Why Prop. 8 Still Scares Me

I keep this blog out of the political realm because, frankly, human beings have much more pressing issues than what is going on in Washington.  That is why you will notice that this article, although about a political issue, isn’t about politics at all.

For those of you who have lived in a cave for the past 2 months, California’s Prop 8 proposed to add an amendment to the California State Constitution, defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman.  A brief history:  in 2000, Prop 22, which prevented same-sex marriage, passed with 61.4% approval and only 38.6% against.  On April 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 in In re Marriage Cases.  The defenders of traditional marriage had an answer ready and quickly gathered over 1 million votes in order to put Prop 8 on the ballot for November 4th. 

Prop 8 has passed and, being a constitional amendment, has overturned the California Supreme Courts’ decision on April 15th.  As a Christian, I should be content, right?  Traditional marriage has been protected for another day, shouldn’t I feel a sense of comfort in that?  But, I had no comfort.  The way Prop. 8 has played out over the last month, even with it winning, has left me with nothing but apprehension for the future of humanity.

But why “the future of humanity” hyperbole?

I honestly contemplated wether or not this had anything to do with the Biblical position on homosexuality.  Yet, I work with several homosexuals, two on a daily basis, and, if this apprehension was due to the issue of homosexuality in general, I would have this aversion to them, and I don’t.  People are people, and even though they know how I feel about their lifestyle, we get along splendidly. 

They Tried to Redefine a Word

I realized that there were a few things about Prop. 8 that had nothing to do with homosexuality that just literally scared me.  The first being that the “No on Prop. 8” people (specifically the lawyers who brought the In re Marriages Cases to the California Supreme Court, the activist group that hired them, and those that wrote and supported the TV and radio advertisements) were attempting to redefine a word.

Wether you consider the Bible to be God’s Word, mere history or farce, marriage has been defined as the joining of a man to a woman since the beginning of recorded history.  I understand an individuals desire to marry the person they love, gay or straight.  However, because a miniscule part of the population desires something, we should redefine a word that has existed as it is for hundreds upon hundreds of years to satisfy them?

What about redefining the word “rape” to only include women that didn’t have a certain blood-alcohol level at the time of sex?  What about redefining the word “murder” to only include those that didn’t deserve it?  What about redefining the word “citizen” to include only those born in this country.  Surely, there is a minority of the population out there who desire each. Before the ad campaign for “No on Prop. 8”, I would have thought those ideas farfetched.  But if we start at redefining the word “marriage” just because certain people want to do so, what’s next?  You may scoff at the idea, but I challenge you to think about it again.  What if the MAJORITY wanted to start redefining words, would we grant them such power?  Should we?

Not Once Did They Mention The Issue Being Voted On

“No on Prop. 8” did it.  They were able to run an entire ad campaign about same-sex marriage without uttering the words “same-sex marriage”.  The second thing that scared me was, not only did they do this, but it nearly worked.  They had almost half of California voting no on Prop. 8 based on the phrase “equal rights for all” when the vote was about “same-sex marriage”.  One of the “no on Prop. 8” ads even prominently displayed the phrase, “Regardless of how you feel about marriage, Prop. 8 is just wrong.”  Am I in bizarro world?  “Regardless of how you feel about marriage…”?  The Prop is ABOUT marriage! 

This would be just like if I said to you, “Regardless on how you feel about who should be president, Barack Obama should be president.”  Shouldn’t we all be insulted and apprehensive that legislation was almost passed without ever mentioning what the legislation was about?

However, you may be reading this, saying to yourself, “Prop. 8 DID take away a basic human right.”  That is another thing that scared me, about the “no on Prop. 8” campaign, they tried to redefine basic human rights

Having a Marriage License Is Not A Basic Human Right

Is having a business license a basic human right?  What about having a driver’s license?  Could I sue the DMV for not giving me a drivers license based on them “violating my human rights?”  Of course not.  Could I sue my ex-wife (I don’t have one of those by the way) for “violating my human rights” by divorcing me?  Of course not.  Having a marriage license is not, and has never been, a basic human right. 

Isn’t it scary, that the “No on Prop. 8” people were almost able to redefine what basic human rights are?  Isn’t it scary, the amount of outrage produced at the mere mention of a violation of human rights, without questioning whether or not human rights have actually been violated?  Isn’t it scary the fervor that can be drummed up about seemingly any subject if a group mentions “human rights”?  Shouldn’t we ALL be wary of the implications of this?

The ironic part is that the real human rights issue, wether or not same-sex couples have the same legal rights and standing as heterosexual couples, hasn’t changed.  Homosexual couples have, since 2005, been able to apply for a civil union and recieve the exact same benefits any married couple does.  So even if homosexuals were allowed to marry, there legal status wouldn’t change a bit.  The issue then, clearly, is not one of equal rights, but one of redefining what equal rights are.

“Stop the Hate, No on 8”

It’s a common tactic among those who have no valid argument, to make those that oppose them out to be “evil”.  Christians are commonly guilty of this as well.  For the “no on Prop. 8” people, this has taken the form of calling those that voted Yes as “hating” homosexuals.  Several reports have actually compared the restriction of marriage with the Japanese internment of the 1940’s and the restriction of African Americans to the back of the bus and the “seperate but equal” classroom.

Homosexuals are not being rounded up into internment camps like the Japanese were, they are not being beaten by the police in the streets like the hippies of the ’60’s, nor getting tear-gassed like Reagan did on the campus of UC Berkeley in the spring of ’69, nor are homosexuals getting hosed by firefighters during protests like the African American’s were in the ’60’s.  I can only pray that society gets a grip on it’s self.  Homosexual couples have the exact same rights as heteros, and their speech is being honored as all speech should be.  There is no discrimination taking place.  Why is desiring that the definition of marriage stay the same labeled as hate?

Besides a personal feeling of anger at being told that I hate a group of people, shouldn’t we all be worried at the prospect of a group labeling those who disagree with them as haters?  It would be the same as saying that all those who voted for John McCain hate black people. 

The “No on Prop. 8” proponents should ask themselves one question.  Who, exactly, is spreading the hate?  Those comparing the restriction of marriage to it’s correct definition to racism should be ashamed of holding this country back from the racial progress we’ve demonstrated by electing an African American man with the middle name of “Hussein” to the office of the Presidency.

Conclusion

Same-sex couples, under a civil union, have the same legal rights and priviledges that someone with a marriage license has.  Not only is there no discrimination taking place, there are no basic human rights being violated.  The right to own a marriage license is based on the definition of marriage, just as owning a driver’s license is restricted to meeting certain requirements.

The proponents of same-sex marriage know this.  So they attempted to redefine the word marriage by stroking the flames of emotion with talk of an erroneously defined “basic human rights violation” while  those standing up for the definition of marriage are labeled as haters.  Shouldn’t we all be wary of and fight against such guilt and hate mongering tactics?

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Current Events

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

45 Comments on “Why Prop. 8 Still Scares Me”

  1. morsec0de Says:

    “were attempting to redefine a word.”

    So we should stick to the original definition of marriage?

    Ok.

    So when you pay a man a large sum of money for full ownership of his daughter, we’ll call that marriage.

  2. keltic Says:

    “Separate is not Equal” according to the US Supreme Court.

    Who owns the definition of the word “marriage” and how has that definition changed in the past 100 years? 200 years? 2000 years? Hint: for much of Biblical history, marriage was the union of 1 man and several women.

    The religious ceremony uniting two individuals is not the same as the Civil Marriage recognized by our government. If so, there would be no need to apply for a marriage license.

    Homosexuals are not being rounded up and sent to internment camps, that’s true. But there are similar organizations dedicated to rounding up unsuspecting gay & lesbian people and forcing them to change. Love Won Out is one of them. Such “therapy” has been declared dangerous by several Medical and Psychological Professional organizations.

    What’s really scary is the precedent that has been set by Prop 8. A simple majority is able to re-write a constitution. What happens when the majority decides that some other group is not worthy of full participation in a society? For instance, what happens when a secular majority (not too far off???) decides that churches no longer deserve tax-exempt status?

  3. B Says:

    Keltic-
    “Hint: for much of Biblical history, marriage was the union of 1 man and several women. ”

    Actually this is incorrect; Genesis never states that at all. You are misusing parts of the Bible that shows multiple marriages of a man to multiple women. Additionally, you are taking the certain marriages out of circumstances. Most marriages that had multiple wives wasn’t something that the Lord was approving about or was stating to do.

    “Love Won Out is one of them. Such “therapy” has been declared dangerous by several Medical and Psychological Professional organizations. ”

    Yet again, this is doesn’t make sense to say that they are “forcing” people into camps. Most, if not all, people go to camps for their own reasons and their own choices.

    “The religious ceremony uniting two individuals is not the same as the Civil Marriage recognized by our government. If so, there would be no need to apply for a marriage license. ”

    Other than a license, please explain the difference that a civil marriage has between a civil union when it comes to civil rights.

    morsec0de-
    “So when you pay a man a large sum of money for full ownership of his daughter, we’ll call that marriage.”

    The problem with this statement and most of your comment is a strawman that doesn’t fit the topic. From your statment, you are talking about a cultural difference that actually doesn’t talk about marriage. In fact, the comment itself almost has nothing to deal with the Prop 8.

  4. Eric Kemp Says:

    Morsecode

    “So when you pay a man a large sum of money for full ownership of his daughter, we’ll call that marriage.”

    You seem to think that pointing out that the Bible recorded certain cultural practices of the day = the Bible, and God, condoned and supported such actions and therefore God, and the Bible, support evil deeds. While we’ve already gone over how inconsistent you must be in calling something in the Bible as “wrong”, I’m curious to know exactly to what in the Bible you are referring to. I’m also especially curious to know how this has anything to do with Prop. 8.

    Eric Kemp

  5. morsec0de Says:

    Your first argument is how you’re appalled that homosexuals dare want to ‘redefine’ what marriage is, when marriage has been redefined dozens of times since it was created.

    First it was the ownership of a woman in order to transfer land from one man to another. Then it was one man and multiple women. Then it was a man and a woman for political purposes. Etc.

    Now it’s one man and one woman. So what if the gays want to change it? How does it harm you? I know…it doesn’t.

  6. Eric Kemp Says:

    Keltic

    “Who owns the definition of the word “marriage” and how has that definition changed in the past 100 years? 200 years? 2000 years? Hint: for much of Biblical history, marriage was the union of 1 man and several women.”

    Several points.
    1. Wether or not you believe Genesis to be figurative or literal, from the beginning it’s been between 1 man and 1 woman.
    2. Later, Jesus confirms that this is way God created humans male and female (Mark 10:6)
    3. How ancient peoples treated the institution of marriage has nothing to do with how it was first set up.
    4. To argue that a miniscule minority of ancient cultures have deemed polygamy acceptable therefore the definition of marriage hasn’t been set is ridiculous.
    5. To accept the Biblical history regarding that these men who had multiple wives (Solomon for instance) actually existed and actually had multiple wives but to ignore the judgment that came upon them because of their polygymous actions is irrational and inconsistent.

    “The religious ceremony uniting two individuals is not the same as the Civil Marriage recognized by our government. If so, there would be no need to apply for a marriage license.”

    I’m not sure I understand you here. If I’ve got you right, I agree. The Civil Union has nothing to do with the religious ceremony that marriage is, so why use government to force a change in the definition of marriage? And if the direction you are going is that we shouldn’t legislate marriage at all, that is, the government shouldn’t concern itself with the word marriage, I’ve got a shocker for you. I agree. I think we would all be better off if we could stop the madness by calling EVERYTHING, including heterosexual marriage, as a “civil union” and allowing individuals to decide wether or not they are “married”.

    “But there are similar organizations dedicated to rounding up unsuspecting gay & lesbian people and forcing them to change.”

    LOL, I’m sorry, I just had to laugh at this one. Unsuspecting? As in, these homosexuals are being kidnapped? Gimme a break. Or is it that homosexuals who want to get out of the lifestyle actually need some help that astounds you?

    “Such “therapy” has been declared dangerous by several Medical and Psychological Professional organizations.”

    And I’m sure there are several organizations that support it as well.

    “A simple majority is able to re-write a constitution.”

    Uh, that’s how the state constitution is set up.

    “For instance, what happens when a secular majority (not too far off???) decides that churches no longer deserve tax-exempt status?”

    Then we will no longer get tax-exempt status. It will be something I will obviously fight against, but if we lose, we lose. The point?

  7. Eric Kemp Says:

    Morsecode

    “Your first argument is how you’re appalled that homosexuals dare want to ‘redefine’ what marriage is, when marriage has been redefined dozens of times since it was created.”

    As I explained to Keltic; from Genesis, wether it is figurative or literal, from the beginning marriage is set up to be between a man and a woman. Wether or not that was always honored is besides the point. How characters in the Bible treated marriage is besides the point. To affirm that Solomon had many wives and yet to deny that he was punished for such behavior is inconsistent.

    “First it was the ownership of a woman in order to transfer land from one man to another. Then it was one man and multiple women. Then it was a man and a woman for political purposes. Etc.”

    Yup, no matter how warped or against the spirit of the institution, always with man and woman.

    So are you trying to say that people don’t get married for political purposes today? That people don’t get married for money today? Do these things invalidate the institution of marriage? Of course not.

    “Now it’s one man and one woman. So what if the gays want to change it? How does it harm you? I know…it doesn’t.”

    So wait, are we now talking about “harm”? Does it harm homosexuals to be NOT married? So you are ok with a minority group redefining a word because they want it to be so? You’re ok with a majority group redefining a word?

    Also, you have no problem with the guilt and hate mongering tactics that is getting so much air time? You have no problem with trying to artificially redefine what constitutes as a “basic human right”? These underhanded, dishonest tactics don’t offend you and make you apprehensive for the future of political activism, regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriage?

  8. morsec0de Says:

    I’m talking about ACTUAL history. Not your bible history.

  9. Eric Kemp Says:

    But Morsecode, I thought that God ACTUALLY committed acts of genocide. Which one is it? Is the Bible history or not?

  10. morsec0de Says:

    He committed genocide according to your book.

    It’s like if a group of people read the Superman comics and decided to worship Lex Luthor.

    Yes, Luthor isn’t real. But that still makes me scared of his worshipers.

  11. Eric Kemp Says:

    Morsecode

    You know, I’m seeing a pattern here. You make these statements, and yet when challenged on these statements, you disappear until the conversation moves in a different direction, only to reappear to make the same statements again. You also ignore almost every question posed to you. This tactic works well, for it allows you to ignore anything you’re not comfortable with.

    In order to call the actions of God wrong, you must violate the principles of your own humanistic relative morality. You are being being inconsistent with your own moral code in order to call the acts of anyone 2000 years ago and 2000 miles away wrong. If moral isn’t relative, and it’s universal, then the question becomes WHERE did you get your universal morality?

    And if morality is universal, as God claims it is, then doesn’t God have the right to punish immorality? You say that my book tells me He committed genocide. That’s certainly one sensationalist way of looking at it. My book tells me that God is Righteous and Holy, and on Him there is no blemish. My book tells me that God created the universe and everything in it and therefore has the power, authority and obligation to judge mankind in His Righteousness. Also, what my book tells me is that, as was already explained to you by Bud, the people of Sodom and Gemorrah had every chance at redemption and rejected it at every turn. God’s judgment was just, for they were as immoral as it comes.

    But what you do, Morsecode, is choose which part you will affirm and ignore the rest. Not because it is rational to do so, but because you prefer it that way.

    I’m honesty curious, do you hold the position that the Bible is complete farce, or just selective misrepresentation of facts?

  12. krissmith777 Says:

    Gay marraige causes a conflict of convictions within me.

    I’m a Christian and personally despise gay marraige.

    Yet I am a Libertarian and believe in less regulation.

    — I chose seperation of church and state and voted against Proposition 8. But I have to confess I feel no sence of loss that the proposition has passed.

    I have two strong convictions that conflict here. What can I say?

  13. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kris

    I understand how you feel. I personally have a problem with same-sex marriage, but no problem with homosexuals individually. People are people. However, the reason I voted for Prop. 8 was separate from that. It was for all the reasons I explained above. If Prop. 8 had been to take the word “marriage” out of the state constitution so that gays could define it how they wanted, absent of government, and government called EVERYTHING a civil union. I would have voted for that too.

    Thanks for your input

    Eric Kemp

  14. B Says:

    I agree with both Kris and Eric. I think what many people, especially gay s and ones that support them, feel like voting yes was actually “against gays” or “hateful towards gays” when in reality I am voting against a definition and that the government has such power to control something that is held within churches.

    Just my 2 cents.

  15. keltic Says:

    If you do not personally have a problem with homosexuals individually, why fight so hard to deny them a Civil Contract? (marriage) Your church can still maintain its belief that marriage is 1 man and 1 woman, the secular government is not changing that or imposing a new law on the church. Why be so adamant about imposing your religious belief on what the government does?

    btw, I don’t quite by your line that you don’t have a problem with homosexuals. If you were ok with “teh gays” you would know that the clinical term “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are offensive.

  16. Eric Kemp Says:

    keltic

    “If you do not personally have a problem with homosexuals individually, why fight so hard to deny them a Civil Contract?”

    As I’ve already argued, it’s only because same-sex couples just don’t meet the requirements to recieve a marriage license. That’s not personal, it just is.

    “Why be so adamant about imposing your religious belief on what the government does?”

    Because “government” already has a governmental distinction that gives rights to all couples, it’s called a civil union. Marriage IS a religious distinction, and as such I will fight for it’s definition. However, since marriage is a religious distinction you could successfully argue that government should therefore have nothing to do with the word marriage, shouldn’t legistlate it, and should let individuals define it for themselves. I would agree with this argument and would vote for any legislation along that direction.

    However, that’s not the situation we have. A definition of marriage was forced upon California by a court decision that ignored the will of the people, twice now. On Nov. 4th, the choice was to either to uphold an incorrect, forced (by government!) definition of marriage or to restore the age-old, since the beginning of recorded history, definition. It has nothing to do with how I feel about a group of individuals.

    Also, I would argue that it’s not a far fetched notion that churches would begin to be sued or sanctioned for denying the government mandated definition of marriage. To say this would never happen would be naive.

    “If you were ok with “teh gays” you would know that the clinical term “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are offensive.”

    I’m not going to apologize for not having time to keep up on what term is or isn’t offensive. There are those terms that are obviously offensive, I used none of them, neither was my tone anything but cordial and professional.

    But keltic, I honestly want you to answer this question, since no one has yet. You have no problem with the blatantly offensive, guilt and hate mongering tactics that the “No on 8” supporters are employing?

  17. B Says:

    Keltic-

    I agree with everything that Eric said and also pose the same question.

    The only issue I have is that you seem to attack us for using the term “homosexual” for people of the GLBT community. Being a therapist, I try to keep up on the terms but most articles referring to homosexuality as a slanderous remark dates back to only a month ago. Additionally, similar to the ever changing lingo for using names for other people such as “black” to colored people to now, people of color; it is difficult for one to always use the “new terminology” that is considered more PC. The issue is that homosexuality is a term to base a person’s sexual preference, but the fact that a person cannot call a person that is borderline silly. If this argument is something you are trying to make to us/me as being slanderous then you seem to be standing on one leg and really shouldn’t be brought up on this subject because it is sidestepping the current issue.

  18. krissmith777 Says:

    Eric Kemp says:

    “But keltic, I honestly want you to answer this question, since no one has yet. You have no problem with the blatantly offensive, guilt and hate mongering tactics that the “No on 8″ supporters are employing?”

    Even though I voted “No” on proposition 8 I have to admit that the gay activists, many of them, are not helping their cause by the way they have been protesting the result.

    For example, look here: http://www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=undefined&clipId1=3115942&at1=News&h1=&playerVersion=1&hostPageUrl=http%3A//www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp%3Fvt1%3Dv%26clipFormat%3Dundefined%26clipId1%3D3115942%26at1%3DNews%26h1%3D&rnd=44498551

    Some of these activists are now taking out their anger on religious people and SHOWING DISRESPECT FOR RELIGION which, if I amy say so, is only going to hurt them.

    They have done certain things like tear off an old women’s crucifix and trample on it. So basically violating personal property as well as religion.

    Even though I voted against the prop, I have NO sympathy for extremists that resort to such tactics.

  19. Eric Kemp Says:

    Yea, I mean, the irony of all of this is that Christians have been correctly chided for their fire and brimstone preaching and condemnation, yet when a secular group, in this case gays, act the same way with guild and hate mongering, nothing is said.

    The secular bias of the media, and of all those that support the way that “No on 8” was argued, is so obvious as to destroy any supposed objectivity on any issue,

    Eric Kemp

  20. krissmith777 Says:

    Hey Eric,

    When you run across someone who makes the stupidly naive statement such as comparing God to a genocidal maniac like Lex Luther, that is a sure sign that you need to ignore him.

  21. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kris

    I don’t necessarily think it’s his statements that make him not worth talking to, it’s his blatant disregard for rational conversation (since he ignores every question posed to him) while still employing condescending sarcasm that make Morsecode almost like an ironic caricature of the outspoken atheist.

    Eric Kemp

  22. krissmith777 Says:

    Eric says:

    “Morsecode almost like an ironic caricature of the outspoken atheist.”

    Kinda like Richard Dawkins — An Athiestic Bigot. 🙂

  23. educatedidiocy Says:

    As a Christian, I am appalled by you bible thumping hypocrites.

  24. Eric Kemp Says:

    Educate

    So, as a Christian, you never violate God’s Law? You never misrepresent Christ in your actions? You are just as much as a hypocrite as I am.

    But I’m curious to how my stance on Prop. 8 makes me a hypocrite specifically. Also, I am curious to hear your definition of “Bible thumping”. If you mean, “preaching the truth of God’s Word”, then I can only hope to do so. If you are defining it as guilt mongering, unfortunately it’s not the Christians who are doing that this time. Would you care to elaborate or were you only interested in insulting a brother in Christ and then splitting?

    Eric Kemp

  25. educatedidiocy Says:

    Yes. I violate God’s law. No doubt about it. However, if you think that you’re upholding God’s law by hating and condemning, you’re wrong.

    I tend to pay more attention to the red letters. Christ never mentioned homosexuality and therefore, I feel it isn’t my place to do so either. However, if you want to go with Old Testament homosexual beatdowns, answer these questions for me.

    From an “Open Letter to Dr. Laura”

    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

    g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

    i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

  26. krissmith777 Says:

    Oh, yes. The cliche term “Bible Thumper.”

    I just learened not to pay atention to anyone that uses it.

  27. Eric Kemp Says:

    Educate

    “Yes. I violate God’s law. No doubt about it. However, if you think that you’re upholding God’s law by hating and condemning, you’re wrong.”

    Well, now instead of just violating God’s law, you are violating His Word. Let me show you.

    As I know you’re not going to be able to show me a single instance of condemnation and hate on my blog, I’m not even going to justify myself to you with examples of how I’m doing the opposite. I will instead focus on your more important and telling comment . . .

    “Christ never mentioned homosexuality and therefore, I feel it isn’t my place to do so either. However, if you want to go with Old Testament homosexual beatdowns, answer these questions for me.”

    Christ never mentioned the word “Trinity” either, therefore it doesn’t exist. Jesus also never mentioned the Bible, so it must be wrong. Christ also never mentioned pastors, churches, deacons, elders, therefore all those things are unBiblical. I could go on for pages, but you understand how ridiculous those sound.

    So when Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17), Jesus was actually lying and thinks homosexuality is ok?

    I’ve got another one for you, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). So we can’t look at women lustfully, much less have sex with them outside of marriage, but it’s ok for us to do so with the same sex? That right there actually kills your whole argument. But I’ve got more.

    Or is it that because He doesn’t say specifically “Homosexuality is bad”, therefore Jesus doesn’t think it’s wrong? You’ve got a problem there too, because, although Jesus claims to be God, Jesus never says, “I am God!”. So, by your logic, Jesus isn’t God cause He didn’t explicitly say so.
    But you’re situation is actually more dire than that.

    By your logic, everything that Jesus didn’t explicitely say, it’s not your place to say. This throws out the ENTIRE New Testament besides, as you said, “what is in red”. So the doctrines of Original Sin, Sanctification, Justification, the Trinity, the Church, the Rapture . . . and that’s only the ones I can think of right now, are unmentionable. Everything single verse outside of the four Gospels is pure hearsay.

    But I have a question to you as a rational thinking person. Did Jesus write anything down? That is, if you can’t trust the Apostles and their companions to accurately write revelation from the Holy Spirit, how can you trust them to accurately record Jesus’ words? If you can’t trust Paul and Peter, who claimed each other’s writings to be on par with ANY Scripture (including the words of Jesus), how can you trust Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Mark and Luke weren’t even eyewitnesses to Christ!

    The difference between you and I, Educate, is that you have chosen to appease your fellow man, while I only desire to obey Christ, regardless of the consequences.

  28. B Says:

    A) The sweet savor offerings typify Christ in His own perfections, and in His affectionate devotion to the Father’s will. The non-sweet savor offerings typify Christ as bearing the whole demerit of the sinner. Both are substantial. In our place Christ, in the burnt-offering, makes good our lack of devotedness, and, in the sin- and trespass-offerings, suffers because of our disobediences. The offerings were part of the Jewish tradition and the “sweetness” would be from the purity of the offering. Your “smite” comment shows the lack of understanding the context and meaning of this part of the Bible. Additionally, these were also laws based on the customs of that time. Your current views show your lack of understanding in this direction.

    B) The laws in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though they differ from our times and customs, nor are they binding on us, they explain the moral law and the rules of natural justice. Another quote mining issue here about the customs of that time.

    C) Taking things out of context again aren’t we? This, among the other laws of cleanliness dealt with the customs and issues of Jewish orientation….which you continue to bring up over and over again. Have you forgotten that Believers in Christ are truly cleansed and are made pure before the Lord? Your snarky remarks show more ignorance in this discussion that is clearly sidestepping (In great distances) the actual issues.

    D) More quote mining… but I digress.. Native Israelites, if sold for debt, or for a crime, was to serve for six years, and to go out the seventh. If he sold himself, through poverty, both his work and his usage must be such as were fitting for a son of Abraham. Masters are required to give to their servants that which is just and equal. This is again for the laws of that time. Just like we have laws in our country that are different from another country. Parts of the Bible show how to obey laws in a Just manner that is in obedience to God.

    E) Ah yes, more quote mining….but the difference is the celebration of the Sabbath (Jewish and traditionally Saturday) and the Lord’s Day (Sunday, for Christians). You are taking the quote out of text….like all of your quotes. Moses gave them in commandment all that the Lord has spoken with him. But, the erecting and furnishing of the tabernacle being the work to which they were now immediately to apply themselves, there is particular mention of the orders given concerning it. Moses begins with the law of the sabbath, because that was much insisted on in the instructions he had received. Six days shall work be done, work for the tabernacle, the work of the day that was now to be done in its day; and they had little else to do here in the wilderness, where they had neither husbandry nor merchandise, neither food to get nor clothes to make: but on the seventh day you must not strike a stroke, no, not at the tabernacle-work; the honor of the sabbath was above that of the sanctuary, more ancient and more lasting; that must be to you a holy day, devoted to God, and not be spent in common business. It is a sabbath of rest. As stated before, you are mentioning something from different customs for a time that it is meant for. Remember, Jesus healed people and raised the dead on the Sabbath and because Jesus is Lord, he would not break his commandment so that his word is always truth.

    F) These laws been intended: 1. As a test of the people’s obedience, as Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge; and to teach them self-denial, and the government of their appetites. 2. To keep the Israelites distinct from other nations. Many also of these forbidden animals were objects of superstition and idolatry to the heathen. 3. The people were taught to make distinctions between the holy and unholy in their companions and intimate connexions. 4. The law forbad, not only the eating of the unclean beasts, but the touching of them. Additionally, as Eric pointed out in his latest post, all sins are equally grave in the eyes of the Lord.

    G) This verse pertains to Priesthood….and is more quote mining. Priests were to be the best representative of a Christlike person and needed to follow a higher structure of “perfection.” These laws of Priesthood and not for a common person (of this time). Additionally, ALL are, if Christians, spiritual priests; the minister especially is called to set a good example, that the people may follow it. Our bodily infirmities, blessed be God, cannot now shut us out from his service, from these privileges, or from his heavenly glory. Many a healthful, beautiful soul is lodged in a feeble, deformed body. And those who may not be suited for the work of the ministry, may serve God with comfort in other duties in his church.

    H) The reason for this prohibition is because God would not have his people agree with idolaters, neither in their idolatries, nor in their excessive sorrowing, nor so much as in the appearances of it because (at that time) idolators and nonbelievers would cut their hair in times of mourning.

    I) Many issues at this time dealt with eating rabbits, pigs, and other unclean animals. At that time, around that area, the plants were poisonous and were eaten by those types of animals and there was an issue of eating the animals that could have poison in them (kind of makes sense). Additionally, many nonbelievers would eat these animals in which God continuously had rules to separate his people from nonbelievers and keepers of his word. The law forbad, not only the eating of the unclean beasts, but the touching of them. Those who would be kept from any sin, must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, or coming near it. The exceptions are very minute, and all were designed to call forth constant care and exactness in their obedience; and to teach us to obey. We are able to enjoy our Christian liberty, and are free from such burdensome observances, and we must be careful not to abuse our liberty (such as changing definitions that the Lord has created). For the Lord hath redeemed and called his people, that they may be holy, even as He is holy. We must come out, and be separate from the world; we must leave the company of the ungodly, and all needless connections with those who are dead in sin; we must be zealous of good works devoted followers of God, and companions of his people.

    J) As similar to before with the laws of the time, these were to help God’s people and understand the judgment laid upon them and those that didn’t believe in God. We do not hold these to be accountable as it is today because the times are different and because God’s judgment will be upon all vessels of life.

    In summary, all these laws deal with things occurring at a specific time for specific reasons. Additionally, you are bringing these questions up as a way to mock me, other believers, and the Lord Almighty. God’s word is eternal and unchanging….but does that mean that others do not change the laws of the land? Does that mean that society does not change what they feel they should believe in and change the laws? Society has been putting God and his laws on the back burner for years now on the differences of moral laws being apart of government laws.

    And lets get back to your statement earlier and not one about a open letter to Dr. Laura (who is a Jew!!!!)
    “However, if you think that you’re upholding God’s law by hating and condemning, you’re wrong.”

    Not once in the post by Eric or I has there been anything about hating or condemning. Please show proof of phrases that show anything dealing with hate (the anger and spite enough to kill) and condemning (stating that someone is going to hell).

    “I tend to pay more attention to the red letters.”
    So this means you only follow parts of the New Testament? Jesus only speaks in parts of the NT and actually does not speak in most of it. The OT is devoid of “red letters” so I guess you shouldn’t obey anything from there…..like the commandments, the beginning of life, or the prophecy of Jesus (you know…the guy from which the red letters were spoken from).

    “Christ never mentioned homosexuality and therefore, I feel it isn’t my place to do so either.”
    He never spoke up abortion, smog, ozone layer, hybrid cars, or other issues that people are ranking up to be on the “moral” ballot these days. Also are you saying that only the words of the Son are the only words that we should listen to and not the words of the Father or the Holy Spirit? How can you have one without the other? God speaks, therefore Christ also speaks and follows.

    “However, if you want to go with Old Testament homosexual beatdowns, answer these questions for me.”

    I did answer the questions for you. Also, have you looked up 1 Corinthians 6:9? It’s not really in the OT, but I guess it doesn’t have “red letters” so you shouldn’t read it either. And since you are going to quote mine then let me show you how to do it correctly to make a point. As Christians that vote No on prop 8 you are having issues stated in 2 Timothy 4:3 and that of 1 Timothy 1:10. Both found in the NT.

    So answer this question: when did society’s ever changing views become more powerful then the inerrant words of God?

  29. Eric Kemp Says:

    B

    Oh! Abortion, I missed that one! Oh, and Jesus never mentioned child molesting or child pornography, or pornography in general; educate will be unable to talk about those things either!

    “So answer this question: when did society’s ever changing views become more powerful then the inerrant words of God?”

    That is the crux of the issue. Educate is literally unwilling to stand up for the morality of God and is instead subscribing to the morality of the time, humanism.

  30. Sylvia Says:

    I hate to break it to you but the thing about gay people having the same rights if they enter in a civil union is complete crap. Therefore you are denying them the same rights you get.
    First of all it’s called a domestic partnership in Califonria.
    Secondly: the problem is that a domestic partnership is only recognised in California. Even if other states have similar institutions they lose their rights, since these regulations only aply on a state level. For example they can’t get ‘divorced’ in another state. They’re also unable to sponsor their partner for legel citizenship.

    So who are you to deny them their rights? Suppose the majority of a homosexual state believed in pink unicorns that told them that same-sex marriage was the way to go. I bet you would be out there demanding the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

  31. Eric Kemp Says:

    Sylvia

    Perhaps once you apply for, and get, your civil union it’s called a domestic partnership . . . semantics. In the state of California, since we’re talking about Prop. 8, in California, a civil union has the exact same rights as a marriage. It’s a fact, so stop trying to twist it.

    Your point about citizenship is irrelevant. Citizenship is a federal issue, Prop. 8 is a state issue. Even if Prop 8 had failed, the gays would not have been able to use their marriage to apply for citizenship. As such, I’m not going to discuss some hypothetical rights that same sex couples have never had in the context of something being “taken away”, especially if it has nothing to do with Prop. 8.

    And Sylvia, I know this will surprise you, but I agree with you. Same sex couples should have the exact same rights as hetero couples. However, and since I already made this point I know that you didn’t actually read my article: being married is not a basic human right. Having a marriage license is not in the Bill of Rights, and if you want to argue that being married is a human right, then I’m going to go sue my ex-wife (if I had one) and we better make sure that everyone is getting their fair rights so polygamy must become an option. You may say that those two suggestions are ridiculous but it is the logical conclusion of your “marriage is a basic human right” position.

    So, the government and the people have two options, redefine marriage, which has been this way since the beginning of recorded history and forces churches to recognize that definition, violating their religous freedom, OR stop legislating marriage altogether and call EVERYTHING a civil union, leaving the definition of marriage to individuals. Which one makes more sense to you?

    Also, I know that you didn’t read my article because you didn’t address THE point of my article, which is this: the way that the “no on 8” people are going about fighting for what the believe in is inexcusable. Attempting to redefine a word and the definition of basic human rights, calling anyone who disagrees with them bigots, they are guilt and hate mongering. It’s setting us back decades.

    Do you support this behavior?

  32. Citizen10 Says:

    Hi Eric =)

    What about redefining the word “rape” to only include women that didn’t have a certain blood-alcohol level at the time of sex?
    Women don’t have to be drunk, high, or dressed like sluts to get raped. A close teenage friend of my was snatched off the street in New York City one evening, completely clothed and completely sober. She was raped.

    To quote morsec0de, “So when you pay a man a large sum of money for full ownership of his daughter, we’ll call that marriage.” <– props to that one

    I’m not a citizen of California, but it certainly pisses me off that homosexual couples were given the right to get married in the spring, but then California decided to take that away this fall.

    What’s wrong with the name Hussein? Nothing. It’s one of the most popular middle-eastern names. Giving the name a negative connotation because of one man is like saying EVERYONE with the name Adolf, Vladimir, or Joseph is ultimately a dictator or evil leader.

    Eric, as we’ve had our differences in opinion before, this is one of the strongest things I believe: Like seperation of church and state, there is a difference between religion and history, and religion and your own opinion. When people use their religion as the answer to any question, it give off the idea that you’d prefer if your minister or priest (or whomever your religious leader is) to run America instead of the President. Your religion tells you this happened, but what do you actually think? My freshman year biology teacher was a minister, but he was also teaching us about evolution with the most incredible fascination. Not every issue or subject relates back to religion in the end. Your own religion is one thing; everyone else’s religion is their own thing. Never should the religious ideals or beliefs of one be “forced” (I know you hate thatword) on anyone else. No Jew has the right to tell a Christian that Jesus is absolutely not the son of God, but no Christian has the right to tell a Jew that Jesus is absolutely the savor and messiah. But whether or not you believe homosexuals should have the right to “marry” or just form a “union,” religion is not the ANSWER to the problem, it is merely the influence behind your opinion.

  33. Citizen10 Says:

    *Excuse me for typos… this keyboard is messed up!

  34. Eric Kemp Says:

    Citizen10

    “Women don’t have to be drunk, high, or dressed like sluts to get raped. A close teenage friend of my was snatched off the street in New York City one evening, completely clothed and completely sober. She was raped.”

    You misunderstand my point. I was making the correlation to a minority of the population wanting to redefine a word to how they see it. There is surely a minority of this country who believes that women who drink too much shouldn’t be able to call rape the next night, I’m not saying I’m one of them because I completely agree with you, I’m just pointing out that there are tons of groups that would redefine words if they could. She we allow ANY group to redefine a word just because they want it redefined? Shouldn’t we discuss what the definition of the word IS? I was using the words “rape” and “citizen” as an example but the word we’re actually discussing obviously “marriage”.

    ““So when you pay a man a large sum of money for full ownership of his daughter, we’ll call that marriage.” <– props to that one”

    Even mOrsecodes non-argument strawman doesn’t help you here, but that’s still between a man and a woman.

    “I’m not a citizen of California, but it certainly pisses me off that homosexual couples were given the right to get married in the spring, but then California decided to take that away this fall.”

    Perhaps you should look into how they were given it in the first place as I alluded to in my post, then you’d see that it was judicial over-stepping that the people of California have had to vote down twice now.

    “What’s wrong with the name Hussein? Nothing. It’s one of the most popular middle-eastern names.”

    Again, you misunderstand, and I hope it’s not becoming on purpose. I was merely pointing out that the name “Hussein” can bring out all kinds of negative connotations and prejudices, and it’s a testament to how far this country has come that it didn’t effect the voting of Americans to have someone with that middle name running for president. And the fact that Obama is an African American to boot. It’s something to be proud of and rejoice in. Yet the “No on 8” people and the media have been attempting to drag us back down to the era when those names and distinctions were taken negatively by equating the same-sex marriage debate with the racism of over half a century ago.

    “When people use their religion as the answer to any question, it give off the idea that you’d prefer if your minister or priest (or whomever your religious leader is) to run America instead of the President.”

    I strongly disagree with this. However, I would like it if the President, or the state of California, doesn’t force my pastor to define marriage any certain way.

    “Not every issue or subject relates back to religion in the end.”

    This is where you’re wrong. EVERY issue, secular or not, has religious implications or beliefs. Even evolution that claims to be “pure science” is based in a naturalistic, uniformitarian belief system. Also, by default, claiming that the Bible is not the authority on matters of morality means that you are getting your morality elsewhere. Getting your morality elsewhere doesn’t mean your belief isn’t any less religious. Even if you claim your morality to be secular in origin, as the secular humanists do, it’s still a religious belief.

    And by “religious” I mean being a system of beliefs and having some sort of unverifiable story to explain the origin of morality (or the origin of everything).

    ” Never should the religious ideals or beliefs of one be “forced” (I know you hate thatword) on anyone else.”

    I agree. However, pretending that legislating a definition of marriage ISN’T forcing ideals and beliefs upon the majority of California, and religious institutions in particular is naive.

    “No Jew has the right to tell a Christian that Jesus is absolutely not the son of God, but no Christian has the right to tell a Jew that Jesus is absolutely the savor and messiah.”

    Actually, if I truly belief that Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah, a Messiah that claimed “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life”, I have an obligation to tell as many people as I can so that they may be saved. I could never force anything on anyone, but keeping the savior of humanity to myself is selfish at best and just frankly a lack of faith. That means you don’t actually believe it if you say, “Well, Jesus is for me, but He maybe just isn’t for you.”

    “But whether or not you believe homosexuals should have the right to “marry” or just form a “union,” religion is not the ANSWER to the problem, it is merely the influence behind your opinion.”

    To attempt to divorce the definition of marriage from religion to completely deny the history and origin of the word. If we want to redefine marriage then we should call it something else. Marriage, by definition since the beginning of recorded history, is been between a man and a woman. If you want to change it, you have to be ok with
    1. redefining words just because you want to
    2. forcing the definition on everyone else who disagrees with you

    Government should stop legislating marriage altogether, so that any definition is decided upon by individuals. The government should call EVERYTHING a civil union and it would be up to the couple if they got married, but the state wouldn’t care either way.

    Also, just as my belief system is behind my answer, your belief system is behind yours. You can call your belief system “secular” all you want, but it’s still a belief system.

  35. Citizen10 Says:

    “I strongly disagree with this. However, I would like it if the President, or the state of California, doesn’t force my pastor to define marriage any certain way.”

    “And by “religious” I mean being a system of beliefs and having some sort of unverifiable story to explain the origin of morality (or the origin of everything).”

    I’m using religion in the sense of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

    “I agree. However, pretending that legislating a definition of marriage ISN’T forcing ideals and beliefs upon the majority of California, and religious institutions in particular is naive. ”

    But in the end it doesn’t affect you since you’re not a homosexual, so why should you care? I’m not homosexual either but I have friends who are so of course I would want them to be able to marry the person they loved. But your arguing against it is just because you disagree with it – does it have any personal relevance?

    “Actually, if I truly belief that Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah, a Messiah that claimed “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life”, I have an obligation to tell as many people as I can so that they may be saved. I could never force anything on anyone, but keeping the savior of humanity to myself is selfish at best and just frankly a lack of faith. That means you don’t actually believe it if you say, “Well, Jesus is for me, but He maybe just isn’t for you.” ”

    But Jews believe the Messiah hasn’t come. You may truly believe that He has come, but nothing you say will convince a Jew that He has come. Tell me as many times as you want that the Messiah is our Savior and He has come at last, because I don’t believe it.

    Do you have a Websters dictionary from the year 2,000,000 BC? I don’t think so. In your religion, since that influences your opinions so much, marriage is between a man and a woman, but nothing about your religion says that that is what the American government must say.

    “Government should stop legislating marriage altogether, so that any definition is decided upon by individuals. ”

    I completely agree, so I don’t see why you’re completely bashing the “no on prop. 8” people. You should be bashing both sides since it shouldn’t be a legal matter anyway. Any two people over the age of 18 should be able to “marry” or be a “union” if they so please.

    I am Jewish, Eric, but not as conservatively (for lack of the correct word) as you are Christian. Growing up I did not pay attention to religion that much, so most of my beliefs I developed without considering myself really Jewish. Only recently did I get more involved in Judaism, but my opinions on these things haven’t changed. But even people who are aethistic or agnostic have opinions about these things too – if they don’t believe in a God or a Bible, they may still have a problem with homosexual marriage, or they may not.

    “““So when you pay a man a large sum of money for full ownership of his daughter, we’ll call that marriage.” ”

    If you want to keep the definition the way it “has been since the beginning of history” or whatever, then why isn’t polygamy widley practiced and legal?

    Eric, have you ever looked into your wife’s eyes and just thought about how much you love her? Have you ever watched your child play and realized how the room has brightened because of his/her happiness (I don’t know the gender of your child). Was your wedding day one of the happiest days of your life (the other being the birth of your child)? That loving feeling you have for both of them … just think about it. Why should you be able to experience that love and passion and HAPPINESS when someone else is not allowed to, even though they feel that happiness and love for someone of the same sex?

  36. Eric Kemp Says:

    Citizen10

    “I’m using religion in the sense of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.”

    Right, but as my “Keith Olbermann’s Humanism” article suggests, the secular belief system of humanism is no less a belief system dogmatically defended as any other traditional religion. The only difference is that human happiness is held up as the greatest good. This will become apparent as our conversation goes along.

    “But in the end it doesn’t affect you since you’re not a homosexual, so why should you care?”

    Who are you to tell me what does and doesn’t affect me? Especially after I just explained to you how it does. And I could ask the gay community the EXACT same thing. This doesn’t really affect you, you’re still together, you can still adopt kids, you have the same rights as any married couple, you’re still in love . . . is this really a fair question to ask?

    ” But your arguing against it is just because you disagree with it – does it have any personal relevance?”

    This is not just about personal relevance. This is about the definition of a word. What you want me to do is to not stand up for what I believe just because I’m against what you believes. Who are you to ask the people of California to not stand for what they believe the definition of a word to be?

    “But Jews believe the Messiah hasn’t come. You may truly believe that He has come, but nothing you say will convince a Jew that He has come. ”

    Because not everyone will believe me when I say it just makes it more urgent that I tell as many people as I can. I would LOVE to discuss with a Jew about the evidence for Jesus being their Messiah. And if they walk away not believing me, not believing Jesus is their Messiah, then that’s fine, at least they heard the truth and I’ve done my part.

    “Do you have a Websters dictionary from the year 2,000,000 BC?”

    I can tell that you think this is some sort of point, but it’s lost on me.

    “In your religion, since that influences your opinions so much, marriage is between a man and a woman, but nothing about your religion says that that is what the American government must say.”

    Firstly, you are ignoring that your religion of humanism influences YOU just as much. Secondly, to deny that America was founded by a group fundamentalist, Bible believing, Young Earth Creationist Christians (all but 2 of the signers of the Declaration were of this persuasion) is to be willfully ignorant. Only in the last 50 years has this paradigm began to shift, so don’t pretend that your worldview is some long established default position and the fundies are the ones just now crashing the party.

    “If you want to keep the definition the way it “has been since the beginning of history” or whatever, then why isn’t polygamy widley practiced and legal?”

    From the beginning of Genesis, marriage as been betweeen a man and a woman. Just because other characters in the Bible like Solomon screwed it up and were punished for it doesn’t change the definition of marriage.

    “Eric, have you ever looked into your wife’s eyes and just thought about how much you love her? Have you ever watched your child play and realized how the room has brightened because of his/her happiness (I don’t know the gender of your child). Was your wedding day one of the happiest days of your life (the other being the birth of your child)? That loving feeling you have for both of them … just think about it.”

    None of these experiences are contingent upon marriage for ANYONE. Also, since when is the government in the business of legislating love and happiness? Also, don’t you find it kinda weird that same sex couples CAN’T have kids of their own, that they must adopt from biologically correct heterosexual relationships? That isn’t the slightest bit wonky to you? (That isn’t an argument, just a muse).

    Marriage does not = “happiness”. Not getting married doesn’t mean less “happiness”. You are, as I alluded to before, asking me to put away my morality in order to service the secular humanist’s greatest good, which is human love and happiness. I take God’s Word, and what God tells me is a morality issue, over human love and happiness.

    “Why should you be able to experience that love and passion and HAPPINESS when someone else is not allowed to, even though they feel that happiness and love for someone of the same sex?”

    The fact that you’re arguing that Prop. 8 stops happiness is just flat ridiculous. No one is breaking them apart, no one is taking away legal rights, no one can make anyone more or less happy. The state of California is not in the business of legislating happiness.

    “I completely agree, so I don’t see why you’re completely bashing the “no on prop. 8″ people. You should be bashing both sides since it shouldn’t be a legal matter anyway. Any two people over the age of 18 should be able to “marry” or be a “union” if they so please.”

    Getting the word “marriage” away from the government wouldn’t legislate a change in the word as the “No on Prop. 8” people want to. Also, I strongly disagree with the guilt and hate mongering the No on 8 people are perpetrating across this society. However, if the “no on 8” people change their tune, and start arguing to take “marriage” out of the state constitution, I’ll be side by side with them.

  37. Citizen10 Says:

    “same rights as any married couple”

    Not really, since they don’t get the joy of a marriage title.

    “This is about the definition of a word. What you want me to do is to not stand up for what I believe just because I’m against what you believes. Who are you to ask the people of California to not stand for what they believe the definition of a word to be?”

    Then you should be contacting Websters if it’s a matter of definition.

    “Because not everyone will believe me when I say it just makes it more urgent that I tell as many people as I can. I would LOVE to discuss with a Jew about the evidence for Jesus being their Messiah. And if they walk away not believing me, not believing Jesus is their Messiah, then that’s fine, at least they heard the truth and I’ve done my part.”

    That’s where you are just plain old ignorant. Basically you are saying that your religion is correct and everyone must believe it. You’re so closed minded that you think everything is wrong that you don’t believe in – you’re not willing to accept that there are other religions out there! It pisses me off how people are so close-minded about the fact that there are different kinds of people out there- not everyone is straight, white, Christian, conservative, wealthy, and American.

    “I can tell that you think this is some sort of point, but it’s lost on me.”

    You said since the beginning of time. Do you have a dictionary from the beginning of time?

    “Firstly, you are ignoring that your religion of humanism influences YOU just as much. Secondly, to deny that America was founded by a group fundamentalist, Bible believing, Young Earth Creationist Christians (all but 2 of the signers of the Declaration were of this persuasion) is to be willfully ignorant. Only in the last 50 years has this paradigm began to shift, so don’t pretend that your worldview is some long established default position and the fundies are the ones just now crashing the party.”

    I’m pretty sure the Pilgrims who first came to America were trying to escape Christianity.

    “From the beginning of Genesis, marriage as been betweeen a man and a woman. Just because other characters in the Bible like Solomon screwed it up and were punished for it doesn’t change the definition of marriage.”

    What you still don’t understand is that not everyone believes in the Bible or Genesis, etc. I’m Jewish – therefore the Torah/Old Testament is something I look to. But you still don’t realize that there are religions out there that do not use the same Bible as you.

    “None of these experiences are contingent upon marriage for ANYONE. Also, since when is the government in the business of legislating love and happiness? Also, don’t you find it kinda weird that same sex couples CAN’T have kids of their own, that they must adopt from biologically correct heterosexual relationships? That isn’t the slightest bit wonky to you? (That isn’t an argument, just a muse).”

    Since when is the government allowed to tell oppress people? Didn’t we fight a revolution to get rid of oppression?

    Don’t forget the first amendment:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Congress shall not make a law that supports or restricts a religion in any sense. Congress is not agoverning body meant to write Christianity into the Constitution, nor are they a governing body meant to say someone can’t be themself because Christianity said they couldn’t be that way.

    Sometimes homosexuals adopt from orphanages or the foster care system, because they would make better parents than the heterosexuals who abandoned or abused their own biological children. So you consider homosexuality a sin because they can’t procreate? What if they don’t want children? Then they’re just like thousands, if not millions, of heterosexuals that don’t want children either. The other option is to adopt, since they’ll be better parents. Or, they could artificially inseminate a woman through the man’s own sperm or from sperm from a sperm bank. Did you think of that one? How a homosexual woman CAN have children? What if her partner has a twin brother, or just a brother in general? He might not mind donating sperm. A person’s DNA is more similar to the DNA of their siblings’ than to anyone else’s DNA. Nice try, but homosexuals CAN have biological children. Even if it is just a sperm donation and the woman uses her own egg in her own body.

    “I take God’s Word, and what God tells me is a morality issue, over human love and happiness.”

    Once again, you don’t realize that not everyone is Christian. Period.

    “no one is taking away legal rights, ”

    Why would it be such a controversial issue in the gay community if being partners was the same as being married? Gays WANT to get married – that’s why they’re fighting for marriage instead of only unions.

    Eric, my biggest concern here is your ignorance and lack of understanding. It is like you are living on a deserted island or in your own personal not-see-through bubble. You fail to grasp the concept of different religions around the world and across America. You fail to recognize that people are all different from each other – you and I are both only two out of millions of Americans. At least I recognize that there are different people out there. You are so absorbed with the idea that only your ways are right that anyone who is not a Christian is therefore wrong. You need to open your eyes to the “melting pot” of the world.

  38. Eric Kemp Says:

    Citizen10

    “Not really, since they don’t get the joy of a marriage title.”

    Having a marriage license is not a basic human right.

    “Basically you are saying that your religion is correct and everyone must believe it.”

    I’m not saying everyone MUST believe it, in the militant sense that I’m going to go jihad on someone. However, as I’ve already explained to you, Jesus Christ claimed to be the ONLY way to salvation, the ONLY way to the Father. If I don’t believe this to be true, then I don’t actually believe in Christ.

    “That’s where you are just plain old ignorant.”

    How do you know it’s ignorance? How do you know that I haven’t researched all the other major worldviews and find them all lacking?

    “You’re so closed minded that you think everything is wrong that you don’t believe in – you’re not willing to accept that there are other religions out there!”

    Whoa whoa, hold your horses here Citizen. You seem to be getting alittle angry about this. Perhaps you should take a step back and divest yourself emotionally from this subject.

    But, since when did I ever say that other views, religions, and opinions don’t exist? Of course they exist. However, their existence doesn’t make them valid or equal in truth value with Christianity just because they exist.

    “It pisses me off how people are so close-minded about the fact that there are different kinds of people out there- not everyone is straight, white, Christian, conservative, wealthy, and American.”

    A strawman of epic proportions. No one said anything of the sort and I’m not sure how this helps your argument.

    “You said since the beginning of time. Do you have a dictionary from the beginning of time?”

    I don’t recall saying “the beginning of time”, if I did, I apologize. What I mean to say, and why I’ve said elsewhere, is “from the beginning of recorded history.”

    “I’m pretty sure the Pilgrims who first came to America were trying to escape Christianity.”

    They were trying to get away from the oppressive state-mandated Christianity to be free to practice their own Christianity.

    “What you still don’t understand is that not everyone believes in the Bible or Genesis . . .”

    I don’t understand where you’re getting this. Of course I understand this. But the fact that not everyone agrees with me isn’t going to stop me from standing up for what God’s Word says, and it sure doesn’t make their opinion valid just because they have one.

    “Since when is the government allowed to tell oppress people? Didn’t we fight a revolution to get rid of oppression?”

    You have not been able to show one iota of oppression. The most you’ve given me is, “you’re stopping them from being happy”, which 1. isn’t true, they can be as happy as they want to be and 2. the government doesn’t legislate happiness. As I’ve shown you several times, and you continue to ignore, is that civil unions impart the EXACT same rights in the state of California as marriage does. And since owning a marriage license isn’t a “right”, there is no oppression taking place.

    “Congress shall not make a law that supports or restricts a religion in any sense.”

    This does not apply to prop. 8. Prop 8. was to reverse a forcing of a redefinition of a word on EVERYONE. If you want to argue that therefore the word “marriage” shouldn’t be used anywhere, like I said, I’m with you on this one.

    “Congress is not agoverning body meant to write Christianity into the Constitution, nor are they a governing body meant to say someone can’t be themself because Christianity said they couldn’t be that way.”

    Are you suggesting that Prop. 8 forces people to not be gay? Are you serious?

    “Once again, you don’t realize that not everyone is Christian. Period.”

    This has nothing to do with me believe what the Word of God says. If you want to discuss why it is or isn’t the Word of God, great. But attributing my belief that it IS to ignorance of all other opinions is a non-sequitor, it does not follow, and is non-sensical.

    “You are so absorbed with the idea that only your ways are right that anyone who is not a Christian is therefore wrong. You need to open your eyes to the “melting pot” of the world.”

    You seem to be of the opinion that because people hold other values or opinions, that immediately makes those values and opinions valid, and perhaps just as valid as your own. What makes you think this is the case? Is there no such thing as truth?

    But please, in the future, refrain from making judgements about those who you are discussing with. I live in Southern California, it is THE melting pot of the world. I’m not going to justify the diversity of my friends, acquaintences and co-workers and the diversity of my experiences to you.

    On a basic level, you are asking me to abandon what I believe to be truth just because other people disagree with me. Who are you to ask this? On another level, just as much as you accuse me of, YOU are claiming to have the truth on this subject. Honestly, how do you know that homosexuality is not a sin? That it’s a perfectly acceptable lifestyle on par with heterosexuality?

  39. Citizen10 Says:

    “I’m not saying everyone MUST believe it, in the militant sense that I’m going to go jihad on someone. However, as I’ve already explained to you, Jesus Christ claimed to be the ONLY way to salvation, the ONLY way to the Father. If I don’t believe this to be true, then I don’t actually believe in Christ.”

    There’s nothing wrong with you believing that. It’s just that you think the law about gay marriage should be influenced by the fact that Christianity doesn’t agree with it.

    “How do you know it’s ignorance? How do you know that I haven’t researched all the other major worldviews and find them all lacking?”

    You’re obviously ignorant of the fact that Jews don’t believe in Christ being the Messiah. And there are thousands of religions on Earth.

    ” find them all lacking?”

    Are you saying Christianity is superior to every other religion?

    “Whoa whoa, hold your horses here Citizen. You seem to be getting alittle angry about this. Perhaps you should take a step back and divest yourself emotionally from this subject.”

    I must say you’re emotionally invested in this too. You wrote the article. You run a blog devoted to science and religion. Don’t tell me you really actually don’t care.

    “However, their existence doesn’t make them valid or equal in truth value with Christianity just because they exist.”

    Once again, you are claiming Christianity is superior. Since you follow it, of course you think it is correct. But that doesn’t mean other religions are incorrect, invalid, or not truthful. To you they are not, but to someone else they are. Value of truth is heavily influenced by your own religious beliefs – it is not a worldwide fact that Christianity is right and everything else is wrong. It is a belief by people within the Christian community.

    ““from the beginning of recorded history.””

    So you own a dictionary from the beginning of recorded history?

    “I don’t understand where you’re getting this. Of course I understand this. But the fact that not everyone agrees with me isn’t going to stop me from standing up for what God’s Word says, and it sure doesn’t make their opinion valid just because they have one.”

    So you’re saying that your opinions isn’t valid also just because you have one. Any opinion or point is valid; no opinion is absolute fact or truth or correct.

    What if gays just want to have the title of being married? A couple (homo- or heterosexual) could be together for 10 years, but not until they have that engagement ring might they feel actually engaged.

    “Are you suggesting that Prop. 8 forces people to not be gay? Are you serious?”

    No, it takes something away from homosexuals that they were given already. You’re the one that wishes there were no gays.

    “You seem to be of the opinion that because people hold other values or opinions, that immediately makes those values and opinions valid, and perhaps just as valid as your own. What makes you think this is the case? Is there no such thing as truth?”

    I believe that not one value or opinion is better or more right than another. When it comes to religion or philosophy or other topics like that, what is truth is just an opinion. It’s definitely truth that 2+3=5, but whether or not Allah is the supreme being or Zeus and his family are all supreme beings is all just belief or opinion – not one can be proved to be more right than the other. It is all personal belief.

    “But please, in the future, refrain from making judgements about those who you are discussing with. I live in Southern California, it is THE melting pot of the world. I’m not going to justify the diversity of my friends, acquaintences and co-workers and the diversity of my experiences to you.”

    I’m using the term “melting pot of the world” because that is actually what the United States of America has been called. I would definitely consider the entire country as a whole THE melting pot of the world, not a region of CA.

    “On a basic level, you are asking me to abandon what I believe to be truth just because other people disagree with me. Who are you to ask this? On another level, just as much as you accuse me of, YOU are claiming to have the truth on this subject. Honestly, how do you know that homosexuality is not a sin? That it’s a perfectly acceptable lifestyle on par with heterosexuality?”

    No, I’m challenging you to accept the fact that everyone thinks differently and what you believe or what I believe or what person A believes is not necessarily superior or inferior to what someone else says. You claim homosexuality is a sin, I don’t. But you are trying to convince me that it is a sin because God says so and that I’m wrong for not following the word of God? You think it’s not acceptable, I do. But why are you telling me I’m wrong because I don’t agree with you? I don’t believe in Christ as the Messiah, so therefore I am wrong because it is a fact? No, that is a religious belief. Keyword: belief. Opinion. You are right to yourself, I am right to myself. I have my beliefs, of course, but that doesn’t mean every other belief is wrong or invalid or contains no truth. But that’s what you think. You act as though you are superior to any non-Christian. You’re a hypocrite by saying “I accept the different kinds of people around me, but if they don’t believe as I do, they’re wrong.” There’s no such thing as right or wrong if you’re talking about religion.

    “Honestly, how do you know that homosexuality is not a sin? That it’s a perfectly acceptable lifestyle on par with heterosexuality?”

    How do you KNOW that homosexuality IS a sin? You BELIEVE it is, but it is not proven knowledge on par with 2 + 3 = 5.

    Eric, I’m a 16-year-old girl from the east coast. I’m not married. I don’t have children. I’m not Christian. I feel like you’re aregument is just that I’m not you, or not like you, so therefore I’m wrong. Why can’t you accept the fact that there is no right or wrong when it comes to what kind of person you are? I’m not gay, but let’s say I am. Would you tell me I’m not worthy of being human? That I’m not human? That I talk to the devil? Why would I be any different from any other human other than my sexuality? I don’t know you’re actual job, but let’s say you are a single, heterosexual, never-married-before math teacher. Let’s say I’m a single, homosexual, never-married/unioned-before math teacher. Neiter of us have children. We both teach calculus in high school. Would I be inferior to you if I were gay? What if I were a gay man, and nobody in the high school knew I was gay. We share a classroom. I’m open about my sexuality, but I don’t think it is something to discuss with students or other faculty members. We could be great friends working together. Hell, I could be your best friend and you could be mine. But when you find out I’m gay, I vanish from your mind and heart? It’s disgusting. People are people.

  40. Eric Kemp Says:

    Citizen10

    We could keep going back and forth about the details of this issue. However, I think it would be more productive to relieve some of the frustration we are both experiencing and discuss the underlying assumptions that you and I are both making. These are called our presuppositions. The reason you and I have differing views on this issue is because we have different starting points.

    I asked you a few questions last comment to attempt to discern your starting position. You made it clear with your answers that you are starting with the view that there is no absolute truth. This is a philosophy called moral relativism. I’m going to follow your position to it’s logical conclusion and use some of your quotes to do so.

    You said: “When it comes to religion or philosophy or other topics like that, what is truth is just an opinion.”

    and

    “not one can be proved to be more right than the other. It is all personal belief.”

    I have a question, and this sounds like it’s coming from sarcasm but I promise it’s a real question. Is the fact that truth is just an opinion, the truth? That is, is the fact that there is no absolute truth, absolutely true? This is a question you need to answer if you’re going to be a moral relativist.

    Don’t you see how “truth is just an opinion” is a self-defeating position.

    If truth is just opinion, then THAT is JUST opinion and there could just as easily be absolute truth! In fact, if truth is just an opinion, why argue at all? Why tell me your opinion when I’m just going to tell you my opinion? What’s the point?

    But that’s not the big problem with moral relativity. This is a philosophical exercise that will follow out the moral relativist position out to it’s logical conclusion . . .

    My opinion is that molesting little boys is the best thing in the world. This is truth to me. Who are you to say that I can’t do what is truth to me? I grew up in an environment where I was molested, my siblings were molested and being molested was something that was a good thing. I am helping these kids out to feel loved, only through molestation can kids feel true love, all other love is fake. I’m not hurting anyone, these kids love me and I love them. Maybe it’s YOUR opinion (remember that truth is just an opinion) that molesting is wrong, but who are YOU to put your opinion on me?

    Remember, you said, “not one can be proved to be more right than the other. It is all personal belief.” You cannot be proved more right than me, therefore you can’t stop me from molesting little boys.

    You also said, “When it comes to religion or philosophy or other topics like that, what is truth is just an opinion.”

    The philosophy of the Third Reich was that Jews were responsible for all their problems and that the Jewish race was holding back then entire human species, therefore they must be exterminated for the greater good. Servicing the greater good including killing as many Jews as possible. This was their philosophy. Remember that truth is just an opinion, who are you to put YOUR opinion on them?

    Anyway, the bottom line is this, “truth is just an opinion” is . . .
    1. a self defeating position because this means that your “there is no absolute truth” can’t be absolutely true
    2. You can therefore not call any child molester or Nazi wrong in what they did or do. Their truth is just as valid as yours, no more or no less.

    “No, I’m challenging you to accept the fact that everyone thinks differently and what you believe or what I believe or what person A believes is not necessarily superior or inferior to what someone else says.”

    So no child molesters opinion is not inferior to yours and societies’ opinion about them is not superior. How can we then put them in jail?

    Once you tackle this problem we can move on to discuss specific issues. . .

  41. Citizen10 Says:

    Eric,

    Don’t think that because I’m young I’m dumb. You completely ignored the points I brought up. Do you have a lack of a response? Why do you need to circumvent answering me by bringing up philosophical nonsense? Can’t stand arguing with a teenage girl? Is that it?

    I hope you’re not telling me that it’s okay that 6 million people are dead. Would you like it if 6 million Christians were murdered for being Christian? What if you lost most of your ancestors? What if your grandparents lost immediate family? Would you cry every time the Holocaust is mentioned in class? Would you get mad when someone made a pro-Nazi joke? Or are you just going to tell me that it never happened and it never will, since Christians are “supreme beings” as you seem to think?

    Whether or not the Holocaust was justified is absolutely not the same as the gay-marriage debate.

    I don’t even know what to say to you. You’re selfish and arrogant. You’re so closed minded in your own little world, I don’t know how you can see two feet in front of you. You’ll never change. I’m disappointed in you, Eric. Very disappointed. The reason I blog and try to be active in the online world is to see who is out there. What I can do for people out there. But then there are people out there who really don’t give a shit about anyone other than themselves.

  42. Eric Kemp Says:

    Citizen10

    My response to you was completely appropriate for our discussion. Our disagreement about same sex marriage is guided by our starting assumptions. You start with the assumptions that absolute truth doesn’t exist, I start with the assumption that it does.

    The rest of your response was either insult or complete and total misunderstanding of what you were responding to. As a 16 year old, you should realize that there are alot of things that you still have to learn (I know this to be true of myself as well). That your opinion on certain topics is absolutely driven by your starting assumptions is one of them. It has nothing to do with intelligence, and more to do with honesty with yourself and research and education on a certain subject. If you are unable to see that our differences are guided by our starting assumptions about marriage then that’s not my fault. I won’t meet you where you are to insult you, and if your next comment is like your last one, I will probably delete it.

    However, if you would like to be honest with yourself and realize that you have a lot to learn on certain subjects, that moral relativism exists and that you subscribe to it (based on your answers that I previously quoted), I would love to continue a rationl discussion with you, free of insult and labels.

  43. Citizen10 Says:

    I don’t want to comment on this blog anymore. I try to challenge an opinion and you basically tell me I’m dumb. It’s rude. That’s why I’m getting so defensive.

    Enjoy.

  44. Eric Kemp Says:

    Citizen10

    I never once said you were dumb, in fact, I even said this conversation had nothing to do with intelligence. However, you ARE too unself-reflective to realize a lack of education on a certain subject, such as worldview philosophies, and specifically moral relativity. All you wanted to do was go back and forth about our opinions, when I wanted to discuss where our opinions come from, our presuppositions.

    If you take me pointing out a lack of education as calling you stupid, that’s not how I mean it and it’s you choosing to take it that way. A lack of education on a subject is not a bad thing, nor does have anything to do with intelligence; if we stop having things to learn what’s the point of living? However, it IS a bad thing if you are not willing to recognize what you don’t know, and insult someone who is just trying to point it out to you. I hope in the future that you realize that a call to self-evaluate is not an insult or condescension, it’s just a requirement to carry on a conversation on the topic.

    Perhaps one of your starting assumptions is that Christians are always condescending, which makes you blind to when one is honestly trying to help you.

  45. butttub Says:

    I think your argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way language functions. Words do not have static meanings, but signify according to contingency. I would recommend Derrida’s ‘Of Grammatology’ to explain further. Or really Saussure or any structuralist or post-structuralist on language.

    Anyways, your argument against me here would be naturally to say, ok, yeah the arbitrary sign ‘marriage’ has taken on a certain significance through as history of usage. Correct, but the history of how marriage has been used varies culture to culture and era to era. I’d suggest that you look into anthropological work on the institution of marriage (Gayle Rubin’s work, for example) to see how drastically the institution has changed.

    Your next move, logically, is to say something like: ‘Well, but even so, there has been a consistency of man and woman (or, in many cases women) being the primarily joined parties. This is only partially true, as marriage historically was a contract between men in which women were exchanged to solidify kinship bonds. Yes, in these cases man and woman were wed, but the agents were both men who were using marriage to secure their own interests.

    Still, I’ll provisionally grant you that marriage has tended to bond man and woman. Regardless, the case to enshrine this definition in US civil law falls apart upon further inspection. Let’s take the example of the medical profession. For a very very long time, to become a licensed medical doctor, a person had to be a white male who had successfully completed medical school. At a certain point, the racial and gender-based qualifications had to drop away, even though they had always been that way. Take property ownership, take military positions…. The point is that there are many institutions that have been historically only accessible to a particular privileged group but that at some point had to be opened to include others. Because marriage is a civil institution, it is only logical that it be legally defined so as to be inclusive of all members of the polity.

    The most you can really say is that we are in a period of history where the definition of marriage is in flux in a way that it has not previously been. Ok fine. What about words like ‘gay’ and ‘queer’? What about a word like ‘rabid’ which once signified a specific disease and can now be used to mean extreme devotion (as in ‘rabid fan’). What about your own example of the word ‘murder’? Murder as a concept has changed drastically over the course of history. The legal concept of murder is constantly being redefined and held distinct from concepts like ‘manslaughter’ or ‘wrongful death’.

    Meanings shift and slip, and the job of the US legal system is not to be a retrograde language academy, but to ensure that the laws we have are applied fairly and without discrimination. What you have to ask yourself is: Am I really defending marriage by fighting for the freezing of a word’s meaning at this arbitrary point in time? Would I not do marriage a better service by, say, promoting free couples counseling and other social services that would take the some of the burden off of struggling families? In what way do I help anyone by maintaining marriage as an exclusionary institution?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: