Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Beyond Same-Sex Marriage??

We constantly heard that homosexuals were not out to redefine marriage for every kind of sexual union out there in the godless, secular humanistic world that reeks of some very awful kinds of sexual proclivities and licentiousness. Conservatives warned (including Independent Bill O'Reilly) that there is an underlying motive in the never-ending, annoying push for same-sex marriage.

O'Reilly pointed out that if "gay" marriage is made legal, then every other type of union could not be "discriminated" against. Thus, the term marriage itself would lose its meaning altogether. One by one, gay activists and their supporters would appear on The O'Reilly Factor show and claim that this is not their aim or goal. They told the TV audiences everywhere that if they got the right to marry, they'd be satisfied and that would be it.

Well guess what?

Since their current strategy of using the courts to tear down the dozens of state legislative decisions approved by the people (who, overwhelming voted by as much as 80% not to change the definition of marriage from its exclusive meaning of the union of one man and one woman) is not working, they have now decided to let their true colors show.

Christians have, all along, been 100% correct when we warned that this issue was not only about homosexual "rights." It is about destroying the traditional meaning of marriage and the traditional family structure right along with it!

We told you so...

Christine

*******

Gay Groups Announce Agenda 'Beyond Same-Sex Marriage'
by Pete Winn, associate editor

Marriage isn't the only 'worthy' form of relationship, statement says.

To try to counter the family-values agenda, lesbian, bisexual and homosexual activist groups joined hands recently to publicly announce a new agenda.

They issued a major statement called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships."

"Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a 'wedge' issue that pits one group against another," it claims. "The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families."

Dr. Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America said the statement is clear evidence that there is not only a "gay agenda" -- activists have no intention of giving up on it.

"I think it's a declaration of war," Crouse said. "It's a warning for those of us that value the traditional family -- where there's a mother and a father and their children, either biological or adopted.

"This document very clearly says, 'Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or of relationships.' They are clearly going for redefinition of what it means to be a family."

Specifically, the groups advocate, in their words:

-- Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

-- Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including, but not limited to, health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster-recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

The statement cites single-parent households or cohabitation of unrelated elderly people as examples of relationships that need "protection."

Glenn T. Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family Action, said it's now very clear that most gay activists never really sought same-sex marriage. What they really want is "anything goes."

"This statement fails to take account of the fact that the government recognizes, or sees, certain relationships as legal, because those relationships are essential and necessary to society," Stanton said. "That is, the society needs these relationships in order to be productive, healthy and prosperous."

Interestingly, the gay activists and their supporters called for "separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families."

Stanton said, however, we don't find marriage just in Christian or religious cultures.

"You find marriage in all human cultures," he said, "Marriage, as a relationship between a man and a woman, is present in all human societies. It's a human thing. So, if they're going to 'set themselves free,' they are going to have to do it by the separation of humanity and state -- rather than the separation of religion and state. Religion is not what drives marriage, humanity is what drives marriage."

For Gary Bauer, president of American Values, the gay-activist message to America is clear. "Translated, it means they want to change the subject," Bauer said, "I don't blame them, after a series of humiliating defeats at the ballot box, and, at least in recent weeks, a series of debates in what has been their stronghold -- which is the judiciary of the country. So clearly, they are going back to the drawing board to try to come up with a different strategy."

29 comments:

Boo said...

Posts like this are why people like you get called bigots, Christine. I know there's virtually no possibility that you can do this, but please try to put aside the blind adherence to right-wing propoganda for a second and follow me here:

LGBT people are not monolithic. There is no giant secret control group that all The Gays answer to and that defines The Gay Agenda. Some gay people are quite conservative, some are quite radical, and most are somewhere in between. The people who signed this petition seem to be rather radical, but they no more speak for all The Gays than any black person can speak for all The Blacks. In fact, Cornel West, a straight African American, is on the list of petition signers. If you were to be consistent in your logic, you would have to conclude that his presence means that all black people want to destroy marriage. I'm going to guess you don't conclude that, because you are capable of seeing that African Americans are not all exactly the same. It's a shame you can't seem to see this about LGBT people. Some gay people want marriage, some do not. For the ones who do, it isn't because they are part of an evil conspiracy to destroy America just because they have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon, it's because they want to protect their families. When people bring up Fred Phelps, you are always quick to dissasociate yourself from his group. You wish to be judged as an individual, but you are not willing to extend the same consideration to LGBT people. That is bigotry, plain and simple.

Furthermore, if you would actually bother to read the "Beyond Marriage" document, you would find that the concern isn't to "destroy marriage" but to provide access to benefits for people the signers contend to be discriminated against because they are in households where they are not married, including:

"Senior citizens living together, serving as each other’s caregivers, partners, and/or constructed families

Adult children living with and caring for their parents

Grandparents and other family members raising their children’s (and/or a relative’s) children

Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

Blended families

Single parent households

Extended families (especially in particular immigrant populations) living under one roof, whose members care for one another

Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

Care-giving and partnership relationships that have been developed to provide support systems to those living with HIV/AIDS"

I can find one item on their list to disagree with, and you could probably find at least two, but even you must admit that the idea of being able to put your elderly parent or your cousin who's living with you on your own health insurance is not a nefarious plot to destroy the family.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

Replies like yours are why conservative Christians get a bad name. Why don't you understand that I already know what you said here??

Boo: "LGBT people are not monolithic. There is no giant secret control group that all The Gays answer to and that defines The Gay Agenda. Some gay people are quite conservative, some are quite radical, and most are somewhere in between. The people who signed this petition seem to be rather radical, but they no more speak for all The Gays than any black person can speak for all The Blacks."

However, it is the gay activists that are trying to do all the damage towards traditional marriage & family causes that conservative Christians support. Don't we get to voice our views, values, opinions and concerns too?

Do you watch The O'Reilly Factor? If you did, then you would see that the agenda being forwarded by gay activists include much more than even the article post reveals. I have heard guests on his show admit that they would like to see polygamy, polyamory, 3 persons trysts, and you name it sexual liasons all legalized. What if a person who identifies as a bisexual wants to marry both a man and a woman? Who's to say that they can't?

I've read plenty of books, have reads loads of websites and blogs to know that this innocent little blather you are saying here is not reality, boo.

Yes.

There are a lot of nice gay people who want to live their lives and not push any agenda upon others. But the majority with the microphones, lawsuits, ACLU backings, liberal judges behind them want to change our culture from what God intended into a cesspool of licientiousness.

I got into this debate (very unwillingly at first) because I am seeing what chaos this is causing in the lives of children; especially teens. They are confused beyond belief!! That's my concern and why I continue to alert people to the facts about what is going on with the gay agenda in schools, in the courts, in the government, and in society in general.

I don't stop there, though. I realize that there is plenty of heterosexual licientiousness going on out there and the new legislation (Adam Walsh bill) to protect our children from all kinds of sexual predators is a very welcome thing.

You want to call me a bigot? Go right ahead. I wear it proudly because to me, it means:

Bible
Is
God's
Only
Truth

Christinewjc said...

This is what happens when gay activists get easy access to our children through the guise of teaching "tolerance":

Gay Lobbyist Arrested For Solicitation For Sex with College Students

Christinewjc said...

Prominent Gay Lobbyist Arrested

Quote from article: "The adults running the GLBT political groups are certainly working hard to find fresh meat."

Disgusting!! This man should never have access to children; even college aged students, ever again!

limpy99 said...

Wait, let me get this straight. A person in a position of authority solicited sex from adults, (college kids are above the age of consent in all states, the occasional prodigy aside), and got arrested for it. Wow, that never happens with married, heterosexual males.

I had a bigger point to make, but Boo said it better. The only thing I would add, and this addresses Christine's response, is that people like O'Reilly will always try to get the radicals on thier show, because those people will get the biggest reaction and therefore the biggest ratings.

No one is trying to "do damage" to the families of America. They're just trying to get the same rights the rest of us enjoy. If we take the Constitution seriously, gays have the same rights as the rest of us. They can't force you to attend their ceremonies, (although I've gotta think the catering would be top notch), nor can they force your church to recognize their union. But the State, if we take the "all persons created equal" bit seriously, should ahve to.

Dani said...

As we are re-defining marriage we must not discriminate against any group of people for wanting to “love” each other as live the family life.

It’s no longer stretched out to be defined as two men or two women, now a grown man wants to get married to a young boy so we shouldn’t discriminate against them either. Or what about a brother and sister who love each other and want to get married? Why even limit it to two people? What about two men and one woman who want to get married? Or three, or five or ten? Why even limit to humans? What if a man wants to marry his dog? Or maybe perhaps a woman, and goat and a tree? Where will we draw the line?

Limpy - Gays do have the same rights as the rest of us - they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like you or me. Why do they need special rights?

P.S. Christine - I love your definition of a BIGOT. Count me in as one too!

GMpilot said...

Pete Wynn is associate editor of…what? WorldNet Daily? The Flaming Sword? The Journal of Irreproducible Results? You don’t say. Have you cross-checked the accounts; say some GLBT publication, and see what they say? As has been pointed out, they are not a monolithic front, any more than Christians are.

Considering the people you’ve quoted and the groups they represent—Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family—I’d say your reporting is just a little bit stacked.

Also, rather than interpret the document for us, why not simply reproduce it in full? We’re all adults here, who know how to read and make our own judgments.
“We told you so.” No…you’ve told us what you want us to know. Don’t make hints: show the papers, name the names! If you’re in the service of The TRUTH©, this should be easy.

If you folks really wanted to "protect marriage", you'd be pushing Congress to make divorce illegal. I haven't heard anything about that.

Boo said...

"However, it is the gay activists that are trying to do all the damage towards traditional marriage & family causes that conservative Christians support. Don't we get to voice our views, values, opinions and concerns too?"

So let me make sure I've got this straight: in your mind, there are two groups of The Gays. There are the "nice gay people who want to live their lives and not push any agenda upon others" (read: stay in the closet and not get uppity about wanting their rights) and The Gay Activists Who Are All In A Nefarious Plot To Destroy America Because They Just Got Bored One Day. Sorry Christine- that's still bigotry. You see, gay activists are people too, and not all gay activists are exactly the same. The ones pushing for marriage rights are doing so because (and I realize this may be a difficult concept) they actually want marriage rights. In fact, a lot of the push for marriage didn't come from professional activists, but from couples who are looking to provide legal protections for their children. So again, there is no giant secret control group that all The Gay Activists answer to and that defines The Gay Agenda. If some activists want marriage it's because they really want marriage, and if others want to do away with marriage it's because they don't want marriage. Since these groups have opposed goals in mind, they aren't cooperating on marriage. Just because they're both groups of The Gays doesn't make them all alike. Sorry. As in the black struggle for civil rights, some people went the Malcolm X separatist route, but most went the Martin Luther King integrationist route, and only a paranoid racist would say that King and Malcolm X were both in on a secret evil plot to destroy America.

"Do you watch The O'Reilly Factor? If you did, then you would see that the agenda being forwarded by gay activists include much more than even the article post reveals. I have heard guests on his show admit that they would like to see polygamy, polyamory, 3 persons trysts, and you name it sexual liasons all legalized. What if a person who identifies as a bisexual wants to marry both a man and a woman? Who's to say that they can't?"

If I watched the Angry Shouting Man Hour, I'm sure I would see many different people pushing many different agendas. "Different" being the key word there.

All you need to do if you want to stop polygamy is come up with a valid legal argument against polygamy. In making the if-we-don't-stop-gay-marriage-we-won't-stop-polygamy argument you are implicitly conceding that you are incapable of making an argument against polygamy on its own merits.

"I've read plenty of books, have reads loads of websites and blogs to know that this innocent little blather you are saying here is not reality, boo."

This "innocent little blather" is what most of us want, but not all, as with any other large grouping of people. There are radical gay socialists on a website called queerday in Massachussets and conservative gay Republicans on another website called Independent Gay Forum. They're boths gay groups, and they're both activists, and their agendas have some things in common and many differences, because all "gay activists" are not a big gelatinous pile of goo.

"There are a lot of nice gay people who want to live their lives and not push any agenda upon others. But the majority with the microphones, lawsuits, ACLU backings, liberal judges behind them want to change our culture from what God intended into a cesspool of licientiousness."

Nope, the majority wants equal rights, which includes marriage, adoption, and all that good stuff that helps us protect our kids. If you want to call that a "cesspool of licientiousness" I suggest you don't do it around a gay person's 5 year old child.

Now again, if I were to apply your own logic to you, then I would observe that both you and Fred Phelps are "Christian activists" and that therefore you must be exactly the same as Phelps, so your saying you have no problem with nice gay people who keep to themselves is obviously a cover for your true agenda as advanced by your fellow Christian Activist Fred Phelps.

Or should I take into account that you and Phelps are two different people?

grace said...

Christine,
What is your judgement on a liberal Christian who actually supports the rights of gays to form civil unions? Just curious...and please, again, don't go super lengthy on me. I'm not a debater, just a lover and God and my fellow man.

love in Christ,
grace

GMpilot said...

dani: ”It’s no longer stretched out to be defined as two men or two women, now a grown man wants to get married to a young boy so we shouldn’t discriminate against them either. Or what about a brother and sister who love each other and want to get married? Why even limit it to two people? What about two men and one woman who want to get married? Or three, or five or ten? Why even limit to humans? What if a man wants to marry his dog? Or maybe perhaps a woman, and goat and a tree? Where will we draw the line?”

Um…dani, there’s such a thing as ‘age of consent’, so there is no case of grown men wanting to marry young boys (although young girls often didn’t get such protection. In many places, they still don’t). Brother/sister? That’s just incest, and it’s icky. No matter how attractive they are, it’s hard for almost anyone to view their siblings in a sexual manner. Besides, there are laws against that already.
Two men and one woman? It’s been done: it’s called polyandry, by the way. As for the rest…why?? Does a goat have legal standing in a court of law? Can a tree sign a document? What kind of perverted person would even think of such outlandish scenarios just to make a point?

Why, this person, of course!
Calm down, and you’ll see that the “lines” are already drawn; you’re striking at shadows.

Christinewjc said...

Grace,

I know that you want a brief answer, however, I also feel the need to explain my position. I will answer with links to previous posts that elaborate on what I'm saying. You can choose whether or not you want to read them.

I see all aberrant sexual behavior as being Caught Up In A Lie. Although that story at the link shares one formerly gay man's experience, I include the many forms of aberrant heterosexual behavior as being "caught up in the lie of Satan" as well.

Through intense study of God's Word, I have also discovered that Jesus referred to the signs of the end times as being, ""as in the days of Lot," and "as in the days of Noah." Those who claim that Jesus had nothing to say about the sin of homosexual behavior are wrong in their assessment. [Note: at link, scroll down to Mission America statement.]

As a fellow Christian, I can see why you would view "civil unions" for homosexual partners to be an empathetic position. In fact, at a forum on gender issues, I once got so "caught up" in a young college man's sadness and dilemma over the fact that his partner could not come to America, I started thinking about possible solutions like asking him if he tried contacting his senator! Then I thought what am I doing! This is not what God's Word would have me do.

So the big question is, are we to follow our own feelings on these issues or God's Word? [Note: scroll way down to Al Mohler's article near the end of the post.]

Here is the most important portion of that article so that you don't have to scroll down to find it:

Excerpt from: Courage and Compassion on Homosexuality
by Al Mohler

I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete, and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin--even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.

If we are really a Gospel people; if we really love homosexuals as other sinners; then we must reach out to them with a sincerity that makes that love tangible. We have not even approached that requirement until we are ready to say to homosexuals, "We want you to know the fullness of God's plan for you, to know the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, to receive the salvation that comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the healing God works in sinners saved by grace, and to join us as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, living out our obedience and growing in grace together."

Such were some of you . . . The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.

We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.

Christinewjc said...

Limpy99,

You said: "nor can they force your church to recognize their union."

Many groups, organizations, schools, and probably, eventually churches may very well be forced to recognize those unions. There have been incidences where people's rights of their "freedom of association" on this issue has been badly handled and damaged...(e.g. the Boy Scouts of America) especially when it comes to parent's rights for their children not to be subjected to homosexual behavior acceptance without that parent's permission.

The whole same-sex marriage issue involves a great deal more than just two men or two women getting a marriage license. That type of recognition by the state would require all people in the state to accept such a union as normal, natural, healthy and just like a heterosexual marriage union, even if their religious beliefs say that it is not normal, natural or healthy but in fact, sin.

This forced acceptance will cause much chaos in society. Marriage will likely lose its meaning altogether (like in the Scandinavian countries) and the minds of millions of children will be led into confusion.

History has shown that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has ever survived! That's a tragedy just waiting to happen in America. Thank God that the majority of people who view marriage as a union between one man and one woman continue to want to protect its 2,000 year old definition.

As Dani said previously, no one is being discriminated against. Each person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's how marriage is defined and there is no reason to change it because a small minority of people want it to be changed. Gay people have lived without a title of "marriage" for many generations here in America and they have been free to live together with their partners. Why the need to redefine marriage now?

There are domestic partner laws in many states that give them all the benefits of marriage without the title, so why this insistence for the term "marriage" to be redefined? Vermont has "civil unions." Massachusetts has a marriage law but it will probably be overturned when the people get the chance to vote on the issue.

A Democratic Republic is defined as being "of the people, by the people and for the people." It's not meant for a small minority to change the meaning of a more than 2,000 year institution unless the majority agrees. They don't agree, as we have seen state after state vote to keep the original definition of marriage intact.

grace said...

Christine,
I was just wondering what your judgement was about someone like me in particular. I all ready know your judgemnet on homosexuals and the reasons you don't believe they should marry. We obviously read God's word (same bible, same words) and have a very different view of what that looks like when we live it out and relate to the world around us. I guess my curiosity stems from a desire to understand and be more loving to folks like you.

love in Christ,
grace

Christinewjc said...

Dear Grace,

Are you sure you want my judgment and or opinions; not God's as revealed through His Word?

If that is the case, then I would reluctantly have to say that I think you are probably misinformed. I don't see it as intentional...just that you may have let your empathy, love and "don't rock the boat" feelings for your gay friends trump what is written in the Scriptures.

If you could read through all of the posts that I provided and not change your mind or position one bit, then you are obviously convinced that you are correct and I am wrong.

May I ask you a few questions?

Do you view homosexual behavior as sin or not?

If not, why not?

If yes, then how do you reconcile the gospel message of our need to repent of sin in order to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior over our lives and then turn around and advocate that two men or two women participating in such a sin live together in a civil union?

I do want to say that as fellow Christian believers, we can agree to disagree on side issues within the faith. Teaching and preaching "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" is the uniting factor all Christian believers share. However, I fear that because this is a doctrinal issue that involves the eternal destiny of souls caught up in sin, it is not to be taken lightly.

This very same issue turned out to be an obvious "sticking point" that I had with a lesbian Christian blogger named Deb. When she was posting here, things went well until this same disagreement came up. The things that I pointed out to her made her angry and she left. It wasn't my purpose to do that. I was hoping that she would stick around because I wanted to engage her in other conversations, too.

When I needed to rebuke (I've survived rebuking myself!) her position, I was taking this verse seriously as I attempted to point out the fault(s) of her theology:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And, 2 Timothy 3 has warnings galore about those who would, " resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith."

This is why Scripture should be our final authority regarding all manner of the faith.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I hope we can still keep a dialogue going, Grace, even though we disagree on this issue. I can see from how you phrased your question that you are a very loving person who tries to understand Christians with views opposite to yours. That is very admirable. Most end up dismissing me outright and leave. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen to us!

Love in Christ,
Christine

Boo said...

"Many groups, organizations, schools, and probably, eventually churches may very well be forced to recognize those unions. There have been incidences where people's rights of their "freedom of association" on this issue has been badly handled and damaged...(e.g. the Boy Scouts of America) especially when it comes to parent's rights for their children not to be subjected to homosexual behavior acceptance without that parent's permission."

When gay marriage is legal, people will have to recognize it as a LEGAL relationship. Whether any church wants to recognize it as a RELIGIOUS marriage is something else entirely. My brother married a Catholic woman and didn't sign a document promising to raise their children Catholic, so in the eyes of the Catholic church my sister-in-law is unmarried. The fact that she is legally married has no practical effect on how the Catholic church chooses to view her marriage. There is no reason to think anything would be different with gay marriage unless you believe gay activists will somehow overthrow the First Amendment.

"The whole same-sex marriage issue involves a great deal more than just two men or two women getting a marriage license. That type of recognition by the state would require all people in the state to accept such a union as normal, natural, healthy and just like a heterosexual marriage union, even if their religious beliefs say that it is not normal, natural or healthy but in fact, sin."

No, it would only require people and agencies to treat it as a legal union. There are still many people and churches that believe interracial marriage is not normal, natural, or healthy but in fact, sin, and no one is forcing them to change their beliefs. I have a married client, and if I want to believe that her marriage is against God's will, that's my own personal right. If I want to start redoing her documents to say she isn't married, then I cross a line.

If you believe you are called by God to tell gay people that they are immoral sinners who need to change, that is your right. If you need to use the coercive authority of government to enforce your religious views, that's a problem.

"History has shown that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has ever survived!"

No society has ever totally embraced (if by embraced you mean recognize as a legally equal relationship) homosexuality. Ancient Greece and Rome came close to social acceptance of homosexuality in some form, but you may notice that no ancient society from that time has survived, period. History also tends to show that when governments mix religious and political authority, the results aren't very pretty.

"As Dani said previously, no one is being discriminated against. Each person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That's how marriage is defined and there is no reason to change it because a small minority of people want it to be changed. Gay people have lived without a title of "marriage" for many generations here in America and they have been free to live together with their partners. Why the need to redefine marriage now?"

When interracial marriage was outlawed, no one was being discriminated against. Each person had the right to marry a person of their own race. That's how marriage was defined and only a small minority of people wanted it to be changed. People of different races had lived without a title of "marriage" for many generations and they had been free to live together with their partners. Why was there a need to redefine marriage?

"There are domestic partner laws in many states that give them all the benefits of marriage without the title, so why this insistence for the term "marriage" to be redefined? Vermont has "civil unions." Massachusetts has a marriage law but it will probably be overturned when the people get the chance to vote on the issue."

You implied above that you do not support civil unions for LGBT people. If you've seen the polls, gay marriage has consistent majority support in Massachusetts. Now that they actually have it most of them seem to realize it was nothing to be afraid of. (And in case you didn't realize, that's the real reason the radical right is pushing for a federal marriage amendment- they know they can't keep people scared about this forever.)

"A Democratic Republic is defined as being "of the people, by the people and for the people." It's not meant for a small minority to change the meaning of a more than 2,000 year institution unless the majority agrees. They don't agree, as we have seen state after state vote to keep the original definition of marriage intact."

This is extremely close to one of the arguments that was used to justify slavery. It had been around forever, it's sanctioned in the Bible, the majority wanted it, why change it?

Our particular Democratic Republic also says something to the effect that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or some such. As near as I recall, there's nothing that says "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others."

limpy99 said...

Boo keeps jumping in ahead of me and making my points. And doing it better than I can. I hate you for that Boo.

Basically, Christine, what Boo said. The only thing I will add to Boo's excellent (damn you Boo!) response is to Christine's statement that a Democracy essentially means majority rules. That may be the strict definition of democracy, but it has never been how the US works. The Constitution provides a floor, if you will, that guarantees all of us certain rights and says that we are all created equal. A correct reading of the Constitution leads inevitably to the conclusion that the STATE has to recognize gay marriage. Hence the push, (always timed for just before elections coincidentally), for an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriages. The majority can and does have its will exercised through voting, (putting aside the disgraceful fact that more people vote for American Idol than for President), but the Constitution trumps that by guranteeing certain rights to all people regardless of how the majority of people that gte off their butts long enough to vote may feel about it.

I also will highlight a point Boo made about Massachusetts. The polls do not show that gay marriage will be repealed, it's actually quite the opposite. Here in CT we have a law providing for civil unions, as does Vermont. As more and more people are exposed to married or otherwise legally committed homosexuals, they tend to realize that it is not the end of the world, and the entire issue loses traction.

By the way Boo, excellent point about the demise of ALL prior civilizations. Bastard.

Boo said...

"Bastard" does not apply. Check my profile ;-)

grace said...

Christine,

Yes, I do believe homosexual acts are sinful. I state that very plainly and clearly on my blog and to all my gay identified friends. And yet, I'm able to dialogue freely with gay folks and continue as a friend to them. Because I do love them...yes...enough to speak the truth, but also, enough to be gracious and kind to them and respect their individual decisions regarding their lives, what they'd like to be called, their diversity as individuals, and yes, even their committment to seeking God.
I continuously seek God for wisdom, grace, and patience in dealing with those who have different beliefs/worldviews than I do. And yes, that includes fellow Christians like you. I seek to operate in a spirit of humility because I am very confident in the Spirit of God that sustains me. It's easy to be gentle when God is at your side. On to your question.

Christine said:
"If yes, then how do you reconcile the gospel message of our need to repent of sin in order to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior over our lives and then turn around and advocate that two men or two women participating in such a sin live together in a civil union?"

My answer to that is simple. I continued to sin after I came into relationship with Christ. In fact, there are certain sins that I continue to struggle with, even now. Some of the sins I've struggled most with were not made known to me as sin early on in my relationship with Christ. I was just a baby, growing up in Jesus. I'm pretty sure that as I continue to grow in Him, He'll continue to reveal more and more areas of my life that need to be turned over to Him completely. It's a process. I came to Jesus as a sinner and I still am a sinner. As I continue to grow in Him, the fruits of His spirit become more an more evident in me, and I continue to make better and better choices regarding sinful behaviors. Again, it's a process. Most gay Christians are absolutely convinced that monogamous homosexual unions are not sinful. I can reinterpret those scriptures for them until I'm blue in the face...but...they are smart, they know what I'm going to say even before I say it. They have gone to great lengths to understand homosexual acts as being not sinful. The very best thing that I can do is continue to love them as Jesus loves me. He continues to extend grace and mercy to me as I grow in Him and I, in turn, extend grace and mercy to others. My opinions about what is sin or not will never keep folks from sinning. But, the power of the Holy Spirit, working perhaps through me toward others, in love, might just have an effect at some point.

I don't have a problem with civil unions in the same way that I don't have a problem with capitalism and social injustice. I can agree that these are unChristlike aspects of our culture...and yes, even sinful. And yet, because I believe in the freedom of my fellow man to make decisions regarding his life and how he lives it, I'm not going to rail politically against these things. I'm going to continue to live out the Gospel as I see fit and live my own life in the framework of God's Kingdom come...here, right now, as it is in heaven.

I know you won't agree with any of this. And that's okay. I'm not here to try and convince you of anything, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding of where you are coming from in the way you deal with folks (like me and others) on a day-to-day basis. I have no interest in long debates trying to convince people of various sides of issues. I'm really only interested in how we operate towards one another based on the mighty work that Christ has done for us.

love in Him,
grace

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

There are many reasons why conservatives fight for the maintenance of traditional marriage. And, it's not only for religious reasons. There are secular reasons why same-sex marriage needs to be opposed.

Your position that it's a civil rights issue similar to the black civil rights movement is considered a type of "hijacking" by many civil rights leaders.

Limpy99,

The fact that people are voting on an issue that is extremely important; that is, changing what marriage means and has meant since the beginning of civilization, is paramount to whether or not the majority should make the decision or not.

What if I was a New Age religion person and I wanted to change the definition of homosexual to mean something else? What if I was in the minority but I insisted that it is "my civil right" to do so? Is my minority status on that belief more important than the majority of homosexual people who would not want the definition changed?

Marriage is not just a side issue that can (or should) be bantered about, catering to the whims of any group of people who decide one day to forever change that time-honored institution by changing the definition. It's not just a religious issue, either. Go to the links I posted in my reply to Boo and see why it's not only Christians (or, Judeo-Christian Bible reasons) who are against redefining marriage.

Grace,

That was beautifully said. I truly mean it! You are obviously a more humble, better person than I.

I was glad to read that you do regard homosexual behavior as sin. We just differ in our approach to the subject.

Have you ever read The Way of the Master? That is a book that humbled me no end! It convicted me and pierced me to my soul regarding my sinful condition. It was, in fact, a shock to my soul and spirit! Why? Because it showed me that I couldn't have accepted the mercy, grace, forgiveness and salvation through Christ without first repenting for all my sins. I repent daily for those "daily dirties" that sometimes we don't want to face as sin. But I don't want to willfully sin as I once did. I don't want to make Jesus a "minister of sin" by trampling upon His mercy and grace that way. I'm far from perfect, but the Holy Spirit's leading has helped me tremendously in the area of sanctification. We never truly "arrive" in that area, but we can work towards it daily.

There was nothing I could do to earn my salvation. The only thing I could do was fall down on my knees and ask the Lord's forgiveness, recognize what Christ did on the cross on my behalf, and invite Him, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit into my heart to lead and guide me in my life.

To be honest, I never wamted to get involved with the gay agenda; either politically or spiritually. I saw how horribly Anita Bryant was treated back in the 70's and I distinctly remember saying to myself, "I'm never going to say anything against gay activists." Funny how the Lord had a different plan for my life!

You may regard me as the misinformed, incorrect approach type of person for the job of evangelism towards homosexual people. Perhaps you are right about that. I even did a blogpost about it in the past. Then I came to realize (especially through the Way of the Master book) that sharing the gospel message no matter how gently we try to approach it will ultimately get down to the nitty gritty of the need for repentance of sin. That aspect of the Great Commission does not sit well with any kind of sinner...which is all of us...amen?

Back when I was a "newbie" at blogging, there was a group of homosexual people who attacked me verbally here at my blog and in another blog where they congregated. It got to the point where I shared a "secret" prayer for them. Even though I thought that the prayer might be received well, it wasn't. I couldn't locate it at the moment...but it was based on the following Scripture:


"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ephesians 6:12
"...And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire..." Jude 1:22-23

I prayed that when unrepentant homosexuals are near death's door, that they would repent of their sin, if they hadn't already done so.

Grace, I have found that this sin is one of the most difficult for people to face. It is seen as a battle between grace and pride.

Like the thief who was crucified next to Jesus at the cross of Calvary, we all need to make that decision to repent and ask for God's mercy and grace; even if it is in our last hour on earth.

I don't know if you will agree or accept anything that I have shared here; but it is my hope that perhaps you might see that my heart for the salvation of the homosexual through Christ is in the right place despite my faults and inabilities to express it properly in your eyes.

God bless,
Christine

grace said...

Thank you Christine! :) I do believe that if all of your writing, towards the gay community in general, had the same sort of tone you just took with me, (and remember, you were speaking absolute truth there) that your efforts to evangelize in that community might be a bit more fruitful and certainly alot less caustic.

I know that we serve the same Jesus and that He places us, in community, to serve one another in love. I don't doubt that for a minute. Our various approaches to the exact same issue are colored greatly by our own experiences. I think what drew me to read your words toward gay folks was the fact that much of what you've said is discouraging to those like my husband who struggle with unwanted same sex attractions. It's not nearly as black and white as making a simple choice as you seem to come across in your writings. Would that it were so, for those like my husband...if it were simply a matter of deciding not to be gay, he'd have avoided years of struggle and agony.

LOVE is the absolute key. My husband did hurtful, horrible things against me because of his struggle....and I loved him and accepted him and continue to walk with him on this journey. It is a very "nuanced" sort of issue and coming out with these bold statements railing against homosexuality in general does nothing but alienate everyone involved. Struggler and out and proud gay alike.

I do believe your heart is in the right place. I think the biggest difference in our approach is the fact that I continue to love and am willing to support gay folks in their "unrepentance". The thing is, Jesus did the same for me. He's never left me, never abadoned me, He died to save me even if I never repented. What greater love can there be, than to lay down your life for a friend? Jesus never said to me, "you have *blank* number of chances, love me back, repent of your sin, or i'm done with you" I mean, in the END it might be so...but not here in this age. (i know about the unpardonable sin...let's not go there, ok?)

I don't know. I do feel more capable now, of having dialogue and even friendship with you than I ever have from reading your writing in the past. I appreciate your willingness to listen and the humility you displayed in your last post to me.

I KNOW we're not ever going to agree on politically charged issues *wink wink*...but..is that okay with you? Cause, it is with me. I guess my entire purpose in posting here was to try and discover if you were capable of being friends and accepting someone like me as a fellow Christian. You do tend to draw many lines in the sand, so to speak, and I've just been curious as to which side of that line someone like me might fall on in your opinion.

My blog is more of a questioning, journeying place and you have one where you pretty much let everyone know what they ought to think. I think that's another primary difference in our approach. Please don't take that as a slam...I don't mean it that way. There's a place, I think, for both of us in community together with Christ.

What say you, Christine? :)

love in Christ,
grace

p.s. aren't you proud of me for being so long-winded???? heehee!

Boo said...

"There are many reasons why conservatives fight for the maintenance of traditional marriage. And, it's not only for religious reasons. There are secular reasons why same-sex marriage needs to be opposed."

Christine- I looked through the posts, and the links from the posts, and I have to say I couldn't see anything specific about how gay marriage will will harm "traditional marriage" or any seculr reasons to oppose gay marriage. I saw Article 8 complaining about schools acknowledging the existence of gay people, but there is no logical conneciton to same-sex marriage that I could see. (This being the same Article 8 people who recently lied to drag David Parker's small child through the mud, and wouldn't own up to their mistake even after being caught red handed) This may be a defect in my reading skills. If you believe there are specific reasons laid out in those articles and posts on exactly how same-sex marriage will harm "traditional" marriage or society at large, please call my attention to them. (with specific examples)

"Your position that it's a civil rights issue similar to the black civil rights movement is considered a type of "hijacking" by many civil rights leaders."

Unfortunately being a victim of prejudice does not always immunize one against being an agent of prejudice. The article you linked to had so many ridiculous flaws it's hard to know where to start. Overall, it seems to be based on two fallacies: that since the discrimination faced by homosexuals is not exactly the same to that faced by blacks, there can be no comparison at all, and that there is a limited supply of "rights" and for one group to gain another must somehow lose. It's a long article, but here are some highlights of the bad reasoning:

"When has a multitude of gays been kidnapped and made to be slaves for 400 years? When was it illegal to teach gays to read and write? When were there ever any gay Jim Crow laws? When were gays required to say "sah" or "ma'am" to straight people? When were there separated gay and straight water fountains? In public buildings, when were there separate entrances for gays and straights, the gays going out the back? In theaters, have gays been forced to sit in the balcony while the straights sit on the main floor? When were there segregated lunch counters based on sexual preference? When was a gay required to give up their seat on a bus to a straight person? Who was the gay Rosa Parks? Were gays at the bottom of the economic social structure for decades? Where were the poor gay ghettos? When have gays gotten worse jobs and lower pay than straight people? When were there separate-but-equal schools for gays and straights?"

When were black people shut up in mental institutions and forced to undergo electroshock and aversion therapy to "cure" them of being black? When have black kids been kicked out of their homes by their families for being black?

Both blacks and gays have been the targets of bigoted sermons trying to prove from the Bible that we are inferior to white/straight people. Both blacks and gays have been the targets of systemic job discrimination. There are similarities and differences. Jews were said to be spawn of the devil who kidnapped Christian children to use their blood in rituals. Blacks were said to be inferior mud people who longed to rape little white girls. Gays are said to be pedophiles looking to "recruit" children. It's always different, and it's always the same.

"Being black is not a lifestyle choice."

Neither is being gay. But it's very interesting that a black person would make this argument, since it carries the implicit assumption that if black people could make the choice to become white they ought to do so. Do you believe this to be true, Christine? The "immutable" argument falls apart anyway when you consider that religious affiliation is often made a protected class.

"Even when people of different races were prohibited by law from marrying," he noted, "it didn't redefine the institution of marriage."

Yes, actually, it did. It redefined it from being only within one's race to being between people of any race. That changed the definition of marriage. Hence, it was redefined. Just as it was when polygamy was outlawed.

"Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that."

I see. This must be why infertile people are prohibited by law from marrying. Oh wait, they aren't.

"The laws against blacks and whites marrying were rooted in race, which is immutable and permanent. It was based in the argument that blacks and whites should not be together. The philosophic argument here is not about race or immutable characteristics. The argument is based on the assumption, incorrectly, that marriage, which by definition, philosophically, is between a man and woman, should be conferred equal status to gays. This is a non sequitur form of reasoning."

The laws against gays marrying are rooted in sexual orientation, which is immutable and permanent. It is based on the argument that men and men or women and women should not be together. The arguments for interracial marriage were based on the assumption that the relationship between a man and a woman of different races should be conferred equal status to marriage between men and women of the same race, when by definition marriage was between only those of the same race. You'll have to point me to the non-sequiter here.

"They have not been deprived of the law's equal protection, or of the right to marry -- only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically -- by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights."

Keeping in mind that Loving vs. Virgina was decided by "judicial fiat", the EXACT same thing could have been said about interracial marriage:

They have not been deprived of the law's equal protection, or of the right to marry -- only of the right to insist that a multi-race union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically -- by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.

"When homosexuals are asked whether a "right" to same-sex marriage would have to be extended to polygamists and incestuous relationships on the basis of equal protection, they dismiss the question as slippery-slope hysteria. They refuse to explain why, if their "loving and committed relationships" qualify for marriage, the same "civil right" they demand should not be granted to other "loving and committed" relationships."

Again, anyone who makes this argument is implicitly conceding that they can't think of any reasons why polygamy or incest should be outlawed.

"What if I was a New Age religion person and I wanted to change the definition of homosexual to mean something else? What if I was in the minority but I insisted that it is "my civil right" to do so? Is my minority status on that belief more important than the majority of homosexual people who would not want the definition changed?"

Go right ahead, it makes no difference to me however you want to define any words. You can say "homosexual" means a leafy green plant, and I can say "marriage" means a desk to sit my computer on. How are we "harming" each other? If you want to believe that gay marriages aren't real, by all means, do so. However, you have no legitimate need to enlist government to enforce your religious prejudices.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Grace,

Yes! I truly believe that we can keep a great dialogue going. The Lord knows that I need that "tempering" to my "causticness" every now and then (Just ask my sis in Christ Susan Smith! ;-) )

I also think that the combination of my political position against gay activism in schools with my desire to evangelize for Christ often clashes from the get go.

I remember mentioning to a professor at the GodBlog conference last year that I would like to help win souls to Christ via my blog. He just looked at me and said something about it being a very difficult goal to achieve. He's probably 100% correct on that one.

So what's left?

Attracting atheists/agnostics/skeptics to my blog and sharing the Word of God with them in the hopes that they may feel the nudging of the Holy Spirit knocking on the door of their hearts?

I can see why your conversational approach works well for you. You steer clear of the volatile political issues that can polarize people whereas I post about such conflicts consistently at my blog. I once thought about creating two separate blogs; one for political issues and the other stictly for discussing the Bible and evangelism. Then I thought that perhaps I should keep them together and relate biblical truth to today's social and political issues. It can be difficult to compassionately balance between the two...

I have to tell you my daughter's reaction to this:

Grace said, "My blog is more of a questioning, journeying place and you have one where you pretty much let everyone know what they ought to think."

I asked her if that perfectly describes your mom...she said yes while shaking her head affirmatively!! Then she added, "but I don't think it's a bad thing...you're just sharing what you have gotten out of God's Word and you're not really telling others that they have to think in exactly the same way..."

I must be guilty as charged! Although I thought I was sharing what God says in His Word is how we ought to think!

I have to tell you...I laughed till I cried when I read what you wrote. Not because I was mocking what you stated. Not because I was hurt. But because it's just so true of me! No one has ever put it so succinctly before. The rest of my family is gonna love hearing about it! ;-)

It will be something I can work on in my dialogue style from now on.

I appreciate your sharing about the struggle your husband faces and the loving way you have handled it all. That takes great courage, humility and love. If he ever reads this blog and he has been offended and/or hurt by my words, please tell him that it wasn't my intention and would you ask him to forgive me? I will keep him in mind from now on when I post about same-sex attraction issues.

Again, I think that the old saying, "religion and politics don't mix" is true. I seem to either uplift one aspect of the two, but then offend due to the opposition to the other. But I will work on that as well.

I think very highly of you, Grace. I view you as my Christian sister. I can learn a lot from you, just as I have from my friend Susan who has helped "temper" my dialogue from time to time when I obviously needed it!

It was great chatting with you here. I think that we have progressed greatly in our understanding of each other's motives. I'm sure that we can (and will) develop a great friendship from now on.

Yes, I'm proud of your longwindedness! Uh oh...is my style in that respect rubbing off on you? Yikes...

Love in Christ,
Christine

P.S. My former neighbor once said, "Sometimes Christians are the hardest people to love" and isn't THAT the truth??

limpy99 said...

I'm just going to shut up and let Boo do all the heavy lifting.

BUT, just to address the points you made to me, the issue is, again, that in this country we have a Constitution that provides for basic human rights for all people, even unpopular minorities. Even if 70% of the population votes for a law that says homosexuals can't own property, that won't fly because it is unconstitutional and deprives a class of people of a fundamental right. The laws being passed now, banning homosexual marriage, also deprive a class of people of a right to marry the type of person they are attracted to. The key questions then become is marriage a fundamental right and does the state have a legitimate interest in restricting how that right is exercised.

For instance, we all have a fundamental right to free speech, but the state certainly has a legitimate interest in preventing me from exercising that right by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Recently courts in New York and Washington state ruled, in part, that marriage isn't a fundamental right and therefore laws in those states are OK with the courts if they're OK with the legislature. Personally I disagree with this reasoning, as my own marriage and family experience convince me that being able to spend my life with whom I choose is pretty darn fundamental to my happiness.

In terms of changing the definition of marriage, Boo, (again), makes the point about names being interchangeable. I had written about symbols over substance in a different post about flag burning, (not here), and I think a similar logic applies here. I am pretty sure from your earlier arguments, but not positive, that you do not have a problem with states allowing homosexuals to live together and be legally recognized as a couple in a civil union. If this is true, you and I probably don't disagree all that much on the issue. Certainly we disagree on whether or not homosexuality itself is sinful, but my position would be that if there is a state recognized system that allows a homosexual couple ALL the rights of a heterosexual couple, then we could call it "big rock candy mountain" instead of marriage and I would be OK with that. To me the substance of the relationship is far more important than the name.

grace said...

Christine,

I'm glad you were able to respond in laughter and could enjoy that laugh with your daughter! I truly did write it in a spirit of love and grace...or at least was trying to do so.

You are an extremely passionate person...which is good. Your passion for scripture and the message of salvation is overwhelming. I didn't mean to come down harshly in my assessment of your style but I have been praying for a while about how to approach you with some of this. I have no idea why God laid you on my heart and I've wished that He hadn't because, frankly, it's scary, risky, and even time-consuming to venture into uncomfortable places with folks.

But God is good...and faithful, and His ways are so much higher than ours.

I will continue to read what you have to say. You have many good things to say....MORE than many. I believe that God wants you to be truly heard and felt in the hearts and minds of those who read here. Once your passion for scripture and the salvation message are tempered with spiritual fruits (most of those are relational in nature) then you will have an even more excellent thing going here.

Thanks Christine! Talking with you helps me as well...very much!

love in Christ,
grace

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

The secular reasons against legalizing same-sex marriage include the following:

1. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare.

2. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare.

3. The law is a great teacher; it encourages or discourages behavior and attitudes.

4. Legalization of homosexual marriage would encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive. It also would weaken the perceived importance of traditional marriage and its parenting role, thereby resulting in further destruction of the family and society itself.

5. The law should endorse behaviors that are beneficial and restrain (or certainly not endorse) behaviors that are destructive.

6. Therefore, the law should endorse traditional marriage and it should restrain (or certainly not endorse) homosexual marriage.

I will refer you (again) to this post which goes into more detail under each of those reasons.

Limpy99,

The point is that the traditional view of marriage is at stake. Even if just 2 people think that the law should be changed, our democratic republic deserves the opportunity to vote on the matter. Otherwise, many new laws could come into being by judcial fiat.

Oh wait a minute. Such a thing has already happened with Roe vs. Wade. The proponents knew that if such a decision was up to each individual state and the people voted on the issue, then we would most likely have "abortion permitted" states and states where the practice would be banned.

When a few people make a judgment about the lives of the unborn, and that judgment comes down to giving them death rather than what the Constitution says they should have the right to (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then such a judgment may be legal but it doesn't make it right. The same thing happened (IMO) with the Texas sodomy case (that was staged, BTW). The judgment of the a few radicals in black robes turned what used to be considered an undesirable, unhealthy, disease spreading, sinful act into a new "law." Again. It may be legal, but it doesn't make it right.

In fact, that Texas sodomy judgment made the liberal, licientious views of homosexual behavior the new way for gay activists to, unfortunately (in my view, at least) help some of the public to side with their agenda.

We now must deal with The effects of homosexual indoctrination on kids, the liklihood of destroying freedom of conscience, which then, inevitably, will lead into destroying freedom of religion as it already has in Canada, and the threat of the homosexual agenda to our freedoms, both in general, but particularly when it comes to parenting. The push for hate crimes laws turn into "thought crimes". This would punish some more severely than others, making it an obvious assault on freedom of speech as well as elevate the crime done against a homosexual to higher (with more severe punishment) than a crime done against a non-homosexual person.

We see the negative effects of legalized homosexual marriage in the state of Massachusetts.

The David Parker incident and the more recent P-town incident where gays harrassed straights and a black female reverend was called the n-word.

One commenter at a message board had this to say about the P-town incident:

"...is known as a place where people can feel free to be themselves.
Sounds like "being themselves" reveals them as pretty nasty people.

Sure seems that they can be pretty nasty and intimidating when they have the numbers advantage on their side.

...Tensions boiled over this year after the names and addresses of ... Massachusetts residents ... who signed a petition seeking a constitutional amendment against gay marriage were published on the knowthyneighbor Web site...
"

Obviously, they don't want the Massachusetts people to vote on whether or not gay marriage should remain legal in MA. The antics in Provincetown against straights and tourists sure don't help their cause, either...

And, just for good measure, we now have an incident where a homosexual cop threatens Christians at a Promise Keepers Event!

Limpy99 said, "I am pretty sure from your earlier arguments, but not positive, that you do not have a problem with states allowing homosexuals to live together and be legally recognized as a couple in a civil union. If this is true, you and I probably don't disagree all that much on the issue. Certainly we disagree on whether or not homosexuality itself is sinful, but my position would be that if there is a state recognized system that allows a homosexual couple ALL the rights of a heterosexual couple, then we could call it "big rock candy mountain" instead of marriage and I would be OK with that."

You might be on to something there! But it might be a bit long to place on a recognition document! ;-)

It's interesting to note that there is not much upheaval going on between warring political groups in Vermont where the term "civil unions" is used.

I wonder why that is? Hmmm....

Christinewjc said...

In our liberal, licientious, anything goes secular humanist culture, we now we have a pedophile (who happens to be a male seeking sex with boys...Texas sodomy ruling have anything to do with this???) proclaiming his "civil right" to to molest and violate children!

ick....

UGH!!!

Boo said...

"1. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare."

Explain how gay marriage threatens anyone's "traditional" marriage. You have been asked to do so many times. You have never done so.

"2. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare."

You claim this as a secular reason to be against gay marriage. There are no secular authorities who agree with you.

"3. The law is a great teacher; it encourages or discourages behavior and attitudes."

Should we then have a law limiting fast food consumption and putting everyone on a monthly broccoli quota? Even if so, this does not apply per #2

"4. Legalization of homosexual marriage would encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive. It also would weaken the perceived importance of traditional marriage and its parenting role, thereby resulting in further destruction of the family and society itself."

Again, there is no secular evidence that homosexual behavior is inherently destructive. Promiscuity is destructive, and gay marriage will lead to a decrease in promiscuity. Gay marriage will therefore help to limit destructive behavior. The latter half of your argument hinges on the assumption that heterosexuals get married so they can feel superior to homosexuals. Is this so, and if so, is it not heterosexuals' problem? It is not the business of the government to shore up your perceptions of what is important.

Without 1-4, 5 and 6 are irrelevant.

"The point is that the traditional view of marriage is at stake. Even if just 2 people think that the law should be changed, our democratic republic deserves the opportunity to vote on the matter. Otherwise, many new laws could come into being by judcial fiat."

If the country had followed your reasoning 50 years ago, segregation would still be in place. The point is that equal rights are supposed to be guaranteed no matter how unpopular any particular group is. You have stated before on this blog that you believe Christians are becoming an embattled minority. If the time comes, would you want our rights as Christians up for popular vote?

"When a few people make a judgment about the lives of the unborn, and that judgment comes down to giving them death rather than what the Constitution says they should have the right to (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then such a judgment may be legal but it doesn't make it right. The same thing happened (IMO) with the Texas sodomy case (that was staged, BTW). The judgment of the a few radicals in black robes turned what used to be considered an undesirable, unhealthy, disease spreading, sinful act into a new "law." Again. It may be legal, but it doesn't make it right."

That is precisely the point we have been trying to make to you. You are free to believe homosexuality is wrong. No one disputes your right to do this. We are talking about the law here. (Brown vs. Board of Education was also staged, btw. It's called a "test case" and it's a time-honored way of challenging unjust laws)

We now must deal with The effects of homosexual indoctrination on kids, the liklihood of destroying freedom of conscience, which then, inevitably, will lead into destroying freedom of religion as it already has in Canada, and the threat of the homosexual agenda to our freedoms, both in general, but particularly when it comes to parenting. The push for hate crimes laws turn into "thought crimes". This would punish some more severely than others, making it an obvious assault on freedom of speech as well as elevate the crime done against a homosexual to higher (with more severe punishment) than a crime done against a non-homosexual person.

Why do you insist on bringing in the same debunked canards over and over? You have been asked several times to explain exactly how gay marriage will result in overturning the First Amendment. You have never done so. Time to fish or cut bait. Your "effects of homosexual indoctrination on kids" post seems primarily to complain that schools do not teach your views of homsexuality. Schools do not teach kids to love Buffy The Vampire Slayer as much as I do, but I accept that schools do not exist to impart my opinions.

"The David Parker incident and the more recent P-town incident where gays harrassed straights and a black female reverend was called the n-word."

If gay marriage interferes with people's attempts to trespass, then bring on gay marriage. So there will be less trespassing.

The harrassment you referred to was one person being called a bigot for signing the anti-marriage petition, some people being called breeders, and one woman complaining that gay people put dog poo by her car (the evidence: she found dog poo by her car. Obviously it was a gay dog.)

2 things: first, gay people all over the country get called the F word and worse every day and it doesn't make the news, because it's so common. This, by your reasoning, means we ought to overturn heterosexual marriage. Fortunately I don't agree with your reasoning, so I will not call for the abolishment of heterosexual marriage. Second, does this put the lie to the religious right's claim that their campaign against gay rights does not inspire acts of hate against gays?

If you believe you have the right to tell me I am an immoral sinner because of free speech, then surely a gay person has the right to tell someone they're a bigot because of free speech, or does freedom only apply to the groups you choose?

"One commenter at a message board had this to say about the P-town incident:

"...is known as a place where people can feel free to be themselves.
Sounds like "being themselves" reveals them as pretty nasty people.

Sure seems that they can be pretty nasty and intimidating when they have the numbers advantage on their side.

...Tensions boiled over this year after the names and addresses of ... Massachusetts residents ... who signed a petition seeking a constitutional amendment against gay marriage were published on the knowthyneighbor Web site..."

Obviously, they don't want the Massachusetts people to vote on whether or not gay marriage should remain legal in MA. The antics in Provincetown against straights and tourists sure don't help their cause, either..."

Again, when the bad behavior of individual anti-gay activists is brought up, you desire that they be treated as individuals. Why do you not grant the same for the bad behavior of individual gays?

"And, just for good measure, we now have an incident where a homosexual cop threatens Christians at a Promise Keepers Event!"

If this turns out to be true, then:

1. Fire the cop.

2. Explain to me what this has to do with gay marriage.

"In our liberal, licientious, anything goes secular humanist culture, we now we have a pedophile (who happens to be a male seeking sex with boys...Texas sodomy ruling have anything to do with this???) proclaiming his "civil right" to to molest and violate children!"

And this has... what to do with what we're discussing?

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

I have just a moment because I am in between deliveries with my part time job.

The post link contains further reasons and explanations (non-biblical) for why same-sex marriage would hurt traditional marriage and society in general. The is no need for me to post the reasons here because anyone can go to that post and read all the reasons. Just because you do not personally see the reasons as relevant, doesn't automatically mean that they are not legitimate concerns and/or invalid!

The article about the homosexual pedophile wanting a "civil right" to have sex with young boys shows that anyone can claim to have a right to anything these days because of liberal, licientious behavior which was once regarded as unfavorable for society. Just because someone claims that they should have a civil right to something, doesn't necessarily mean that they should have that "right." As I pointed out in previous posts, even black civil rights leaders dislike the gay activist agenda "hijacking" their cause.

Gay relationships do not meet the criteria for using the term marriage. Marriage is a privilege afforded to one man and one woman as has been traditionally done for hundreds of years.

I may have the desire to fly an airplane, but I also need the qualifications and standards to have that privilege. If I don't pass my flying lesson tests then I don't get that privilege. Just like in marriage, if you are a woman and your partner isn't a man, you don't pass the test of the definition of what marriage is! If a woman wants to partner with another woman then call it something else! Even someone who wants to marry several women has to do that. They call it polygamy.

The incident about the gay cop causing harrassment at the Christian event was because he was trying to prevent attendees from signing a petition to ban gay marriage in Florida (didn't you read the article??) That's why I mentioned it.

Boo said...

"The post link contains further reasons and explanations (non-biblical) for why same-sex marriage would hurt traditional marriage and society in general. The is no need for me to post the reasons here because anyone can go to that post and read all the reasons. Just because you do not personally see the reasons as relevant, doesn't automatically mean that they are not legitimate concerns and/or invalid!"

I'm not sure which post link you're talking about. If you're referring to your post from 8:21am, which is the one I was referring to when I said those links contained no secular arguments against gay marriage, then I'm sorry, but they don't. The first link under that post consists of Brian Camenker railing against Massachusets schools teaching about the existence of homosexuality. As near as I can tell, the complaint seems to be that the existence of homosexual marriage means that schools will acknowledge its existence, which interferes with the right of parents to tell their children that homosexual marriage does not exist? I suppose one could make that claim about any facts taught in schools. Geography classes interfere with a parent's ability to convince their children that the earth is flat. The existence of gay marriage is not responsible for the claims that anti-gay parents want to make about it. The comparison of gay people to a virus under the "late update" link from that page was especially special. It's always heartwarming when these men of God take a page from The Eternal Jew. Aside from the 6 points I debunked in an earlier post, the rest of the article was... quite bizarre. Mr. Turek begins by describing what he claims is the result of "the homosexual lifestyle," which in his mind seems to consist of gay men being extremely promiscuous, and for some reason sees this as an argument against gay marriage when the man wasn't married. Since marriage has historically constrained promiscuity, gay marriage would make the scenario he envisioned less likely.

Then there's this gem:

"Your income taxes may be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy."

Leaving aside the fact that there is no logical connection between gay marriage and an "increase in illegitimacy" (but if you can explain to me how gay marriage will result in more children being born out of wedlock and raised by single parents, have at it) the tax benefits he is talking about occur with ANY increase in the rate of marriage, so his argument is actually for having less marriages period.

So, no secular reasons so far. There's one secular reason to be against marriage in general, but do you really want the marriage rate to go down just so you can save on your taxes?

Second link was the same Turek article. Already debunked. Still no secular arguments.

Third link was to an article about some black people complaining about the linkage between gay civil rights and black civil rights. Still no secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

Other two links in that post were religious in nature. So...

What are the secular reasons? If gay marriage causes harm to "traditional" marriage exactly how does it do so? If this harm consists of straight people finding it harder to think of gays as morally inferior if we have marriage rights, why are gay people responsible for the way some straight people choose to think?

"The article about the homosexual pedophile wanting a "civil right" to have sex with young boys shows that anyone can claim to have a right to anything these days because of liberal, licientious behavior which was once regarded as unfavorable for society. Just because someone claims that they should have a civil right to something, doesn't necessarily mean that they should have that "right." As I pointed out in previous posts, even black civil rights leaders dislike the gay activist agenda "hijacking" their cause."

We have discussed before how if you would actually read the scientific literature on pedophilia, you would know that "homosexual" is not quite an accurate term to apply to a pedophile (nor is "heterosexual"). I'm still not sure what your point in bringing this up is. Under the rights of freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government, and the right to trial in open court, anyone is free to claim any right to anything, but claiming to have a right doesn't mean you have a right. I guess you're trying the slippery slope argument again, but that doesn't work. If there is an argument to be made against pedophilia as pedophilia, then that argument stands regardless of the status of gay marriage. Overwhelming scientific consensus agrees that pedophilia harms children, hence there are good secular reasons to outlaw it which do not exist for homosexuality. If 99.9% of expert opinion agreed that pedophilia does not harm children, then he might have a case, but it doesn't.

"I may have the desire to fly an airplane, but I also need the qualifications and standards to have that privilege. If I don't pass my flying lesson tests then I don't get that privilege. Just like in marriage, if you are a woman and your partner isn't a man, you don't pass the test of the definition of what marriage is! If a woman wants to partner with another woman then call it something else! Even someone who wants to marry several women has to do that. They call it polygamy."

Actually, they call it polygamous marriage, and it used to be legal in some parts of this country and still is in many parts of the world. I'm thinking of something Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had in common, besides being in the Bible and being Hebrews. Can you tell me what it is? I'll give you a hint: this common characteristic they all shared has to do with their marriages. Fortunately, that sort of thing doesn't go on in this country any more since we decided to change the definition of marriage. As I said before, I don't care what you personally want to call gay marriage, but when the law does it it's known as "separate but equal" which has a rather unsavory pedigree.

"The incident about the gay cop causing harrassment at the Christian event was because he was trying to prevent attendees from signing a petition to ban gay marriage in Florida (didn't you read the article??) That's why I mentioned it."

So I suppose what you're saying is that gay marriage made this cop exceed his authority and harass people? Does that mean that the anti-gay rhetoric of the religious right causes anti-gay violence? Or should that incident be blamed on the cop himself? If you're interested in cops harrassing people, did you hear about how Renew America's Guy Adams, who appears to also be a police officer, sent Joe Brummer a serious of threatening emails after claiming that gay people have sex with infants on a radio show? They make interesting reading if you're into psychotic ravings. So who is responsible for Mr. Adams' behavior? Mr. Adams or anti-gay activists like you?

http://www.joebrummer.com/adams-emails.htm

I still can't get html stuff to work.