Autoblog

mk @ Oct 3rd 2007 11:42PM

Re: SOhp101

That is a lot of food for thought. I wish there were an alternate, more appropriate forum to respond, but this is pretty much anonymous, so I don't know you or any other forums you may be party to, nor any way to respond privately.

Maybe our discussion will help someone else clarify their own views, and otherwise people are free to stop reading right here, and move to the next comment.

Fair warning, The rest of this post is not going to be directly related to FOMOCO, but might inform as to what this Christian believes, if anyone is interested. I only speak for myself, not FOMOCO, AFA, nor Autoblog, etc.... disclaimer.

As a response to some of your points,

Subsequent amendments verified things that the american people ratified that they believed should be clarified.

The Constitution did not deny rights other races or women, or non-land-owners anything. Social traditions did that, and as those social traditions changed for the better over time, they were codified in further amendments.

The Constitution and bill of rights do apply to everyone, and were written to limit the government, not to limit the people, and doesn't discriminate. the Constitution and Bill of Rights still apply as they always have, even with later specifications from further amendments. Unfortunately people are trying to subvert the constitution and bill of rights, also to the detriment of all.

I agree with some of what you say about the government's role in marriage, in that the law is based on morality from religious and cultural sources, but it isn't splitting hairs, and is significant.

My argument is that the democratic republic system of government under the law, can accommodate any person or group of people petitioning for legal consideration. However, representative government also represents people who have other values, in this case than the homosexual movement, and one small minority cannot, and should not over-run the rest. Changes to the legal system from social trends should be passed by representatives based on merit, not special interest influence, but reality is less than ideal.

The right to petition isn't a guarantee that a petition to the legislature will be met in turn with automatic legislation in the petitioner's favor. It certainly is not right that unelected officers of the judicial system are over-riding legislatures and direct public referendums at their whims, either.

Civil unions are not equal to marriages. Separate and different. Civil unions may have the same or similar legal implications as the legal implications of a marriage contract, for purposes like next of kin, power of attorney, estate planning, and other things, for instances, but outside of the legal system, they are not the same thing. Marriage, over-arching the legal implications, is still defined by one man and one woman. Anything else is something else, it is not a marriage, and the meaning of language shouldn't be so maleable that a few people can change that definition at will.

As to the biblical basis of marriage: In Genesis, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and the rest, continuing through judeo-christian history, as well as most of the history of most civilizations, Marriage was between a man and a woman. Monogamy is not always kept, but most biblical figures did not practice official polygamy as a state of marriage, nor "same-sex marriage." Common sense says that God made Eve, not Everett, as a companion for Adam, whether you believe creation literally, or metaphorically. I would say that is a fairly strong track record. Biology and even evolution theory as it applies to humans and most animals, depends on sexual reproduction, which homosexuality cannot replicate.

That track record by and large still holds up as the best way to construct a nuclear family and raise children. Not all marriages have childeren, but the nuclear family is best served by one mother and one father. A greater biblical scholar may have a more definitive example of biblical basis, but that can move to a bible-study forum.

Christ says that the wages of sin is death, and he wasn't just kidding about it, or just telling a little story. Using your example, living a good life doesn't save anyone. No one is remotely good enough. If the person hated the nurse, then it was a sin, and probably not the only one. We all do it.

The key to your example is believing in Jesus as the savior. That is the only way, truth, and eternal life, is through believing that Christ already paid for that sin, and all of them. God's grace is the only thing that can save anyone, because everyone sins, and can't help but be a sinner. According to most protestant christianity, dying without grace is to remain in death, rather than new life. It has little or nothing to do with how good of a life you live, because no one lives that good of a life.

A Christian should live a good life out of respect for Christ's sacrifice, and because that is what Christ preached, and is God's desire for us to live as well as possible. The bible, as God's word, is the instruction manual. Living a good life and doing good works in hopes of it saving you is folly, and trying to fulfill God's law, which no one can. Part of living a good life is not hating people who differ from you, even if their actions are sinful. One would have to hate everyone, including themselves if one had to hate sinners. But one should not embrace sin, either, since it leads to death, not life.

BTW, Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. He brought a new *covenant* because people can't fulfill the law due to our sinful nature, he did not bring a new law, or diminish it. He showed that if you try to fulfill the law without grace through faith, one is then judged by the law, and no one is good enough to be judged sinless by the law.

Grace through faith saves sinners from the punishment under the law, because Christ already paid that cost for everyone. All that ultimately matters is whether you accept and believe that. At least according to Christian beliefs, anyway.

"Hate crime" is a false premise. Crime is crime. If hate was a motive of a crime, it goes to... the motive. Assault is assault, malicious murder is still malicious murder. To add the "hate" moniker to it is to insert a political agenda, not a judicial specificity. The political agenda is to criminalize intent, thought, or speech, rather than provable action. That is a very dangerous slope to go down, for everyone.

Homosexuality has been around for nearly as long as sin, and the morality of it wasn't really debated in the modern era, as it has been widely seen as a sexual deviation until the 20th century. Some debate does occur as to whether it was regarded more positively and normally acceptable in ancient european civilizations, like the ancient greeks, but the modern debate has only come about in the 20th century to bring homosexuality out of the immoral realm into the moral realm. Many people are rightfully asking why, and what that means to our society, in terms of promiscuity, and other social phenomena, including AFA and others' concern that it negatively affects the institution of the family.

The ethnicity marriage = same sex marriage argument is a bit skewed. Being against marriage across ethnicity is a cultural and social tradition that has since been largely scrapped in the western world, and rightfully so; Because ethinicity was rightfully recognized to NOT have a bearing on someone's humanity. A social step forward that nearly everyone can agree on. One can argue that it took too long to happen, but I see it still going on elsewhere on the globe. That is not an excuse, but an observation that some people still haven't learned that lesson about truth.

The difference with homosexual marriage, is that it doesn't only violate cultural tradition. It violates the natural order. The natural order is that sexual reproduction requires two sexes, as mentioned before.

If the norm were homosexuality, humans would be extinct. Homosexuality is not the biological norm, and by extension, cultural and social traditions reflect the norm of heterosexuality. Marriage is the institution that also reflects that norm, sociologically, anthropologically, and biologically, and has for eons.

If homosexual people choose to be monogomous, or emulate a marriage, or whatever, that is up to them. I am not suggesting that they should be prevented from doing what they want to do, within the bounds of public propriety that equally applies to heterosexual public behavior.

However, calling marriage something that it isn't doesn't change the definition of the word, it only confuses people. As I said, legal ramifications are a different matter, and are also not equivalent to a marriage.

Thanks for the discussion it has been interesting, and maybe it has informed someone who has taken the time to read and digest all this. It is certainly more constructive than knee-jerk insults being traded back and forth.