Ricardo,
“Gary......polygamy? Let's not go crazy here. I understand the concern but that's going to the extreme.”
With all due respect Ricardo, that is a deflection. It addresses none of the points I raised.
“We were talking about couples. Who is it hurting if they are involved in a meaningful relationship?
What is the difference between couples and groups? If the standard is “who is it hurting?” then one is as valid as another. Both standards came from the same place, didn’t they? If you want to use “no harm” as a reason to allow something, the polygamy meets the spec. It really shouldn’t matter whether it’s two consenting adults, three, or a dozen. If you have a good reason why it does, please let me know.
Likewise with incest. People will say that they are against it because of the possibility of genetic defects. Fine, in a very short period of time we will be able to screen people for any number of genetic defects in offspring. Do we want to limit people’s ability to marry on that basis? If not, then why not abolish incest rules between two consenting adults? Wouldn’t that have the same validity as any other pairing?
“Case in point using my own faith, I can't eat pork chops. But you can buy them in the grocery store. It's a bad thing for us Jews to do. Everyone has the choice to cook em up and eat them. But it goes against Jewish law. My law. So I don't do it.”
“You go to that grocery store and get pork chops and no harm done. It's not against your spiritual doctrine but it's against mine. So I make the choice to not buy them and you make the choice to buy them."
“What I do not do is try and get the grocery store shut down because it doesn't jive with my beliefs. I do my thing, you do their thing and we're happy. Because, Gary, trying to impose my beliefs on everyone else does not make me a more pious Jew. It makes me a meddlesome jackass."
Tell me Ricardo, does your law say that the pork chops are bad for everyone, or that it was established to separate the Jews as a unique people? Is it really part of your belief that no one should eat pork chops? I don’t think that is the case, and if it is not, we aren’t dealing with parallel situations are we?
“If you think sleeping with someone of the same sex is wrong, fine. God bless you. You know what you have to do to stay on your version of the straight and narrow: Don't screw another guy and you shall be holy.”
Ricardo, you are responding with emotion and not to what I wrote. Quick recap: None of us is holy. Not one. We are accepted on faith, or not at all. Having said that, the law is still there to guide us as to what is right and wrong. In good conscience, I cannot let what God says is wrong be characterized is good and write. I am imposing my will on no one. I am simply relaying the point of the scriptures. Do with them what you will.
14 comments:
Hey Gary,
In make this statement: ”If you think sleeping with someone of the same sex is wrong, fine. God bless you. You know what you have to do to stay on your version of the straight and narrow: Don't screw another guy and you shall be holy.”
And then in the next breath you say this in your last paragraph:
”Quick recap: None of us is holy. Not one. We are accepted on faith, or not at all. Having said that, the law is still there to guide us as to what is right and wrong. In good conscience, I cannot let what God says is wrong be characterized is good and write. I am imposing my will on no one. I am simply relaying the point of the scriptures. Do with them what you will.”
It sounded a bit contradictory to me, with all due respect. If Ricardo doesn’t ‘screw’ another guy, he shall be holy, yet not one of us are holy, right? I apologize if I misread into this.
I simply relay the point of scriptures too, but remember, with each relationship that each person has with God, their interpretation may vary depending on what God’s purpose is for them. This is what I believe.
God bless!.
Deb,
It was Ricardo who said "You know what you have to do to stay on your version of the straight and narrow: Don't screw another guy and you shall be holy.” I may be reading it with an inflection that was not intended, but he sounds pretty angry or sarcastic.
My point is that none of us is holy. We are accepted by faith. I am a bit annoyed at him that he is twisting my words to a meaning that I never claimed nor intended. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but I get frustrated when they try to make points against things that I have never even said.
Peace and God bless,
Gary
I just noticed that. Wow, am I SLEEPY tonight! My apologies for reading the wrong comment!
I thought you were changing your mind there for a second----shweew! (ha)
Peace!! :)
Hey Gary, I appreciated what you said to another blogger re homosexuality. May God guide us in all we do and say. That He may be glorified!
Hi Gary,
I read your exchange with Deb at her blog and just wanted to comment that you did an awesome job.
I have had several conversations with Deb in the past, but she always seems to regard me as judgmental and hateful.
All we can do is plant seeds of faith and when a Christian brother or sister is incorrect (or, plainly deceived) on a certain issue, attempt to either gently, or, in some cases when necessary, boldly confront that person's false doctrine.
Anyway, nice job in your discussion with Deb!
I hope you will consider visiting my Talkwisdom blogspot and adding some words of wisdom there!
God bless!
In Christ,
Christinewjc
Rabble rouser. :)
I think that there is a difference between law and morality. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of gay Christians getting married, but I do believe that gay marriage should be legal (at least as far as the 'state' is concerned). I think that the purpose of law is to protect, and while you posit that polygamy and incent (when consentual) is not harmful, I happen to disagree. Polygamy almost always means one man with several wives, and this sort of system is always harmful to women because it (by its very nature) degrades women... maybe that is loaded language, so maybe I will change that. It puts women below men. Systems that endorse polygamy pretty much universally hold that a woman's role is to serve her husband and to produce children, and so to legally endorse polygamy would be to undo most of the progress that has been made by women's equality movements worldwise.
Incest... I find it hard to believe that you can say that incest between consenting adults is not harmful. It may not, as you say, in the future produce children with deformities, but it is emotionally harmful -- something we as a society can agree on. It is the same reason that pedophilia is illegal, even if it does not produce children. It harms people emotionally, and therefore can not be condoned.
There is no one harmed by gay marriage (except, if you believe it is a sin, the people who are engaged in it) and therefore I cannot see a reason for the law to prohibit it, if the law is (as I see it) mainly there to protect us, and not to legislate morality.
"There is no one harmed by gay marriage (except, if you believe it is a sin, the people who are engaged in it)"
There is definite harm in attempting to mainstream incompatible views of morality. For example, a lesbian fire chief in California recently ordered several fire men under her command to march in a gay pride parade. The men felt humiliated and were subjected to verbal abuse and crude gestures by the other marchers throughout the parade. Also, by codifying gay marriage into law, that forces every tax payer to subsidize it, essentially becoming a partner to it. I very much feel that it is both my right and responsibility to resist having to subsidize immoral activity. Codifying will also permanently integrate the institution into other parts of public life, such as the school system. Teaching children that what I, and many Christians, consider an immoral lifestyle is a perfectly fine lifestyle is a big problem for me.
There are a number of philosophies about the purposes of law and what they should be. In our American system, laws are made by the legislature, or at least that's the way the system was set up. More recently, judges have started taking that perogative upon themselves (as in Massachusetts). Under the full faith clause of the US Constitution, institutions such as marriage approved by one state are recognized by other states unless specifically blocked. So, by legalizing marriage in Massachusetts (unlawfully, in my opinion), judges in Massachusetts take the power of the legislatures in all fifty states unless specifically stopped. I think blocking that type of excess is a very good reason for legislating against gay marriage, or any other power grab. Whatever else you say about marriage, it has always been a matter of the states to legislate themselves, their people through their representatives.
Also, your statement about "legislating morality" is not appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law being proposed to limit gay relationships. Consenting adults are free to act as they will. What is being resisted is legal recognition of an immoral relationship. Or to put it more succinctly: I'm not trying to legislate morality. I am trying to block the proponents of gay marriage from legislating immorality.
As for your comments on degradation and such, it has the value of opinion and no more. To your western sensibilities, you consider polygamy as degrading to women. Some women in those relationships might agree. Others might not. For you to claim to know what is best for them from a psychological standpoint is both judgemental and a bit arrogant.
And your argument about the primary purpose of the law being to protect is full of holes. That's the case in criminal law, but marriage is covered under civil law. The primary purpose of civil law is to guarantee a fair exchange between contracting parties in a manner that will have a neutral or beneficial effect for society. I can see no way to codify an inherently immoral contract, such as gay marriage, that will have a neutral or beneficial effect on the nation.
I wish neither harm nor sanction on the gay community. I simply wish them to leave me out of their relationships. That can't happen if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Therefore, I will continue to resist it through all legal means.
"Also, by codifying gay marriage into law, that forces every tax payer to subsidize it, essentially becoming a partner to it."
If codifying gay marriage into law means that taxpayers must support it then it also means that taxpayers have supported heterosexual marriages since tax laws in this country came into effect.
So by your logic then all marriage laws concerning a taxpayer subsidy, for example filing joint tax returns, or child health coverage such as Medicaid should be removed from the books, no? Or are not all men created equal with equal protection under the law?
Yet you wish to mix the secular with the religious, which in a country with a founding principle of separation of church and state this seems to me to be anti Americanism.
Gay marriage is about more than sexual practices, why can't some get past that least part of the situation when it comes to law? For instance it involves end of life decisions, inheritance, and every other aspect of secular law, given a heterosexual couple, and this is constitutionally creating a class of citizen, native born, not enjoying the full freedom of the American law.
As for the biblical law given Moses and therefore codified; did not the Christ prophet Jesus himself say he was come to fulfill the law? Like the codification of slavery once it was wiped (fulfilled) from the books it was gone, no? The apostle Paul sent out to the gentiles taught that the law of Moses was no more.
Now if the law has been fulfilled with the death, resurrection and, ascension of Jesus and the deliverance of spirit once again to mankind (Pentecost)has not the law of Moses been wiped from the codes and freedom to live harmoniously with that One who created all, been given in it's place.
NOW you are free to live and believe as you will, as am I and what may be sin to you is not necessarily sin to me, for sin is anything that separates one from God. What may cause you to be separated Gary may not cause me any moral dilemma whatsoever and of course the same is vice versa.
So why the homophobia? Or is it only your freedom of law and worship that is to be regarded?
Peace
TWM
TWM,
"So by your logic then all marriage laws concerning a taxpayer subsidy, for example filing joint tax returns, or child health coverage such as Medicaid should be removed from the books, no? Or are not all men created equal with equal protection under the law?"
I think you and I differ what constitutes "equal protection." I certainly subscribe to the idea that all men are created equal, both under God and under law. This refers to rights, however, and not necessarily to benefits. American society, through the democratic process, has assigned certain specific legal benefits based on certain conditions that are considered desirable and beneficial to society. Heterosexual marriage is one example. Society has judged it a beneficial institution, and has granted certain privileges to encourage it. Another example would be tax deductions for children. Note: None of these things are enumerated as "rights" in the Constitution. They could be abolished tomorrow by legislative action, and I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would say that no "rights" have been lost. Therefore, I consider you call for "equal protection" inappropriate.
"Yet you wish to mix the secular with the religious, which in a country with a founding principle of separation of church and state this seems to me to be anti Americanism."
On the contrary. There is little that can be more American than encouraging our desires for the good of the country through the legal process. Based on current trends, my view will probably lose in the long run. That is irrelevant. What is relevant from an ethical standpoint is to pursue what is best for the country from my perspective and understanding using all legal means.
"Gay marriage is about more than sexual practices, why can't some get past that least part of the situation when it comes to law? For instance it involves end of life decisions, inheritance, and every other aspect of secular law, given a heterosexual couple, and this is constitutionally creating a class of citizen, native born, not enjoying the full freedom of the American law."
For what it's worth, I have no objection to allowing people to assign whomever they wish to be caregivers, making end of life decisions, etc. Indeed, I believe many states allow such things. My objection is to subsidizing it, as I have stated before, and giving it status equal to marriage. It is not. I also resent that it is already being represented as equal and moral in many school systems. As you pointed out, we live in a society with separation of church and state. No government institution, including schools, should be able to represent any lifestyle as moral. That is a task for parents and institutions established for such evaluations, the church being one. And to the best of my knowledge, no person is denied rights of citizenship based on sexual orientation, though again we seem to disagree on what constitutes "rights." Also, there is a broad spectrum of groups demanding different things. When I was growing up, the call was based on privacy, that a couple should be able to do what they wanted in the privacy of their own home. I agree. Now, the call is for public validation. I disagree. Sorry.
"As for the biblical law given Moses and therefore codified; did not the Christ prophet Jesus himself say he was come to fulfill the law?"
Examine the scriptures carefully. Christ fullfilled a specific requirement of the law: He was the blood sacrifice for atonement. He made it possible for us to come to God with our sins covered. Nothing that he did changed the character, however, of any particular act. Lying is still sinful. Stealing is still sinful. Homosexual activity is still sinful. It is still harmful to the people that indulge in it and hurtful to those who care about them. I see no good reason to subsidize or encourage it. If people wish to indulge themselves, I will not interfere. Just leave me out of it.
"What may cause you to be separated Gary may not cause me any moral dilemma whatsoever and of course the same is vice versa."
I certainly believe there are matters of debate. The prohibitions against homosexuality are rather explicit, however. You are free, of course, to discuss with God and your elected representatives however you wish. I simply do not want to stand before God someday and have him say "You knew that this was going to harm people. Why did you just passively let things go by? Why didn't you at least speak up?"
"So why the homophobia?"
Why assume homophobia? Why can't you accept that my feelings are exactly as stated? Why do you need to feel that I am acting out of hatred or fear or ignorance? I understand that makes it easier to disregard people, but sometimes you do them a disservice. My loyalty is to God and truth, which are irrevocably intertwined. There is no hatred in my heart for homosexuals or any other sinners. If I hated sinners, I would hate myself. But Christ came not just so that we could find forgiveness from sin, but also freedom. If we remain content with our sin as we know him, we take his sacrifice for granted. How much worse to take sin that he died to cleanse and call it good.
Peace to you.
"As for the biblical law given Moses and therefore codified; did not the Christ prophet Jesus himself say he was come to fulfill the law? Like the codification of slavery once it was wiped (fulfilled) from the books it was gone, no? The apostle Paul sent out to the gentiles taught that the law of Moses was no more."
Let's not get my statements to far out of context OK?
If a man and a woman have the right to get married then it is not an equal state under the law to codify the same practice for any couple regardless of sexual orientation, because in the Bill of Rights all citizens are given equal protection, no? Or are rights granted to some and not to others as in the days of slavery, before the 13th amendment was codified
I do believe that I would like to read your definition of "truth."
Just to save time I will tell you that mine is; truth is truth as it knows itself to be. Same as God, people the world over have an idea about who or what God is but the truth is God is as God knows Himself to be. Nothing More, Nothing less. We believe that God is a spirit (John 4:4 i believe)if that is how God knows himself then we can agree that that is TRUTH. No?
Peace
TWM
TWM,
I am not trying to get to far out of context. Sometimes I am a bit dense. It's difficult sometimes to understand the written word as I read with my emphasis and inflection, and that's not necessarily as intended.
Could you identify the source of that upper quote you gave? I don't think I recognize it, or at least not that translation of it. It doesn't sound Biblical to me as it refers to Jesus as "the prophet."
Going back to the discussion on rights. Your comment about the bill of rights does not cover marriage. Marriage is not a power delegated to the federal government. Therefore, under the 10th ammendment, it is delegated to the states and the people. Marriage (as a legal practice in the US) has been a contract between two people ratified by the states, and the states have power to regulate it. There have always been limitations (age, restrictions on relatives getting married, citizenship, etc.) To say that you are being denied "equal protection" is incorrect. You can marry if you wish. Your choice of spouse gender is limited, as is everyone else's. The law as written is being equally applied. The fact that you don't like the way the law is written and applied is something that you have to take up with your legislature. It may seem like I am splitting hairs, but I have done a small study of law in my other course work. A lot of it depends on splitting hairs. If there really was a valid "equal protection" issue here, I am pretty sure that it would have made it to the Federal Appellate level by now.
I am not sure that I entirely understand your definition of truth. From an objective (observable) standpoint, I regard truth as what is despite belief or interpretation to the contrary. From a faith standpoint I accept God as truth and that He is as He is, regardless of how we interpret him. Because of that, I accept the Bible as his true Word, inerrant in its description of him and his will.
Now, because I accept God's word, and his expression of grace through Christ, I also accept that I am no longer under the law as a matter of salvation. For that matter, as a gentile, I was never under Jewish ceremonial law. However, the entire basis of the sacrificial system was not to eliminate the sinfulness of the actions that were being done, but to cover the sin that occurred. As a believer in Christ, I can do anything and still be assured of salvation. But I also know that some acts are against the will of God. They will harm my relationship with him. If I promote them as good or acceptable and others are encouraged, then I am encouraging others to harm their relationship with God, or if no relationship exists, to further harm themselves. The freedom that Christ is calling us to is not freedom to sin, but freedom from sin. I cannot condone what God deplores.
All men sent by god to teach, warn or tell truth to the Israelites were prophets. Jesus falls under that definition no? Islam quantifies not only Jesus but Mohamed the founder of that sect, which worships the same God as the Jews as prophets.
Now you go to the secular again and say that marriage is a state responsibility. OK let's give that a whirl. No state law can supersede federal law and at this time there is no constitutional ban on gay marriage, and yes I do believe that Massachusetts conservatives have a case working through the federal court system as we write. Whether it makes it to SCOTUS is to be seen or whether it will be decided on the circuit level is probably more likely a scenario. and as you said there is reciprocity between the states ergo a marriage, legal in MA should be considered legal in any state.
OK in different terms I will accept that we have defined Truth in the same way, yet you say that the bible is Gods ultimate word of truth,what of the Dead Sea Scrolls? What of the apocrypha, those books kicked out of the text by Constantine? What of the translations,and the italicized ellipses in the KJV?
Do you read it in Aramaic and Greek, the languages in which it was given to holy men of God? Or do you just accept that the English version is the complete and immutable text? And if that were so why would it say in both Hebrews and Isaiah "God himself will teach you, line upon line, brick upon brick, line upon line, brick upon brick, line upon line, brick upon brick?"
See the honest truth of the matter Gary is that I don't care one way or the other about your stand on gays or gay marriage. May not agree with it but I don't care what you think of it.
To me your vociferous opposition to it though, does cause sin in people, people who want nothing more than to be accepted for who they are (there is a genetic study that says somewhere in the human genome of homosexuals there is a different gene) and to love that same God, as you, as they see fit, not to mention that learning mere words in a book (ever learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth) or spouted from a pulpit by a man with a (most likely) divinity degree does not make you a Christian, it makes you a member of a sect that espouses some Christian virtue while denying others. That is not necessarily "rightly dividing the word of truth."
Them thar are not fighting words just my HONEST opinion.
Peace
TWM
now it is time to do some drugs, legal, and lay down with my terrier and go mindless for a few hours.
TWM,
From the definition that you give, Jesus would be considered a prophet. I disagree with you strongly that Islam worships the same God as Christians or Jews, but that's another topic.
The topic that we are discussing is secular marriage, which is a matter of law. It makes no difference whether I oppose it on religious grounds or not.
"No state law can supersede federal law and at this time there is no constitutional ban on gay marriage."
At this time there is no federal statute authorizing gay marriage either, as far as I know. Furthermore, if there were, it would be unconstitutional because nowhere under the Constitution is marriage listed as a federal area. You can't say that just because there is no prohibition of something in the Constitution that the states have to permit it. I don't see what you are trying to say.
"and as you said there is reciprocity between the states ergo a marriage, legal in MA should be considered legal in any state."
You are now talking about the "full faith" clause in the Constitution. Congress passed the defense of marriage act cancelling reciprocity in the case of gay marriage specifically because they felt that it would be wrong to have Massachusetts legislate gay marriage for the rest of the states, particularly since it was not legislated in Massachusetts to start with but invoked by the judiciary (talk about judicial activisim). So again, as of right now what little claim you may have is in limbo.
"To me your vociferous opposition to it though, does cause sin in people, people who want nothing more than to be accepted for who they are "
Everyone would like to be accepted for who they are. That is not an argument for or against the morality or benefit of any opinion. Thieves and pedophiles would also like to be accepted for who they are. That doesn't mean that society owes them approval.
"there is a genetic study that says somewhere in the human genome of homosexuals there is a different gene)"
Proceed logically from that assumption. I have heard that there is also a gene that gives people a predisposition toward alcoholism. Does that mean that we as society should say "Go ahead, drink hearty! It's all genetic!" If lying was genetic, or murder, would that be okay? Or is it the activity and attitude that is "evil" regardless of the source? Compare this with the fundamental doctrine of original sin. Our faith (mine, anyway) teaches that we are all born with a bent toward sin. Kind of sounds like an inherited trait, doesn't it? So if that's the case, does heredity excuse any sin? I don't think so.
" to love that same God, as you, as they see fit, not to mention that learning mere words in a book (ever learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth) or spouted from a pulpit by a man with a (most likely) divinity degree does not make you a Christian,"
TWM, you can believe me or not as you chose: My faith in God is very personal. Because of that faith, I study and I learn. Because he wants people to turn to the truth, I stand up for the truth when I can and do what I can to oppose lies. Here is a truth that I think the scriptures make very clear: You can't come to God on your own terms. He set the basis for forgiveness, he made the model for perfection. He may forgive sin, but he never tolerates it. I read what a lot of people say about Jesus, and I think "They aren't describing Christ. They are describing Santa Claus." Take a look at what the scriptures say about Jesus: There is mercy there...for everyone who wants to repent. For those who want to live contentedly in their sin, there are warnings of judgment to come. If you are implying by any of your statements that I am more like a Pharisee than a follower, I would ask you to either justify it or move away. I really don't think you are in any position to judge my relationship with God. Neither have I called yours into question. I do rely on the scriptures for guidance heavily of course. They were written and preserved for us at a great price. When we "seek our own way" to worship God in the face of what he did so much to inform us of in his word, we dishoner his efforts. Or put another way, if someone is not willing to believe what God said outright in the scriptures, why should I believe they are receiving any special guidance? And if their special guidance contradicts what he worked so hard to give us, how can I believe it at all?
"That is not necessarily "rightly dividing the word of truth."
I am teachable and I always seek Godly wisdom. If I am false, show me how.
I take no offense at what you have written. I've quite enjoyed our discussion, in fact. Drop by any time.
One final word (unless you wish to continue, which is fine): I am not your enemy, or an enemy to gays or anyone else. I am not a fascist, authoritarian, or other fill-in-the-blank type villain. I am not telling you to shut up, go away, or drop dead. I am (I believe) a reasonable, intelligent person with a different view of what is best for the country that, unfortunately, can only pushed through public and political means. And there are a lot more like me. If you apply terms like ignorance, homophobia, or other such derogatory terms, you set the stage for conflict rather than understanding.
Shalom.
Post a Comment