Prayer…in the service of politics?
The Los Angeles Times this morning has an interesting piece on a group of young people who have committed themselves to fulltime prayer for our nation, even moving into a communal house in the style of the House of Acts movement of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
But rather than simply report on the movement, the Times took the cynical approach, suggesting that these youth, in praying 24/7 for the passage of California’s marriage protection amendment, are using “prayer in the service of politics.”
The reporter found a handy lesbian minister to massage this angle. Calling herself “a person of prayer,” Rev. Susan Russell said that she does not see prayer as “a weapon to be used to influence the political process.”
We call this “ventriloquist journalism,” in the vernacular of the field.
Meanwhile, let us remember that it was the left, not the right, that made marriage a political issue. That happened when gay and leftwing California lawmakers began trying to legislate away the ancient, universally recognized definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Californians responded with Prop 22, voting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage by a margin of nearly two to one.
Then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom used his own political power to foist homosexual marriage on the people of California, in defiance of the will of all the people (not just Christians.)
Now that California Christians are praying in response to political action forced by the left, they are painted as using prayer as a political “weapon?” Fourteen days before the election?
Ironic? Amnesiac? Dare I ask, political? You decide.
The Times reporter then fuzzes the facts in this section of the story:
After the state Supreme Court ruled in May to allow same-sex marriage, evangelical leaders in California, working with their counterparts in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, began organizing to pass Proposition 8.
They launched a fundraising organization, which has raked in so many contributions that the most recent campaign finance filing crashed the secretary of state’s computer.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Times reporter here fails to cite actual fundraising numbers. This is possibly because the No on 8 folks have raised 10 times the cash, presumably crashing entire servers. Finally, the reporter brings it on home in the service of cynical secularism:
But [Prop 8 organizers] also wanted a spiritual component to their campaign. Central to that is the 40-day fast, leading into what organizers hope will be a huge rally Nov. 1 at San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium. There, Engle will lead 12 hours of prayer for the passage of Proposition 8.
Sorry, but Christian practices such as prayer and fasting are not a mere “spiritual component” of the Prop 8 campaign. While the Gavin Newsoms and Sheila James Kuehls of the world believe government is sovereign over the consciences of the American people, evangelicals (…and, oh yeah, the Framers of the Constitution) believe the people’s conscience is sovereign over government, and that God is sovereign over all.
As citizens, some very savvy California Christians (not just evangelicals) deftly mobilized the initiative process to fight back in a political war they did not initiate — and did so with record-breaking efficiency.
Prayer is not some kind of after-market add-on. It is the underpinning of the entire process, one of those pesky “deeply held religious beliefs” protected by the U.S. Constitution, but disdained by the left when employed in a political war of its own design.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top101 Comments to “Prayer…in the service of politics?”
Imagine – praying for God to help you deny other people their civil and legal rights and make them permanent second-class citizens. What kind of God is going to answer a prayer like that?
Report comment to moderator
The kind who abhors sin.
Report comment to moderator
And the kind who listens to his people when they cry out for justice (righteousness).
Report comment to moderator
(Sorry the filters won’t let me post. Let me try a smaller piece…)
Prayer is a good thing, but is coming together to ask “for divine intervention in California’s upcoming election” or the passage of “Proposition 8″ good theology?
Lou Engle’s Justice House of Prayer (JHOP) is affiliated with Mike Bickles’ International House of Prayer (IHOP). They do ministry together and put out materials together.
Because my son became interested in a music program at Bickle’s Forerunner School of Ministry through school, I did extensive research on the Kansas City IHOP movement and leader Mike Bickle formerly a leader in the Kansas City Prophets. He is a self proclaimed prophet who uses cool music and advertising to entice teens into his cult movement to pray 24×7 prayer for intervention in America.
Report comment to moderator
YES PRAYING!
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit,
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; Ephesians 6
Report comment to moderator
(continued …)
Bickle and Engle’s theology is solidly dominionist, believing that God has called Christians to influence American politics through prayer and fasting and political influence in high places. He says God gives him revelations which turn out to be bizarre and unbiblical. He had a “revelation” that the bride of Christ would gather in Kansas City before ascending to heaven.
I could go on for many, many pages. By bringing this unbiblical movement to the attention of the leaders of our little Christian school, I believe countless young people have been saved from this cult.
Report comment to moderator
We should all pray for Prop 8 to legitimately reverse what a radically liberal California court illegitimately reversed–namely the clear will of the people who previously voted to affirm the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Liberal courts are shameless and their tyrany should be opposed. Prayer is just one of many ways to oppose it.
Report comment to moderator
#1, “What kind of God is going to answer a prayer like that?”
The same loving and gracious God who made us in the first place and ordained marriage originally as a union between one man and one woman. Listen to Jesus:
“…at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female [and]… For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh… Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” ~ Matthew 19:4-6.
God made us for better things than same-sex relationships, sibling marriage, polygamy, polyamorous marriage or other such alleged “civil rights” claims for an ‘anything goes’ definition of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
“a group of young people who have committed themselves to fulltime prayer for our nation, even moving into a communal house in the style of the House of Acts movement of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
Uh, oh. Is Hale-Bopp back in orbit?
Report comment to moderator
“Imagine – praying for God to help you deny other people their civil and legal rights”
Where do our rights come from, again?
The Declaration of Independence says they are endowed by our Creator.
I seriously doubt our Creator endowed men with the unalienable right to have sex with men.
Report comment to moderator
Amazing how the kook wingnut sodomy-loving Left invariably brings up this stuff right before an election! Gavin Newsome was quoted as saying “Gay marriage is coming to the USA whether you like it or not!”
Is this guy on the ad campaign staff of Focus on the Family? Quotes like that do only one thing: bring out the “ProFamily” voters in droves.
I remember the Massachusetts Supremes announced their holding on gay marriages just in time to further torpedo the campaign of John Heinz-Kerry, the French-looking Senator who by the way served in Viet Nam.
Report comment to moderator
And if the proposition fails, they will all don weird looking purple outfits and tuck themselves in and…
Sawgunner: That’s right. Mr Kerry did serve in Vietnam. Didn’t his opponent? Oh, that’s right, he only played a soldier on TV, much later.
Report comment to moderator
That happened when gay and leftwing California lawmakers began trying to legislate away the ancient, universally recognized definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
That same argument (”ancient, universally recognized”) was used by the segregationists to try and keep laws against miscegenation in place. The Supreme Court eventually overturned it in Loving v. Virginia, even though over 85% of the American people were opposed to them doing so. The American people were outraged and bitter that the Supreme Court had changed the definition of marriage. But in time they came to see the wisdom of it. I’m betting they’ll do the same on marriage equality.
Report comment to moderator
No, actually Americans were forced to accept the government’s unconstitutional decision of it. And the same is happening with same sex unions.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, Nobody changed the definition of marriage by breaking down laws against marrying people of other “races.” They merely recognized that race wasn’t a proper barrier against marriage. In effect, they recognized that all people were equally human. But yes, it would change the definition of marriage to pretend to extend it to people of the same sex. People can call themselves “married” to the light post for all they care, but it won’t actually change the definition of marriage. That actually cannot be changed, because it wasn’t set by human beings.
This election is one that calls for fasting and prayer by all Christians, BTW. As a thin, low-blood-sugar person, I don’t fast very often, but I do plan to fast next Monday, and would like to see other Christians do the same. I know of others in my church who are doing so.
Report comment to moderator
Thankfully there are many other fine Christians who are praying for Prop 8 to be defeated.
I would note that even if Prop 8 passes, the DP laws will remain intact in California.
The CCR dream of driving gays back into the closet is failing miserably. You can’t stop the march of freedom (HT: George Bush). We have no illusions that it will take a very, very long time to win our rights and freedoms as American citizens. But we will never give up.
A few religious fanatics living in a house together is not going to stop us. We’ve faced a heck of a lot worse than that.
Report comment to moderator
No one is trying to drive homosexuals back in whatever closet they found themselves dwelling in – however, if we vote in California AGAINST same sex marriage, we have reason to believe that there will be NO MARRIAGE for homosexuals.
We will see how this plays out -
Report comment to moderator
‘Tis prayer in the “service of politics” certainly, and in the service of fundamentalist Christo-fascism in particular, which is inherently political.
There is no God who would hear such a distorted prayer. If the ban wins, it is simply because California still has a bigoted majority. And if the ban loses? How will the pseudo-pious pray-ers interpret it?
1. Their faith was weak (maybe)
2. God said no, He likes gay marriage (probably not)
3. California is just too evil (probably)
Silly foolish superstitious nitwits.
Report comment to moderator
We will see how this plays out –
Brilliant …
Then what will you do?
Report comment to moderator
“if we vote in California AGAINST same sex marriage, we have reason to believe that there will be NO MARRIAGE for homosexuals.”
Until the next time you vote FOR it …
Report comment to moderator
Finally read the article – alas, it reminds me of myself at the same age (though our fellowship was not so focused on anti-gay issues). There but for the “grace of God” would I be still. Man were we dumb as religious teenagers!
Report comment to moderator
That’s the problem you had religion – what you needed was the LORD Jesus Christ as your Savior and the Holy Spirit which dwells in each Believer.
Religion isn’t the answer!
Report comment to moderator
So what happens if God answers the prayers of those Christians who are praying for the defeat of Prop 8?
But honestly, religion shouldn’t have any say in this matter. It’s about civil and legal rights for all the citizens of California, not religious dogma.
Report comment to moderator
We as Christian Believers believe we do have a ’say’ in moral issues, that includeds ’same sex marriage’ – we don’t agree with it —– anymore than we believe one woman can be married to two women, or one woman married to three men, three men married to two women –
Our Christian values have everything to do with moral issues -
Report comment to moderator
Do keep in mind that the legislature VOTED IN gay marriage but was vetoed ONLY because the governor (who supports gay marriage) noted it conflicted with the ballot measure that banned gay marriage (which unlike this next one didn’t have the force of being a constitutional amendment). So we have all three republican branches of government being IN FAVOR of gay marriage. And only this “mob rule” democratic ballot measure system in CA being against it. When you hear folks complain about “democracy” and note we were founded to be a “republic” it was precisely these mob rule ballot measure types of things — democracy run amok — that worried America’s Founders.
Report comment to moderator
I encourage all believers here to vote against this proposition. It’s just mean spirited to take away rights like this; it’s not right.
Report comment to moderator
Christo-fascism? (#18)
Report comment to moderator
There are a lot of people who think Christians are the one’s being immoral by opposing the civil and legal rights of gay people. Maybe someday we should put their civil and legal rights up for a vote. I’m betting they’d scream like a stuck pig.
Remember the “golden rule”: do to others what you’d have done to yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Moral issues are not something a Believer decides on their own, they are handed down by GOD Almighty. For someone who claims to be a Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior – to vote FOR, what GOD has made clear is sin, would be a sinful act on a Believers part.
We answer to GOD, not the sinful lusts of man.
It is WRONG to ask Christians to defy GOD Almighty and HIS law.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
That’s a big “non-sequitur” on your part ["to vote FOR, what GOD has made clear is sin, would be a sinful act on a Believers part."] Part of the reality in living in a pluralistic society is that people have an unalienable right to practice what you think is SIN in the eyes of God. Take for instance, religious liberty. The unalienable rights of conscience mean according to America’s Founders that folks have a right to worship no God or 20 gods. Granting religious liberty to all invariably means folks will “sin” by breaking the first half of the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Bible. The Hari Krishnas at the airport sin every time they come up to you and show you the pretty pictures of the Gods they want you to worship along with them. And the Old Testament likewise says STONE them to death immediately. But today, it is an unalienable right to proudly proclaim to be a Hari Krishna and encourage others to be so. This is all implicated in the Declaration of Independence. “Conscience” for EVERYONE was the most unalienable of unalienable rights.
If you can live with and support that (the unalienable right to worship false gods as America’s Founders intended) then you can’t say it’s a sin to vote to permit that which God clearly calls a sin in the Bible. America was founded on the right to break the first half of the Ten Commandments.
Report comment to moderator
Let me note that in 30 and my previous point I am not trying to say that the FFs were progay marriage. That would be ridiculous. What I’m trying to do show 1) the standard if it’s a sin in God’s eyes it should be illegal or not part of a recognized right is not feasible, and b) use religious liberty and how the FFs believed in granting it to all necessarily means folks have a right to violate many parts of the Bible as an analogy.
I realize that it’s not a perfect analogy (no analogy is, or else we’d be dealing with duplicates). However, the Bible demands and awful lot in the moral arena and I would still argue using many other examples that it’s neither possible nor desirable to illegalize all of these things and in a free society, as intended by America’s Founders, it’s invariable that we grant “rights” to do things which the Bible clearly condemns as “sin.”
For instance, what if Prop 8 were about whether to legalize the sale of alcohol in CA. The Bible clearly condemns drunkenness as a sin. If we grant adults the “right” to drink alcohol and license liquor stores that NECESSARILY means some/many folks will get drunk. Do we distinguish by noting the Bible doesn’t forbid moderate drinking and as long as there are “legitimate” uses of the “right” the, sinful uses can tag along. Do we legalize alcohol only in the sense that it is not sinful and make .08 not just the standard for drinking and driving but drinking period (that way we validate drinking without getting drunk). Perhaps this is a closer analogy to religious liberty; the main thrust was to grant Christians the right the worship but the Founders did believe in extending the right universally to pagans, infidel and heretics of every denomination.
If that’s the case then extending “marriage” to same-sex couples might be viewed analogous to extending religious rights beyond merely Protestants to but everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
We as American citizens can worship as we wish, and we can vote as we see fit, based on the Bible or otherwise.
Anyone can sin, no one can vote sin out of existence, however Jon, that doesn’t mean I am compelled to vote for sin in any fashion because it suites your taste, or that of anyone else.
Your little tidbit “non sequitur” isn’t relevant – what I believe isn’t logical to you, nor would you consider it evidence, LOL who would have ever guessed?
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 31
Comparing homosexual sin, which is made clear in the Word of God and drunkeness are both sins.
Drinking a glass of wine or two isn’t a sin, but having homosexual sex is a sin, if its one time or a thousand.
Your comparison is lame, really one of the worst!
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, there are no small number of Christians and other religions who are marrying gay people as we speak. Why should their right to freely practice their faith be stripped from them? Given that we have a Constitution that’s supposed to offer equal protection under the law, why should the state get involved in preferring one group’s religious beliefs over another?
No, no. The ultimate answer is to get the state out of the “marriage” business and treat all couples equally under the law. Let the church define “marriage” in whatever way it wants, with no interference by the state. And let the state treat all couples the same by giving them a civil contract that grants them a specific set of legal rights and responsibilities.
Short of that, if you’re going to allow religion to have a say in civil marriage, then all religions should be treated equally under the law. Those religions that favor marriage equality should have just as much right as those that don’t favor marriage equality.
Report comment to moderator
Under US law I have a “right” to get drunk as long as I don’t get behind the wheel. Drunkeness is a sin. Under US law I have a “right” to do that which the Bible calls sinful. That’s the comparison, what you haven’t dealt with.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible calls gluttony a sin we certainly have the “right” to stuff our faces.
I wonder how long a list we can make of things we have a “right” to do that the Bible unequivocally terms “sin.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon
People can get drunk
People can have homosexual sex
The above are SIN – now if that doesn’t bother someone, and they still want to get drunk or have homosexual sex they can, and obviously THEY DO – that’s their right. However the Bible says differently, it just depends on who you follow, GOD Almighty or sinful lust and drunkeness.
You are looking for excuses – whatever you do is your business. My business is to follow the LORD and that means voting against (in this case) ’same sex marriage’-
Yep you can’t drive while drunk – but that doesn’t stop everyone from doing so.
If you don’t like what the Word of God says, take it up with HIM.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
The state has an interest in marriage. The state doesn’t have an interest in sexual activity for its own sake. In other words, if the state lacks a reason to regulate marriage, it certainly lacks a good reason to extend benefits outside of marriage to partners based on sexual activity.
Example: If a company wants to say that its benefits are for the person employed and one other adult, they’re free to do so. If they want to limit such benefits to married couples (and the offspring of such a union), they’re free to do so. But the company and society gain no benefit whatsoever by determining to extend benefits to a homosexual’s “partner” based on sexual activity that they wouldn’t extend to a friend of a chaste single. In other words, I’m self-employed and wouldn’t mind at all if I could be tied into someone else’s insurance benefits…but I think it’s completely legitimate that as a single person I don’t qualify for such. I don’t think it’s legitimate that another single person (homosexual or heterosexual) should qualify for those benefits by virtue of being in a sexual relationship with someone. Marriage (I refuse to use the redundant “heterosexual marriage”) benefits society; other types of sexual pairings do not, and as a chaste single I have every much an objection to such as married couples do.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, the difference is that no one’s arguing for the right to license public intoxication. We as a society still frown on such.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You completely missed my nuanced argument. I’m conceding your not just legal but moral right to interpret the Bible the way you want. I’m arguing in a free (and equal) society you are going to get results where sin is both licensed and legal. And believers have made their peace with all kinds of such from gluttony to drunkenness to worshipping false gods to envy to coveting to usury to doing business on Sundays and on and on. That the Bible merely says something is sinful doesn’t it not properly legal or licensed in a free society. You need something more.
At least Cheryl look aim at my analogies and didn’t misrepresent my argument as though I were arguing with “God” (however you define Him). I’ll let you know when I do that.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D, like so many other CCR’s, completely denigrates gay people by reducing them to something that they might (or might not) do in bed. When you’re trying to keep a group of people as second-class citizens the last thing you want to happen is for people to view them as equal with everyone else. So you instead focus on what they “do” (whether true or not), try to build up disgust for it, and downplay their essential humanity. You can use that to justify treating them as the “other”. We’ve seen this with Jews, black people, brown people, and other people groups. It’s a shameful thing that the CCR’s are engaged in.
Report comment to moderator
Oh and I forgot one biggie: Divorce is quite a public act; the overwhelming majority of divorces — for instance John McCain’s don’t pass the biblical litmus test. I wouldn’t mind making it tougher to divorce but I doubt anyone wants to return to the society where strict biblical judicial cause would invalidate probably 95-99% of the divorces that occur in this society.
Report comment to moderator
And the society I am referring to is not 1950s America but arguable England prior to Henry the VIII. I understand they more strictly followed the Bible and forbade usury that is interest at any rate back then as well just as the Bible commands and many Muslim societies still do. Muslim societies also more strictly follow the Bible on stoning people to death for violating the Ten Commandments and indeed that’s why they want to stone you to death for worshipping Jesus as a false God. Ah the perils of trying to make the civil law neatly match up with your understanding of thousands of years old sacred text and their notions of “sin.”
Report comment to moderator
#41 Anlir
“Cheryl D, like so many other CCR’s, completely denigrates gay people by reducing them to something that they might (or might not) do in bed. “
I’m confused. What other way is there to define “gays” other than what they do in bed?
Report comment to moderator
How about Plato’s definition. Many of those Ancient philosophers were such “non-practicing” homosexuals. Though looking at what gays or straights do in bed is often indicative of underlying orientation just like looking at which hand one writes with often indicates left or right handedness another unchosen orientation that is expressed by chosen behavior, like choosing to pick up and write with your right or left hand.
Report comment to moderator
Jon-
This is what World Magazine had to say about John McCain and his divorce before they decided to back him this year.
From William Saffire:
Then World gets nastily personal. The writer notes how, 20 years ago, ”the 43-year-old former P.O.W. quickly fell in love with the 25-year-old cheerleader. She was rich, attractive and well connected.” He won election ”despite charges of carpetbagging and buying the election.”
Cindy McCain’s family stock, we are told, ”pays her more than $1 million in dividends, and she owns more than $1 million worth of stock in Anheuser-Busch.” McCain, charges the professedly ”God-centered” magazine, ”has not attacked alcohol companies as he has the tobacco industry” because he is ”awash in beer money.”
Even more scandalous: ”Yet for all his dependence on his wife’s money, Mr. McCain doesn’t appear to be a particularly attentive husband.” To get a barbiturate fix after an illness, Mrs. McCain stole pain relievers: ”The offense was serious enough to merit jail time,” but she got off, and her husband ”claimed not to know about Cindy’s addiction. . . .” With that sly ”claimed,” the writer implies that the senator did know, did not care, and is now lying about it.
Report comment to moderator
There is no question that according to the Bible, McCain is still married to his first wife and that makes him an unrepentent adulterer. As Victoria would put it, if you don’t like that fact, take it up with God. But he can get a civil marriage and gays can’t. His biblical adultery with Cindy gets licensed by the state but gay marriages can’t.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I understand exactly what you’re saying, the problem you have is; you can’t accept the fact that I disagree with you and its based on the Word of GOD. You also have no clue between LAW and GRACE, you mention working on Sundays, but yet you don’t understand that as well –
You can’t justify homosexuality to a Born Again Christian, it wouldn’t matter what you said, or how you said it, there is no justification. Those who practice this lifestyle can do so, but I will vote against ’same sex marriage’ as long as they put it on the ballot.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 47
WRONG, McCain isn’t married to his first wife, but you don’t understand that either.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I never tried to justify homosexuality to born again Christians or on the premises you hold. You must not be reading me very carefully. I perfectly well understand the differences Christians have on how to interpret the Bible re such things as law & grace and know the Bible is full of alternate interpretations. The Puritans for instance forbade not only working, doing business, but even traveling on the Sabbath day. I guess they didn’t understand the Bible either.
Report comment to moderator
49,
Nope: According to the Bible McCain’s marriage to his first wife still stands making him a biblical adulterer. Man cannot undo God’s Word which is exactly what McCain’s civil divorce and attempted remarriage attempted to do according to your own biblical standards.
Report comment to moderator
And just so we all understand that according to the Bible John McCain’s marriage to Cindy is not a marriage but “adultery”
Luke 16:18 — “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. ”
Mark 10:11-12 — “… Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
1 Cor 7:10-11 — “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) — and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”
Report comment to moderator
Sure sounds like John and Cindy McCain a adulterers, and according to World, he’s an inattentive husband, a carpetbagger, and awash in beer money.
It must be Satan who wants us to vote for McCain. No way!
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 51
I don’t know what McCains relationship with the LORD was when he left his wife.
Those who sin, as in adultery/fornication who are not Born Again Christians have no reason to follow the LORD. That’s where many who condemn those who are not realy Born Again make their mistake.
Those who are really Born Again committ adultery/fornication are not allowed to remarry unless they have a Biblical divorce. I don’t know the condition of McCain’s beliefs at the time of his divorce, and I doubt you do either. In any case Jon – if McCain has asked the LORD to forgive him of his sins, its forgiven. Just as if you asked the LORD to forgive you of your sins, and turned from the sin you’re in, you too would be forgiven. That however doesn’t mean you can jump right back into whatever you asked forgivness for.
I hope I’ve made this plain -
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Don’t make the mistake of comparing homosexuality to divorce, that’s one argument that isn’t going anywhere. It’s been tried by most homosexuals as justification for their sin.
Homosexuality is a lifestyle which is repeated over and over again, sometimes with many partners, sometimes thousands of times with the same one.
There are many men and women who have sinned as in adultery/fornication who are truly repentant of their sin, and vow never to it again, they know the great pain they have caused their spouse and children. It’s normally not a repeat performance in everyday life, however if it is, thats another story – they will account to GOD for whatever they have done.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t McCain an atheist?
Report comment to moderator
Shorter Victoria: The Bible means what it says except when it doesn’t, and I know when that is. You don’t understand because you don’t agree with me.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, Americans are free to do a lot of sinning in this country, but that does not translate into a right to change the very definition of marriage itself. Same-sex marriage advocates are using politics in the service of rank post-modern dishonesty so that a contrived pretense can replace what is genuine. Nothing is ever a sin if we can just change the definition of things.
Report comment to moderator
Whether or not Victoria’s arguments are sound, she’s trying to refute Jon Rowe’s absurd notion that we need to endorse all behavior because we live in a democracy. He said:
“If you can live with and support that (the unalienable right to worship false gods as America’s Founders intended) then you can’t say it’s a sin to vote to permit that which God clearly calls a sin in the Bible.”
It is a sin to endorse behavior God has called evil or to vote to remove the obstacles already in place to deter those behaviors.
Seriously, does that include murder, child abuse, cannibalism, sexual exploitation, etc., etc.? Jon’s argument logically says it does. But we all know there are limits, some obvious and some not. Right now sodomite “marriage” is in some middle gray area. Either way, freedom of conscience means that, if an issue is put to a vote, I can vote “no” for any reason I want–or for no good reason at all. Nobody has to answer to Jon Rowe.
Being in favor of freedom doesn’t mean endorsing the exact ways people misuse their freedom. I think the right to bear arms is good, but does that mean that I should vote for the right for people to shoot others who irritate them?
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “John McCain’s [divorce] don’t pass the biblical litmus test.”
Jon, NONE of us pass the biblical litmus test on much of ANYTHING. That’s why God sent His Son to redeem us on the cross.
Actually, Jon Rowe is wrong again. John McCain has been publicly repentant about his past divorce. Jon Rowe is wrong in his ongoing personal dogmatic judgmentalism of him. When it comes to divorce, some are perpetrators and others are total victims. Jon Rowe is not necessarily the one to decide which is which. But even if McCain was in the wrong in his divorce (as he himself has clearly admitted), it is not an unforgivable sin. You cannot unscramble eggs. That’s why sin is so serious. God’s grace is our ONLY hope! Repentance is the bottom line and God is the judge of that.
Report comment to moderator
I was referring to Jon Rowe’s judgmental post at #47, where Rowe wrote; “There is no question that according to the Bible, McCain is still married to his first wife and that makes him an unrepentant adulterer.”
Where Jon is wrong and overly judgmental is in his use of the word “unrepentant.” I have heard McCain express his repentance. But we still cannot unscramble eggs and McCain’s past sins, like mine, can ONLY be covered by the “AMAZING GRACE” that comes only from God to those who truly repent (and God is the final judge of that).
And those who repent of the sin of homosexuality can ALSO be forgiven and transformed for good.
The failure to repent is the single factor that ultimately separates those bound for heaven and those who are not.
Report comment to moderator
#41 Anlir “… like so many other CCR’s, completely denigrates gay people by reducing them to something that they might (or might not) do in bed.”
Huh? We’re talking about a group who is wholly defined by sexual preference. It is called homo-sexuality and it is an in-your-face movement about what you do in bed. The rest of us would prefer “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
When you’re trying to keep a group of people as second-class citizens the last thing you want to happen is for people to view them as equal with everyone else.
The opposite is true. It is gays who are not satisfied to live quiet lives like the rest of us. You are not even satisfied with domestic partnership or civil unions. You won’t stop until we all proclaim your sexual choices to be Holy Matrimony Blessed by God. No one opposes your civil rights. But your “civil union” cannot legitimately be called ‘matrimony’, meaning financial protection for a mother (matre). And it will never be holy.
So you instead focus on what they “do” (whether true or not), try to build up disgust for it, and downplay their essential humanity.
False. It is you who keep reminding us what you do, gaying every thread. No one (except for a few wingnuts) downplay your humanity.
You can use that to justify treating them as the “other”. We’ve seen this with Jews, black people, brown people, and other people groups. It’s a shameful thing that the CCR’s are engaged in.
Racial discrimination is wrong, because it is a false view of humanity. It is contrary to ‘All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights’. But homosexuality has nothing to do with your humanity. It is simply a sexual preference.
Report comment to moderator
Such hypocrisy. The CCR’s fall all over themselves excusing adultery, divorce, and re-marriage. A man or woman could divorce and re-marry a dozen times and still be considered a “good Christian”. No preacher would dare thunder from the pulpit about divorce and remarriage the way they do about gays because they’d lose at least half of their members. You can be divorced and serve in any office of a church, including the minister. Nobody bats an eye at people who are divorced and/or remarried. I know someone who goes to a conservative Presbyterian church (PCA), and he says that they’ve added “abandonment” as Biblical grounds for divorce now. Of course, you can fit any justification for divorce under that term.
The point is, the church found a way to live with adultery, divorce, and re-marriage. Oh, in a few churches it’s still frowned on, but they aren’t going to put anyone out for it. In the vast majority of churches it’s simply a non-issue.
But gays? Oh my God! Oh my God! You’d think Satan himself had walked through the doors of the church. Suddenly they turn all fundamentalist and start taking the Bible literally and thundering about the judgment of God. They’ll hold prayer meeting, rallies, marches, sign petitions, go on TV, and raise tons of money to stop the “evil” gays. They’ll thunder about the need for laws and constitutional amendments to stop gays.
When is the last time you saw a rally, march, petition, or law proposed to make divorce and re-marriage illegal? Hell will freeze over before we see that.
It’s nothing but pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.
By the way, Charles Manson and all the other convicted murderers on death row have the right to get married. But two gay people who pay their taxes, obey the law, go to church every Sunday, and are model citizens in every way cannot. What’s up with that?
Report comment to moderator
#63 You are right about the hypocrisy Anlir. We freely admit it. I don’t understand why the only sin in our church that prevents a man from being a deacon or pastor is divorce. That is definitely a misreading of the “husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6) requirement. Anyone in sexual sin would also be disqualified. Paul put it in a positive light, encouraging deacons to be good family men. So why the modern focus on sexual sin? I don’t know, since every deacon and pastor is a sinner.
And yes, Christians are wrong to treat homosexuals any differently than Jesus treated the adulterous woman. He said “Go and sin no more”, but treated her with compassion just the same.
So you see, we can agree.
Report comment to moderator
Divorce and remarriage are not always unlawful. That’s why they’re not pounded on as much. And yes, you have a good point Anlir, that a lot of unlawful divorce and re-marriage is tolerated in the Church and this is not right at all. It’s antinomian and disgusting. A lot of what the Church today considers to be divorce and re-marriage is actually adultery, which like any other sexual sin is unlawful. Lots of things are tolerated in the Church today that shouldn’t be, which makes finding a good church increasingly difficult for Christians. However, there is plenty of solid teaching out there dealing with unlawful divorce and re-marriage. There are good churches and preachers who do take a stand on unlawful divorce and re-marriage and address these things to whomever is willing to listen.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
By your definition then, heterosexuals also define themselves by what they “do”. How would you like your relationship reduced to that? Why do straight people have to be so “in your face” about their sexual preference? Why can’t heterosexuals practice “don’t ask, don’t tell”? What you’re asking for is gay people to lie about our lives and live in the closet. Well, I’ve got news for ya: Not. Gonna. Happen.
If straight people can be open about their lives, their love, their relationships, then gay people can too. If straight people can display physical affection toward each other, then gay people can too. If straight people can celebrate engagements, weddings, and so forth, then gay people can too.
Your demand that gay people live “quietly”? See Dick Cheney for our collective response. We are free citizens in America and we’ll live our lives accordingly. And if you don’t like it – again, see Dick Cheney for our collective response.
And I don’t give a rat’s behind about your “Holy Matrimony”. We want our civil and legal rights as American citizens. And we will fight like hell until we get them.
Report comment to moderator
#66 And we will fight like hell until we get them.
See? That’s what I’m talking about. I never discuss what my wife and I do when we’re alone. See the difference?
Just what civil rights do you not have? If it is the right to visit a sick friend, then isn’t that a hospital rule? If it is the right to pay more taxes like married people do, then be my guest.
But it is obvious from your post #66 that it is not really civil rights that you are after. You want to flaunt your sexual choices and have everyone celebrate it. Your expectations might be just a little too high, don’t you think?
Report comment to moderator
The Bible clearly forbids divorce except when the other spouse has committed adultery. And some literalist quibble that it’s permitted even in THAT circumstance. It doesn’t mean if a woman is being beaten by her husband she has no way out; one could obtain a civil divorce and still not violate the Bible; but it is clear the two are still “married” in the Biblical sense and a subsequent remarriage would be adultery. [It's not the civil divorce that's the sin, it's the remarriage to the next person with whom you have sex that is.] I know a few Christian women who understand this; their husbands left them and obtained the divorce but THEY realize that they are still married in the eyes of God and have to either wait for their husbands to return or stay chaste, else it be adultery.
Joel misses the point with John McCain; according to the Bible he is still married to his first wife, his relationship with Cindy is adultery and his children with her are illegitimate. He needs to cease sexual relations with Cindy — whether he divorces her in a civil sense is largely irrelevant as that marriage is not a “marriage” in the eyes of the Bible — confess that his sexual relationship with her is over and repent of every single time he had sex with her (every single time he had sex with her is biblical adultery) before he is truly “repentent.” Further he needs to open himself to reconcile with his first wife. And if she does not, then he can remain chaste for the rest of his life. THAT’S how to unscramble the eggs. This sounds harsh, but that’s what being an orthodox fundamentalist Christian where you take the entire Bible as valid is all about, making and living by those harsh choices.
But, at 72, asking him to live the rest of his life in chastidy, faithful to his actual biblical wife, arguably isn’t that onerous. That’s what a truly repentent, regenerate Christian would do. John McCain is a nominal Christian.
If you can’t see this then you’ll come across in the eyes of the rest of us as hypocrits who adopt a cafeteria approach to the Bible when convenient to you.
Report comment to moderator
David,
Of course I realize that you can vote for good reason bad reason or no reason at all. But I’d hope you vote for GOOD reason. And my argument is, I don’t want government to license or legalize what the Bible calls sin is not “good” reason. You need something more than that. Further it’s not the case that voting to legalize or license something the Bible calls sin is itself a sin as has been argued.
For the others like murder and cannibalism, there are “good” reasons (what Rawls might call a “public reason”) to outlaw those things. Though I’d check with cannibalism; it may be that the act is illegal only insofar as it involves the murder or non-consensual destruction of a corpse. You’d be surprised at the number of things that we would regard as sinful and even demented that are perfectly legal.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you are half right. The Bible forbids divorce, but acknowledges that people are going to do it anyway.
You quote Mark 10:11,12, but you overlook all the verses leading up to this. Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. But God has always been against it.
You quote 1 Cor 7:10,11, but you leave out the verses immediately following this. In 1 Cor 7:15 Paul says that if your spouse departs, let them depart. You aren’t under any obligation in this case, but God has given you peace.
Did McCain commit adultery in the past? Just ask him. He will freely admit that he did so and that it was wrong. His sin was in the past. McCain is no longer married to his first wife. Is he committing adultery today? Who knows, but that would be a new sin.
See the temporal nature of sin? You commit one, then you ask for forgiveness and move on. (1 John 1:9)
Report comment to moderator
You think Christians wouldn’t rise up and oppose teaching children that divorce is a natural, alternative lifestyle that is perfectly acceptable?
Report comment to moderator
#71 Christians should always teach their children right and wrong. If schools are teaching something wrong, do parents not have a right to object? What’s your point?
Report comment to moderator
TYPICAL!
‘Same sex marriage’ is on the ballot in California – prayer is the ‘topic post’ but the donkey’s want to talk about divorce –
So typical is the diversion tactic used to stop the real issue from being discussed.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
My point was about falsely equating homosexual practice with divorce, which leads to the conclusion that since the church accepts divorce, it should also accept homosexual practice.
I was pointing out that if divorce were taught to public school children as being a normal, natural, alternative lifestyle, that Christians would be just as up-in-arms as they would be if homosexual practice were taught to public school children as being a normal, natural, alternative lifestyle. Homosexuals are pushing for the latter; divorcees are not pushing for the former.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (et al.)
I strive to be clear and concise, but sometimes I fail to be clear enough. Please accept my apologies.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “The Bible clearly forbids divorce except when the other spouse has committed adultery.”
The Bible forbids lying, stealing, homosexuality, idolatry and much more. The Bible clearly forbids sin. It also clearly affirms that ALL of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The only solution for this is found in the grace of God.
Is McCain unqualified for God’s grace in your world, Jon?
Jon, do you even know if McCain’s first wife has married another herself? That would matter in your legalistic and judgmentalist scenario, sir.
There is no way to unscramble the eggs, Jon. That’s why God’s grace is so “amazing.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote to me; “If you can’t see this then you’ll come across in the eyes of the rest of us as hypocrits who adopt a cafeteria approach to the Bible when convenient to you.”
______________
In other words, if I don’t see it like Jon Rowe sees it, I will “come across in the eyes of the rest of us as hypocrits…” Huh? Jon, don’t presume to speak for “the rest of us” on this thread. Just speak for yourself. And the prospect of being considered a ‘hypocrite’ by you does not intimidate me. My points stand for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Divorce is genetic and inborn, like being left or right handed. They cannot help it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
It’s obvious that you are trying to play a sophistic game of diversion. Think of John McCain’s current position with his wive like that of a homosexual in a longer term partnership. Are they not qualified for God’s grace. I think you would answer they ARE qualified but have to stop their homosexual relationship and repent of it.
Likewise with John McCain. According to the Bible he is still married to his first wife and in an adulterous relationship with Cindy. Until he puts an end to that and repents of it, he’s like the homosexual Christian couple that continues on with their sinful relationship.
And by the way, this isn’t my understanding, it’s a very common orthodox biblical understanding and I am shocked that more evangelicals here haven’t come to my defense noting that my understanding is the proper biblical one.
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/marriage/divorce.html
Divorce is allowed for unchastity. Don’t try to change the meaning of this to say divorce is allowed for adultery. Jesus defines adultery as including lust of the mind. That’s why this verse is specific in talking about a physical act taking place–that is what unchastity is.
If you get divorced you MAY NOT remarry. If you remarry, you and the person you marry are committing adultery. Anyone considering divorce, even as allowed here, should carefully consider their decision. In God’s eyes you may NEVER marry again.
There is one other circumstance in which the Bible allows divorce–when a non-Christian spouse leaves the marriage.
“Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases…” – 1 Corinthians 7:15 (NASB)
Here again, however, the Bible makes it clear that remarriage is not an option.
“(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” – 1 Corinthians 7:11 (NASB)
The Bible makes it very clear. Marriage is between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. Not one man and one woman; then another woman; then another women. You only get married ONCE.
Report comment to moderator
John McCain has been very straightforward regarding his divorce. He’s admitted that he was unfaithful and wrong, he’s repentant. This issue of his divorce is between he and GOD.
John McCain has obviously not divorced again, so it appears he is sorry for his deeds.
The point being – the behavior which John McCain once exhibited is no longer part of his life, he’s sorry for his behavior.
Many have divorced and are sorrowful for the harm they caused their families, many are NOT Believers, and some are.
Report comment to moderator
Many drug users and alcoholics are repentant for their behavior, they ask GOD to forgive them and save them, and HE does just that. That doesn’t mean they go back into their sin.
There are people male/female who have been sexually promiscuous, and have asked the LORD to forgive them, and have turned from their sin. The same can be said for those who are caught up in pornography or any other sin, GOD will forgive them if they ask, repent and turn from sin.
Homosexuals can repent and turn from their sin as well, and some do.
It’s the repentance, turning from sin and dependence on the LORD which is key to change.
We are ALL born with a sinful nature, however we don’t need to wallow in whatever sin we favor, GOD is faithful, he gives us an “escape” – Temptation will always be with us until we one day go to be with the LORD, thankfully we are never tempted beyond what we are able to take -
Report comment to moderator
#79 “I am shocked that more evangelicals here haven’t come to my defense noting that my understanding is the proper biblical one.”
Jon Rowe,
[I wasn't going to jump in since this is getting away from the topic, but since you asked]
I won’t say it is the proper biblical one, but it is the view I was taught in the fundamentalist churches I attended as a teenager and young adult. It is certainly logically consistent and easy to defend using the Bible verses you cite.
I no longer consider myself a fundamentalist (nor have I attended a church that goes by that label in twenty years, though the ones I have attended more recently would consider themselves conservative evangelical and solidly Bible-believing), and my views have changed in that and many areas. I would now look at the sin involved in a marital breakup not so much as the divorce itself but the unwillingness to love (as a choice, not a feeling) and to work at making the relationship work.
After the divorce, if they repent (and neither has yet married someone else) they can remarry each other and rebuild their relationship. (I know one couple who did that.) If one or both of them have remarried (with someone else) before both reach that point of repentence, destroying the new relationship(s) is not the answer.
I think in that latter case that all parties involved (including new spouses) will suffer the effects of the earlier sin to some extent the rest of their lives, but those who have repented and are trying to now live according to God’s will for marriage are not sinning in continuing in their new marriages.
(And unlike some, I would not distinguish between those who became Christian after the divorce vs before – I don’t think the slate gets “wiped clean” once and only once at the time of becoming a Christian.)
I can understand how it might sound to someone outside the church, hearing people say how as long as a person has repented, then he is forgiven and is no longer guilty of adultery from having divorced and remarried. What is to keep someone from doing it again, and again, if he just has to later repent and be forgiven?
In response to that, I would point out two things. First, that not everyone who claims to have repented really has. Second, that someone who intentionally sins with the intent to repent later very often does not ever do so. There is something corrosive to the soul about sin, and I think especially in the case of choosing to sin with a view to repentance and forgiveness later. The more the pattern is repeated, the more corrosion takes place.
I think a church would need to consider this on a case-by-case basis in deciding whether to put a previously divorced and remarried person in any position of leadership (and only after a number of years have shown that the changes are not just on the surface). Same with a pastor deciding whether he will perform a marriage ceremony where one or both people have been divorced previously.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Pauline. I always appreciate your thoughtful responses. You say you are no longer a fundamentalist. And, personally, I prefer your non-fundamentalist, non-legalistic type of Christianity. Joel mentioned something about legalism — proof texting and whatnot. Well that’s exactly what I see in condemnations of homosexuality here. My point in this exercise is the same biblical proof texting against homosexuality can just as easily demonstrate John McCain is still married to his first wife and in a present state of adultery with Cindy — in a civil marriage that is “counterfeit marriage” in the eyes of God exactly as legal same sex civil marriage is.
Like divorce, perhaps this aspect of marriage is also one that we should leave to the Churches or at accept the possibility that folks could be “married” in a civil sense, but not “married” as your church sees it. As long as churches are free to recognize what is and what is not a valid marriage **as they currently are free to do with divorce** I don’t see a problem with the coexistence of gay marriage and traditional religious notions that view homosexual acts as sinful.
Report comment to moderator
Basically what the CCR’s are saying is that a person can commit adultery over and over again, and/or get divorced multiple times, and/or get remarried as many times as they want – as long as they ask Jesus to forgive them each time they do it. That way the slate gets wiped clean over and over again and everyone is as happy as a clam. It’s all under the blood brother, it’s all under the blood. Shoot, I know of one Christian who’s been married and divorced 6 times, and he’s a member in good standing of his conservative Southern Baptist Church.
What I want to know is, why can’t gay people do likewise?
Report comment to moderator
Christians would be smart to accept civil unions.
Homosexuals would be smart to accept civil unions.
Everybody would be smart to accept “civil.”
Not likely. Your mileage will certainly vary, especially if you like tire tread marks on your bod.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Lynn, from everything I’ve read, the Yes on 8 side has raised more money than the No on 8 side.
Report comment to moderator
When you hear folks complain about “democracy” and note we were founded to be a “republic” it was precisely these mob rule ballot measure types of things — democracy run amok — that worried America’s Founders.
Yeah, I’m sure the founders would be mortified at the bigotry of people who consider sodomy a violation of the laws of nature’s God.
Report comment to moderator
Basically what the CCR’s are saying is that a person can commit adultery over and over again, and/or get divorced multiple times, and/or get remarried as many times as they want – as long as they ask Jesus to forgive them each time they do it. That way the slate gets wiped clean over and over again and everyone is as happy as a clam. It’s all under the blood brother, it’s all under the blood. Shoot, I know of one Christian who’s been married and divorced 6 times, and he’s a member in good standing of his conservative Southern Baptist Church.
What I want to know is, why can’t gay people do likewise?
You still haven’t told me what CCRs are, but presuming that you’re referring to Christians, so I’ll respond as one. Repentant homosexuals are as forgiven as any other repentant sinners.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m sure the founders would be mortified at the bigotry of people who consider sodomy a violation of the laws of nature’s God.”
Roman Catholic Thomist scholars aside, I don’t see many folks making that argument. Certainly not here. The laws of nature’s God refer to what man discovers through unaided reason. It’s a very Aristotelean type of notion. And on sexual matters the idea that sodomy violates the law of nature is indissolubly linked to the notion that contraception, even between married Christian couples, equally violates the law of nature. That would make many posters here the moral equivalent of sodomites. Perhaps that’s why they don’t go there.
Report comment to moderator
88 – Christian Conservative Republicans.
Anlir seems to think that all Christians are Republicans, when a lot of us hate both parties and see them as virtually the same.
Report comment to moderator
John Rowe,
Are you seriously making the argument that the Founding Fathers would have considered “gay marriage” one of the inalienable rights endowed by the Creator?
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Thanks, I figured it was something like that, but it’s so absurd to link opposition to “gay marriage” exclusively with Americans, much less Americans of a specific political party. Where I live, the most visible opposition to Proposition 8 is from our immigrant community.
Report comment to moderator
The laws of nature’s God refer to what man discovers through unaided reason.
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this. I can’t speak for you, but for most of us, special revelation isn’t required to distinguish girls from boys and to see which parts fit where.
Report comment to moderator
“Are you seriously making the argument that the Founding Fathers would have considered ‘gay marriage’ one of the inalienable rights endowed by the Creator?”
No what I’m stating is that they didn’t consider the issue.
“I can’t speak for you, but for most of us, special revelation isn’t required to distinguish girls from boys and to see which parts fit where.”
I agree that “self evident truths” are that which is understandable completely separate from “special revelation.” But as I noted, that same logic indissolubly leads to the conclusion that contraception (and other things) equally violates the “laws of nature.” That they rise and fall together. When the FFs wrote the Declaration they were concerned with positing political liberty in its broad and general sense as an unalienable right, not getting into the minutiae of the natural law as it relates to sexual practices. Though, I would note, if you think you have an “unalienable right” to have contracepted sex with your wife or husband, the same logic would lead to an unalienable liberty right to practice homosexual sodomy. They rise and fall together.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
No what I’m stating is that they didn’t consider the issue.
But if someone had brought the idea to their attention, are you suggesting that their worldview would have dictated support for the “inalienable right” of people with homosexual inclinations to marry one another?
When the FFs wrote the Declaration they were concerned with positing political liberty in its broad and general sense as an unalienable right, not getting into the minutiae of the natural law as it relates to sexual practices.
But re-ordering society based on some perverse notion of “same-sex marriage” is not “minutiae,” and it’s not just about people’s private choices.
The natural order for marriage is, obviously, for a couple to bear and rear children. Therefore, if a couple deliberately frustrates that purpose in order to remain childless, that is, perhaps, “unnatural” in a similar sense as homosexuality (although not the same in degree). But every individual act of married sex need not, and does not, result in conception. Married sex is regarded as “good” for its own sake–for its unitive and its procreative purposes, and in the natural course of things, it will result in both. Homosexual sex is not natural in any sense or under any conditions.
Report comment to moderator
That issue was just not on the table during the Founding Era.
Therefore, if a couple deliberately frustrates that purpose in order to remain childless, that is, perhaps, “unnatural” in a similar sense as homosexuality (although not the same in degree).
Of course it’s unnatural in the same degree. If you are talking about parts that fit, sperm fits egg and deliberate frustration regardless of the reason (to remain childless or to stop after a “reasonable” number of children) frustrates nature’s procreative purposes as much as homosexuality does.
But every individual act of married sex need not, and does not, result in conception. Married sex is regarded as “good” for its own sake–for its unitive and its procreative purposes, and in the natural course of things, it will result in both. Homosexual sex is not natural in any sense or under any conditions.
Again you can take out the “homosexual” and insert “contracepted.” “Married contracepted sex is not natural in any sense or under any conditions.” And to that add masturbation and coitus interruptus, oral sex (some Thomists debate this but would agree oral sex as an end to itself certainly qualifies): They all equally frustrate nature’s sexual purpose along with homosexual sex.
If you take out procreation and agree that sex in and of itself is good because it produces pleasure, helps to cement pair bonded relationships, then natural and hence moral distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality disappear.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
If you take out procreation and agree that sex in and of itself is good because it produces pleasure, helps to cement pair bonded relationships, then natural and hence moral distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality disappear.
You can’t just substitute Aquinas for Scripture and call it proof, whether you’re using him to prove reality or to prove me inconsistent. Aquinas isn’t authoritative.
Depending on motives, contracepted marital sex can be “unnatural” in a similar sense as homosexual sex is unnatural, or it can be unnatural in the sense that antibiotics are unnatural. Marriage between a man and a woman is an essential good for society in general because it’s part of the essential foundation upon which people are conceived, nurtured, and prepared for the community. If contraception is not used for ill purposes (to promote self-centeredness and/or to kill innocent human life, as in the case of abortifacient forms of contraception), then it’s not inherently unnatural in the negative sense. Whether a given couple is using it for good or for ill is a matter of individual conscience and it’s up to God, ultimately, to judge, but it’s not a cut-and-dry case of the perversion of an essential good like homosexual sex is.
I understand that my argument is full of assumptions that some may dispute, but it’s consistent with the concept of natural law to which the founders held. Homosexual marriage is inconsistent with any concept upon which our country was founded and with any concept upon which any society has been founded, and quite frankly, the “ick factor,” is proof enough that homosexuality violates nature in a wholly negative sense. Homosexuals, themselves, have historically always been conflicted about their desires, and I’m convinced that they still are even in our modern “tolerant” society because they, too, have the light of God within.
Report comment to moderator
Ree hasn’t a clue what gay peoples lives are like, including our intimate relationships and our sex lives. Our lives are just as fulfilling and satisfying as any straight couples.
Homosexual sex is not natural in any sense or under any conditions.
For straight people that would be true. But for gay people, it’s quite natural and right and pure and lovely.
In any event,
Stop the Hate,
Vote “NO” on 8!
Report comment to moderator
I regard murder, rape, violence, and theft as evil, even though I don’t get these values from a book of myths.
I regard damage caused by carelessness and incompetence and poor judgment as harm. These are civil values that a great many people can agree on regardless of their religious beliefs. A lot of sexual behavior falls into this category.
#97 gets into areas of condemnation that are questionable.
I understand that my argument is full of assumptions that some may dispute, but it’s consistent with the concept of natural law to which the founders held. Homosexual marriage is inconsistent with any concept upon which our country was founded and with any concept upon which any society has been founded, and quite frankly, the “ick factor,” is proof enough that homosexuality violates nature in a wholly negative sense. Homosexuals, themselves, have historically always been conflicted about their desires, and I’m convinced that they still are even in our modern “tolerant” society because they, too, have the light of God within.
The “founders” tolerated importing Africans and keeping them in slavery and genocidal behavior toward native peoples. Many of the values and behaviors of the founders strike me as having a lot of value and insight for the present day, but I do not come to a conclusion that some value was held or some practice followed by “founders” that it was automatically true or valid.
Other assumptions about decent behavior held by many people at this web site are just as open to question as the the behaviors and values you question. For example, a great many people have children by accident or because it is expected of them, but are in fact questionable parents.
Nevertheless, it’s better to let adults have children because any attempt by society to control who can have children or how they should raise them is probably more harmful than the harm caused by our tolerance.
That you really really really really really really believe that homosexuals who have relationships is certainly your right as a belief. Nevertheless, it is probably better to let reasonably responsible adults sort this out with their consciences than to let people of your religious beliefs decide these choices any more than I should get to decide who should or should not be able to have children, though I suspect that many people who do would be better off not doing so.
I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong, or of persecuting anybody though I suspect you would object to my values about civil unions. In any case, you opinions about whether homosexuals can love each other or can maintain worthwhile relationships are not persuasive to me no matter how strongly you hold them and no matter how strongly you maintain they have been held for thousands of years.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Ree hasn’t a clue what gay peoples lives are like, including our intimate relationships and our sex lives. Our lives are just as fulfilling and satisfying as any straight couples.
Plenty of straight couples’ relationships aren’t in the least fulfilling or satisfying, and part of the reason for that is that our culture lost it’s sexual mooring decades before the homosexual movement.
Stop the Hate,
Most of the hate I’m witnessing is coming from your side. Although I hear about them in the news, I’ve never personally known a Christian who bore any hatred or ill will toward homosexuals.
Vote “NO” on 8!
I’m voting Yes.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
Why do you respond to a post from me that’s pages back from the front page, but ignore the post I directed toward you on a more recent thread–the “missakting” one?
I regard murder, rape, violence, and theft as evil, even though I don’t get these values from a book of myths.
I’m glad to hear that you don’t get your values from a “book of myths,” but if the implication is that I do, you’re wrong.
In any case, you opinions about whether homosexuals can love each other or can maintain worthwhile relationships are not persuasive to me no matter how strongly you hold them and no matter how strongly you maintain they have been held for thousands of years.
That’s fine–I wasn’t making a persuasive argument about how homosexuals experience relationships. If you follow my exchange with Jon Rowe, you’d see that the thread of my argument was about the inconsistency of “gay marriage” with the vision of the Founding Fathers. Whether or not you care about, or whether Americans should care about, the vision of the founders is an entirely separate issue. In regard to slavery, though, although it is inconsistent with the founders’ vision, it was an already existing institution, and since the founders were not true “revolutionaries,” but closer to reformers, the abolition of slavery was a gradual process. Yet, unlike “gay marriage,” which is contrary to their assumptions about the nature of reality, it was a consistent and inevitable result of their ideals and vision.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!