in no uncertain terms. I do admit to loving that, but that call got made 175 years before I appeared on the scene. Really all I'm asking is the government apply its own laws fairly and consistently.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" also happens to be built into those laws. Again, that's not in there in reaction to me or my personal morality. It's just in there. It's one of the cornerstones in the foundation of our government. We live in a country that allows broad personal freedoms. It allows plenty of personal freedoms that I don't think help it out in the long run, but there they are. We've got a framework here. Within the confines of that framework, gay marriage is an inevitable consequence.
That's not an advancement of my morality nor is it condoning my morality. It's just settling the question of what is legally fair.
You won't like it, but that's not really the way we should be deciding things. Welcome to America.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 05:09 PM
So one parent households don't fit this description?
No, and I was one of those once. But, rather than taking that as a slam against one parent households, ask one parent households if they have unimaginable struggles because of it, and they will tell you they wish it wasn't the way it was. I'm not saying that they cannot do a great job raising their kids, but it is a very, very hard road to hoe, and it usually takes exceptional kids and an exceptional one parent to excel in such an environment. One parent households are typically that way of necessity, not of choice. And I know that there are exceptions, but the rule is going to be that a mom and a dad in a committed, loving relationship creates the best environment for the family. Doesn't guarantee success, but will greatly increase the chances, of course, generally speaking.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 05:12 PM
Really all I'm asking is the government apply its own laws fairly and consistently.Which on this issue, they are. Men and women of age are free to marry.
Where this issue fits into my "taking a stand" model is that strong families make strong nations. I see the definition of the family as a universal moral principal that is clearly stated in Scripture and can only be one man, one woman. A lifestyle clearly described as an abomination cannot be the basis for a healthy family structure in a nation, in the long run. It is a foundational issue in a society, not like smoking, drinking, or not doing stuff on Sunday's that the Revivalists brought to our fine country's history, which forever damaged the credibility of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas in this nation.
Yet the government has instituted a form of marriage with almost zero adherence to your religious version of it and still we thrive.
Back to Montgomery, the government defines a household. Individuals define a family. Some are worthwhile. Some are garbage. What you're talking about is "tyrannical legalism in which Christians force their peculiar beliefs on others whenever the political opportunity arises." Following his argument, if you want to integrate historical Christian worship with marriage then stop looking to implement the solution through the government. "We cannot expect the state to do the church's business."
Let the clerics handle the religious stuff. Let the clerks handle the procedural stuff. Montgomery makes an excellent point that all the blending of the two achieves is a diminution of virtue.
The arguments and accusations you throw at Paul, and the others, were thrown at Paul by his enemies/detractors back in the 1st Century, who also questioned his authority and calling. It's nothing new; but retread. And Paul adressed everyone of them thoroughly. The problem is - you aren't gonna accept it, regardless if one shows you the scriptures. It's the same old argument - to destroy and hurt the credibility of the message - go after, and attempt to discredit the messenger.
But you did ask - so here goes.
tr, yeah, the Mosaic Code is fun and all, but I'm guessing you aren't attending a a church where animal sacrifices are offered up to the Lord either. There's a reason why it's in Leviticus and not Exodus, because it's an ex-post facto tack on to the story. That's why it was so easy for Christianity to chuck most of Leviticus.
Christianity didn't "chuck" Leviticus, or for that matter, any of the Old Testament. And you are confusing the outward, ceremonial aspects of the Jewish Mosaic Law (which were voided), with the it's moral and spiritual implications (which were never voided). If interested, read Hebrews for a full explanation. Many of the ceremonies and outward rituals (as ridiculous as some appear to many today), were implemented by God, not as a means of salavation; but as teaching/educational tools to teach the Israelites about righteousness and holiness - and were also "types" of Christ (symbolic in nature concerning the coming Messiah). Animal sacrifices, for instance, was symbolic, and a "type" of Christ - the "true" lamb of God. Christ's fulfillment of the Mosaic Law by his death and resurrection had freed Christian believers from the need to obey Mosaic Law (Gal 2:2). Even Christ said that he came to fulfill the Law.
The intent of the Mosaic Law was also to educate and lead those to a knowledge of their sin, and to Christ....
"through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20)
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 3:19-25)
It wasn't God, it was what one Israelite tribe ascribed to God.
So the 10 Commandments, which is found in the Law, is irrelevant to you.
Who says it wasn't God? You? The entire Mosaic Law was given, handed down to Moses by God, and for a distinct purpose and reasoning that should not be confused with the New Covenant.
The second passage isn't God either. It's St. Paul railing on as he tends to do. He went to Greece where homosexuality didn't impress him anymore than the creation of what we now call western civilization. He rails against that too in the preceeding lines. Of course the religion's not called Paulianity (though I'd argue that for a good-sized chunk of folks that's exactly what it is).
Yep. Also have heard that Paul, along with Jesus and the apostles, were all "closet" homosexuals. ;)
Again, the same reasoning - it ain't God, but Paul speaking. So why ask for scripture when you already have formed an opinon, reject that it came from God, and is nothing more then someone's rantings (as in Paul)?
"All Scripture is God inspired" (2 Timothy 3:16)
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Paul, and the other apostles, did not preach according to his own gospel. And they stated thus numerous times. Paul taught in complete harmony with Jesus....
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11,12)
The guy never met Christ, never even saw Christ speak. So I'm not sure where he counts as an absolute authority on the subject. Seems to me, unless you worship Paul he isn't an absolute authority.
Sorry, but he did. But I've heard these arguments along this line before - and it's simply borne from the fact that those that advocate it simply reject the bodily resurrection of Christ, and Christianity as a whole, and that therefore, Paul and Jesus could not have ever met. Some of these very same "scholars" also say that Jesus Christ never existed, and was a mythical figure made up by these delusional "followers" to promulgate their religion.
You do realize that Paul was a Pharisee who came to study in Jerusalem under Gamaliel? And the chances he may have heard and seen Jesus speak are very possible over those 3+ years. Not a certainty, but possible.
But scripture also states that the Risen Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).
Passages from Galatians...
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" (Galatians 1:1)
"I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ[/b]." (Galatians 1:12)
From 1st Corinthians...
" have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (9:1)
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (15:3-8)
There are other passages where Paul testifies of his seeing/meeting with the risen Jesus.
And it's obvious you are not familiar at all with the Epistles, because not only Paul, but al the writers, lived by this creed.... "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake." (2 Corinthians 4:5)
I'd take up most of Redszone's bandwidth posting more of the same; but Paul lived by the creed - "For me to live is Christ" (Philippians 1:19; Galatians 2:20).
Which on this issue, they are. Men and women of age are free to marry.
Not to whom they choose in many cases. The anti-miscegenation folks argued that white people are free to marry white people and black people are free to marry black people. That failed the legal test. What makes this legally different?
We both know the answer is there is no legal difference and that's why gay marriage is going to be as legal as interracial marriage at some point.
pedro
09-12-2005, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by traderumor
The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals should be a sanctioned legal entity with all the rights and priveleges of a heterosexual couple, if they go the "legal ethics" route, is to determine that there is no harm, no foul in homosexuality in the first place. That is untrue, and I've presented my arguments several times as to why that is, and they are a little more than "the Bible tells me so." Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever. Well, except, don't kill, well no that's not even totally off-limits.
Hey, only four more days, might as well go out with a bang.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are either a bigotted narrow minded human afraid of people who aren't like you or you're gay yourself and your entire existence is a twisted purgatory of self loathing.
Either way, it isn't pretty.
Chip R
09-12-2005, 06:14 PM
No, and I was one of those once. But, rather than taking that as a slam against one parent households, ask one parent households if they have unimaginable struggles because of it, and they will tell you they wish it wasn't the way it was. I'm not saying that they cannot do a great job raising their kids, but it is a very, very hard road to hoe, and it usually takes exceptional kids and an exceptional one parent to excel in such an environment. One parent households are typically that way of necessity, not of choice. And I know that there are exceptions, but the rule is going to be that a mom and a dad in a committed, loving relationship creates the best environment for the family. Doesn't guarantee success, but will greatly increase the chances, of course, generally speaking.But you said "I see the definition of the family as a universal moral principal that is clearly stated in Scripture and can only be one man, one woman." Which is it? According to your revised definition, a single homosexual man or woman could adopt a child and still be considered a family.
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 06:43 PM
Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well.
Here it is folks, the last word on whether or not your love is valid or invalid. Send all questions to Traderumor@Redszone.com to make sure you are not in a relationship that is invalid. I'll be PMing you, TR, here in the future with all the details of my relationship so you can let me know if it is what god intended.
Fortunately for us, TR, our founding fathers created a country where the Bible is not law, and where freedom of the mind was to run free.
If you want to argue that- bring it on, friend. I assure you I am well equipped to handle whatever argument you make, so don't hold back. Please- tell us why the founding foathers make no mention of your beloved god in our Constitution. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Tell us, TR. Tell us how they overlooked that. Would love to hear your knowledge on Constitutional law.
Trust me, the Catholic priests, the divorce rate, the cheating heterosexuals, the liars who are heterosexual, the drunks who are straight, the gamblers who are hetero, the heterosexual serial killers and all the other sinning and hypocritical straight people have done more harm to this world than all the gay people wanting to get married.
You are engaged in a game of gotcha- you have it written in a book and you have found people who are guilty of something so you are just going to line up with the Fred Phelps' of the world and sing it from the trees.
And yet all of your ranting and raving hasn't stopped people from being gay. The only thing I can see that your preaching and little rule book has done has caused gay teenagers to kill themselves at a higher rate than any other group in that age range.
Pretty Christian, huh? Shame people into making themselves feel like they are bad and evil, so they kill themselves.
We heterosexuals have such a high regard for love and family that adulterers and cheaters can legally marry over and over again, wrecking lives and families as we go, but look out for those homosexuals.
You know what the Bible says about divorcing and remarrying, TR? It says it is a sin. So why should the law let heterosexuals remarry?
Why is it okay for the sinning divorcees to remarry and not homosexuals to give it a go?
Or better yet, please tell us why- if family and marriage are so important- that we even let people divorce? Jesus said that by divorcing and marrying again one has commited adultery, so why would the law allow someone to commit a sin?
How you are allowed to sin and the homosexuals aren't?
traderumor
09-12-2005, 07:33 PM
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are either a bigotted narrow minded human afraid of people who aren't like you or you're gay yourself and your entire existence is a twisted purgatory of self loathing.
Either way, it isn't pretty.Man, Pedro, you've outted me. You have it figured out. How did you know? I'll be back with a more lengthy response once I get back from my therapist who is helping me deal with all this.
And I'm the hater in this discussion. Gotcha.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 07:35 PM
Here it is folks, the last word on whether or not your love is valid or invalid. Send all questions to Traderumor@Redszone.com to make sure you are not in a relationship that is invalid. I'll be PMing you, TR, here in the future with all the details of my relationship so you can let me know if it is what god intended.
Fortunately for us, TR, our founding fathers created a country where the Bible is not law, and where freedom of the mind was to run free.
If you want to argue that- bring it on, friend. I assure you I am well equipped to handle whatever argument you make, so don't hold back. Please- tell us why the founding foathers make no mention of your beloved god in our Constitution. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Tell us, TR. Tell us how they overlooked that. Would love to hear your knowledge on Constitutional law.
Trust me, the Catholic priests, the divorce rate, the cheating heterosexuals, the liars who are heterosexual, the drunks who are straight, the gamblers who are hetero, the heterosexual serial killers and all the other sinning and hypocritical straight people have done more harm to this world than all the gay people wanting to get married.
You are engaged in a game of gotcha- you have it written in a book and you have found people who are guilty of something so you are just going to line up with the Fred Phelps' of the world and sing it from the trees.
And yet all of your ranting and raving hasn't stopped people from being gay. The only thing I can see that your preaching and little rule book has done has caused gay teenagers to kill themselves at a higher rate than any other group in that age range.
Pretty Christian, huh? Shame people into making themselves feel like they are bad and evil, so they kill themselves.
We heterosexuals have such a high regard for love and family that adulterers and cheaters can legally marry over and over again, wrecking lives and families as we go, but look out for those homosexuals.
You know what the Bible says about divorcing and remarrying, TR? It says it is a sin. So why should the law let heterosexuals remarry?
Why is it okay for the sinning divorcees to remarry and not homosexuals to give it a go?
Or better yet, please tell us why- if family and marriage are so important- that we even let people divorce? Jesus said that by divorcing and marrying again one has commited adultery, so why would the law allow someone to commit a sin?
How you are allowed to sin and the homosexuals aren't?
Won't dignify with a response.
Puffy
09-12-2005, 07:36 PM
Or better yet, please tell us why- if family and marriage are so important- that we even let people divorce? Jesus said that by divorcing and marrying again one has commited adultery, so why would the law allow someone to commit a sin?
No, Dom - conveniently the Bible has allowed two instances for men to divorce with impunity. A non-believer can decide out of a marriage with a believer and an adulter can divorce the adulteree.
Pretty convenient eh?
traderumor
09-12-2005, 07:38 PM
(3) We should actively strive to legislate all revelational standards whose societal importance can be demonstrated to our fellow citizens, and where we are unsuccessful in legislating them we should do all in our power to create a climate of opinion in which they will eventually become acceptable. In many instances not only are the ethical concerns of the day pronounced upon by Scripture, but the validity of the scriptural position on them is independently demonstrable to a non-Christian audience.M2, with respect to this issue, this is what I see to be his opinion on this topic, even though he does not specifically mention it.
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 07:39 PM
Won't dignify with a response.
I can't think of a better way to dignify your beliefs than to respond.
Just answer this: Why are you okay with people legally getting remarried when the Bible says it is a sin?
Luke 16:18: Divorce OK, but remarriage involves adultery: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:10–12)
Matthew 5:31-32: Divorce allowed, but remarriage often involves adultery: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
pedro
09-12-2005, 07:44 PM
Man, Pedro, you've outted me. You have it figured out. How did you know? I'll be back with a more lengthy response once I get back from my therapist who is helping me deal with all this.
And I'm the hater in this discussion. Gotcha.
I think it's funny that you assume that the comment that you might be gay is derogatory (well not really). Anyway, glad you're in therapy to work things out. Don't worry, when you finally announce to the world we won't hate you for it. There's room for all types at our table.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 07:45 PM
No, Dom - conveniently the Bible has allowed two instances for men to divorce with impunity. A non-believer can decide out of a marriage with a believer and an adulter can divorce the adulteree.
Pretty convenient eh?
(Matthew 5:32 KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
(Matthew 19:3 KJV) The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(Matthew 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Matthew 19:5 KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(Matthew 19:6 KJV) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Matthew 19:7 KJV) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
(Matthew 19:8 KJV) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(Matthew 19:9 KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
(1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV) But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
(1 Corinthians 7:13 KJV) And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
(1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
(1 Corinthians 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
(1 Corinthians 7:16 KJV) For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?Not exactly.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 07:49 PM
I can't think of a better way to dignify your beliefs than to respond.
Just answer this: Why are you okay with people legally getting remarried when the Bible says it is a sin?
Simple question, really. I'm sure you've thought this through, being a Biblical and legal scholar and all. :)While a tempting invitation, I'm gonna have to decline. The point I wanted to make has been addressed and your inquiry comes with forked tongue. No thanks.
missionhockey21
09-12-2005, 07:50 PM
Trust me, the Catholic priests, the divorce rate, the cheating heterosexuals, the liars who are heterosexual, the drunks who are straight, the gamblers who are hetero, the heterosexual serial killers and all the other sinning and hypocritical straight people have done more harm to this world than all the gay people wanting to get married.
Can you please not include all Catholic priests with the small minority of peverse, disturbed indiviuduals who had no right to call themselves men of God? I am not trying to start an argument or a debate, so please don't view that as my intentions... but growing up without my father around much due to my parents divorce and his business travel, I had more than one priest who I looked up to as men who I could hopefully model myself after. Honest, compassionate, and understanding men who I hope helped to make me the man I am today. Men who have done great things. I know you did not mean to include those types (or at least I wouldn't imagine so) but so many speak in general terms about "Catholic Priests" a lot of other people just assume the whole bunch is like that overall and that's something I would like to see stop.
About three years ago I spoke to a younger priest who was from India. And he was telling me about how he had to travel just a few months after the attacks in September 2001. With many people jumping to conclusions for anyone who "fitted the profile," he considered that he should wear his collar to show that he was a man of God and not someone looking to do harm. And then he realized that those same people could assume that he was a pedophile. Or even both. This was truly a dynamic priest who wanted to make mass enjoyable for teenagers and had nothing but good intentions but yet he has to suffer that kind of persecution.
I apologize for getting off-track and like I mentioned, I really have no intention of bringing this to any debate. Nor was it directed at you Dom; I just hope maybe by bringing this to the attention of so many here at RZ that it will save some from making hasty generalizations.
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 07:51 PM
TR, just let us know why you get to legally sin at the expense of marriage and family and gay people can't.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 07:57 PM
I think it's funny that you assume that the comment that you might be gay is derogatory (well not really). Anyway, glad you're in therapy to work things out. Don't worry, when you finally announce to the world we won't hate you for it. There's room for all types at our table.I sit at your table now. I'm the little brother that everyone thinks they're smarter than and that gets used as a punching bag. You're not the first or last person to make fun. Insulting says more about the insulter than it does the one receiving the insult.
Puffy
09-12-2005, 08:02 PM
Not exactly.
A non-believer can opt out of a marriage. A believer must stay if the non-believer is willing. Correct?
A person whose spouse commits adultry can leave a marriage.
Are those two correct statements? And aren't they the only reasons? And if so, why the not exactly?
Redsfaithful
09-12-2005, 08:06 PM
BTW, M2, like WOY, I find your description of me as a hater because of my views quite laughable and highly hypocritical considering the comments you have made toward my views.
I hate racists. I hate misogynists. I hate homophobes. My hatred of those people doesn't mean my criticism of their errant beliefs is misguided. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
And tr, I could be mistaken here, but haven't you been divorced? I seem to remember you admitting to that at some point. Could that be why you won't respond to Dom?
And if you have been divorced, then, in your worldview, haven't you done grave harm yourself to the institution of marriage? How do you live with yourself?
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 08:07 PM
Insulting says more about the insulter than it does the one receiving the insult.
And avoiding the question says more about your argument than anything else.
You were making this eloquent argument about God, Jesus, love and family, and I was getting all into it, believing you, and then I brought up that straight people get to legally disobey the words of Jesus, and now the cat has your tongue.
GAC?
Anyone care to tackle this one?
Why do straight religious people get to legally sin and homosexuals can't?
Help a heathen, c'mon. :)
traderumor
09-12-2005, 08:16 PM
A non-believer can opt out of a marriage. A believer must stay if the non-believer is willing. Correct?
A person whose spouse commits adultry can leave a marriage.
Are those two correct statements? And aren't they the only reasons? And if so, why the not exactly?You specified men in your original post. Either by oversight or intentionally, you reduced that to non-believer here and left out the "men" condition.
And, go read again, Christ is referring to Moses allowing for divorce due to the hardness of hearts, and the Pharisees had adopted the rabbinical false teaching that it could be for any reason. Moses certificate allowed for an adultery clause, Jesus said that was not the original intent. Furthermore, the Scripture has no effect on a non-believer, so it would be ludicrous to suggest in the Scriptures that the believing spouse could hold the non-believing spouse to a standard they did not accept in the first place.
Regardless, the failure of men and women (the Bible is replete with examples where the masculine pronoun is neuter), for the hardness of their hearts, to divorce for any reason, as is the case today, both in the church and outside the church, does nothing to build a case for homosexuals marrying from a Biblical perspective. From a legal perspective, which despite M2's repeated reminders I fully understand that we do not live under a theocracy, nor do I desire one, that one is still debatable.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 08:19 PM
I hate racists. I hate misogynists. I hate homophobes. My hatred of those people doesn't mean my criticism of their errant beliefs is misguided. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
And tr, I could be mistaken here, but haven't you been divorced? I seem to remember you admitting to that at some point. Could that be why you won't respond to Dom?
And if you have been divorced, then, in your worldview, haven't you done grave harm yourself to the institution of marriage? How do you live with yourself?It has nothing to do with why I won't respond to Dom. Right now, I'm about ready to quit responding to anyone because some folks are getting pretty far out there, and I imagine some think I deserve it. But I have not made any personal attack toward an individual in this discussion, but I cannot say the same courtesy is being afforded me. So, I have limits, and pretty much reached it, esp. with you and Dom.
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 08:21 PM
does nothing to build a case for homosexuals marrying from a Biblical perspective.
All us heathens out here are just wondering why the number one priority you have in saving the family is directed at someone who can't even have children.
Wouldn't a Constitutional Amendment banning remarriages make more sense? Or even divorces? How about a Constitutional Amendment that would ban all sinning?
That would stop it for sure. :)
Falls City Beer
09-12-2005, 08:22 PM
I'm going to have break this up if y'all don't simmer down.
http://home.att.net/~stellae-ex-filia/cbbreakup.gif
traderumor
09-12-2005, 08:23 PM
And avoiding the question says more about your argument than anything else.
You were making this eloquent argument about God, Jesus, love and family, and I was getting all into it, believing you, and then I brought up that straight people get to legally disobey the words of Jesus, and now the cat has your tongue.
GAC?
Anyone care to tackle this one?
Why do straight religious people get to legally sin and homosexuals can't?
Help a heathen, c'mon. :)No, avoiding the question means I don't want to discuss anything with you, really.
M2, with respect to this issue, this is what I see to be his opinion on this topic, even though he does not specifically mention it.
Yet you haven't really produced any non-scriptural validation. It would seem to me that if this is an entirely religious matter for you then Montgomery's urging would be to keep it within the scope of religion.
I had asked earlier whether you'd still consider yourself married if you didn't have a marriage license. It was in the middle of a lot of other stuff, but let me wrap this back to Montgomery.
Of course you'd consider yourself in a valid and legitimate marriage. In fact I daresay that one view we share (having both missed and then hit on the marriage front) is that a marriage certificate has little to nothing to do with the deeper bonds that make a rock-solid marriage. In fact, I'm guessing that we both agree far too many heterosexual marriages come as the result of what prove to be temporary lovey-dovey infatuations where neither party has considered the ramifications of what it means to be truly committed to one another.
So what is the purpose of civil marriage if that's the case? If marriage as practiced at the secular level is so often an ephemeral misplacement of well-intended, but ill-considered sentiment, then why is the government in the "marriage" business? It would seem to have created a system that undercuts the formation of lifelong attachments. Well, the reason is because as a United States citizens you get a laundry list of benefits, rights and privileges when you're married. IIRC, it's over 1,000 various benefits here in Massachusetts. It encompasses every law centered around your household. That's why I said the government forms households, not families. It has a household classification which includes that entire catalog of privileges.
Now you'd have family even if you weren't legally married. Everything that makes your family a family came by way of something other than the sanction of the State of Ohio. Likewise, gay people can lead happy, committed lives together if they so choose without ever getting a piece of paper from the state. What they can't do is attain the same monster list of privileges you and I enjoy thanks to that little sheet of paper that reads "Marriage License."
That's what this is all about. They want what you and I can take for granted. Legally I see no reason why they shouldn't have it. At the end of the day I doubt you'd mind that they might get the same health care, financial and property rights that we do. Your bone of contention seems to be that you don't feel a gay couple can enter into a legimate marriage (marriage per your definition). Of course, even if gay couples marry in a civil ceremony, you still won't consider it a legitimate marriage. That's fine. You can have that opinion. That should be your prerogative.
That's why I think Chip has hit upon the most sensible solution here. Stop using the term marriage for civil purposes. Call it household formation or something. Just walk into a town clerk's office, read and sign a pamphlet on the rights and responsibilities that come with forming a household, sign an official document to form the household and leave the ceremony out of it. If people want a ceremony, let them go elsewhere to get it. So here's the $64,000 question, if that's how it worked (all paperwork, no ceremony, no government designation fo marriage) would you still have any problem with gay couples being able to register the same way straight couples do?
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 08:28 PM
some folks are getting pretty far out there,
Ever read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah? Now that is out there. Two daughters seduce their own father and get impregnated by him. And these are the heroes of the story. Now that is what I call out there. I wouldn't let my children read that, would you?
I don't believe I have attacked you personally, TR. If I did, then I apologize. Honestly. I am merely wanting you to answer a simple question. I'll let it rest out of respect, but but I really would like to have an answer here.
It's just hard for us non-believers to stand idly by while you proclaim to have the truth and wield it at a minority group of God's creations and then when we question you on an inconsistency you don't provide an answer.
RFS62
09-12-2005, 08:32 PM
Well, I just can't imagine why the mods wouldn't want to have to read all this stuff. What's wrong with them?
Falls City Beer
09-12-2005, 08:34 PM
That's why I think Chip has hit upon the most sensible solution here. Stop using the term marriage for civil purposes. Call it household formation or something. Just walk into a town clerk's office, read and sign a pamphlet on the rights and responsibilities that come with forming a household, sign an official document to form the household and leave the ceremony out of it. If people want a ceremony, let them go elsewhere to get it. So here's the $64,000 question, if that's how it worked (all paperwork, no ceremony, no government designation fo marriage) would you still have any problem with gay couples being able to register the same way straight couples do?
Sensible, schmensible. If gay people want the form as well as the benefits of marriage, even in only the civil/justice of the peace fashion, they should fight every single day to get it done. Changing the name to "civil union" is stupid capitulation to a stupid argument from tradition.
The state should stay in the marriage business, if that's what its citizens want. The bigots can go stuff it and deal with the fact that gays get the same ole ceremony as they get.
Well, I just can't imagine why the mods wouldn't want to have to read all this stuff. What's wrong with them?
I'm viewing this as the official going away party for political and religious threads.
Sensible, schmensible. If gay people want the form as well as the benefits of marriage, even in only the civil/justice of the peace fashion, they should fight every single day to get it done. Changing the name to "civil union" is stupid capitulation to a stupid argument from tradition.
The state should stay in the marriage business, if that's what its citizens want. The bigots can go stuff it and deal with the fact that gays get the same ole ceremony as they get.
Actually, I'd like the state out of the biz myself. A healthy line between church state appeals to me more and more all the time. Seems to me that just that simple act alone would help sort out that which out to be secular and that which should stay in the realm of religion.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 08:41 PM
Yet you haven't really produced any non-scriptural validation. It would seem to me that if this is an entirely religious matter for you then Montgomery's urging would be to keep it within the scope of religion.
Nor do I need to based on the principal I highlighted from the piece. The goal, as he said, is for the non-believer to see the value of the principal taught by Scripture.
paintmered
09-12-2005, 08:41 PM
I'm viewing this as the official going away party for political and religious threads.
Yeah, you are all going out with a bang.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 08:44 PM
Ever read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah? Now that is out there. Two daughters seduce their own father and get impregnated by him. And these are the heroes of the story. Now that is what I call out there. I wouldn't let my children read that, would you?
I don't believe I have attacked you personally, TR. If I did, then I apologize. Honestly. I am merely wanting you to answer a simple question. I'll let it rest out of respect, but but I really would like to have an answer here.
It's just hard for us non-believers to stand idly by while you proclaim to have the truth and wield it at a minority group of God's creations and then when we question you on an inconsistency you don't provide an answer.The non-response has nothing to do with the lack of an argument. It has to do with simple respect for the other person, if not their views, at least so far everyone's shown respect to each other. That was missing from your verbal finger pokes in my chest.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 08:47 PM
Yeah, you are all going out with a bang. :explode:
I say we all go get a beer :beerme:
pedro
09-12-2005, 08:48 PM
I sit at your table now. I'm the little brother that everyone thinks they're smarter than and that gets used as a punching bag. You're not the first or last person to make fun. Insulting says more about the insulter than it does the one receiving the insult.
What can I say? After all I'm apparently spineless.
Oh oh oh I know!
Sticks and stones may break my bones but Queers will never hurt me.
westofyou
09-12-2005, 08:49 PM
:explode:
I say we all go get a beer :beerme:
My wifes family believes that drinking is wrong.... Church of Christ ya know.... no dancing, drinking or instruments in church.
They would think you were a sinner... :mooner:
Falls City Beer
09-12-2005, 08:49 PM
Actually, I'd like the state out of the biz myself. A healthy line between church state appeals to me more and more all the time. Seems to me that just that simple act alone would help sort out that which out to be secular and that which should stay in the realm of religion.
I might agree with you on the separation of church and state business, but marriage has been a legal form far longer than a religious (monotheistic) form; those trains have been running side-by-side for millennia without much problem. It only becomes a "problem" when religious bigots make it a problem.
westofyou
09-12-2005, 08:50 PM
Sticks and stones may break my bones but Queers will never hurt me.
Unless Bob Mould turns it up to 11.
Nor do I need to based on the principal I highlighted from the piece. The goal, as he said, is for the non-believer to see the value of the principal taught by Scripture.
He said a lot things, many of which would suggest you need to take a different approach. You haven't established why this doesn't fit into the same category as school prayer or state-sanctioned religion, areas that your supposed guiding philosophy there doesn't deem as legitmate political endeavors.
If all you've got is "Well, I don't like it," then don't expect others to conform to your particular tastes.
Anyway, what say you to the $64,000 Question?
pedro
09-12-2005, 08:52 PM
Unless Bob Mould turns it up to 11.
Or one of them kicks my ......
Unless Bob Mould turns it up to 11.
And plays a little "JC Auto"
pedro
09-12-2005, 08:59 PM
I sit at your table now. I'm the little brother that everyone thinks they're smarter than and that gets used as a punching bag. You're not the first or last person to make fun. Insulting says more about the insulter than it does the one receiving the insult.
I think it's sad that you call millions of people perverted and claim that any love they might feel is invalid and then act like you are the one being picked on.
Bigotry says more about the bigoter than the bigotee.
RFS62
09-12-2005, 09:06 PM
I respect you, TR. I just disagree with a lot of what you hold sacred.
I respect your willingness to stand up against the scorn and derision of people who disagree with you. I understand why you do it.
I just think a lot of what you believe is very hateful and hurtful to people who don't deserve it.
I know that's not how you intend it, but that's how I see it.
ochre
09-12-2005, 09:18 PM
My wifes family believes that drinking is wrong.... Church of Christ ya know.... no dancing, drinking or instruments in church.
They would think you were a sinner... :mooner:
No way. My mom is Church of Christ. Your wife's family go to the one in West Chester?
Falls City Beer
09-12-2005, 09:24 PM
No way. My mom is Church of Christ. Your wife's family go to the one in West Chester?
I thought conservative CoC'ers got booted if they married outside the flock.
ochre
09-12-2005, 09:26 PM
I thought conservative CoC'ers got booted if they married outside the flock.
My dad stopped going to church after they got married. :)
westofyou
09-12-2005, 09:27 PM
No way. My mom is Church of Christ. Your wife's family go to the one in West Chester?
My sister-in-law and her family do, the others still commute twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday to Withamsville.
My other brother-in-law is the minister at the one in Newport.
ochre
09-12-2005, 09:28 PM
My sister-in-law and her family do, the others still commute twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday to Withamsville.
My other brother-in-law is the minister at the one in Newport.
PM me their names. They probably know my Mom and Grandma. They still go down to that church occasionally.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 09:48 PM
I think it's sad that you call millions of people perverted and claim that any love they might feel is invalid and then act like you are the one being picked on.
Bigotry says more about the bigoter than the bigotee.
It is sadder yet to see a culture slide so far into decadence that it doesn't even recognize homosexuality as sexual perversion anymore and that calling it that makes one a "religious bigot."
But then, that is exactly what the Scriptures teach:
(Romans 1:28 KJV) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(Romans 1:29 KJV) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(Romans 1:30 KJV) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(Romans 1:31 KJV) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(Romans 1:32 KJV) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
ochre
09-12-2005, 10:06 PM
It is sadder yet to see a culture slide so far into decadence that it doesn't even recognize homosexuality as sexual perversion anymore and that calling it that makes one a "religious bigot."
But then, that is exactly what the Scriptures teach:
MesoAmerica was conquered by the spanish largely on the grounds that they either practiced sodomy, or cannibalism. The portuguese did the same, but were mostly concerned about cannibals. It seems the spanish associated sodomy with the muslims that had ruled their country for a few hundred years or so. Any tribe that happened to be in opposition to, or represent a threat to the spanish would be labeled by either of these terms to justify the annihilation that was to follow.
A reason people get concerned about religion, particularly in regard to its relationship to government, is acts such as these. The indiscriminant killing that occurs when people believe they are acting on behalf, or in the best interests of a divine being.
traderumor
09-12-2005, 10:18 PM
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/04/080904.html
I read and considered this to examine myself as a person of faith. I share for anyone's edification what I consider a balanced Christian view on the subject.
Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and Marriage
By John Piper
August 7, 2004
Romans 12:1-2
I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Let’s begin where we left off on June 26. We focused on Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
I argued that Paul’s exhortation, “Do not be conformed to this world,” is one side of the tension—the paradox—of the Christian life. Non-conformity to the age in which we live. The other side is expressed in texts like 1 Corinthians 9:22, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” And 1 Corinthians 10:32-33, “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.” There’s the tension of Christian living in fallen American culture. Don’t be conformed. Nevertheless don’t give offense, try to please, become all things to all people so as to save some.
I called these two sides of our Christian life the pilgrim side and the indigenous side (borrowing the terms from Andrew Walls). Pilgrims (or as the Bible calls us, “sojourners,” “exiles”) know they don’t fit in. This is not our primary home. We are out of step, out of sync with the culture. On the other hand, we are called to be indigenous, taking on, in some measure, the culture where we live. If we simply conform to the culture, we would not be salt and light to the culture. If we don’t conform at all, the salt would remain in it the salt shaker and the light under a basket.
Summary of the Christian Life
So we summarized the Christian life like this:
1. Yes, we are indigenous! But we are also strangers, pilgrims.
2. Yes, there is confrontation with the world! But also missionary adaptation.
3. Yes, there is separation from the world! But also cultural participation.
4. Yes, we are in the world. But no we are not of the world.
5. Yes, there is a sense and a measure in which we become all things to all people. But we are also not conformed to this world!
Four Reasons for This Tension
And we developed four reasons this tension—this paradox—exists for the Christian.
1. Creation is the Lord’s, yet fallen and in need of redemption.
2. Christ is incarnate—indigenous—yet crucified as an unwelcome pilgrim.
3. Conversion to Christ is by justification by faith alone, apart from works of the law, yet always followed by the process of sanctification.
4. The kingdom of God has already come in Jesus Christ, but the final consummation of kingdom is not yet here.
The Balance of Conviction and Compassion
Today, I will try to apply all of this to homosexuality and the highly charged political situation we are in. You know I cannot say all that needs to be said in one message. So let me make sure in advance that you are aware of the Desiring God internet site, desiringgod.org, because there you can read or hear the past sermons on homosexuality and you can read the official statement of the church called, " Beliefs about Homosexual Behavior and Ministering to Homosexual Persons.” I believe it is a beautiful combination of biblical conviction and personal compassion.
That is the balance I long for us to have in the leadership and the people of Bethlehem Baptist Church. I heard this issue dealt with in a church on vacation and groaned with how imbalanced the message was. I don’t want us to be like that. We will continue to say what the world, by and large, will not believe, namely, that it is possible to describe homosexual behavior as sinful, perverse, abnormal, and destructive to persons and culture while at the same time being willing to lay down our lives in love for homosexual persons. In fact, we say something even more radical and unbelievable to the world, namely, that you must believe homosexual behavior is sin and harmful in order to love homosexual persons. Because God tells us in 1 Corinthians 13:6, “[Love] does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” If you deny the truth that homosexual behavior is sin, but instead approve of it or rejoice in it, what you bring to the homosexual person will not be love—no matter how affirming, kind, or tolerant. Our aim is the biblical combination of conviction in God’s truth and compassion for God’s creation.
The Connection Between Discerning the Will and Worth of God
The reason homosexuality comes up at this point in Romans 12 is because of the phrase in verse 2, “by testing you may discern.” “Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God.” There is one Greek word in the original language behind the phrase, “testing you may discern” (dokimazein), and it occurs previously in Romans 1:28 in the context of Paul’s dealing with homosexuality. That’s why I decided to deal with it just here, over five years since the last time we dealt with it there.
Romans 1:28 says, “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” The word “acknowledge” here has that same Greek word behind it. The idea is, “Since they did not see fit by testing to discern and acknowledge and approve of God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” In other words, by putting 12:2 and 1:28 together, we see that foundational to discerning the will of God is discerning the worth of God—the worth of having God in your knowledge. The renewal of mind that has to happen in order to discern the will of God (in Romans 12:2), is a renewal that embraces the worth of God—that loves having God as the sun in the solar system of your ideas and values and choices and emotions, so that while he is there in the center, everything stays in its proper orbit.
The Sexual Exchange Is an Echo of the Idolatrous Exchange
And you can see whom Paul is talking about in Romans 1:28 (when he says, “God gave them up to a debased mind”) by reading verses 26 and 27, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” In verses 26 and 28 Paul says that God “gave them up” to these dishonorable passions and behaviors. He calls homosexual behavior an “exchange” of the God-ordained natural relations for the dishonorable unnatural relations.
What is most profound and crucial to see in the flow of Paul’s thought is that this exchange—women exchanging men for other women, men exchanging women for other men—is an image and echo of man’s exchange of the glory of God for images like man himself. Verse 23: “[They] exchanged [ēllaxan, similar word as in verse 26, metēllaxan] the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man.” Or here it is again in verse 25: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” In other words, Paul treats the unnatural sexual exchange as an expression of the exchange of God’s glory for the glory of ourselves. When the glory of God ceases to be our supreme treasure, that distortion will be expressed in distortions of our sexual pleasure. And homosexuality is just one of the disordered forms that exchanging God leads to—not the only one.
The Renewing of Our Mind
So I conclude that not being conformed to this world (Romans 12:2) involves a renewed mind that reverses the exchange of the glory of God for the glory of man. It involves a change of mind that embraces God as its supreme treasure and authority. And out of this renewed mind, with God as our supreme treasure and authority, we are able to by testing discern that homosexual passions are a tragic disorder of God’s creation, and homosexual behavior is a sinful departure from God’s will—just like heterosexual lust, fornication, and adultery.
Why Marriage Cannot Be Between Two Men or Two Women
Which brings us now to the highly charged political situation we are in at the moment. I have in mind the relationship between homosexuality and marriage. There are two biblical reasons why marriage cannot be between two men or two women.
1. The Will of God for Marriage Was Expressed in Creation
One is that Jesus confirmed God’s will in creation when he said in Matthew 19:4-6, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” That’s the Bible’s teaching and the Bible’s assumption from cover to cover. Marriage is one woman and one man becoming one flesh by covenant and sexual union.
2. There Is No Such Thing as Homosexual Marriage in the Eyes of God
The other biblical reason marriage cannot be between two men or two women is that, on the one hand, the Bible defines homosexual behavior as “dishonorable” and “shameless” and “contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26-27), but on the other hand the Bible says that marriage is to be “held in honor” (Hebrews 13:4). Marriage does not produce shame. And marriage is not contrary to nature. There is therefore no such thing as homosexual marriage in the eyes of God. And there should not be in the eyes of his people—no matter what the state says.
The Constitutional Democracy of the United States
The government under which we presently live is a constitutional democracy. Under God the highest law of this land is the Constitution. It begins “We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In other words, the laws that govern this land under God are made by the people. A process of elected representation with a House and a Senate is the means we have created to put national laws in place. The executive branch exists to see that these laws are carried out. The Judicial branch exists to provide the final interpretation of the Constitution in settling disputes.
The Concept of Meaning and Truth Has Changed
What has changed dramatically in the last fifty years is the concept of meaning and truth in our culture. Once it was the responsibility of historical scholars and judges and preachers to find the fixed meaning of a text (an essay, the Constitution, the Bible) and justify it with grammatical and historical arguments, and then explain it. Meaning in texts was not created by scholars and judges and preachers. It was found, because the authors put it there. Authors had intentions. And it was a matter of integrity to find what a writer intended—that was the meaning of the essay, the Constitution, the Bible. Everybody knew that if a person wrote “no” and someone else creatively interpreted it to mean “yes,” something fraudulent had happened.
But we have fallen a long way from that integrity. In historical scholarship and in constitutional law and in biblical interpretation, it is common today to say that meaning is whatever you see, not what the author said or intended. To get right to the point, today the Constitution is being “amended,” whether we like it or not. That is, courts are finding there what never was there in any of the authors’ minds, namely, a right to marriage between two men or two women. This kind of so-called interpretation creates out of nothing a definition of marriage that has never existed. In other words, the question is not whether the Constitution will be amended concerning the meaning of marriage and the rights of homosexual people to marry; the question is simply how it will be amended. Will it be by the means established by the Constitution itself? Or will it be by the Supreme Court creating a meaning for the Constitution which was never there in the authors’ farthest imaginations?
What Then Should Christians Do?
What then should Christians do? I must be very brief. We should manifest the tension of being pilgrims and being indigenous. Sojourners and citizens. Bound for heaven and caring for earth. Let me say a word about each side of this tension.
1. The Indigenous Side
On the indigenous side we should be involved with the processes of law-making. We should pray and work to shape our culture, its customs and laws, so that it reflects the revealed will of God, even if that reflection is only external and dim and embraced by unbelievers with wrong motives. Thus we should pray and work that marriage would be understood and treated in our land and by our government as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.
If someone asks, Why do you impose your religious conviction on the whole culture, we answer: all laws impose convictions on a culture. And all convictions come from worldviews. They don’t come out of nowhere. People argue for laws on the basis of a certain view of the world. What needs to be kept clear is that voting for a law (a prescribed or proscribed behavior) does not mean voting for the worldview behind it.
A person with an atheistic worldview may argue that, since there is no God, human life is the most sacred thing there is and therefore it is appalling to kill little humans in the womb. Or a Christian may argue that, since there is a God, humans created in his image ought not to be killed in the womb. Therefore a pro-life vote may not be a vote for either worldview. The same thing is true for the meaning of marriage. The way laws (and amendments) come into being in a pluralistic democracy like ours is the convergence of enough different worldviews on the same prescription for behavior—when enough people with different worldviews have the same idea of how we ought to behave.
Being an indigenous Christian in that setting means working to shape the culture into behaviors that reflect the revealed will of God, even if only externally, and dimly, and embraced by mercy for very different reasons than our own.
2. On the Pilgrim Side
On the pilgrim side of the tension, we make our Christ-exalting, cross-centered, soul-saving biblical worldview known with brokenhearted joy. Joy because Christ really is the sovereign Lord of the universe and will establish justice and purity in due time out of this fallen world. And brokenhearted because we share in the pain and misery of what sin has brought on this world. “We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23). The pilgrims groan with the whole creation as we witness to our true homeland: the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
We do not smirk at the misery or the merrymaking of immoral culture. We weep. Being pilgrims does not mean being cynical. The salt of the earth does not mock rotting meat. Where it can, it saves and seasons. And where it can’t, it weeps.
Being Christian pilgrims in American culture does not end our influence, it takes the swagger out of it. We don’t get cranky when evil triumphs for a season. We don’t whine when things don’t go our way. We are not hardened with anger. We understand. What’s happening is not new. The early Christians were profoundly out of step with their culture. The Imperial words of Christ were ringing in their ears: “You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44).
That was a time, and this is a time, for indomitable and tearful joy and unwavering ministries of mercy. The greatness of Christian pilgrims is not success but service. Whether we win or lose, we witness to the way of truth and beauty and joy. We don’t own culture, and we don’t rule it. We serve it with brokenhearted joy and longsuffering mercy, for the good of man and the glory of Jesus Christ.
To that end we must be transformed in the renewal of our minds. We must be pure in heart, trusting Christ.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 10:33 PM
its been several years since i gave blood at a blood drive-if memory serves it clearly stated in the paperwork that if you lead a high risk life style(cant remember if it specifically said gay or not-but you know they were certainly including it) that you were to not donate blood...hmmmm gee i wonder y because if there is nothing wrong with this normal lifestyle why cant they give blood?!?!? hmmmmm i wonder why
westofyou
09-12-2005, 10:44 PM
its been several years since i gave blood at a blood drive-if memory serves it clearly stated in the paperwork that if you lead a high risk life style(cant remember if it specifically said gay or not-but you know they were certainly including it) that you were to not donate blood...hmmmm gee i wonder y because if there is nothing wrong with this normal lifestyle why cant they give blood?!?!? hmmmmm i wonder why
That's almost as well researched as your Supedome research.
Redsfaithful
09-12-2005, 10:45 PM
its been several years since i gave blood at a blood drive-if memory serves it clearly stated in the paperwork that if you lead a high risk life style(cant remember if it specifically said gay or not-but you know they were certainly including it) that you were to not donate blood...hmmmm gee i wonder y because if there is nothing wrong with this normal lifestyle why cant they give blood?!?!? hmmmmm i wonder why
Stop it. You're making everyone stupider.
KronoRed
09-12-2005, 10:47 PM
High risk life style means having lots of unsafe sex, taking it to mean "being gay" is a ridiculous assumption, and if the paper work said it then the people who wrote that out are ignorant.
ochre
09-12-2005, 10:50 PM
High risk life style means having lots of unsafe sex, taking it to mean "being gay" is a ridiculous assumption, and if the paper work said it then the people who wrote that out are ignorant.
...
Krono said the "s" word...
:bang:
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 10:51 PM
The American Red Cross is finding itself being compared to the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army as an anti-gay organization for barring blood donations by men who have sex with men.
The “MSM deferral” prohibits any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from being a blood donor, for the rest of his life. It was put in place in 1983, at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.
The rule originates in federal Food and Drug Administration policies for blood collection, most of which is done by the American Red Cross
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 10:52 PM
stop it with the comments and read up--dont shoot the messenger
KronoRed
09-12-2005, 10:52 PM
...
Krono said the "s" word...
:bang:
:eek:
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 10:55 PM
now again why can i who has been married and faithful for 2o years give blood with no problem and they cant and please stop it with the oh they are talkin maingly about drug abusers and the sex fiend types we know who they are talkin about and dont deny it
ochre
09-12-2005, 10:57 PM
now again why can i who has been married and faithful for 2o years give blood with no problem and they cant and please stop it with the oh they are talkin maingly about drug abusers and the sex fiend types we know who they are talkin about and dont deny it
It was put in place in 1983, at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.
I'm guessing that would be why.
Of course I am sure its because the Red Cross fears the lightning bolts and eternal damnation spelled out in the bible for those that accept blood donations from homosexual men. Which commandment was that again?
Redsfaithful
09-12-2005, 10:59 PM
The American Red Cross is finding itself being compared to the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army as an anti-gay organization for barring blood donations by men who have sex with men.
The “MSM deferral” prohibits any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from being a blood donor, for the rest of his life. It was put in place in 1983, at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.
The rule originates in federal Food and Drug Administration policies for blood collection, most of which is done by the American Red Cross
I'll give a better response than my previous Butler, here you go.
I highlighted the important part of your quote.
The FDA had an agenda in 1983. Who was in power then Butler? Ronald Reagan and the morality police.
Anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who has unprotected sex shouldn't be donating blood. That's all the paperwork meant.
Redsfaithful
09-12-2005, 11:01 PM
And what Ochre said. The government, and individuals, thought and did a lot of stupid things when AIDS first starts. Ignorance tends to cause that.
Falls City Beer
09-12-2005, 11:01 PM
Homosexual intercourse is high risk sex by its nature. That's no great mystery. Ask any gay man; he'll tell you.
And what exactly does that have to do with the right to marry?
Or do you just get a kick out of the suffering of others?
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 11:06 PM
HIV, AIDS
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:
have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
traderumor
09-12-2005, 11:06 PM
Homosexual intercourse is high risk sex by its nature. That's no great mystery. Ask any gay man; he'll tell you.
And what exactly does that have to do with the right to marry?
Or do you just get a kick out of the suffering of others?
So, if someone is playing Russian roulette, you say "hey, why don't you get married?" I don't get your last statement at all.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 11:07 PM
that is from redcross.org's website ...complain to the red cross..and u mean that liberal saviour bill clinton didnt change this the 8 years he was in office???
Dom Heffner
09-12-2005, 11:08 PM
The non-response has nothing to do with the lack of an argument.
That's funny because you wouldn't answer this the last time I brought it up, I believe, in another thread. We can only assume you have no argument for why straight Christians can legally sin and homosexuals cannot.
It has to do with simple respect for the other person, if not their views, at least so far everyone's shown respect to each other. That was missing from your verbal finger pokes in my chest.
And I believe I apologized. So much for loving your enemies and forgiveness.
ochre
09-12-2005, 11:09 PM
that is from redcross.org's website ...complain to the red cross..and u mean that liberal saviour bill clinton didnt change this the 8 years he was in office???
probably for the same reasons the government has gotten bigger since Bush took office
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 11:09 PM
I'll give a better response than my previous Butler, here you go.
I highlighted the important part of your quote.
The FDA had an agenda in 1983. Who was in power then Butler? Ronald Reagan and the morality police.
Anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who has unprotected sex shouldn't be donating blood. That's all the paperwork meant. do u guys blame republican presidents for everything in your life???? its a wonder you all can get thru the day with all this constant angst
ochre
09-12-2005, 11:12 PM
do u guys blame republican presidents for everything in your life???? its a wonder you all can get thru the day with all this constant angst
I don't know. Is Bob Boone a republican?
paintmered
09-12-2005, 11:12 PM
Three mods in here right now.
I think it's like sharks smelling blood in the water.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 11:13 PM
guess 9 15 not coming soon enough
westofyou
09-12-2005, 11:13 PM
I don't know. Is Bob Boone a republican?
He's from California... does he count?
ochre
09-12-2005, 11:14 PM
guess 9 15 not coming soon enough
Feel free to stop before then. We'll stop forcing you to read these threads.
paintmered
09-12-2005, 11:14 PM
guess 9 15 not coming soon enough
Some of you might not be around to see it.
Falls City Beer
09-12-2005, 11:15 PM
So, if someone is playing Russian roulette, you say "hey, why don't you get married?" I don't get your last statement at all.
Huh? That brings us further from the discussion than before.
Who's playing Russian roulette? Here's the breakdown: men get HIV from other men; men give HIV to women; men essentially never get HIV from women (unless they get it fetally). That's the transmission path, roughly.
How safe you are in terms of contraception changes the whole framework. You're leaping to the conclusion that not only are gay men more likely to transmit by the nature of gay sex, they also don't practice safe sex. Which is patently untrue. Don't confuse those ideas.
ochre
09-12-2005, 11:17 PM
Huh? That brings us further from the discussion than before.
Who's playing Russian roulette? Here's the breakdown: men get HIV from other men; men give HIV to women; men essentially never get HIV from women (unless they get it fetally). That's the transmission path, roughly.
How safe you are in terms of contraception changes the whole framework. You're leaping to the conclusion that not only are gay men more likely to transmit by the nature of gay sex, they also don't practice safe sex. Which is patently untrue. Don't confuse those ideas.
not to mention the whole promiscuity angle.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 11:18 PM
and i realize ahead of time i'll likely get slapped around for this one but since this is supposed to create thought debate etc...since some in here find nothing immoral with homosexuality at all--if you were in a hospital and needed a transfusion to save your life and you had jerry falwell or rock hudsons(assuming he was still alive) blood to choose from--who's would you take(wow here come the jokes now)
westofyou
09-12-2005, 11:26 PM
and i realize ahead of time i'll likely get slapped around for this one but since this is supposed to create thought debate etc...since some in here find nothing immoral with homosexuality at all--if you were in a hospital and needed a transfusion to save your life and you had jerry falwell or rock hudsons(assuming he was still alive) blood to choose from--who's would you take(wow here come the jokes now)
A klansman and a jew walk into a bar with Mother Teresa and a wheelbarrow.....
Johnny Footstool
09-12-2005, 11:27 PM
On the indigenous side we should be involved with the processes of law-making. We should pray and work to shape our culture, its customs and laws, so that it reflects the revealed will of God, even if that reflection is only external and dim and embraced by unbelievers with wrong motives. Thus we should pray and work that marriage would be understood and treated in our land and by our government as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.
If that's the case, how much praying and working has been done to outlaw divorce? Very little, because divorce is a reality in the lives of many Christians. Homosexuality isn't a reality in their lives (or at least many of them refuse to recognize it as a reality), so it gets all the attention.
That article plays a nice little tune, but ultimately rings flat.
Johnny Footstool
09-12-2005, 11:30 PM
if you were in a hospital and needed a transfusion to save your life and you had jerry falwell or rock hudsons(assuming he was still alive) blood to choose from--who's would you take(wow here come the jokes now)
Gee, my choice is confirmed HIV-positive blood, or the blood of a guy I disagree with. That's kind of a one-sided setup, don't ya think?
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 11:34 PM
Gee, my choice is confirmed HIV-positive blood, or the blood of a guy I disagree with. That's kind of a one-sided setup, don't ya think?johnny...no not really .
Larkin Fan
09-12-2005, 11:50 PM
johnny...no not really .
Yeah, it is. But not really surprising considering your other outlandish posts on the subject.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-12-2005, 11:54 PM
outlandish posts??? maybe this last one yeah--but the rest were from redcross.org--how is that outlandish>>> lotta people on here good at lettin the little snotty remarks fly----but wont deal with the topic itself---u gotta problem with it call the red cross
Larkin Fan
09-12-2005, 11:56 PM
Citing the Red Cross guidelines is actually pretty ridiculous because they're tremendously outdated. They have these guidelines in place because of the AIDS epidemic that hit in the early 80's, but they are pretty much moot because all blood products undergo an extensive screening process for disease before they're even put into blood stock.
Larkin Fan
09-12-2005, 11:58 PM
outlandish posts??? maybe this last one yeah--but the rest were from redcross.org--how is that outlandish>>> lotta people on here good at lettin the little snotty remarks fly----but wont deal with the topic itself---u gotta problem with it call the red cross
Perhaps it's because you've interpreted their guidelines to mean something completely and totally factually inaccuarate? I don't know, that just may just have something to do with it.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-13-2005, 12:07 AM
Perhaps it's because you've interpreted their guidelines to mean something completely and totally factually inaccuarate? I don't know, that just may just have something to do with it.not sure what exactly was factually inaccurate....you're giving what for over my comments?? u wanna get a blood transfusion that it tainted??? go for it
Larkin Fan
09-13-2005, 12:17 AM
not sure what exactly was factually inaccurate....you're giving what for over my comments?? u wanna get a blood transfusion that it tainted??? go for it
Did you read what I said? Donated blood goes through extensive testing for disease before it's ever put out there for the public. It undergoes quality control. Blood tainted with common diseases like HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and the like never makes it through to the public and is disposed of. This isn't the 1980's anymore when we didn't have those capabilities.
Johnny Footstool
09-13-2005, 12:33 AM
u wanna get a blood transfusion that it tainted???
HIV? Hepatitis? Syphillis? Other Bloodborne Pathogens? Those are all real concerns. And that's why they screen for them.
BUTLER REDSFAN
09-13-2005, 12:41 AM
HIV? Hepatitis? Syphillis? Other Bloodborne Pathogens? Those are all real concerns. And that's why they screen for them.johnny--all im referring to here is that some on here actually seem to be arguing with the fact that the red cross is trying to keep their blood supply as safe as possible...would any1 on here seriously let their kid who needed a transfusion have one if they knew(somehow) the blood was from a gay man??? or even a prostitute??....if there is even a shadow of a doubt that whoever is donating is questionable then dont let them donate
TeamCasey
09-13-2005, 06:21 AM
I'm viewing this as the official going away party for political and religious threads.
:laugh: Me too.
TeamCasey
09-13-2005, 06:49 AM
Some good arguments got lost in the noise.
Farewell political threads, see you on the other side. (Jumps net, shakes hands, etc.)
Man! Did this thread explode! :lol:
Dom - the reason why I haven't responded is because you have asked these very same retread question before concerning marriage, adultery, divorce, and especially homosexuality. And before- I answered them respectfully and very thoroughly. I especially answered the divorce "dilemma" you seem to think the Bible presents just a few weeks ago. Where were you then? It doesn't matter - because you'd reject it anyway. ;)
I find it funny that people, who consistently scoff at the Bible to begin with, consistently ask for scriptural souces? Why? Even when they are provided, you are already of the mindset to disbelieve and reject them to begin with? So why ask?
M2 made some outlandish and misguided claims against the apostle Paul several pages back - and then asked for scriptural references. And what is interesting is that most of his argument comes from the so-called intelligentsia in the non-believing community who completely butcher the Bible, and scriptural references, to the point it is simply laughable. Several of those "studies" are also from Jewish scholars. Wow! Someone in Judaism who rejects Jesus and the claims of the Bible. That's something new isn't it?
But I responded respectfully, and gave him scriptural answers that refuted everyone of his claims.
Have I gotten a response back on any of it? Of course not. When one's accusations are thoroughly answered, and they have no response, they either disappear or change the subject.
tr and myself's biggest problem is that we spend too much time arguing with those who obstinately disbelieve the Bible - have a very poor understanding of scripture - and use whatever limited knowledge they have only to find possible errors or loopholes to firm up their disbelief. Including using the art of omission and selectively pulling passages out of their proper setting.
One's lack of knowledge and understanding is very evident in the way they handle (or mishandle) the Old Testament and the Mosiac Law versus the New Testament and the Gospel - and in pulling passages totally out of their context in some absurd illustration to try and prove a point. I liken it to a first year intern trying to lecture Dr. Michael DeBakey that he doesn't know anything about open heart surgery.
Some of you shoudn't be quoting and lecturing on scripture, just as I learned that I shouldn't try to lecture Puffy (a lawyer) on the law. :lol:
And It's not like either tr or myself are surprised or set back on our heels because of the intense hatred and dislike for the Bible and the Christian faith.
It is only to be expected from those who profess to be so "enlightened" with their progressive thought. They feel they have reached such a level of heightened wisdom on every matter from science, medicine, creation, the human condition, etc., that their egos/pride refuse to allow them to even ponder the possibilty that maybe - just maybe - they may be wrong. Even our Founding Fathers, who were influenced by the Enlightenment, never reched such heights of disdain and rejection of the Bible/Christian faith.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1st Corinthians 1:18-29.....
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.' "
Jesus said, concerning this type of individuals - "do not cast your pearls before swine"
And don't take that as a personal attack, because it's simply meant by Jesus - don't waste your time and effort with those who obstinately refuse to believe even when you show them the evidence.
Jesus didn't - and that is where we made/make our mistakes. But then, they didn't have talk forums in the 1st century. :lol:
RedsBaron
09-13-2005, 09:13 AM
I haven't read all of this thread, but I've probably read enough to pick up its general tenor. A couple of posters have indicated that they believe in Biblical teaching regarding homosexuality, and quite a few other posters have accused them of being homophobes, have said they "hated" them, etc.
This thread is probably as good an illustration as any as to how many political and religious threads have gone here.
Yesterday I received a PM from a RedsZoner thanking me for some minor deed I had done and telling me that I was "wonderful." That was a decided overstatement, but I enjoy being complimented as much as the next person, and I replied in a PM with thanks for the kind words. As I did I wondered about what comments I might have recieved had I posted on this thread, either from that other RedsZoner or from others here, because my posts would have more closely aligned themselves with Traderumor and GAC than with those who hurled accusations at them.
I find that sad. Now there are a couple of RedsZoners whose opinions of me, or their opinions on much of anything, are of no concern to me, given their track record, but for the most part I have found RedsZoners to be knowledgable people with whom I enjoy chatting and whose opinions I respect, even if I do not always agree with those opinions. It is unfortunate that an exchange of views seems to often, too often, lead to a personal attack on another poster.
Dom Heffner
09-13-2005, 09:36 AM
And before- I answered them respectfully and very thoroughly
I've asked this question many times and have never received a response. If I did not read yours and you answered the specific question I was answering, I'd love to see it. All you have to do is direct me to the thread. :)
TeamCasey
09-13-2005, 09:36 AM
RB,
Traderumor and I know we disagree on this, GAC and I know we disagree on this. We also know we aren't going to change each other's opinions. These debates are sometimes interesting and sometimes cross lines. They shouldn't cost friendships. Traderumor and I resolved our discussions privately yesterday evening. We recognize the difference between debate and ugly fight .... and checked in to make sure neither had crossed the line. It's all good.
GAC can just buy me a beer the next time I see him. :)
I've asked this question many times and have never received a response. If I did not read yours and you answered the specific question I was answering, I'd love to see it. All you have to do is direct me to the thread. :)
You do the search on the thread. You've shown to be good at that. But it was over a year ago, and on this very subject matter. And you brought the very same questions you have asked now... and I refuse to chew my cabbage twice with you when you historically have obstinately rejected any scriptural evidence I have shown you.
Example: Lots daughters were protrayed as heroes. You stated that THEN too. That is totally absurd, and the Bible does not state that one bit. It simply records and reports the situation as it occurred. No where does it say it was sanctioned or condoned by God or anyone else.
Just like when Cain killed Abel - David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed -and many more instances of human beings disobeying the commands of God and showing their imperfections. The Bible is also a historical record of those sitations -that is all.
None of the "heroes" portrayed in the Bible are held up as sinless or perfect. But God also did not condone or sanction their sin when it occurred. These individuals also paid a price in varying ways.
But I've seen it with you before on here, when it comes to religious discussions - you inject and twist scripture to suit your argument, and with no regard to the theory and methodology of interpretation (hermeneutics).
On religious discussion, you simply set yourself up as an antagonist.
From our previous discussions I've got the impression you are studying to become a lawyer. And you pride yourself in your knowldege of constitutional law. And I applaud you for that, and I'm not in a position to argue from that aspect due to my own limited knowledge of the law. I'd be a fool to try and do so - and have proven that at times in the past. ;)
It's the same if I tried to argue over the medical sciences with a physician. or trying to argue sabermetrics or baseball history with woy or SD. I'm overwhelmed and impressed with their knowledge, which has obviously come from years of study and dedication.
Likewise - and from what I've garnered from some of your previous attempts at scriptural interpretation/application, you're in a weak position due to your lack of understanding and knowledge of the Bible.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 10:08 AM
Huh? That brings us further from the discussion than before.
Who's playing Russian roulette? Here's the breakdown: men get HIV from other men; men give HIV to women; men essentially never get HIV from women (unless they get it fetally). That's the transmission path, roughly.
How safe you are in terms of contraception changes the whole framework. You're leaping to the conclusion that not only are gay men more likely to transmit by the nature of gay sex, they also don't practice safe sex. Which is patently untrue. Don't confuse those ideas.It doesn't take us further, it just brings up a different point. If man/man sex transmits HIV, which I assume is something that we don't want in our society, and we know that prophylactics are unreliable, both in being used when available and when they are used do not always stop the spread of the disease, then why would we, as a society, want to give such unions our blessing by sanctioning marriages?
GAC can just buy me a beer the next time I see him. :)
Like I'm gonna hold anything against you for expressing your views. We know each other better then that Sis. ;)
It doesn't take us further, it just brings up a different point. If man/man sex transmits HIV, which I assume is something that we don't want in our society, and we know that prophylactics are unreliable, both in being used when available and when they are used do not always stop the spread of the disease, then why would we, as a society, want to give such unions our blessing by sanctioning marriages?
That is what I never understood. It even states on a condom that it is not 100% prevention against pregnancy. And believe me, I know - his name is Samuel. :lol:
The AIDs virus is milions times smaller then a sperm cell. So isn't it safe and logical to asume that the risk is then higher, and people are being sold a bill of goods that is still very high risk? Only now it's with their lives.
Does this mean that I think people shouldn't use a condome? Of course not. Yes, it will minimize the risk.
I listened to the head of the major AIDs hospital in SF several years ago (can't recall the name), and they were also on 60 Minutes. Thye stated that all of their surgeons and technicians, when working wth AIDs patients, whether in treatment or surgeries, wear 5-6 pairs of the latex gloves to protect from exposure, due to it's uncertainty and porrous texture. And condoms, which are made of the same latex, are far thinner to begin with. And then there is the issue of defects and improper use.
How do they test a condom? :lol:
So yes, it is a form of Russian roulette.
The fact of the matter is that a mongamus relationship and abstinence is the only sure fire way to protect oneself. But that is archaic thinking in today's open and progressive society, and people can no longer be exected to believe or follow that thinking.
And it doesn't take religious ideology to confirm that truth. Common sense does though.
TeamCasey
09-13-2005, 10:26 AM
Like I'm gonna hold anything against you for expressing your views. We know each other better then that Sis. ;)
Yep! :)
pahster
09-13-2005, 10:53 AM
It doesn't take us further, it just brings up a different point. If man/man sex transmits HIV, which I assume is something that we don't want in our society, and we know that prophylactics are unreliable, both in being used when available and when they are used do not always stop the spread of the disease, then why would we, as a society, want to give such unions our blessing by sanctioning marriages?
You do realize that HIV is not solely transmitted through sex between two men, right? HIV can be transmitted through any kind of oral, vaginal, or anal sexual contact. Straight people can and do transmit HIV to one another through sex. Should this mean that we, as a society, should not give the union between men and women our sanction and blessing?
I really take issue with your statement here. It seems (and perhaps I'm not interpreting it correctly) that you are implying that all homosexual men have HIV. It is true that gay men have the highest incidence of HIV infection. The group with the second highest incidence is straight men. The third is straight women. The last is gay women. So maybe only lesbians should be allowed to marry. Afterall, they're the group least likely to spread HIV.
Johnny Footstool
09-13-2005, 10:54 AM
It doesn't take us further, it just brings up a different point. If man/man sex transmits HIV, which I assume is something that we don't want in our society, and we know that prophylactics are unreliable, both in being used when available and when they are used do not always stop the spread of the disease, then why would we, as a society, want to give such unions our blessing by sanctioning marriages?
Man/man sex doesn't spontaneously generate the HIV virus.
If neither party in a monogamous relationship has HIV, there is no danger of either party acquiring it. And if one party in a monogamous relationship has the virus, it could only be transmitted to his/her partner.
So logically we *would* want to sanction marriages and promote monogamous sex.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 11:05 AM
You do realize that HIV is not solely transmitted through sex between two men, right? HIV can be transmitted through any kind of oral, vaginal, or anal sexual contact. Straight people can and do transmit HIV to one another through sex. Should this mean that we, as a society, should not give the union between men and women our sanction and blessing?
I really take issue with your statement here. It seems (and perhaps I'm not interpreting it correctly) that you are implying that all homosexual men have HIV. It is true that gay men have the highest incidence of HIV infection. The group with the second highest incidence is straight men. The third is straight women. The last is gay women. So maybe only lesbians should be allowed to marry. Afterall, they're the group least likely to spread HIV.You would be incorrect in your interpretation. However, it seems that if man/man sex was eradicated (obviously not realistic), then the spread of AIDS would be limited to those already affected and no new infections would be taking place. FCB said that AIDS is initiated with man/man sex, if I understood him correctly. Subsequent transmission will be anyone who an infected person has sex with, which could be another man who he infects, who then has sex with a woman, and so on and so on. Yes, I understand all that, and I quite frankly don't know how you jumped to the conclusion you did, other than jumping in with both guns blazing.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 11:10 AM
Man/man sex doesn't spontaneously generate the HIV virus.
If neither party in a monogamous relationship has HIV, there is no danger of either party acquiring it. And if one party in a monogamous relationship has the virus, it could only be transmitted to his/her partner.
So logically we *would* want to sanction marriages and promote monogamous sex.Why would we think marriage would promote monogamous sex, since one of the arguments for gay marriage has been that heterosexuals are marrying, running around, divorcing, remarrying...What superior moral capabilities do homosexuals have to carry on monogamous relationships that heterosexuals in the same culture don't have? And we are talking about the culture at large here, not the gay couple you know that has been together (but probably not monogamous) for umpteen years.
pahster
09-13-2005, 11:17 AM
You would be incorrect in your interpretation. However, it seems that if man/man sex was eradicated (obviously not realistic), then the spread of AIDS would be limited to those already affected and no new infections would be taking place. FCB said that AIDS is initiated with man/man sex, if I understood him correctly. Subsequent transmission will be anyone who an infected person has sex with, which could be another man who he infects, who then has sex with a woman, and so on and so on. Yes, I understand all that, and I quite frankly don't know how you jumped to the conclusion you did, other than jumping in with both guns blazing.
You're right, I did jump the gun a bit. Didn't fully read the FCB quote. He's wrong. HIV doesn't come from gay sex. It's certainly not spontaneously created. You're just more likely to get it from engaging in homosexual anal intercourse than you are from other forms of sex.
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 11:25 AM
And we are talking about the culture at large here, not the gay couple you know that has been together (but probably not monogamous) for umpteen years.
Wow tr. You just keep sinking to new lows.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 11:30 AM
You're right, I did jump the gun a bit. Didn't fully read the FCB quote. He's wrong. HIV doesn't come from gay sex. It's certainly not spontaneously created. You're just more likely to get it from engaging in homosexual anal intercourse than you are from other forms of sex.
From what I've seen written, AIDS started in gay men, so it would seem to make sense that new cases might stop spreading if men stopped having sex with men. Thus, one could argue that gay marriage will not likely change any behavior (gay relationships are not generally monogamous, regardless of the "committment" to one particular partner), could even make the behavior more prevalent in our society as it is accepted as an "alternative lifestyle" with the sanction of marriage, so for the greater good of society, homosexual marriage would be a bad idea with respect to state sanction.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 11:34 AM
Wow tr. You just keep sinking to new lows.Just anticipating an argument that is usually trotted out that goes something like this: "Well, I know Bill and Harry, who have been together for thirty or forty years and they said they've never been with anyone else." First of all, that's probably not true, they just don't know of the affairs, and that is also not the normal case in the population, and that is from homosexuals own research.
Here is a well documented article that you will likely kill the messenger (Family Research Council), but if you look at the sources, many are using info from homosexual friendly sources
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
pahster
09-13-2005, 11:37 AM
(gay relationships are not generally monogamous, regardless of the "committment" to one particular partner)
Wow. That totally contradicts my understanding of every gay couple I know.
Johnny Footstool
09-13-2005, 11:43 AM
Why would we think marriage would promote monogamous sex, since one of the arguments for gay marriage has been that heterosexuals are marrying, running around, divorcing, remarrying...
That isn't an argument "for" gay marriage at all. It's a fact used to refute those who self-righteously claim to be preserving "the sanctity of marriage." If such people really had an interest in preserving in the sanctity of marriage, they would be opposing divorce and trying to make adultery a crime.
RollyInRaleigh
09-13-2005, 11:44 AM
Man! Did this thread explode! :lol:
Dom - the reason why I haven't responded is because you have asked these very same retread question before concerning marriage, adultery, divorce, and especially homosexuality. And before- I answered them respectfully and very thoroughly. I especially answered the divorce "dilemma" you seem to think the Bible presents just a few weeks ago. Where were you then? It doesn't matter - because you'd reject it anyway. ;)
I find it funny that people, who consistently scoff at the Bible to begin with, consistently ask for scriptural souces? Why? Even when they are provided, you are already of the mindset to disbelieve and reject them to begin with? So why ask?
M2 made some outlandish and misguided claims against the apostle Paul several pages back - and then asked for scriptural references. And what is interesting is that most of his argument comes from the so-called intelligentsia in the non-believing community who completely butcher the Bible, and scriptural references, to the point it is simply laughable. Several of those "studies" are also from Jewish scholars. Wow! Someone in Judaism who rejects Jesus and the claims of the Bible. That's something new isn't it?
But I responded respectfully, and gave him scriptural answers that refuted everyone of his claims.
Have I gotten a response back on any of it? Of course not. When one's accusations are thoroughly answered, and they have no response, they either disappear or change the subject.
tr and myself's biggest problem is that we spend too much time arguing with those who obstinately disbelieve the Bible - have a very poor understanding of scripture - and use whatever limited knowledge they have only to find possible errors or loopholes to firm up their disbelief. Including using the art of omission and selectively pulling passages out of their proper setting.
One's lack of knowledge and understanding is very evident in the way they handle (or mishandle) the Old Testament and the Mosiac Law versus the New Testament and the Gospel - and in pulling passages totally out of their context in some absurd illustration to try and prove a point. I liken it to a first year intern trying to lecture Dr. Michael DeBakey that he doesn't know anything about open heart surgery.
Some of you shoudn't be quoting and lecturing on scripture, just as I learned that I shouldn't try to lecture Puffy (a lawyer) on the law. :lol:
And It's not like either tr or myself are surprised or set back on our heels because of the intense hatred and dislike for the Bible and the Christian faith.
It is only to be expected from those who profess to be so "enlightened" with their progressive thought. They feel they have reached such a level of heightened wisdom on every matter from science, medicine, creation, the human condition, etc., that their egos/pride refuse to allow them to even ponder the possibilty that maybe - just maybe - they may be wrong. Even our Founding Fathers, who were influenced by the Enlightenment, never reched such heights of disdain and rejection of the Bible/Christian faith.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1st Corinthians 1:18-29.....
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.' "
Jesus said, concerning this type of individuals - "do not cast your pearls before swine"
And don't take that as a personal attack, because it's simply meant by Jesus - don't waste your time and effort with those who obstinately refuse to believe even when you show them the evidence.
Jesus didn't - and that is where we made/make our mistakes. But then, they didn't have talk forums in the 1st century. :lol:
Great post, GAC!
traderumor
09-13-2005, 11:45 AM
Wow. That totally contradicts my understanding of every gay couple I know.Yea, so does the research. And this is a tough population to research. Many, many roadblocks to data collection.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 11:46 AM
That isn't an argument "for" gay marriage at all. It's a fact used to refute those who self-righteously claim to be preserving "the sanctity of marriage." If such people really had an interest in preserving in the sanctity of marriage, they would be opposing divorce and trying to make adultery a crime.
Do you have a source for that information?I edited a post just above yours, but I think I still have a link in my clipboard
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
yep there it is.
Johnny Footstool
09-13-2005, 11:50 AM
I edited a post just above yours, but I think I still have a link in my clipboard
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
yep there it is.
I see it now. Thanks.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 11:53 AM
That isn't an argument "for" gay marriage at all. It's a fact used to refute those who self-righteously claim to be preserving "the sanctity of marriage." If such people really had an interest in preserving in the sanctity of marriage, they would be opposing divorce and trying to make adultery a crime.Well, I don't quite understand the logic either, but that is the jest of a pro- gay marriage stance. Why should heterosexuals be the only sinners allowed to marry, or something to that effect.
pahster
09-13-2005, 11:55 AM
Yea, so does the research. And this is a tough population to research. Many, many roadblocks to data collection.
When you say monogomous do you mean "mate for life" kind of monogomy or serial monogomy? If you mean the former, then I agree with you, but I'd have to apply that to all people. If its the latter, I disagree at least in the cases of the people I know. I also never ran accross any of this research in any of my psychology, sociology, or anthropology classes. Color me skeptical until I'm exposed to the research (scientific in nature, I hope. If you can provide me with some names and titles I have access to nearly every major journal through the university. Should be able to look it up). The sample sizes aren't even close to being equal, but I know of a lot of straight people who have cheated on one another. I know one gay person who has cheated. Perhaps that just says something about the type of person I associate with.
Johnny Footstool
09-13-2005, 11:56 AM
Well, I don't quite understand the logic either, but that is the jest of a pro- gay marriage stance. Why should heterosexuals be the only sinners allowed to marry, or something to that effect.
I agree with you there. It's not a good reason to advocate homosexual marriage. There are much better reasons, IMO.
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 12:02 PM
Just as an aside, I really hate that so many Christians make this (along with abortion for that matter) one of their main political issues.
There are so many poor suffering people in this country, and they're poor and suffering because the government turns a blind eye to them. The religious right could mobilize and lobby the government to have responsible social programs and aid the poor. They could help make this country a genuinely better place, for everyone. And it would be right in line with their religious teachings.
Instead they'd prefer to worry about gays. And abortions. And school prayer. And Christmas displays on public grounds.
I say this knowing that most churches do great things with regards to charity. But there's not a church in this country that has anywhere near the resources of the federal government. So churches could be lobbying the government for help when it comes to the needy. But they don't.
It's really sad, and I say that with all sincerity. Churches should really speak from love a little more, especially when it comes to politics. It would do more good for the world.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:04 PM
When you say monogomous do you mean "mate for life" kind of monogomy or serial monogomy? If you mean the former, then I agree with you, but I'd have to apply that to all people. If its the latter, I disagree at least in the cases of the people I know. I also never ran accross any of this research in any of my psychology, sociology, or anthropology classes. Color me skeptical until I'm exposed to the research (scientific in nature, I hope. If you can provide me with some names and titles I have access to nearly every major journal through the university. Should be able to look it up). The sample sizes aren't even close to being equal, but I know of a lot of straight people who have cheated on one another. I know one gay person who has cheated. Perhaps that just says something about the type of person I associate with.The well documented piece I provided ought to keep you busy, then. The source list looked reasonably objective, and yes, I understand the FRC has an agenda, so I would only link it if it was well documented with what appears to be objective third party evidence.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:13 PM
Just as an aside, I really hate that so many Christians make this (along with abortion for that matter) one of their main political issues.
There are so many poor suffering people in this country, and they're poor and suffering because the government turns a blind eye to them. The religious right could mobilize and lobby the government to have responsible social programs and aid the poor. They could help make this country a genuinely better place, for everyone. And it would be right in line with their religious teachings.
Instead they'd prefer to worry about gays. And abortions. And school prayer. And Christmas displays on public grounds.
I say this knowing that most churches do great things with regards to charity. But there's not a church in this country that has anywhere near the resources of the federal government. So churches could be lobbying the government for help when it comes to the needy. But they don't.
It's really sad, and I say that with all sincerity. Churches should really speak from love a little more, especially when it comes to politics. It would do more good for the world.
I agree with you, somewhat, but the church must not only become an institution of social programs. The churches I have been associated with, which is only a few, all reach out to the needy in tangible fashions, where appropriate. The tension is helping the truly needy and supporting folks who make a living off of calling churches and asking for "help."
However, the church should also be involved in "salt and light" ministries within the culture, bringing the Christian worldview to the table and letting the chips fall where they may. After all, although I see the complaint that American slave owners used the Bible for support, examples like William Wilberforce used the Christian ethic going the other direction in Great Britain. I don't hear those kind of things brought up in these types of discussions, either.
pahster
09-13-2005, 12:13 PM
The well documented piece I provided ought to keep you busy, then. The source list looked reasonably objective, and yes, I understand the FRC has an agenda, so I would only link it if it was well documented with what appears to be objective third party evidence.
I need primary sources. When I get a chance I might check out some of the things he cited. I'm curious what this guy's PhD is in. In any case, the FRC article contains no research of its own. It cites several things which may or may not be indicative of the research as a whole. Like I said, I've never heard of this research you keep talking about.
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 12:22 PM
examples like William Wilberforce used the Christian ethic going the other direction in Great Britain. I don't hear those kind of things brought up in these types of discussions, either.
And they should be, you're right. But guys like him aren't exactly around these days, or at least they're not being elevated to positions of relevance.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:25 PM
And they should be, you're right. But guys like him aren't exactly around these days, or at least they're not being elevated to positions of relevance.I wonder why that is? ;)
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 12:27 PM
I wonder why that is? ;)
I have no idea. You tell me.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:27 PM
I need primary sources. When I get a chance I might check out some of the things he cited. I'm curious what this guy's PhD is in. In any case, the FRC article contains no research of its own. It cites several things which may or may not be indicative of the research as a whole. Like I said, I've never heard of this research you keep talking about.I think that makes its message more legitimate. It's a research paper, if you will. If FRC was conducting research of its own on this topic, it would have no credibility with opponents.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:32 PM
I have no idea. You tell me.
I'm not sure if we are thinking the same direction, but for an evangelical Christian to run for office is akin to violating the separation of church and state in the current climate of our culture and they have a hard time getting elected. If they do, and they attempt to use their Christian worldview to shape proposed legislation, the charges are even worse. That was what I was thinking. The Chrisitian worldview, if practiced in politics, leads to immediate charges of "religious bigotry." And you think it gets ugly on here, imagine the raking over the coals of an ultra-conservative, Bible believing Christian getting anything done in Washington.
pahster
09-13-2005, 12:34 PM
I think that makes its message more legitimate. It's a research paper, if you will. If FRC was conducting research of its own on this topic, it would have no credibility with opponents.
I don't want primary source research from a biased source (like FRC). Who's to say the writer doesn't just cite whatever is convenient? It wouldn't surprise me. Thats why I rely solely on empiracle evidence gathered from scientific research. Thats not what this is.
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 12:36 PM
I'm not sure if we are thinking the same direction, but for an evangelical Christian to run for office is akin to violating the separation of church and state in the current climate of our culture and they have a hard time getting elected. If they do, and they attempt to use their Christian worldview to shape proposed legislation, the charges are even worse. That was what I was thinking. The Chrisitian worldview, if practiced in politics, leads to immediate charges of "religious bigotry." And you think it gets ugly on here, imagine the raking over the coals of an ultra-conservative, Bible believing Christian getting anything done in Washington.
Maybe it's because of what I'm saying. Because they focus entirely on gays, abortions, and being the morality police. If they focused on helping the poor and the sick and the needy then I think they'd probably have a little better luck. And they'd have a better chance of doing some good.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:41 PM
I don't want primary source research from a biased source (like FRC). Who's to say the writer doesn't just cite whatever is convenient? It wouldn't surprise me. Thats why I rely solely on empiracle evidence gathered from scientific research. Thats not what this is.It would be hard for an org like the FRC to not appear biased. It would be like me doing primary research on the subject and posting my paper on here, regardless of if I dotted all my "i's" and crossed all my "t's" with respect to following accepted standards. The article appears to be citing scientific research. Look them up and decide for yourself.
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 12:42 PM
I guess I'm talking about Religous backed populism. It doesn't seem to exist anymore.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:43 PM
Maybe it's because of what I'm saying. Because they focus entirely on gays, abortions, and being the morality police. If they focused on helping the poor and the sick and the needy then I think they'd probably have a little better luck. And they'd have a better chance of doing some good.What if that was the mindset with slavery the issue of the day in Britain and the Americas? Doesn't that contradict what you said would be a good thing? Why should a Christian statesman be limited to not addressing major social concerns of the day, when those topics are still in the forefront of our society's concerns?
westofyou
09-13-2005, 12:46 PM
Thats why I rely solely on empiracle evidence gathered from scientific research. Thats not what this is. :clap: :clap:
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 12:47 PM
What if that was the mindset with slavery the issue of the day in Britain and the Americas? Doesn't that contradict what you said would be a good thing? Why should a Christian statesman be limited to not addressing major social concerns of the day, when those topics are still in the forefront of our society's concerns?
tr, there's not a doubt in my mind that today's Evangelical Christians would have been pro-slavery back in the 1850's.
I'm not arguing that they should be limited to not addressing major social concerns, I'm arguing that they could do more good by focusing on different social concerns.
I think the millions of children living in poverty and without health insurance is a much bigger social concern than whether or not gays can marry, but that's apparently just me.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:52 PM
tr, there's not a doubt in my mind that today's Evangelical Christians would have been pro-slavery back in the 1850's.
I'm not arguing that they should be limited to not addressing major social concerns, I'm arguing that they could do more good by focusing on different social concerns.
I think the millions of children living in poverty and without health insurance is a much bigger social concern than whether or not gays can marry, but that's apparently just me.But then you have a different worldview, so of course you would see things differently. Why would you presume to set the priorities of someone who looks at the world through different lenses? And, from where I sit, I also see a lot of money and energy expended by those supporting gay marriage legislation, so why don't they refocus their priorities and take all that time and money and allocate it to what you consider to be greater needs? Why not criticize those you are supporting for a clear misallocation of resources?
Johnny Footstool
09-13-2005, 12:54 PM
If they focused on helping the poor and the sick and the needy then I think they'd probably have a little better luck.
Most Evangelical Christians are politically conservative, while helping the poor and sick and needy tends to be a liberal concept.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:56 PM
tr, there's not a doubt in my mind that today's Evangelical Christians would have been pro-slavery back in the 1850's.
You do realize that Christians played a significant role in abolition in this country, don't you?
traderumor
09-13-2005, 12:59 PM
Most Evangelical Christians are politically conservative, while helping the poor and sick and needy tends to be a liberal concept.
Wrong. The overuse and abuse of government funds is the issue with helping the "poor and sick and needy" dividing the liberal and conservative, generally speaking, not that one wants to help and the other doesn't.
Redsfaithful
09-13-2005, 01:11 PM
So then you do think gay marriage is a greater evil than children living in poverty?
pedro
09-13-2005, 01:11 PM
Wrong. The overuse and abuse of government funds is the issue with helping the "poor and sick and needy" dividing the liberal and conservative, generally speaking, not that one wants to help and the other doesn't.
I think the neo-cons do want to do away with entitlements completely b/c they don't feel it is the gov'ts place to provide such. More traditional conservatives IMO don't necessarily want to completely do away with them, but feel the system is being abused or at the very least is broken. In both cases liberals are losing the argument on the national stage because of their unwillingness to even address the issue and the treatment of entitlements as a sacred cow. IMO, it would be in the dems best interest to come up with a plan for streamlining teh entitlement system lest they continue to lose the debate and watch the whole system be dismantled.
anyway, that's a topic for another thread I suppose.
traderumor
09-13-2005, 01:24 PM
So then you do think gay marriage is a greater evil than children living in poverty?Where do you make that jump in logic? But, I'll answer the question anyhow, even though I think you have skipped a few steps in the discussion. You imply that the conservative is doing nothing to help those in need of a helping hand. Yet, much political wrangling has been waged on this issue. The Republicans primary addressing of this issue has been to continue welfare reform that Clinton started (e.g. welfare to work), Medicare concerns continue to be addressed, just to name a few primary examples, and faith based initiatives to free up Fed $ to faith based orgs to help the poor. Now, how much time has been spent in Congress or in the Oval Office on the gay issue and abortion? What, a press release every now and then stating a position? Signing into law a ban on partial birth abortion?
So, with that said, I think they are both important issues that should be addressed by a statesman of today.
RFS62
09-13-2005, 01:27 PM
I think the neo-cons do want to do away with entitlements completely b/c they don't feel it is the gov'ts place to provide such. More traditional conservatives IMO don't necessarily want to completely do away with them, but feel the system is being abused or at the very least is broken. In both cases liberals are losing the argument on the national stage because of their unwillingness to even address the issue and the treatment of entitlements as a sacred cow. IMO, it would be in the dems best interest to come up with a plan for streamlining teh entitlement system lest they continue to lose the debate and watch the whole system be dismantled.
anyway, that's a topic for another thread I suppose.
That's really my take on it as well. I've always felt that most social programs have nothing but good intentions at heart. But it's the execution of those intentions where it breaks down.
There is very little that the government can do efficiently, the least of which is administer a social program. FEMA is a prime example, highlighted in the recent news. A bureaucracy is the most inefficient organization ever invented.
RollyInRaleigh
09-13-2005, 01:34 PM
Just as an aside, I really hate that so many Christians make this (along with abortion for that matter) one of their main political issues.
There are so many poor suffering people in this country, and they're poor and suffering because the government turns a blind eye to them. The religious right could mobilize and lobby the government to have responsible social programs and aid the poor. They could help make this country a genuinely better place, for everyone. And it would be right in line with their religious teachings.
Instead they'd prefer to worry about gays. And abortions. And school prayer. And Christmas displays on public grounds.
I say this knowing that most churches do great things with regards to charity. But there's not a church in this country that has anywhere near the resources of the federal government. So churches could be lobbying the government for help when it comes to the needy. But they don't.
It's really sad, and I say that with all sincerity. Churches should really speak from love a little more, especially when it comes to politics. It would do more good for the world.
There are a lot of people who could do a lot of good for the poor, suffering people, throughout this country and the entire world. Calling out Christian people as the only folks that are using their time on the polarizing political issues of the day, and not focusing on the poor and hungry is a little absurd. Christian people should stand up for what they believe in, along with helping and feeding the poor and needy. Charity is not limited to the religious right, nor is lobbying the federal government for help. From the views that I am seeing in this thread, non-believers have every bit as much responsibility in helping and feeding the poor and hungry as the religeous right. Confusing to me is the idea that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ, His church and His teachings, why do so many non-believers call out His church and people to do His work and will? I believe that a lot more people believe in Christ and the work of his church than want to let on, and that is certainly encouraging.
I recently viewed a report at the church I attend, concerning the work of the Southern Baptists in feeding and helping the poor and needy and their work in the aftermath of the hurricane. I am truly amazed at the amount of dollars spent and the number of volunteers who take the time to help. I am even more amazed at the prayers that are prayed daily, and that our Lord is answering them in so many ways. Our pastor is on his way, as I type, to lend his help in the situation, to counsel and help those who are in need. That is Christ at work in his church, and just one denomination. You know, charity is a big word. In a biblical sense, it refers to many things, and not just feeding the poor and needy with food. Charity, in it's purest biblical sense is feeding the needy with spritual food, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, in hope of leading souls to be saved from an eternity in hell. A lot of that has been given in this thread. A lot of folks really are harsh on the Christian church, and not a lot is said for all the wonderful things that are being done in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, but that's OK. Jesus said in Matthew 6:
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore, when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
Interesting to hear Jesus comments in the previous chapter of the Gospel of Matthew on adultery as well, and I haven't seen this posted in this debate.
5:27 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old times, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that the whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosover shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Living, totally, by the teachings of Jesus, is a very hard thing to do. If we could, it wouldn't have been necesary that he die on the cross for my sins and the sins of the world. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. There is none good, no, not one, but if we ask in humility for forgiveness, recognizing our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us. He then expects us to walk and grow in his ways and to follow all his teachings to the best of our ability and to lean on his everlasting arms to guide us and turn us from our sinful ways.
I'll let this end this thread. The apostle Paul said in Phillippians 2:10-12
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in the earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
pedro
09-13-2005, 01:35 PM
That's really my take on it as well. I've always felt that most social programs have nothing but good intentions at heart. But it's the execution of those intentions where it breaks down.
There is very little that the government can do efficiently, the least of which is administer a social program. FEMA is a prime example, highlighted in the recent news. A bureaucracy is the most inefficient organization ever invented.
When we studied entitlements and bureaucracies in college (I majored in Sociology) one of the things about bureaucracies that struck me was that once started they are like an organism, they never say "our mission is done, we're closing shop". When you couple that with the method of providing entitlements in the US which is really a patchwork approach of overlapping responsibilities, it is a recipe for waste.
Johnny Footstool
09-13-2005, 01:36 PM
Wrong. The overuse and abuse of government funds is the issue with helping the "poor and sick and needy" dividing the liberal and conservative, generally speaking, not that one wants to help and the other doesn't.
Yeah, helping the poor, sick, and needy is really foremost on the conservative agenda.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.