Posts Tagged ‘same sex marriage’

Good Germans

September 17, 2015

Everyone who opposes what Kim Davis is doing, and most of those who think gay marriage is a spectacularly bad idea seem to agree that public officials should enforce the law no matter what personal reservations they may have. I wonder if such people have really thought the matter all the way through. Do they really believe that orders must be followed no matter what? Have we become a nation of Good Germans who blindly obey our superiors, even when they are morally questionable.

Actor George Takei (Mr. Sulu) is a gay activist who has insisted that Kim Davis should follow the law regardless of her beliefs. When Mr. Takei was a child, he was one of many Japanese-Americans who were taken from their homes and sent to internment camps during World War II. This policy was completely legal at the time and even upheld by the Supreme Court. Does Mr. Takei really believe that lawful orders must be upheld or that the Supreme Court is the final word on ethics and morals? What would have happened if public officials, elected or appointed had put their consciences above the law and refused to take part in what was obviously a terrible injustice? Most likely such an official would become very unpopular and a target of mobs, like Kim Davis. Probably anyone who tried to interfere with the internment of the Japanese-Americans would end up in jail, like Kim Davis.

(As it happens, one of the public officials who did object to the internment of Japanese-Americans was none other than liberal bete noir J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover objected to the policy in a memo he sent to Attorney General Francis Biddle, stating that there was no evidence of large-scale disloyalty in the Japanese-American community and the FBI was fully capable of handling any Japanese espionage or subversion that might occur. Hoover was never known to be a civil libertarian but perhaps he suspected that such an obviously unconstitutional policy would reflect badly on any supporters after the war hysteria died down. He may also have been concerned about the effects of a mass evacuation on the FBI counter espionage efforts.)

I am not suggesting that Kim Davis is any sort of hero on the scale of a Rosa Parks or even that she is doing the right thing. She is not standing up to Nazis or rescuing people from a disaster. I would like to point out that the argument used that she should simply obey the law and do her job is not really a very good one. There have been a great many evils perpetrated throughout history by people who have been simply following orders. The Supreme Court that has upheld slavery in the Dred Scott decision and segregation in Plessy vs. Ferguson, not to mention the murder of the innocent in Roe Vs Wade may not be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong.

We have a federal system here in the United States with the government divided into three levels; federal, state and local. Any local ordinance that conflicts with state law is not valid and must be abrogated. In like fashion, a state law which conflicts with federal laws must give way to the federal law. The federal law itself is based on the Constitution and any law on any level of government that is not in accord with the constitution is invalid. In like fashion, there is a Natural or Divine Law which is above and which supersedes any merely human law. All man-made laws enacted by any legislature must be in accord with the Natural Law and the principles of justice or they are not valid. This concept of the natural law has existed at least since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle and was adopted and elaborated by the Stoics and the Romans, particularly by the Roman orator and philosopher Cicero. The idea of the natural law was further developed by Christian and Islamic theologians and played an important role in the thinking during the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution, and in our own War of Independence. The idea of the natural law is not too popular among political philosophers these days, at least not among the more progressive ones, since it implies that there is a standard of justice above the decrees of the state, that human rights are granted by nature or nature’s God and not as gifts from the state, and that the state has no right to reorganize or fundamentally transform human society from the ground up according to the Utopian notions of an elite of philosopher kings. This is a hateful doctrine indeed to those who worship the state.

Part of this natural law, grounded in human physiology, is that marriage is the union of a male and a female for the purpose of creating a family. Because two people of the same sex cannot fulfill the basic purpose of marriage, they cannot, however much they love one another, be married to each other. If the Supreme Court, or any other court or legislature decrees that two people of the same sex can marry each other, this decree is in violation of the natural law and of biological reality and cannot be said to be valid. Nor is restricting marriage to a man and a woman discriminating against the homosexual. The homosexual has precisely the same right as anyone else in this regard. He or she can marry any person of the opposite sex he or she desires. What they cannot do, or ought not to be able to do, is demand fundamental changes in the nature of one of the most basic institutions of human society.

Put this way then, Kim Davis is the one following the law. It is her opponents who are breaking the law. They threaten her with jail and cover her abuse, but they cannot appeal to justice or nature, only the might of the state to try to coerce us all into complying with their will.

Advertisements

Smeagol

June 30, 2015

When I wrote my review of the Two Towers, I neglected to mention what I consider to be the best part the book. As Frodo and Sam make their way into Mirror they stop to rest and fall asleep while Gollum leaves them. Gollum returns and almost repents of his plan to betray them to Shelob.

Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo’s knee –but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing. But at that touch Frodo stirred and cried out softly in his sleep, and immediately Sam was wide awake. The first thing he saw was Gollum –‘pawing at master,’as he thought. ‘Hey you!’he said roughly. ‘What are you up to?’‘Nothing, nothing,’said Gollum softly. ‘Nice Master!’‘I daresay,’said Sam. ‘But where have you been to –sneaking off and sneaking back, you old villain?’

Gollum withdrew himself, and a green glint flickered under his heavy lids. Almost spider-like he looked now, crouched back on his bent limbs, with his protruding eyes. The fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall. ‘Sneaking, sneaking!’ he hissed. ‘Hobbits always so polite, yes. O nice hobbits! Sméagol brings them up secret ways that nobody else could find. Tired he is, thirsty he is, yes thirsty; and he guides them and he searches for paths, and they say sneak, sneak. Very nice friends, O yes my precious, very nice.”

If Sam had spoken kindly to Gollum when he awoke, Gollum’s good side, Smeagol, might have come out on top and the plot of the would have been very different. Smeagol might have warned the hobbits about Shelob and helped them to avoid her trap. Frodo wouldn’t have been captured by the enemy and the trip to Mount Doom would have been quicker and easier.

Gollum

 

 

I have been thinking of this over the past week with the Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage. I am afraid that many Christians, myself included, have acted much like Sam in our relations with the Gay community. We have been more interested in condemning sin then in loving the sinner and perhaps have turned many of them away from from the love of God. Certainly Christians have, in the past, and all too often even now have acted in a way that has caused homosexuals to hate Christianity and Christians. We must remember that our mission is not to win debates or legislate morality but to bring souls to Heaven.

I do not mean, of course, that we should endorse the homosexual lifestyle or accept same-sex marriage. Christians must hold true to Biblical teachings concerning marriage and sexuality. Those churches which have hung up rainbow banners and celebrated the Supreme Court ruling may believe that they are doing the loving, compassionate thing, but they are making a mistake and putting themselves in grave danger of apostasy. Indeed, many of those more liberal denominations have become almost entirely apostate and can be regarded as Christians in name only. Churches which abandon the standards of scripture do not flourish. Rudderless, they sway back and forth with the wind in no set direction save momentary ideas of political correctness.

But, churches must support all the Biblical teachings regarding marriage and sexuality. A church that accepts pre-marital sex (fornication), secular ideas about divorce and remarriage, or adultery is in no position to lecture the homosexual about sexual morality. The same goes for Biblical teachings on other subjects. A church can be made up of the most upright prudes imaginable, but if they lack a spirit of love and compassion, they are no better than the pagans. Remember what Paul had to say about this.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor 13:1-13)

Let us not, then, become clanging cymbals. We must preach the truth, but it must be done with love understanding. And we should keep in mind that sexual sins are not the only sins we can commit. There are worse sins, excessive pride and hatred are worse. Also, I think it would be helpful if more Christians understood why God’s rules about sex and marriage are what they are. These are not arbitrary rules from the Bronze Age. God wants us to be happy and to join Him in Heaven. He understands better than any of us that an excessive or misplaced devotion to sex, like an excessive or misplaced devotion to anything other than Him will not, ultimately, make us happy or bring us to him. God does not hate “fags”. He hates that which takes them, and us, away from Him.

Patrick Stewart Channels Voltaire

June 11, 2015

Voltaire is supposed to have said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He probably didn’t really say it but Patrick Stewart effectively did. I have read about this in various places, but here is the story at the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Actor Patrick Stewart is supporting the free speech rights of Christian bakers from northern Ireland who declined to decorate a cake with a pro-gay-marriage message.

An Irish court fined the owners of Ashers Bakery £500 for not writing the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” on a cake.

The bakery owners say they’re happy to bake a cake for anyone, but reserve the right to decline messages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

Stewart, who is known for his roles in “Star Trek” and “X-Men,” told BBC “Newsnight” that no one should be forced to write things they disagree with.

Gay activists have been attacking Stewart for his comments.

Boldly going where few actors dare to go

Boldly going where few actors dare to go

Sadly, it has become increasingly rare in our politically correct world, with its microaggressions and trigger warnings, for anyone to adopt Voltaire’s view on permitting freedom of speech, even for those you don’t like and Patrick Stewart deserves some praise for doing so. Naturally, he was subjected to the usual criticism from the supporters of tolerance and diversity and he felt he had to clarify his position on his Facebook page.

As part of my advocacy for Amnesty International, I gave an interview on a number of subjects related to human rights, civil rights and freedom of speech. During the interview, I was asked about the Irish bakers who refused to put a message on a cake which supported marriage equality, because of their beliefs. In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights— and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn’t compromised in the pursuit of the other. I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts. I respect and understand their position, especially in this important climate where the tides of prejudices and inequality are (thankfully) turning. What I cannot respect is that some have conflated my position on this single matter to assume I’m anti-equality or that I share the personal beliefs of the bakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured.

There are a couple of things about this statement that bother me. Why does Patrick Stewart feel the need to declare his fealty to politically correct orthodoxy. I feel as if he is saying that he supports the right of thought criminals to speak freely but he is certainly not a thought criminal himself, or that he is most offended by the idea that he might be one thought of as one of those ignorant mouth-breathers who are opposed to same-sex marriage. I understand that Stewart does not want his views on this issue to be misconstrued and that he probably doesn’t intend his statement to be taken this way, but this assurance that he is on the right side gives a somewhat begrudging feel to his defense of free speech, as if he is saying he supports their right to be wrong. But, maybe I am reading too much into it.

The other thing that bothers me about Patrick Stewart’s statement is that he had to make any clarifying statement at all. I do not know precisely what his critics have been saying, but it seems that their reasoning is that the only reason that Patrick Stewart would support the right of a baker to refuse to decorate a cake with a pro gay marriage message is that he must agree with the baker. The idea that one can support the free speech even of people one disagrees with seems not to have entered into their minds. Voltaire’s statement could be left untranslated in the original French for all the good it does people like this.

Is Voltaire’s concept really so hard to grasp? Does it not ever occur to these people that defending the free speech of others is the only way to protect one’s own free speech, or that once free speech is abridged, they might be next? Do they never consider that the other side might be right but if they shout them down, they will never learn any better, or that if the other side is wrong, compelling outward compliance to orthodoxy does not persuade anyone? Perhaps they don’t think much at all.

Patrick Stewart stated that freedom of speech and equality are fundamental rights. I would say that freedom of speech is far more important. If we have freedom of speech, we can speak out about whatever changes are needed to ensure equality. Without freedom of speech, we can do nothing. The real danger here in America and throughout the West is that there seems to be an increasing number of people who either believe freedom of speech is, at best, a secondary right inferior to the struggle for social justice and equality or that freedom of speech is not a right at all. I’m glad at least one person from Hollywood is willing to publicly support the right to dissent from liberal orthodoxy. I hope others follow Stewart’s lead.

Some Thoughts About the Recent Controversy in Indiana

April 6, 2015

There has already been a lot written about the controversy engendered by the recent passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act here in Indiana and I don’t suppose I have much to say that hasn’t already been said. I am sorry to see my state become a front in the never ending Cultural War and I especially resent the slanders that the progressives have made about Indiana’s bigotry and backwardness. Still the experience has been edifying since the people on the left have once again demonstrated how mendacious, intolerant, ignorant, bullying, and just plain mean they are. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to their antics, but maybe those who have imagined that they could get by by minding their own business will learn better. There are a few random observations I would like to make about the whole situation. Maybe I am not the only person who has noticed these things.

I wonder if the people who have been comparing the RFRA to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South are really aware that Jim Crow did not permit racist business owners to discriminate against Blacks, they required them to discriminate regardless of what they might want. Now, of course, most White businessmen in the Old South were fairly racist and didn’t have much of a problem with segregation, but they didn’t necessarily want to discriminate against Blacks if such discrimination cost them. Owners of public transportation such as railroads didn’t particularly want the added cost of separate accommodations for Whites and Blacks. Owners of hotels and rental property found it burdensome to maintain separate facilities for Blacks and Whites.

What do you suppose would have happened if a business owner decided that due to his religious convictions it was wrong to discriminate against Blacks? Aside from from facing the full force of the law which required discrimination, it is likely that he would have lost most of his White customers. They would have boycotted him. Perhaps there would have been a campaign of intimidation led by the Ku Klux Klan to force him to comply with the local mores or close his business. Now, which side in this debate is using boycotts, intimidation, and ultimately the law to force compliance?

Am I the only one who finds the whole scenario of the gay couple walking into a bakery, florist, or wedding planner’s office, etc, asking them to provide for their “wedding” only to be refused on religious grounds and then suing the business into compliance just a little suspicious? I suspect that the majority of such businesses would have no scruples about taking their money and performing any desired service. Many wouldn’t want to be involved in any controversy. How is it then, that we keep seeing religious business owners getting into trouble? Are Christian owned businesses deliberately being targeted?  What would be the purpose of such a campaign, to provide object lessons for anyone who might not want to go along with the latest PC rules? Should I be fitted for a tin foil hat?

I would like to propose a thought experiment. Let us say there is a preacher, who we will call “Brother Bob”, who has routinely preached against homosexuality in a not very nice way. In fact, let’s say he was only a step above the Westburo Baptist Church. Now, suppose the congregation of Brother Bob’s church wanted to honor him for twenty years of service by throwing a party for him. To make the arrangements for this celebration, they go to a local caterer which happens to be owned by gay man named Jim, who finds Brother Bob’s preaching to be deeply offensive and hurtful. Should Jim be required to cater a party in Brother Bob’s honor even though it will make him feel uncomfortable?

I think that the majority of the tolerant progressives who have opposed the RFRA would say that Jim should not be forced to served Brother Bob since Brother Bob is a bigot and a hater and thus has no rights. They probably wouldn’t state their position in precisely those words, but that would be their position. The small minority who are actually able to think these things through and have some notion of adopting a consistent ideology might say that Jim should not be able to discriminate against Brother Bob regardless of his personal feelings. But why should Jim be forced to provide a service he doesn’t want to? Why should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay “wedding” if he doesn’t want to? Why is it so controversial to just let people mind their own business and live and let live?

The people opposed to laws like the RFRA say that they are not, in any way, opposed to religious freedom, just to bigotry. They graciously allow everyone to have their own opinion about religion provided that opinion is kept privately in the home or the church. Any attempt to live by the principles of one’s religion is only tolerated so long as the actions are in accord with progressive values. If the actions are not in accord with their values then they are bigoted and should not be permitted. Isn’t this a little like the old Soviet constitution which granted all sorts of civil rights to Soviet citizens but only so long as the use of those rights were in accord with socialism?

I wonder where all of this is going. I have to say that the hatred and disinformation directed at my state and some of the people who have only given honest answers to reporters is a little discouraging. I really don’t want to live in a country where I have to watch what I say for fear of losing my livelihood, or worse.

In the Family

January 19, 2015

I am not sure if this story is true or not. It does not seem to be an obvious falsehood or satire, but I have my doubts as its veracity. The story is from Opposing views, but I caught it on Joe the Plumber’s blog.

An 18-year-old woman told New York Magazine that she has been in a two-year sexual relationship with her father after being estranged from him for 12 years.

The father and his ex-girlfriend conceived their daughter when they were both 18, and he left her before the birth. When their daughter was 5 years old, the man was back in the picture for a short time before leaving again.

Twelve years later, the father and his then 17-year-old daughter reconnected online, realizing they had a lot in common. “We shared the same favorite TV shows — “The Simpson” and “The Big Bang Theory” — and we both love to draw,” the daughter told New York’s “Science of Us” blog.

The pair arranged to meet in person and upon seeing her father for the first time in years, the teen said she was immediately attracted to him.

“It was so weird and confusing. I was seeing my dad for the first time in forever but it was also like, He’s so good-looking! And then I was like, What the hell are you thinking? What is wrong with you?” she said. “I saw him as my dad but then also part of me was like, I’m meeting this guy who I have been talking to over the internet and really connecting with and I find him attractive.”

The young woman said that the attraction began to intensify when she stayed with him for five days. One day, they went on a shopping trip and the father complimented her daughter’s figure. When they returned home, they began “play-wrestling.”

“That night we were play-wrestling in the room I was going to sleep in and I bit him. He was wearing a pair of basketball shorts and a tank top and after I bit him I could see goose bumps pop up from his toes to his shoulders. Then he pinched my inner thigh and I got goose bumps,” the teen said. “We stopped and said that we didn’t know what was going on but admitted that we had strong feelings for each other. We discussed whether it was wrong and then we kissed. And then we made out, and then we made love for the first time. That was when I lost my virginity.”

The daughter said she and her father “fell deeply in love” and are now engaged and planning a wedding.

Assuming that this story is true, is there a single logical reason why these two lovers should not be married? Traditionally, the institution of marriage was maintained for the creation and preservation of families. Since human beings reproduce sexually and two distinct genders each playing a role in the process, it has been understood that a marriage must consist of at least one of each sex. Close family members have generally not been allowed to marry each other because of the danger that their offspring will have an increased risk of developing genetic disorders. Such was the understanding in the dark days or institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, and heteronormativity.

In our more enlightened times, we understand that marriage has nothing at all to do with families or children. One need not be married to have children and one need not have children with the person one is married to. Marriage is now properly understood as a generic relationship that any two (or more) people can enter into regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or even species.

So, if two men or two women can get married, why cannot two brothers or two sisters? There is no question of children in such a relationship so any consideration of birth defects or diseases caused by incest is moot. Why shouldn’t a mother and daughter or father and son be permitted to marry one another?

Now, in the case of two family members of the opposite sex marrying, there is the question of the health of any offspring of the relationship, but that is easily resolved. One or both of the partners can simply arranged to have themselves sterilized. There is then no possibility of deformed children and no bar to a happy matrimony.

If marriage can be radically redefined to include same sex couples, there is no logical reason why it cannot be further redefined to include incestuous couples, polygamy, or bestiality. You cannot appeal to tradition or religion. If same sex marriage is a sacred civil right that overrides long tradition or religious sentiment, than so are incestuous marriages. You cannot appeal to personal distaste. Personal distaste is no reason to oppose any such change in policy. I do not oppose same sex marriage because of any personal distaste for homosexuals but because I do not believe that such a radical redefinition of a fundamental institution of society is likely to be beneficial to society.

To put the matter succinctly, if you support the idea of same sex marriage, than logic and consistency dictates that you also support the idea of incestuous marriages. There is no logical reason to support the one and oppose the other. I hope you will be happy in the brave new world you are helping to create.

Sibling Love

September 7, 2014

I admit to being a little behind the times when it comes to the question of marriage equality. I have seen the light, however, and have changed my mind. I now support marriage equality for all. What changed my was this story I read from the Atlanta affiliate of CBS News, which got me to thinking about the matter.

An Effingham County brother and sister were arrested after allegedly having sex inside a tractor trailer parked in a church parking lot, according to the Savannah Morning News.

Deputies were investigating reports of a prowler about 4:30 a.m. Tuesday when they found Christopher Buckner, 20, and Timothy Savoy, 25, walking near the Countryside Baptist Church in Guyton. According to the report, the deputies determined the pair were siblings and had just had sex.

They later admitted to having sex in the semi three times after watching the movie “The Notebook,” a Sheriff’s Office spokesman said.

Both were charged with incest, aggravated sodomy, and prowling. Buckner was released on $9,000 bond while Savoy remained in the Effingham County jail on $13,400 bond, according to booking documents.

Why is their relationship a crime? These are two consenting adults who obviously feel a great attraction for one another. Why shouldn’t they be allowed top have sex, even though they are brother and sister? Why shouldn’t they be able to get married, if they so desire? If two men or two women can be married, why not two brothers or two sisters? Why not a brother and a sister? I want to be the first to demand marriage equality for incestuous couples.

I am not really serious, of course, except that in a way, I am. If marriage can be arbitrarily redefined to include same sex couples, regardless of tradition or of any consideration of the actual purpose of marriage, why can’t it be redefined to include incestuous couples? Why can’t polygamy be permitted? There is actual precedent for polygamy. Why should marriage be confined to human beings? Perhaps I should demand marriage equality for cross-species relationships. I cannot think of a single reason why any of the circumstances that listed shouldn’t be permitted, if any imaginable relationship could be defined as a “marriage” and if what the left considers to be “fairness” and “equality: are the only considerations

But what if they are not? What if there are, in fact, good reasons to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman? What if the people opposed to redefining marriage are not simply motivated by blind hatred and bigotry as the progressive haters and bigots would prefer to believe?

The purpose of marriage is to create and preserve families. Because human beings are not hermaphrodites but are divided into two genders, male and female, in order to conceive, it is necessary for one of each gender to have intercourse. No act of homosexual intercourse can possibly result in the creation of a new life. Because male and female have differing roles in the process, male and female are built differently, both physiologically and psychologically. The two sexes are equal in legal and social terms, but they are not interchangeable. A man cannot bear children. A woman cannot conceive children. Mothers and fathers play different and complementary roles in child rearing and in the marriage generally. Marriage, by definition, must include at least one of each gender. In the West, marriage has always been considered to be between one man and one woman. This is what makes marriage different from every other relationship that human beings engage in, the fact that marriage must include both genders. Two men or two woman can have many kinds of relationships, as friends or lovers, but they cannot be married. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples takes away the characteristic that makes marriage, well, marriage. If you expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, you are essentially defining away  the concept of marriage altogether.

Of course making the simple observation that same-sex marriage cannot really be a marriage at all is now a thought crime and I suppose that I will be denounced as a hater and a homophobe. So be it. Calling me names will not change what is true.

Keith Ablow’s Homophobia

July 10, 2014

I had never heard of Dr. Keith Ablow before following a link from Yahoo News to this piece at the Huffington Post. I still don’t know very much about him and I am not really that curious. It may be that he has a whole history of saying controversial or even insane remarks in public, but I am only interested in the statements that the Huffington Post considered to be extremely homophobic.

When discussing gay rights on Fox News, who better to consult than the network’sreliable source Dr. Keith Ablow?

“Fox & Friends” asked Ablow on Wednesday for his thoughts on a new California lawthat replaces the words “husband” and “wife” with “spouse” under state laws. The new law has been described as a “milestone in the journey towards full equality” and an end to the last barrier to same-sex marriage in California.

“Nuts,” Ablow said of the new law. “There’s no way that the state of California can deny a marriage license to four spouses now. Eight spouses, or I would say three human spouses and the canine they absolutely love because if love is the foundation of marriage, they can love their dog, too.”

That’s right, folks. You heard it here first. A step forward for marriage equality will only lead to polygamy and marrying your dog.

Most of the comments that followed this piece were of a similar nature, mocking Dr Ablow for his ignorance and bigotry. Yet I want you to observe two things in the article I quoted in its entirety. First, notice that homophobia consists not in making hateful or derogatory comments towards or about homosexuals but in not embracing an entire agenda with sufficient enthusiasm or in raising an obvious, logical point against same-sex marriage.

Second, notice that neither in the article or on the comments are there any arguments presented that show that Dr. Ablow is wrong. If we are going to make a fundamental alteration in the nature of marriage by changing from a particular, and theoretically lifelong, relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and maintaining families into a generic relationship between two individuals, of whatever gender, who feel a mutual sexual attraction, then what is there to stop any further alterations? Why not polygamy? There have been many cultures throughout history that have permitted polygamous marriages. Polygamy is a far less drastic alternation in the essential nature of marriage than same-sex marriage. Why not permit close relatives to marry? If they agree to not have children, there is no possibility of birth defects from inbreeding. Why not marry your dog or cat? There may be some question of consent here, but if that were  resolved, why not? For that matter, since we are separating sexuality from reproduction, why bother with marriage or families at all? Why not go for a Brave New World society in which babies are grown in test tubes?

I don’t believe that the person who wrote this or any of the commenters are in favor of either bestiality, incest or polygamy. They are in favor of  “marriage equality”. This is another example of feeling good without going through the trouble of thinking things through. There is no particular, logical reason why any of the innovations I listed above should not be adopted, once the logic that supports same-sex marriage is accepted, except that these innovations made people uneasy. They seem to forget that not two decades ago the idea of same-sex marriage was considered to be just as insane as anything I listed and even ten years ago, the idea made people uneasy. If such progress in changing people’s minds about same-sex marriage could be made through incessant propagandizing and not a little bullying, why couldn’t similar progress be made in anything I mentioned?

Thinking such matters through is hard work, however. Trying to think for yourself is even harder, and may even take some moral courage. It is much easier simply to insult the person who brings them up and repeat the same slogans and talking points everyone else is saying. If the good people are for  marriage equality, then it is best to fall into line and not think too much on where it is leading.

 

Presbyterians Abandon Christianity

June 22, 2014

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has voted to approve of same sex marriage as Christian.

The top legislative body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has voted by large margins to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian in the church constitution, adding language that marriage can be the union of “two people,” not just “a man and a woman.”

The amendment approved Thursday by the Presbyterian General Assembly requires approval from a majority of the 172 regional presbyteries, which will vote on the change over the next year. But in a separate policy change that takes effect at the end of this week’s meeting, delegates voted to allow ministers to preside at gay weddings in states where the unions are legal and local congregational leaders approve. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage.

In doing so, this denomination has fallen into heresy and apostasy. I do not say this simply because of this particular decision and if it were an isolated measure in a church body that has otherwise held firm to Christian doctrine and teachings, I wouldn’t feel the need to write anything about it. Unfortunately, this decision to recognize same sex marriage is part of a decades long trend in which the Presbyterians and the other “mainline” Protestant denominations have abandoned Christian teachings.

No longer Christian

No longer Christian

Christians ultimately derive their doctrines on beliefs and practices from the Bible, the Old and New Testaments. In the Protestant tradition Scripture Alone is considered to be the sole source for doctrine, while in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions Scripture along with sacred tradition and the teaching authority of the Church is the source of doctrine. In these branches of Christianity tradition and scripture cannot, or at least ought not to contradict one another and tradition must ultimately be based on scripture. Tradition supplements or amplifies scripture. It does not replace scripture.

Every Christian sect or denomination has some sort of body whose job is to apply the doctrines taught by scripture. They may not change the doctrines taught be scripture. No priest, minister, preacher, pastor, elder, bishop, council, assembly, or Pope has the authority to alter the basic teachings of Christianity. No one has the authority add or detract from the Bible or to change a single word. In fact, Christians are strictly forbidden to do so. . It is the duty of the Church to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No authority at any level may substitute their own opinions or agenda for the Gospel nor may they preach a different gospel. The Pope may be infallible in proclaiming the teachings of the Catholic Church. He cannot singlehandedly change those teachings. He cannot announce that Jesus is not the son of God or that all religions are equally true.

The teachings of Christianity concerning marriage are quite clear and unambiguous. Marriage consists of a man and a woman united together as one flesh. Christian marriage must be monogamous and for life. Any sexual relation outside of marriage is a sin. No doubt this is a hard teaching and perhaps given the fallen nature of humankind, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to abide by such teaching in its full rigor. As a matter of charity and practicality, concessions must often be made because of the hardness of our hearts, but such concessions must not be mistaken for the ideal which ought to be upheld by the church.

By abandoning Christian teachings on marriage, as well as  many other subjects, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has substituted the gospel of left-wing political correctness for the Gospel of Christ. They are failing to do their job of proclaiming the Gospel and saving souls. At this point it would be more honest if the Presbyterian Church (USA) would abandon any pretense of being a Christian organization of any sort and to re-invent themselves as a social group or a political party.

And then there is this:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Friday became the most prominent religious group in the United States to endorse divestment as a protest against Israeli policies toward Palestinians, voting to sell church stock in three companies whose products Israel uses in the occupied territories.

The General Assembly voted by a razor-thin margin – 310-303 – to sell stock in Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions. Two years ago, the General Assembly rejected a similar divestment proposal by two votes.

 

Omar Barghouti, a co-founder of the BDS movement, praised the vote as a “sweet victory for human rights.”

He said Presbyterian supporters of Palestinian rights have introduced divestment into the U.S. mainstream and have given Palestinians “real hope in the face of the relentless and intensifying cruelty of Israel’s regime of occupation, settler colonialism and apartheid.”

The top Presbyterian legislative body has been considering divestment for a decade. Representatives of the Presbyterian socially responsible investment arm told the national meeting in Detroit that their efforts to lobby the three companies for change had failed. Carol Hylkema of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, a Presbyterian group that advocates for Palestinians and spearheaded the drive for divestment, said their action was modeled on the divestment movement to end apartheid in South Africa. The 2012 assembly had endorsed a boycott of Israeli products made in the Palestinian territories.

“Because we are a historical peacemaking church, what we have done is, we have stood up for nonviolent means of resistance to oppression and we have sent a clear message to a struggling society that we support their efforts to resist in a nonviolent way the oppression being thrust upon them,” said the Rev. Jeffrey DeYoe, of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network.

This is not a matter of Christian doctrine or teaching but it does show an astonishing lack of moral clarity on the part of this formerly Christian denomination, as well as a singular ignorance of the history and politics of the region. If the Palestinians wanted a separate state alongside Israel, that is democratic and respects human rights, and if  they were willing to work nonviolently in order to establish such a state, they would have achieved their goal many years ago. That is not, however, what the Palestinians seem to want. They want the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. As long as that is their goal, there will be no peace in the region, since the Israelis are not willing to destroy themselves. By voting to divest in Israel, the Presbyterian General Assembly is not striking a blow for peace and human rights in the Middle East. They are giving hope to the terrorists and jihadists that Israel will be forced to make concessions that will weaken it and ultimately lead to its destruction. They are showing support to the enemies of both the Jews and the Christians. They are a disgrace.

 

State Over Church

August 25, 2013

The question of same sex marriage wouldn’t concern me nearly so much if it were a matter of everyone being permitted to do their own thing. It doesn’t harm me if two men or two women pretend to be married to each other. I know that they cannot really be married. The problem is the use of the power of the courts to force people to go along, against their religious beliefs. Here is an example from Fox News.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” in the town of Taos.

Huguenin and her husband declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. She was later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

Notice that the people involved were able to find another photographer, yet they would not leave the Huguenins alone.

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote. “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

A recent Rasmussen survey found that 85 percent of Americans support the right of a photographer to refuse participating in a same-sex wedding.

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

Somehow, it seems that only one side of this debate is always being asked to compromise and deny its beliefs. Why could the couple not respect the Huguenin’s beliefs? Why was there no respect for the beliefs of the President of Chick-fil-A. Why does the tolerance only flow one way?

Next Judge Bosson says something rather chilling.

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

He said the Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and following religious teachings, but offered a sobering warning.

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

In other words, you can believe what you want and pray to whom you want, for now, but you had better not actually try to live by those beliefs if they conflict with the needs of the state or of protected classes. Is this even remotely compatible with traditional concepts of liberty? The lawyers representing the Huguenins do not think so.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, representing the photographers. Attorney Jordan Lorence said the ruling in effect means gay rights now trump religious rights.

“Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” Lorence said. “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free.”

Lorence said the New Mexico Supreme Court undermined the constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and conscience.

“If Elane Photographer does not have her rights of conscience protected, then basically nobody does,” he told Fox News. “What you have here is the government punishing someone who says, ‘I, in good conscience, cannot communicate the messages of this wedding.’”

Those sympathetic to the plaintiffs disagree.

Amber Royster, the executive director of Equality New Mexico, called the court decision a big victory.

“What it came down to is this was a case about discrimination,” she told Fox News. “While we certainly believe we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, religious beliefs don’t necessarily make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others.”

Royster said forcing a business that offers services to the public to abide by discrimination laws does not violate the First Amendment – and does not pit gay rights against religious rights.

“It’s about discrimination,” she said. “It’s not religious rights versus gay rights. We have a law on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons. It makes it illegal for business to do that and this business broke the law by discriminating against this couple.”

No one seems to be very concerned about protecting people like those photographers against discrimination. Again, the tolerance only goes in one direction. If you hold positions that are not politically correct, you cannot expect any tolerance or sympathy for your position. You can expect to be bullied by the courts.

I would like to warn, once again, that anyone who thinks this court case is a victory for the cause of tolerance should consider very carefully that a government that has the power to coerce people like these photographers to act against their religious beliefs also has the power to force you to act against your beliefs. You have to consider not just what your friends will do with power but also your enemies. Depending on which way the wind blows, the government could just as easily have strict enforcement of sodomy laws and force gays to go straight, or else. Giving the government more power to enforce your ideology or preferences is a dangerous game that ultimately hurts everyone.

 

Why I Went

August 2, 2012

I would like to say a few words about why my family and I went to eat at Chick-fil-A yesterday. It was not because of the statements that CEO Dan Cathy made concerning same-sex marriage. I am opposed to same-sex marriage, but that was not the reason we went. This wasn’t about same-sex marriage, or being anti-gay, or anything of the sort. Nor was it about the controversy or threats of boycotts that some activists were threatening. If they do not wish to patronize a certain business because of the beliefs of the CEO, that’s their business. I would have to say though, that if I started boycotting shows by actors who make idiotic statements, I could never watch television or see a movie at all.

What upset me is the way which Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston mayor Thomas Menino announced that Chick-fil-A would not be welcome to do business in their cities. This sort of bullying is wrong and simply un-American. A public official threatening  a person’s business simply because they don’t conform to a certain political ideology is a huge step on the road to tyranny. That was why we were there. Also, I am getting very tired of the Left deciding what opinions are correct and what are not, and then vilifying people who hold the wrong ideas as racists or homophobes, etc.

I think that this was true of most of the other person who stood in line to eat at Chick-fil-A yesterday. I think that a lot of people are tired of having a political and social elite that despises them and their values and insists on shoving their ideology down people’s throats. It might be tolerable if this elite were actually capable of running the country, but as anyone who has paid any attention to what’s going on in Washington knows that they are not.

I imagine that the mainstream media will depict these people as hateful bigots, if they bother to report on it at all. But these people were not hateful or bigoted. They were simply tired and frustrated. This is the same mood that gave rise to the TEA Party and I would not be surprised if there were considerable overlap between tea partiers and Chick-fil-A customers. This is also why the TEA party is now about to fade away.

 


%d bloggers like this: