Early on a late September morning, if all goes according to plan, 1 million Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, Sikhs and Hindus will open their doors, march down their front walks and plant “Yes on Proposition 8” signs in their yards to show they support repealing same-sex marriage in California.
It is a bold idea, one that may be difficult to pull off. But whether or not 1 million lawn signs are planted in unison, the plan underscores what some observers say is one of the most ambitious interfaith political organizing efforts ever attempted in the state. Moreover, political analysts say, the alliances across religious boundaries could herald new ways of building coalitions around political issues in California.
“Pan-religious, faith-based political action strategies . . . I think we are going to see a lot more of [this] in the future,” said Gaston Espinosa, a professor of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College.
The greatest involvement in the campaign has come from Mormons, Catholics and evangelical Christians, who say they are working together much more closely than they did eight years ago when a similar measure, Proposition 22, was on the ballot.
Mark Jansson, a Mormon who is a member of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said members of his group are also reaching out to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.
Organizers say the groups turned to each other because of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in May allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the state. Thousands of gay couples have wed in the state since June 17, the first day same-sex marriages became legal.
These people, well-intentioned as they may be, are not defending *biblical marriage.* They are defending government-sanctioned marriage. Early Christians would never have manipulating Caesar to force Christian sacraments on the empire. They knew that it was their place, not Rome’s, to be salt and light. Christianity, an outgrowth of biblical Judaism would have recoiled in horror at the blasphemy of having government preside over the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Plant your little voting sign, by all means. But remember that this is just another little stumbling block you place between your neighbors, gay or otherwise, and Christ. Conservative christianity cannot be salt and light by means of Caesar’s sword.
How would you feel if Gay Marriages were not allowed by the state ?
Just curious.
How ’bout the state get out of the marriage business altogether? Leave marriage to the churches. Let gays or straights “civil-union” each other all they want on a civil level.
Give me one of those signs, and I’ll plant it in front of my home…….and all of my neighbors, who are overwhelmingly conservative church goers……Roman Catholics, Mormons, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, etc, will do the same.
I guess I should have asked #1 if the shoe as it were was on the foot would you be planting your signs in your yards ?
Oops I meant other foot
Sarah, can’t you see the difference between using a sword (mine, yours’, bob’s, or caesar’s) to defend against violence (e.g., slavery, murder, abortion), and using a sword to enact violence on those who are doing you no harm (mormons, smokers, drinkers, and yes, gay couples).
Ever wondered why it’s okay to fight back when robbed, but it’s not okay to turn a gun on your friendly Jehovah’s witness? They both involve morals. And surely the JW’s soul is of more importance than your checkbook?
We must assume that, at some point, even Atheists will agree with Christianity. This is good for society and it is possible the Atheist might be eternally grateful for the meeting of the minds.
Defending marriage is a good point fo contact for those in a nihilistic world.
The sanity of Christians looked good to the Romans in Italy and it will eventually look good to the Romans in California.
Don
“Give me one of those signs, and I’ll plant it in front of my home…….and all of my neighbors, who are overwhelmingly conservative church goers……Roman Catholics, Mormons, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, etc, will do the same. ”
Onward Christians soldiers! As we win the battle and lose the war! And then, when we are in the minority we suddenly discover why it is NOT okay for the majority to legislate morality on us. We change our tune when, as happens in Europe, pastors are prosecuted for hate and discrimination crimes when they refuse to employ or marry gay people.
“The sanity of Christians looked good to the Romans in Italy and it will eventually look good to the Romans in California. ”
Looked good in what way? In the arena as they fed them to the lions? Hrrrrmmph!
“Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.â€
What society does, I can only do my best to vote for candidates who agree with such Christian beliefs based on the rightness or wrongness as pertains to society as a whole. I believe that SSM is against the best interest of society and would vote against it, not because of my religious beliefs that it is wrong, but my moral beliefs that it will be, in the long run, hurtful to society.
If the people in California originally voted against it for religious or moral reasons, I can’t fault with them for I would have done the same. However, when a group of judges overturn the moral principles involved, obviously for their own moral reasons (of course they say otherwise), then I would object.
The California TEC Bishop who immediately began blessing GLBT unions is the flip side of the coin and is rendering unto Caesar the things that are God’s.
Do you have the temerity to compare the GLBT folks to the martyrs in Rome who gave their lives rather than compromise their faith ? I hope I read that wrong…if not God have mercy on you.
#13. Ron+ which one of us are you asking that question? I can only answer for myself, “Of course not.”
Sorry..to #11 ..and he hasnt answered
Yeah, definately important to get out that Hindu vote. Too bad so many of the Roman Catholics in California are illegal or maybe they would vote against it. I guess that it’s up to all those Missouri Synod Lutherans to save civilization. Who would have thought it would come to this.
This Proposition 8 looks may just push ecuminism forward a bit. I believe it goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend or something like that.
There goes Christian distinctiveness. Perhaps this demonstrates we’re just like other religions.
#18,
Well, if you take the north face up Everest, and I take the south face, both paths are distinctive and unique and not ‘just’ like the other — even if the goal is the same. Nonetheless, if the north face traverses rivers, and the south face, rocky crags, then when we reach the goal, one of us will be wet, and other, with blistered feet. Even with the same goal, we may end up with different, distinctive, even unique, adaptations.
“Do you have the temerity to compare the GLBT folks to the martyrs in Rome who gave their lives rather than compromise their faith ? I hope I read that wrong…if not God have mercy on you. ”
If I remember correctly we are called to “do unto others as we would have them do to us.” So, if so-called Christians arrest and imprison and fine others (hindus, tobacco-smokers, gays) for different moral convictions, then, I WILL compare them to gays or hindus or smokers who imprison Christians.
Christ tells us to turn the other cheek when wronged. To persuade people by testimony and good works, not through doing violence to those who have done us no violence. I’m saddened to see that a vicar like yourself advocates state violence against those who have done you no more wrong than to disagree with you.
Where does this all end. When you have jailed or fined the marrying gays, do you go after the hindus and mormons, because we know that their religion is a sin and blasphemy in the eyes of God too?
justinmartyr:
“….we suddenly discover why it is NOT okay for the majority to legislate morality on us.”
Can you give me a single example of some legislation that does not represent someone’s morality? I can’t think of any.
Don
Exactly Don. Everything is morally-related. And if we feel we must jail (or fine) someone because they broke our morals, then where do you draw the line? Do you jail drinkers, smokers, gays, Jehovah’s witnesses, or calvinists? We end up living by the sword.
The New Testament draws a clear line at violence. Until someone commits violence (robs, rapes, murders, etc.) against another we have no ground to prosecute them. We are to protect the defenseless, the orphans, widows, our families, and those who can have violence enacted against them or their property. We are never given the right to interfere with the conscience of another, hindu, christian, or other.
As much as I disagree with KJS, I will never vote to have her LGBT friends jailed or fined, even as she jails and fines the churches that disagree with her. I can’t believe people on this blog who plead daily for the freedom of conscience of reasserters would consider using state violence against those who have done them no harm.
The problem in prop 8 lies exactly here, that the Cal supremes have no authority to rule on marriage of any sort. Marriage is a spiritual, not a civil matter, and if it is indeed spiritual, the the First Amend. prohibits the state from interfering. And by the same token, prop 8 is contrary to the First. The trouble here is that, since the Supremes set the example, they will have to live by Prop 8’s results if homosexual marriage is forbidden. So a wrong begets a wrong. The liberals are hypersensitive about the First when one of their pets projects is endangered; but beyond that, they are not likely to allow a mere constitutional prohibitioon interfere with their agenda.
I might add that, if the various religions can work together in this matter, and they succeed, a good many politicians will have their eyes opened to all sorts of new possibilities. In any case, for Christians and Muslims to find common ground to fight for, a new door has opened for them too. Larry
22. justinmartyr:
“The New Testament draws a clear line at violence.”
Exd 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exd 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exd 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
I don’t think that any of those commands relate in any way to violence yet they are from God’s own heart.
Also, I stood by the bed of a young man dieing of HIV/AIDS. It was not at all pretty. It was quite violent. Just using your logic I should be quite moral in inflicting violence upon those who brought this young man to his sorry state. The government should protect those least able to protect themselves. He died as a result of a tainted blood transfusion.
Don
Larry, we both seem to acknowledge that the government should not be running the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Marriage for a Christian is a holy, Christ-centered event when God joins two people together for life. Contrast this with the state version: a new-agey little ceremony void of Christ or even a mention of God, where “a man and a woman” make a contract to look after each other until they get divorced (usually within five years). And now we are concerned that the “man and woman” clause will be cut out of Caesar’s sham ceremony, and yet we are blind to the fact that it leaves our any reference to the Savior. What blasphemy in the eyes of God! And yet evangelical conservative Christians hold this up as the bastion upon which our nation is founded.
As someone who disagreed with me so aptly said, we rendered unto Caesar what was God’s.
Don, we commit “violence” on ourselves daily without expecting to be jailed for it. The problem comes when we commit violence against others. There are always consequences for my actions. I am currently eating potato chips that are clogging up my arteries. My colleagues are smoking cigarettes, and the people out in the street are involved in risky unmarried sex. And yet we don’t advocate jailing those people, do we?
The bible forbids sin. That does not mean that all sinners (non-violent ones) should be jailed, surely?
Good people, please!!! Justify your own actions not mine. I have said above why I believe SSM is bad for society, even though mine is a single vote for me and not for you.
What Christ told us to do in our own lives is personal thing between Him and me. SSM being bad for me and my grandchildren is a different matter entirely. I know that it will lead to the breakdown of our already too fragile society.
Remember, “Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.â€
Too many here seem to think this is wrong and we must render everything to Caesar.
I’m sorry about your friend who caught AIDs from the blood transfusion. I’m sure we all agree that if it turns out that someone was purposely responsible for his illness, that they should be punished severely.
Oldman, I’m sorry that SSM is turning your kids gay. The New Testament lays the blame for their sins at their own feet, not the feet of society.
I think a good stiff dose of Blackstone law would mightily illuminate our poor conversation.
To me this has been an enlightening conversation and I thank all the posters. With charity for all and malice toward none I retire from this field of battle.
Don
Come on Justinmartyr, you know that’s not what I meant. I want my grandchildren raised in the Lord and what He has told us. Fortunately, my son went to Rome with his boys, so I don’t worry. I was using a generic way that I worry about the effect on small children. You raise your kids or grandkids the way you want to and I will praise the Lord mine are still being raised in the way I believe He meant for me to. In other words, speak for yourself and not me.
Most here would, I think, agree that centuries ago the Church made a flawed decision when it enjoined (no pun intended) the legal contract of civil union and the sacramental (or at least the visible sign of a grace given) act of Holy Matrimony – for the State has no business in the joining of two eternal souls and the Church should have no business in the tax and other particulars of a legal contract between two people.
Nevertheless, I would argue for opposing the State pushing through ‘civil unions’ for same sex couples for a two reasons:
1) the political/social argument – for the purposes of there being generations to come which will support the retiring generations and continue the State there should be definite incentive for heterosexual couples to join and engage the possibility that they will procreate – thus, there should be tax and other advantages which the State can profer to them – and the State has no self-interest in giving these advantages to those who cannot procreate (without extraordinary means) ;
2) the theological argument – while I care not what the two people in the house across the alley from me do once their doors are closed – and while I would like to support monogamy and fidelity wherever it may be found – I hope and pray all persons will come to know God, know of their sin, repent and find salvation in the love of God through Christ’s intercession. So I cringe to think I will fail to discourage a sinful union – which they will then be convicted to end (divorce) once one or both become saved.
Justinmartyr, the government regulates tobacco in many ways, and may even put into jail those who sell to minors, or evade tobacco taxes. Because smoking is bad for society, it discourages smoking, propagandizes against it in schools, forces tobacco companies to pay fines (and, yes, schizophrenically subsidizes tobacco farmers…). Using heroin is criminalized because it is so damaging and addictive. Thus it’s appropriate for government to oppose homosexual behavior, including forbidding gay marriage.
Our church has a “no smoking” sign in the social hall. Yes, I imagine some people feel excluded by this. Should we permit smoking to make people feel less judged?
In the history of Christian social thought, here have been at least the following models of the relation between church and state:
1) Separatist — the model of radical Anabaptism. The most vivid contemporary example might be the Amish, who, as much as possible, live separately from the rest of the culture, do not participate in politics, do not bear arms, live in their own communities.
2) Government as corrective of sin — Augustinian/Lutheran. In a fallen world, the primary responsibility of government is to punish evildoers and provide a safe space for the Church to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. Luther’s “two swords” analogy illustrates the distinction. There are some things the state does that the church does not do, and vice versa. The state enforces law and executes punishment on criminals; the church does not.
3) Promotion of the Common Good — Thomist/Aristotelian/Hooker’s Anglicanism. “It is not good for the man to be alone.” God created human beings to be social animals. For humans to live together, there needs to be government to enable cooperation to promote human flourishing. The state not only punishes wrong-doers, but also takes positive steps to enhance human community and preserve the orders of creation. For example, anyone who uses the internet or drives an automobile on public streets is benefiting from a state that takes positive measures to promote the common good.
4) Transformationist — Calvinist. Inasmuch as possible, the state should work to transform society to promote Christian values, and anticipate the Kingdom of God. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech is a prime example. As I was watching the speeches at the Democratic convention last night, and I heard Ted Kennedy preach “Health care is a right, not a privilege!,” I was aware of just how much this Calvinist vision is alive in American culture.
5) Catholic subsidiarity/Reformed sphere sovereignty. (David Koyzis discusses this in his Political Visions and Illusions (InterVarsity, 2003)). There are numerous groups and cultures within a given society — churches, government, businesses, voluntary organizations, clubs, guilds, schools, etc. Each has its own realm of integrity and problems happen when groups trespass their bounds. The realms of the family or the schools, for example, are not the realms of either the state or the church; they have a genuine integrity of their own that both state and church need to respect.
6) Secularist separatism. Religion is a private matter of individuals and voluntary organizations. The realm of government is the realm of the public. The government should respect the right of religions to keep their own rules within their private environs, but the churches have no right to impose their private morality on the state or culture as a whole, and, if necessary, the state can pass laws that affect public matters that private voluntary organizations like churches must respect. So, for example, a Christian wedding photographer can be fined for refusing to photograph same-sex blessings. Catholic adoption agencies cannot discriminate against unmarried or gay couples.
There are, of course, other models.
Of the above six models, only 1) and 2) would suggest that the church has no business pushing against same-sex marriage. In any society of which Christians are citizens, Christians have the same privilege and duty to act in the public square as do other citizens.
My own leanings are toward models 3) and 5). I would argue that heterosexual marriage is neither a creation of the state nor of the church, but is an ordinance of creation that pre-existed both. From a theological view, Genesis 1 and 2 is decisive. From an anthropological and historical view, it is clear that the heterosexual family predates not only government, but also cities and cultures. It was the heterosexual family that enabled cities, cultures, and eventually governments to be formed.
If the purpose of the government is to promote the common good, then the government has a moral obligation to promote the prospering of the heterosexual family, and to discourage cultural movements that would harm it. At the same time, because the family is a separate sphere, the government has to respect its freedom in that sphere. The government, for example, has no right to create a new definition of family by blessing same-sex unions. That is a violation of the family’s sphere of sovereignty. Because there needs to be some kind of coordination for human cooperation to take place, and there needs to both positive and negative enforcement of activities that benefit or harm the family, the government (by default) can establish laws to regulate such things as legal age of marriage, regulations of divorce, whether or not polygamy is permitted, compulsory childhood education, specific penalties for such specific violations of marital good as incest, domestic abuse, sexual predation, etc.
Similarly, the church also has the right to decide within its own sphere what are the requirements of Christian marriage, but the church neither creates marriage, nor has the right to change it. The church can forbid divorce to its members, specify who can or cannot be married within a church, but cannot bless things that would violate the very definition of marriage, e.g., same-sex unions.
Insofar as Christians are citizens, they certainly have not only the right, but the obligation to promote legislation that helps the family to flourish, and to resist legislation that harms it.
To complain that such legislation is coercive is to miss the point that all legislation is coercive. If the government passes a law that says I must drive on the right side of the street, I am interfering with the freedom of those of British ancestry who might prefer to drive on the left side of the street, but I am also preventing the deaths that would inevitably result if everyone was allowed the freedom to simply drive on whatever side of the street they preferred. Those who cannot have their sexual relationships blessed by the church or the state certainly have restrictions on their freedom to do what they wish, but this is true not only of same-sex couples, but of all whose sexual activity falls outside the norms of what it properly means to be family — certain consanguinous relationships, underage relationships, polygamy, etc.
What the state needs to do – and can legitimately do – is forbid civil unions between homosexuals. Marriage is, as I said, a different matter. If TEC wishes to marry homosexuals, then it can do so. The marriage won’t be worth squat, to use the vulgar phrase, as a Christian marriage, but then, TEC can hardly be called Christian, can it? Can other states recognize marriages done in other states? No, it cannot, for first amendment reasons. But it CAN refuse to recognize civil unions for homosexuals and may legislate accordingly.
Well, I will say it once again, imploring your patience: Homosexuality is a radical abnormality and homosexuals are properly classed with the severely handicapped. They should not be joined in civil unions for the same reason that the severely retarded should not bear children. But what of loving, caring, monogamous homosexuals, the ones we hear about all the time? But what about caring loving Down’s Syndrome couples? Should they bear children? The answer is No, for the results are in every way undesirable. The state has a legitimate interest here. Larry
RE: “Do you have the temerity to compare the GLBT folks to the martyrs in Rome who gave their lives rather than compromise their faith?”
LOL — Yes, Ron, he did. ; > )
RE: “Sarah, can’t you see the difference between using a sword (mine, yours’, bob’s, or caesar’s) to defend against violence (e.g., slavery, murder, abortion), and using a sword to enact violence on those who are doing you no harm (mormons, smokers, drinkers, and yes, gay couples).”
More inflated drama.
Society defining what marriage is by law is not “doing violence” on others. I am amused that you think that.
If you have a problem with society defining marriage legally then of course you won’t object when I marry my adult brother, or when I marry three men, or when I marry my dead adult friend, who has written a living will giving his consent.
I’ll believe all of your cries about the wrongness of using Caesar’s sword [except about the causes and morality [i]you[/i] object to, of course — for those you’ll use Caesar’s sword just fine] when you’re willing for those kinds of marriages and much more to legally take place.
On the same note, the website for supporting and keeping the traditional legal definition of marriage in California is here:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/
I typically enjoy reading TitusOneNine, though I disagree with much of what is stated here. I read it because it’s such a great source of Christian news, thoughtful debate and overall information.
Every now and again, someone leaves a comment like #35 which makes me take a deep breath and wonder if it’s a good thing for my soul to spend time here.
“…homosexuals are properly classed with the severely handicapped. They should not be joined in civil unions for the same reason that the severely retarded should not bear children.”
Fr. Harmon and the Elves: this comment is atypical for this site. Would you please review it and consider editing it?
Justinmartyr’s idea that we are doing violence to gays by taking somethig away from them in denying them State sanctioned marriage for same sex unions is ridiculous. Nothing can be taken from one unless he first possesses it. Yet no one possesses recognition from the State until it is given. And the State gives it on terms it decides, through the elected process in which the people decide what the State should recognize or not. The freedom of gays to do this or that is unaffected by these decisions unless the State then were to say that certain activities were only permitted by those having state liscence in this area, ratrher like a driving liscence or a liscence to practice medicine.
Yet no such restrictions are advocated. Rather, the bearers of the State recognition of marriage are entitled to special privileges, which by definition are not rights, so again, nothing possessed by right is being taken away.
Gays and their defenders seem to be arguing that the State has no right to define what kind of social arrangment merits special treatment and privileges above and beyond the universal civil rights enjoyed by all. Their argument, if heeded, would lead to the virtual elimination of the reason the State sanctions and privileges marriage at all.
Larry Morse, I hope that if you knew my brother, you would soon change your mind about homosexuals. Whether you ever change your mind or not, almost all experts in psychology, psychiatry, biology, theology, sociology, and countless other fields utterly disagree with the substance of your comments.
Chris Hathaway, I wonder how your comments would have played in the days of laws against interracial marriage.
37. Charles wrote:
You have expressed concern about those who would put homosexual practicers with the mentally disabled. I love the mentally disabled. I have operated a Sunday School class for them. They sin, they repent, and I have an enormous appreciation for their gifts. I love homosexual practicers. I’ve had them in my home. I try to move them toward the fact that God is not happy with such practices – they are sin. I’ve seen the joy of repentance and freedom in Jesus Christ in their lives. Charles, why not place both disordered people in the disordered category? Why is that a non-loving thing to do? Do you feel ill against the mentally disabled, perhaps?
Don
Dear ember: How many of your so-called ‘experts’ are also practicing Christians? And how many are credentialed by associations whose boards were years ago taken over by the LGBT crowd, so that to NOT join as a booster of ‘alternative’ ‘lifestyles’ is to lose one’s credential, and therefore one’s livelihood? Don’t try the straw-man tactic of race: one does not choose one’s skin color; one must CHOOSE to engage in homoerotic behavior. (And don’t go down the tired ‘it’s not a choice, they’re ‘made’ that way’ path. Classical Christian theology carefully distinguishes between one’s impulses and one’s behavior. Christians all experience the former, and are called (in all aspects of life) to CHOOSE to control the latter.
“Gays and their defenders seem to be arguing that the State has no right to define what kind of social arrangment merits special treatment and privileges above and beyond the universal civil rights enjoyed by all.” I think that this is exactly backwords. This argument seems to have strayed far from the topic. The State of California gave gays and lesbians the privilage (if you wish) of marrying. They do this today. Prop 8 will remove this, not the other way around. It is Prop 8 that is arguing that the State had no right to do assign marriage to a differing group. Further, i think that the Catholic concept of a charism would be helpful in all this. If homosexuality is not a disorder (as most reputable medial professionals would agree, some outlandish statements here not withstanding), then to refrain from intimate relationships would be a decision based perhaps on religous conviction or other belief system. To refrain from intimate relationships for a lifetime, would, i think, be recognized by most Roman Catholic theologins as a charism or a gift given by God to some but not to all. Yet that giftedness of sexuality and also of lifelong chastity seems to have no place in the discussion here.
#37. I suggest you consider the evidence. Are homosexuals radically abnormal? The answer is clear, since we know and, I hope agree, about what normal means. Homosexuality is at the far end of the bell curve. This means, statistically, it is a radical abnormality.
Second, are radical abnormalities handicaps? This is hard to answer, given the standard definition of handicapped. But practically the answer is yes. I am not a radical abnormality in the above sense, and yet I have a handicap and the law, knowing this, limits what I may and may not do: I may not drive a car without corrective lenses. A more severe abnormality, grand mal seizures e.g., can be sufficient and just cause for refusing me all sorts of employment,e.g., driving a bus or a taxi. Is homosexuality a handicap by standard definition. Obviously it is, for it impedes the homosexual from carrying out a standard life function.
Now to be sure, the “experts” you cite probably disagree with the evidence because the pandering to homosexuality is VERY strong among the academics. None of us can help this, but it would be socially useful if we could.
But how limited? Homosexuality should be sufficient cause to refuse a teacher a position in an elementary school, for example, and the Supremes have agreed that the Boy Scouts can refuse to take in a homosexual either as a scout or as a troop leader. Are the Scouts being bigoted and homophobic and the like? The Boys Scouts history is studded with disasters that arose from having homosexuals in the organization – disasterous to the boys and financially catastrophic to the Scouts. Have they not obligation to protect themselves and their boys? Can the RC Church forbid homosexuals in their clergy? Well, what MUST be the answer to that? Has the RC church learned a lesson? The first time, shame on you the second time, shame on me?
The elves have given my head a whack more than once. I may not like it sometimes, but I suspect they are able to make their own decisions and will continue to do so.
Is my argument above false or misleading? By all means, show me my errors. Larry
Little Cabbage, “Classical Christian theology” also supported a flat Earth, the Earth as the center of the solar system, slavery, stoning sinners, burning witches — and so on. Why should “Classical Christian theology” get it right when it comes to homosexuality?
#44. I wasn’t aware that scripture supported the flat earth notion. Where do you find this? In any case, the notion can be demonstrated to be in error. This cannot be said of scripture’s refusal to accept homosexual behavior. The very reverse. Homosexual sex is inherently repellent, unclean at every level (as I have said before) and the paradigm of sterility. And it is,as I said above, a radical abnormality; this is beyond question. Scripture “merely” tells us that God finds it an abomination. Classical Christian theology “merely” agrees with scripture. What then? Show us clearly that scripture is wrongedy wrong wrong wrong. You must do more than ask rhetorical questions to make an argument. LM
[blockquote]“Gays and their defenders seem to be arguing that the State has no right to define what kind of social arrangment merits special treatment and privileges above and beyond the universal civil rights enjoyed by all.†I think that this is exactly backwords. This argument seems to have strayed far from the topic. The State of California gave gays and lesbians the privilage (if you wish) of marrying. They do this today. Prop 8 will remove this, not the other way around. It is Prop 8 that is arguing that the State had no right to do assign marriage to a differing group. [/blockquote]
You misunderstand the issue completely. Prop 8 is aruing not whether the State can define marriage but whether the such definition was done properly and was the correct definition. The people acting through referundum are no less an instrument of the State than elected representatives or judges.
Ember,
The ‘flat earth’ theory is appx. 75 years old. It has no basis in historical fact. It is in fact, a humanist anti-religious myth.
I suggest you “Google” it and get the facts instead of falsehoods.
oops, I meant 175 years old.
No. 42 – You make an important and interesting point re the Catholic view of chastity, chosen by certain individuals, as a gift from God. I think this idea will animate continued Catholic theological and moral reasoning. Thx.