I'm in red and he's in blue. No symbolism.
Here's the issue -- Proposition 8.
Now because we're friends I'm almost sure that my wisdom and insight has influenced you enough so that you recognized the folly of the "pro" argument. But if you still think the Devil has corrupted my thinking I'd love to hear your argument.
As for Prop 8 - of course I am pro. Read Leviticus 18:22 and tell me G-d wants kids in that type of detestable home.
See that's wonderful. But maybe too good. Because I almost believe you can't be that ignorant. Almost.
You can of course believe in that single verse of Leviticus (while ignoring so many others because they're just too crazy to still believe) if you want to. You can take it literally. You can argue that G-d hates homosexuality (except for lesbianism). You still have to prove that the constitution should be based on a religious argument. I doubt you'll be able to convince me that our laws should also allow us to own Canadians and Mexicans as slaves because of Leviticus 25:44.
I say that we should ignore a lot of the bible tells us to do, and we should disagree with a lot of what the bible tells us is OK. I just flat out don't believe a whole lot of the Hebrew and Greek bible when it ventures a guess at what G-d condemns.
You could of course argue that government should enforce your religious view and impose it on everyone because of Lev 24:22. but at least admit then that you want to throw out the 1st amendment.
Imagine that there's a religion out there that sanctions and performs same-sex marriages. (It's evil of course, right? Must be Satanic?) Should the constitution be amended to revoke that religious right when the revocation is based on nothing more than another religious belief regarding Hebrew scripture? Even in the face of the American Psychological Association's view that the prejudices against same-sex parenting are unfounded? Are we simply supposed to trust bigots as long as they argue that G-d is also a bigot?
I say G-d isn't.
Can you come up with any evidence that prejudices against homosexuality are well-founded outside your scriptural reading?
The Bible is what it is. It is tilted toward man. If it says "man" it makes references to women as well, I am aware of the paradox this presents in Leviticus. But I am convinced the scenario of the garden of Eden is persistent and compelling in its message of marriage. I am also becoming more cognizant of androgynous births and unusual patterns of human development, but G-d can not be interested in the perpetuation of degenerate attractions that sin designed and the malignant mutations driven by poor human choice. By that I mean, when humans turn to incest, drugs, and self abuse, unnatural births follow.
Prop 8 to me simply restates basic Biblical principals and strives to protect the order of family as ordained by God. This belief is further solidified by the concept that Satan is working first and foremost to destroy the family as a functional unit of heavenly practice.
As for the loss of constitutional rights, I am convinced as far as eschatology goes, this is inevitable and should not be encouraged, but I am downright convinced that tolerance has its limits in light of risks.
The rights that same-sex couples want are only those that are granted by the state. they only want the government to protect the rights that come with a state recognized union/marriage. They don't care what any church thinks. They don't care what you preach. They don't care if you think they're the product or cause of sin. Teach your children to judge them. Or if you're an enlightened evangelist just teach your children to judge the sin while loving the sinner. That's fine.
But can you ask the government to deny that right without asking the government to rule based on your religious beliefs? Can you give an argument other than one that disregards the first amendment? Or are you willing to say that on this issue the government should not be bound by the constitution?
I cannot immediately come up with a non-religious arguement for Prop 8. I will consider it. However, I am not convinced I can remove my religion from any aspect of my life. Therein lies the controversy.
Before you sprain a brain muscle don't confuse G-d with your religion and don't confuse your life with the constitution.
What I'm getting at of course is that maybe you don't really value separation of church and state. If so then this disagreement is resolved and we have to move on to the next argument: why you should or shouldn't value some sort of separation.
Excellent point. I believe I have been giving lip service to the support of the separation of church and state, but I privately insist on the commandments in the courtrooms, the prayer of students and faculty in school and the instructions of creation or at least intelligent design. I like these, but believe it could mean we would be leaning toward Christianity, only to find Christianity leaning against me and my beliefs one day soon. So again, excellent point. Nice wake-up call. Let the state of California recognize these degenerates if they want, but I will still insist on pitying any innocent child subjected to that lifestyle.
3 comments:
That's really somethin'.
Next of course he has to admit that he means "MY Christianity". Bunches of Christians don't agree with him at all.
And I pity any kids in his household.
I referenced this post today at AToday -- http://atoday.com/christian-politics.
Post a Comment