How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone Not to Proselytize?

Francis Schaeffer on the Origins of Relativism in the Church

One of My Favorite Songs

An Inspiring Song

Labels

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Mr. Buchanan on the Walker Decision


Here's another one for which I took notes several days ago. My own thoughts at the bottom are several days old, as well.
I really would have you go read the whole thing. Eventually, I'll get 'round to putting down more of my own thoughts on the subject. At least I hope I will. There's about a bajillion things I want to get 'round to writing up.

Any emphasis in the following is mine:
Federal Judge Vaughn Walker is truly a visionary.

Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.

[snip]

If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.

This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.

[snip]

Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been "biases" and "moral disapproval," and "moral disapproval ... has never been a rational basis for legislation."

But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?

What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not "moral disapproval"?

[snip]

But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

Walker may call such pairings marriages, but that does not make it so. As Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," said the judge.

He is calling opponents of gay marriage irrational.

This is not just an insult to the intelligence of those Californians who have rejected gay marriage, but to a majority of Americans.

[snip]

Up to today, Walker is the only federal judge to see in same-sex marriage a constitutional right. And what is the origin of this right? Supporters of Walker's decision cite the Declaration of Independence about our "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But that same declaration says we were endowed with those rights by our Creator. When did the Creator indicate that among these rights was for homosexuals to have their unions recognized as marriages?

The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.

[snip]

...Walker's personal opinion.

But he is declaring it to be the only rational conclusion that can be reached. And having reached it, he has seized upon a phrase in the 14th amendment, "equal protection," distorted its meaning and dictated that this means his view and his values henceforth are the law in California, the voters be damned.
Ultimately, most people's opinion on this subject will turn upon whether they believe homosexual orientation to be something you are born with, or a choice--a choice conditioned by events in one's upbringing or other events, no doubt, but a choice nonetheless.

I fall into the latter camp. I hold that if you try to make a case for homosexuality being an inborn genetic trait, you also inadvertently make the same case for pedophilia, bestiality, porn addiction, serial adultery, foot fetishes, and so forth. That is, there is no argument that I have heard for homosexuals being "born that way" that could not also be applied with equal facility to the other sexual issues I have just mentioned. Likewise, if you reject the idea--on whatever grounds--that the pedophile is "born that way," I think that you have similar grounds for rejecting the idea that homosexuals are doomed to their particular perversion as an accident of birth.

I am not trying to say here that I think I am better than the homosexual on a moral level. I don't think there are more than a handful of people on the planet who aren't guilty of some sort of sexual immorality, even if it's just lusting after people you're not married to, which Jesus declared to be the equivalent of adultery (I trust I am not over-paraphrasing His words). Personally, I have little interest in legislating homosexuality out of existence for the simple reason that historically, it has never succeeded, and one's efforts appear to be better spent on evangelism and education. If they are willing to leave the children alone and not recruit them (You do realize that actively recruiting others is the only way the homosexual community can stay in existence, don't you? They sure as thunder can't reproduce...), I'm willing to leave them alone. But I draw the line at being forced, under color of law, to call two shacked-up homosexuals "married" or not to speak my mind about the morality of the whole thing (which is not a contradiction to "I'm willing to leave them alone;" if they tell me they don't want to hear it, I respect that), which is, based on what has gone on overseas, where this is all ultimately headed.

18 comments:

  1. The 14th Amendment states –
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    By denying homosexuals the legal right to marry, the government is breaking the 14th Amendment by denying “equal protection of the laws.” Now personally if it was up to me, the government would get out of the marriage business and issue civil unions for any two adults 18 or older. Done. By doing this simple thing, the government fulfills its duty under the 14th Amendment and also allows those who want to “preserve traditional marriage” to get “married” in the religious institution of their choosing.

    MOTW said: You do realize that actively recruiting others is the only way the homosexual community can stay in existence, don't you? They sure as thunder can't reproduce...

    Hmmm. I know plenty of homosexuals and none of them have ever tried to actively recruit straight people to the pink team. In fact, darn near all of them wouldn’t wish being gay on anyone. They are gay because they feel that they were born that way. I mean seriously, who in their right mind would chose to be gay knowing the persecution that homosexuals receive in this country?

    Sadly, gays are the one type of people that it is still okay to hate. Well them and it is okay for liberals to hate Christians, which I don’t get because I think hating anyone strictly based on their beliefs, sexuality, religion, and/or ethnic heritage is just the absolute definition of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It will come as no surprise that I disagree, I'm sure.

    The fourteenth amendment? I don't think so. Homosexuals currently have exactly the same marriage rights as straights do: they may marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex they wish.

    Dave, seriously: the states regulate marriage. They do so all the time. You may not marry more than one person at a time. You may not marry a child--at least not without the child's parents permission (except possibly in Arkansas-- :) ). You may not marry a non-consenting person, and so forth. If they can do all these things--and I think you would be hard-pressed to find many who would question that they have every authority to do so--why on earth shouldn't I believe that they have the authority to prohibit "marriage" between two people of the same sex?

    Insofar as I am aware, no society on earth has ever suggested that a same-sex couple can constitute a marriage. A couple, yes, in some societies. But not a marriage. Good grief, there is quite literally far more precedent for bigamy than there is for same-sex marriage.

    As I suggested in the post, I'm willing to let them alone. If a homosexual doesn't want to hear my views on the subject, fine; I respect that. But I object to having "equal protection" used as an excuse for overturning the thousands-of-years-old, universally-accepted definition of "marriage" as an institution consisting of a union between men and women, and for forcing me to use it or recognize it--and I definitely object to dragging the federal government into it. Regulations pertaining to marriage should be a state-level issue.

    I mean seriously, who in their right mind would chose to be gay knowing the persecution that homosexuals receive in this country?

    Who in their right mind would chose to be a pedophile knowing the persecution that pedophiles receive in this country, Dave? Do you see now what I was saying? That arguments for being "born gay" inevitably turn out to be arguments for being "born a pedophile," "born a sadist," etc.?

    Another obvious answer is: no one! But that would only prove that homosexuals were not in their right minds, wouldn't it? And that is hardly the point you were trying to make.

    There is more to come on this subject in the next few days, already scheduled for publication. I hope that you will find the discussion stimulating.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow. I have to admit that I honestly did not realize you were that bigoted.

    To compare someone that is homosexual to a pedophile? That's sick man. I thought you were a better person than that.

    I mean, a homosexual engaging in a homosexual act with another homosexual is one thing. But a sick old man (or woman I guess) having sex with a minor child is a completely different thing.

    And as far as your universally accepted definition goes. Random House apparently thinks differently. According to their 2010 dictionary the definition of marriage is as such:
    "a. the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments.
    b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender."

    Furthermore, I don't think your interpretation of the 14th Amendment holds any water. Basically you are saying that a person has equal protection under the law but only in certain instances. That's not right. You might as well say black people have the same rights to marry as white people, but only if they agree to marry another black person.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Part 1)
    Glad the post held your attention, Otter.

    Wow. I have to admit that I honestly did not realize you were that bigoted.

    Oh, Otter, you have no idea. I'll remind you that it wasn't that long ago that you told me that I was arrogant simply for having told Dave he was wrong; according to you, I am not merely wrong, but suffer a personality defect of the first water!

    Where does that leave you, Otter?

    At any rate, I am quite convinced that homosexuality is a gross perversion, condemned by God in both the Old and the New Testaments. I am convinced that this has been the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Christendom for two millennia and of Judaism for millennia before that. My opinion on the subject is, in short, perfectly orthodox Christian doctrine. It is yours that is heterodox. Feel free to call the majority of Christians throughout history bigots, Otter! But then, you didn't wait for my permission, did you?

    I am furthermore convinced that homosexuality is a filthy, detestable lifestyle that has resulted in an average lifespan for homosexual males in this country that is considerably shorter than that for heterosexual males. I am convinced that it has no place whatever in a healthy society.

    Having said that, I repeat, I am willing to leave them alone. No homosexual need ever hear my opinion on the subject if he doesn't want to, and as far as I'm concerned, he can go practice his homosexuality on any willing adult he can find. In case you missed it, I said in the post that I do not seek to legislate homosexuality out of existence. I merely seek to preserve my liberty to call it as I see it.

    Now, perhaps, you have a proper grasp of the depth of my "bigotry."

    To compare someone that is homosexual to a pedophile? That's sick man.

    They are both sexual perversions. And you seem to have missed the point--at least it seems like it to me. So, to clarify, the idea is that Dave's question, intended to point out the necessity of one being "born"
    homosexual, applies with equal logical force to the pedophile. Either the argument is valid in both cases, or it fails in both cases. This is not my fault. It is just the nature of his argument. Blame Aristotle if you must blame someone!

    I thought you were a better person than that.

    Of course, I humbly stand craving your full approbation, Otter!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Part 2)
    I mean, a homosexual engaging in a homosexual act with another homosexual is one thing. But a sick old man (or woman I guess) having sex with a minor child is a completely different thing.

    Actually, a lot of the time they are sick young men and women.

    And as far as your universally accepted definition goes. Random House apparently thinks differently...

    I have to admit that I didn't know the latest edition has kowtowed to political correctness.

    Furthermore, I don't think your interpretation of the 14th Amendment holds any water.

    Thank you, I have a similar opinion of your interpretation, Otter.

    Basically you are saying that a person has equal protection under the law but only in certain instances.

    That is not at all what I said, Otter. You clearly didn't understand what I said, and now, your lack of comprehension has somehow become my problem. To use your words,

    That's not right.

    But so that you may better understand the point, it was not that "a person has equal protection under the law but only in certain instances," but that special sexual preferences do not entitle a person to special laws!

    The law on this subject already exists, Otter. To apply it equally means not to change it to accommodate an infinity of preferences, but to apply it the same way to everyone. If you don't like it, fine, work to change it. I will be working against you, but you already knew that.

    Look, Otter, if you want to offer your full approval to homosexual marriage, be my guest! I decline to do the same, and will resist to the utmost any legal efforts to compel me to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So you are convinced that homosexuality is a gross perversion but you base that on "orthodox" Christian doctrine and that it is I that is unorthodox.

    That is your opinion and you are entitled to it of course.

    However, I base my beliefs off of the teachings of Jesus. And I am not afraid to admit that I base my beliefs off of His teaching alone. I'm not saying that I think the Old Testament should be completely thrown out. I'm just saying that I think the teachings of Christ Himself supersede it all.

    The point I am making here in saying that I follow His teachings is that not once in the words of Christ did I ever read him mentioning a condemnation of homosexuals. Never. If He is okay with them. Then I'm okay with them. I have heard the argument that not everything He said is in the New Testament and that is all well and good but it is of my opinion that if it was really important it would be in there.

    My point in calling out your bigotry is that you yourself call yourself a Christian. I could be mistaken here so forgive me if I am wrong. My point being, it seems to me that being a Christian is inconsistent with that type of behavior. But don't worry. You aren't alone. A lot of find upstanding "Christians" I've met have exhibited much worse behavior.

    I don't expect you to try and gain my approval for anything you say or do. That would be ridiculous.

    Now, as far as the topic of this discussion goes.....

    Are homosexuals born that way or do they just become that way based on environmental factors? I have no idea. I don't really think it is my place to treat them differently in either case. They are people too, just like you or I, whether you like it or not.

    But still, I have to say that someone that is having sex with another consenting adult of the same gender is not comparable to a sexual predator going around town trying to find young little boys or girls to have sex with.

    You said in response to Dave's comment about the 14th Amendment:
    "The fourteenth amendment? I don't think so. Homosexuals currently have exactly the same marriage rights as straights do: they may marry any consenting adult of THE OPPOSITE SEX they wish."

    So, contrary to what you say. I understand exactly what you meant. It is exactly as I said. You think the 14th Amendment applies but only in certain circumstances, which is what I said. It is not my "lack of comprehension." It is my reading exactly what you said.

    This is not about someone with a "special sexual preference" being entitled to a "special law." It is about two American citizens wanting the same rights any other American citizen.

    Personally, I think the whole of idea of allowing homosexuals to marry over the years has been a completely and utter waste of time and a waste of a lot of taxpayers’ money over what should, in essence, be a non-issue. Keep the government out of marriage completely I offer. And definitely keep the government out of the definition business. They don't have better things to do with their time?

    The problem is, there are too many people offended by homosexuals so they have made an issue out of it. They are the cause of this waste of time and money.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 1)
    So you are convinced that homosexuality is a gross perversion but you base that on "orthodox" Christian doctrine and that it is I that is unorthodox. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it of course.

    Really? Generous of you, Otter. A little while ago, I was a bigot. Oh, wait--you are still "calling out my bigotry." Perhaps you are not so generous after all.

    However, I base my beliefs off of the teachings of Jesus. And I am not afraid to admit that I base my beliefs off of His teaching alone.

    That is interesting. You will, then, agree with Him on this one:

    Matthew 19: 4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the

    two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

    The context, of course, is Christ appealing to the Old Testament to answer the Pharisees as regards the nature of marriage. "Adam and Steve" are kind of conspicous by their absence, are they not, Otter?

    I'm not saying that I think the Old Testament should be completely thrown out. I'm just saying that I think the teachings of Christ Himself supersede it all. The point I am making here in saying that I follow His

    teachings is that not once in the words of Christ did I ever read him mentioning a condemnation of homosexuals.
    \

    We'll get there in a second, Otter. But you can't have missed that He never approved them? No mention of Jesus' declaring homosexual relations "clean," as He declared all foods "clean?" If, as you say, if

    it was really important it would be in there
    , apparently that wasn't really important, was it?

    Next, O Jesus Follower, let's look at His words in Acts 9:

    Acts 9:15-16 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my

    name.

    He is, of course, talking about Paul. Paul wrote:

    Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and

    served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with

    lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 2)
    And:
    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

    And:
    But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

    Did Paul know what he was talking about, Otter? Do you really suppose that the man Jesus chose--those are Jesus's words, Otter, not mine--This man is my chosen instrument...--didn't understand this subject? Do you really think he didn't know what Jesus wanted him to say before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel? Otter knows the mind of Jesus better than Paul? If your argument here is to stand up, you have to discard the words of Jesus' "chosen instrument" whilst telling me that you follow Jesus! I have no doubt at all that you mean well, but that is what you are doing. Yet there is more:

    Jesus said:

    Revelation 22:10-16: Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."

    Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

    "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

    "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

    Why is this significant? Because of the "dogs." Look who they are. "Dogs" is a well-known Jewish euphemism for people of low moral character and often specifically of homosexuals, and it is used of such here--to include the "sexually immoral." Given the material so far--and it is not all that might be applied--I would say that the burden is on you, Otter, to demonstrate from Scripture, or, in your case, from Jesus's words, that "sexually immoral" does not include "homosexual." But this you cannot do. No such words exist, do they? And, as you said, if it was really important it would be in there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part 3)
    ...it seems to me that being a Christian is inconsistent with that type of behavior.

    Whereas I haven't questioned your faith; I merely think you don't know what you're talking about.

    Are homosexuals born that way or do they just become that way based on environmental factors? I have no idea.

    Really? You are ready to condemn me for bigotry when you have no idea whether or not homosexuality is an inborn genetic trait? That takes ones of solid brass, Otter, I'll give you that.

    They are people too, just like you or I, whether you like it or not.

    Otter, really. Have I ever said otherwise?

    But still, I have to say that someone that is having sex with another consenting adult of the same gender is not comparable to a sexual predator going around town trying to find young little boys or girls to have sex with.

    You're still upset by that? Do you understand the logic of the argument, though? It could have been any sexual perversion, as far as the argument goes--foot fetish, sadism, what have you. The only point was to demonstrate that the "Why would anyone choose X when you get viciously condemned for X?" argument applies with equal force to a variety of sexual peccadilloes. If it is a vacuous argument when applied to pedophiles--I deliberately chose pedophiles for no other reason than that you will never find anyone arguing that pedophiles are "born that way"--it is a vacuous argument when applied to homosexuals. That is all I was trying to point out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 4)
    I still do not think you understand what I am saying about the fourteenth amendment, Otter--I think because you are reading what you would like the law to be back into it. So, I'll try to break it down for you a little further.

    Here is the part under discussion: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Does the amendment define the privileges or immunities spoken of? No, it does not. Nor does it tell you what "the laws" are.

    Does it say anything about homosexual behavior? No, it does not. Does it say anything about homosexual marriage? No, it does not. It does say that no state can execute you, imprison you, or fine you, without "due process of law," that is, a trial in most cases. It also says that all laws have to be applied equally to any person within the states' jurisdiction.

    The question is, "What is the law?" And right now, Otter, in state after state (with only one or two exceptions at this point) and even in California, up until Judge Walker's decision, the law is that marriage is an institution whose participants are men and women, and one of each at a time, at that. You might like it to say that allows for homosexual marriage, but save in Massachusetts (and possibly one other--I forget) it does not. You seem greatly to object to my saying that the law currently gives homosexuals the exact same marriage rights as heterosexuals, but that is the exact and literal truth. The law does not say that people may marry any consenting adult. The law says that people may marry any competent, consenting adult of the opposite sex that is not too close a relative. For the fourteenth amendment to be carried out, all that is necessary is that this law be applied equally. As long as homosexual men are not denied the right to marry a woman, the amendment has not been violated. It demands nothing more. You may argue that the right for a homosexual man to marry a woman is a right they do not care to have, but that is quite beside the point as far as the amendment is concerned. Homosexuals want the law to be rewritten, by judicial fiat if necessary, to accommodate their sexual preferences. To my mind, that is a demand for special laws. There is certainly no obligation on the part of the states, let alone the federal government, to write such laws.

    And definitely keep the government out of the definition business.

    Really? See how far you get writing tax law or traffic law or safety regulations without definitions. That one's actually a howler, Otter. The government has to be in the definition business.

    And with that, I've gotta split. Have to get ready for work sometime, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, this discussion sure has taken a turn for the nasty.

    On the are-you-born-gay-or-not issue, a gay friend of mine put it like this (and I am paraphrasing here), most gays are born than way but there are some that have become gay due to their environment. Homosexuality, IMHO, is not a perversion because 1) it happens in nature, and 2) it has occurred throughout human history. Things like sexual predators and pedophilia are most likely the products of horrible environments, because as we all can agree there is a world of difference between what consenting adults do and what a sexual predator does. The problem though, is when you lump homosexuals with pedophiles, even when trying to use the comparison to poke holes in someone else’s argument, you end up looking like a bigot. I understand that that was not your intention MOTW, but that is how it appears to anyone who doesn’t completely agree with you on the subject.

    MOTW said: Whereas I haven't questioned your faith; I merely think you don't know what you're talking about.

    Sadly though, that’s what it looked it. :-(

    On the topic of what Jesus said or didn’t say, I’m not touching that because I simply do not know. I do know that people can cull a variety of things from the Bible to try and “prove” any point that he/she wants.

    I think that I’m going to do a post about the 14th Amendment so I’ll touch on that subject there.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MOTW said: Insofar as I am aware, no society on earth has ever suggested that a same-sex couple can constitute a marriage.

    I forgot to comment on this previously. It is my understanding that there was same-sex marriage in both ancient Greece and Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You have completely ignored what I said. I am a follower of Christ, not Paul. Christ HIMSELF never said anything about homosexuals. I don't give a rip if Paul had anything to say about it.

    Paul also said it would be better for people not to marry at all and I sure as hell don't follow that piece of advice either.

    I know exactly what I am talking about.

    I am talking about bigotry. About being hateful or disrespectful to another person becase they are different than you.

    There is another word for that. It's called hypocrisy. Which is another thing that is highly prevelant in the church today so it's not just you.

    I condemn you for bigotry whether I know for a fact it's an inborn trait or not. The fact is, which I have stated before. They are still people. They are still beings that were created by God.

    I will repeat myself. Bigotry and condemnation of another human being is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. I don't need a theology degree or a 200+ I.Q. to figure that one out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am a follower of Christ, not Paul.

    ...the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name...

    I don't give a rip if Paul had anything to say about it.

    That looks awfully dicey to me, Otter. But thanks for making it clear. You do not give a rip what the greatest evangelist in history, the man Christ chose to make His name known throughout the Roman world, says. You follow Christ, but do not give a fig for what He said about Paul. That's what I thought, but I am glad that you are up front about it.

    You have completely ignored what I said.

    Oh, not at all, Otter! I just think it's logically inconsistent horsesqueeze with a tenous connection to the Scriptures at best.

    Christ HIMSELF never said anything about homosexuals.

    That, too, is dicey, as we have seen. But let's take it as you state it. What else did Christ not say anything about?

    Hmmm. To the best of my recollection, He never said anything about rape, Otter.

    Do you recall anywhere He said something about incest? Perhaps you can refresh my memory, for that passage isn't coming to mind.

    What about sadism? Perhaps He said something about that?

    And, though I know it ticks you off to no end, to the best of my recollection, He said nothing about pedophilia, either!

    Saying that Christ said nothing about homosexuality proves nothing by itself, Otter--and if it did, it would prove the same thing about these other perversions.

    Hmmm--what else?

    I condemn you for bigotry...

    ...condemnation of another human being is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.


    And, lastly,

    It's called hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is my understanding that there was same-sex marriage in both ancient Greece and Rome.


    Dave, if you can provide me with a link or a citation from a half-way reputable source, I'll concede the point that it may have historical precedence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Okay, I think this conversation has gotten a little out of control and I will have to admit that it is mostly my fault.

    To begin with, I did call you a bigot and in not so many words called you a hypocrite. For that I apologize.

    I called you a bigot because I just get this impression that you hate gay people, or for that matter, hate people that don't completely agree with everything you say. If I am wrong about you, again I apologize. It is just the impression that I get from you.

    But just as you are not seeking my approval, I am not seeking yours.

    I have my beliefs and you have yours.

    It appears to me that you are, for lack of a better term, too far set in your ways to understand a different point of view on this particular issue and that is fine.

    In regards to a previous comment of yours, you are right. Jesus never did say anything about rape or incest or pedophilia. However, in my opinion, a line should be drawn somewhere. I, personally, do not think that gay marriage is that line. If you do think it is, again, that is fine. You have your opinion and though you might think otherwise, I do respect your opinion and your right to hold that opinion. I just do not agree with it.

    The whole idea of when I originally put a comment on this post was basically just to put my own two cents worth in. If you would rather your blog not be an open forum for exchange of ideas that is fine too. I won't bother putting my two cents worth in anymore.

    The point I think I was trying to make originally, and poorly I might add, is that there are far greater issues going on in our country for the government to be worrying about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Personally, I don't care if they get married or not. They're not hurting me. They're not hurting my kids. They aren't committing some crime against humanity. And I think what irks me off about this entire "issue" is that it is an issue at all. Or rather that it is taxpayer’s money that is being used to legislate this.

    I would think that in these economic times, our government could use its resources toward more important things.

    Another point I meant to make over the gay marriage issue is that this particular issue is not a litmus test issue for me with a candidate. I am not going to base whether or not I vote for a person strictly on his or her stance on gay marriage. Quite frankly, it just isn't all that important to me.

    Now, as far as this whole thing about Paul goes.....

    I know the Bible. I know that in Acts it says the Lord told Ananias that Paul was His chosen instrument. But the way I interpret this verse (and like I said, I'm no theologian or Bible scholar so this is strictly a matter of my own interpretation) is that Paul was chosen, as it states, to carry Christ's name before Gentiles, etc... The way I interpret that is that He was expected to teach these people the way of Jesus, not to teach them his own thing, so to speak. I think the point I am trying to make here is regarding my own opinion of Paul. I don't necessarily approve of everything that he said in his letters. That is why Paul, in general, does not carry as much weight with me and he does with you. Personally, I think Paul was still carrying a huge baggage of his previous Jewish religion with him and a lot of what he had to say still fell in line with Levitical law.

    Anyway, as I stated before, I have my opinions based on my experiences and self-study, and you have your opinions based on your experiences and your study and it appears that rarely the two shall meet, at least in this case.

    I believe that it is possible that you and I agree on more than we disagree....perhaps.

    Anyway, that's it. I am sorry that I called you a bigot and a hypocrite.

    Peace be with you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Okay. I have a friend who is a big time ancient Greece/Rome history buff and he is the one that told me about it. I'm reaching out to him to get the source. (Good lord did I just say "reaching out"?)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dave--yes, you did. Repent ye...

    Otter--accepted. Sorry that I got snotty in return.

    Otter, I don't hate gay people. The restaurant business is rife with them, I worked with only God knows how many of them when I was in that business. Got along swimmingly with all of them.

    Matter of fact, I'm hard pressed to think of anybody I hate.

    On the other hand, if I think the reality is that someone is headed to Hell on a boblsled, I'll probably say something to them about it, unless they tell me they don't want to hear it, which actually doesn't happen often.

    Had a co-worker who was a witch for a while (seriously--a witch). She just told me up front, "Don't ever try to convert me to your God." I didn't, and we got along great. Last time I saw her, she gave me the biggest hug you can imagine.

    I still think she's on greased skis to Hell.

    More to come on this subject later.

    ReplyDelete