Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Miracle in corn country
The Iowa Supreme Court this morning ruled that a statute affirming only traditional marriage in the state is unconstitutional. The Associated Press reports:
“The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion,” said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.
Here’s a question: At its roots, what determines law in this country? Is it not precisely “strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion?”
Why is stealing wrong? Why is it wrong for an adult to have sex with a child? Because we as a society say they are wrong. And we elect, by popular vote consistent with our own deeply held traditions, lawmakers who legislate accordingly.
The Iowa court’s summary statement sets up the state constitution as some kind of objective moral interpreter that somehow burst into being independent of the collective mind of the people. As though it appeared, miraculously, without human authorship or any accompanying original intent.
The Iowa constitution is apparently a document so miraculous as to be able to mediate all societal disputes, when in fact constitutions, both state and federal, are meant to be precisely the opposite: Reserving to the people — those stubborn stewards of pesky traditions and opinions — all rights not explicitly assigned to the state.
back to top163 Comments to “Miracle in corn country”
On one hand, Lynn, what you really want to do is amend the state constitution since legally the constitution is the foundation of all other laws.
However, that such an issue would require an amendment shows that we have moved beyond the ability of a constitution to guide our law-making. No constitution can be so complete and so without loop holes as to completely embody morality. As John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
Report comment to moderator
Davenport and Council Bluffs will become the San Francisco mecca of the Midwest.
You just watch!
JP, Adams actually implied that it would FAIL when Americans ceased being moral/religious.
Report comment to moderator
Reserving to the people — Unless, until now, you were gay.
I am so thankful that we are not living in a place where your bible sets the laws. I think most Christians would agree with that too. After all, who wants to have to stone their own child? Thankfully, we’ve “evolved” past this deep seeded tradition.
Report comment to moderator
What this will require is a full-blown constitutional amendment in ea state, if not an actual constitutional amendment to the US constitution. An arrogant judiciary fully-divorced from reality is the best recruiter the state-level marriage groups could ever hope for.
In my heart of hearts I really want to believe that marriage is an issue left to and regulated by the states, as should be abortion. Let the people in the states work it out thru compromise in the political branches, don’t let 5/4 majorities decide something so fundamental
Report comment to moderator
I am so thankful that we are not living in a place where your bible sets the laws.
That’s just it, Scott. My Bible didn’t set the laws. The people of Iowa set their law. A handful of gay activists and judges overturned it. That’s not democracy.
Report comment to moderator
At its roots, what determines law in this country? Is it not precisely “strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion?”
Well, no. Because “strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion” have been, and can be, quite wrong.
In 1860, it was a strongly held and deep-seated belief across large parts of the country that slavery was just fine.
In 1959, prior to Loving v. Virginia, it was a strongly held belief in Virginia that miscegenation ought to be a crime, and the Lovings were accordingly charged as criminals.
By 1865, and 1967, those things had changed, and not through a well-spring of popular opinion mediated through legislative bodies.
What determines law are designedly complex and ambiguous constitutions, leaving room for interpretation, and a series of checks and balances between courts, executive branches, and legislatures.
So our laws build in a voice both for popular opinion, and checks against popular opinion morphing into “mob-ocracy”, where unpopular minorities (in this case, gays) can be legislated against.
Report comment to moderator
As a resident of Minnesota, I am sad to say that our wonderful “progressive” state is only a whisker away from being the second midwestern state to move in such a direction, contrary to the will of the people. The political elites can smell blood, and they are attacking the foundations of our society with a vengence.
1 Sam 2:25 “If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?”
Report comment to moderator
It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that’s about as democratic as it gets. By the way, the decision was unanimous. And, if you had it your way, YOUR BIBLE, would set the laws, that’s why I fight so hard for this type of stuff. The bible is so outdated and, oftentimes, immoral, I don’t want it considered in ANY part of my government. We don’t need it, not one iota.
Report comment to moderator
Well very conservative folks are fond of noting that we live in a republic not a democracy. That’s a half truth; a “representative democracy” IS a republic. But what that saying means is that there are certain “republican” checks on “majority rule.” And judicial review and the fact that individuals have rights that are antecedent to majority rule are some of those checks.
Re marriage, if judges (or government) don’t have the ability to redefine it then government shouldn’t be in the marriage business to begin with. That’s the libertarian solution to this controversy that I endorse.
Report comment to moderator
Scott, you’re saying that democracy is a group of judges overturning the voice of the residents of Iowa? You are reading a different dictionary that I am.
Report comment to moderator
So, how do we go about reforming the judiciary?
Report comment to moderator
So, PastorDavid, in your democracy, you can pass laws that are unconstitutional? If so, why have one at all?
Report comment to moderator
In some ways, the churches have built this mousetrap themselves.
By exporting the essentially religious idea of civil privileges being dependant on marital status, they helped create a situation which disenfranchised or disempowered any group with non-traditional ideas about who could marry.
Marriage has become both a religious and a civil concept; when the religious aspect of it predominates, the civil consequences can rise to an unconstitutional level.
Lynn: Actually, whoever drafted the the Iowa constitution determined the ultimate law in this case. They also, with the consent of the citizens at that time GAVE THE COURTS THE AUTHORITY to interpret that constitution.
I really don’t understand why some religious conservatives profess to have no trouble with the concept that a bible must be interpreted when it is invoked to evaluate conduct or an idea, but scream bloody murder whenever someone suggests that a constitution or even a statute must be interpreted. Every state has a constitution, a set of interpreters in black robes, and even a way to change the constitution or replace the interpreters. (or disempower them in some cases).
Report comment to moderator
The courts of America stopped interpreting the constitution long ago, they have been re-writing it for years.
Report comment to moderator
It’s probably time to mobilize the unholy alliance of Christians and Momans like they did in CA.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops Mormons!
Report comment to moderator
Lynn: That’s just it, Scott. My Bible didn’t set the laws. The people of Iowa set their law. A handful of gay activists and judges overturned it. That’s not democracy.
We don’t live under a pure democracy. We have a Constitutionally-established judicial branch of government whose purpose is to serve as a check on the will of the people. One of the founding principles is that minority groups have the same rights as majority groups, even if majority groups vote to deny them those rights. When that happens, it is the duty of the courts to step in and overturn such laws.
Lynn, it wasn’t so long ago when the majority of people in some states wanted blacks to be legally barred from white-only businesses. Thanks to ‘activist judges’ and a fairly courageous Democratic president, that system was overturned, but not without a lot of turmoil.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve debated legality versus morality on several threads on this site. The two are not necessarily synonymous.
Morality is not subject to popular opinion, fad or court rulings. It is grounded in the character of God.
Legalities reflect the will and value of citizens, sometimes small groups, but citizens nonetheless. If Christians are underrepresented, it’s nothing new.
I’m disappointed this country seems all too willing to capitulate to those who wish to legislate “evil as good” (Isa.5:20) on a number of things but the church wasn’t called to make converts to a political view or lord authority over others.
Trying to establish moralism through law isn’t the Great Commission.(How can anyone be moral apart from the Gospel?) Repentance is a call to individuals regardless of government.
We shouldn’t be surprised by such rulings in a country where people have said there is no God and have become fools (Rom.1).
We should be saddened by it, surely, but our hope doesn’t lie with the judgments of men.
Report comment to moderator
Why is Gay marriage so important?
Why don’t those same people just get the laws changed like other laws are changed?
What is it that pro-gay marriage want that is not just marriage?
We have had all these same arguments about gay marriage. There has to be something else that the pro-gay marriagers want. I feel like this is what the fight is really about. Let us get beyond the gay marriage thing to what is really wanted.
Report comment to moderator
I live in Iowa. I heard on the radio on the way to work this morning that a third of Iowans want traditional marriage, a third wants to allow marriage between homosexuals, and another third wants civil unions.
Contrary to DEET we should try to legislate morality. The government’s role is to maintain justice in the public square. Most people would probably limit their role to the second table of the Law.
Report comment to moderator
#2: Davenport and Council Bluffs will become the San Francisco mecca of the Midwest. You just watch!
Sawgunner, you must not know Iowa if you leave Iowa City off the list. It is by far the most liberal city in the state. Ironically, it is only 30 miles or so from Cedar Rapids, the most conservative city in the state (probably in the Midwest).
Report comment to moderator
“The bible is so outdated and, oftentimes, immoral, I don’t want it considered in ANY part of my government. We don’t need it, not one iota.”
I thought gays were all for loving your neighbor as yourself…
Report comment to moderator
Lynn is rightin No. 5. This is why we have legislatures! It is NOT the duty of the judiciary, state or federal, to literally rewrite a constitution.
(On a more positive note, our former USAtty Chris Christie, who will be running for governor this fall in NJ, has stated that he is in favor of amending our state constitution — through the proper process which involves all the people, not just a unelected few — to include initiative and referendum, because we have no way of recalling or changing anything in this state when the people are bent out of shape. He gets my vote.)
Report comment to moderator
It is a false notion that the Iowa Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter of the state constitution. They, like most of the judiciary in this land, have long ago abandoned that legitimate duty. They have perverted their office. They see themselves as agents of social change with a duty use their power to force their ideas upon the people who disagree with them. In brief, that is what has happened here in Iowa and all across the land in countless similar cases. Constitutions and laws are being rewritten by a small oligarchy of tyrants who regularly disregard the will of the people.
All of the talk on this thread about the rights of the minority, democracy, constitutional principles, justice, etc. by the supporters of these tyrants is nothing but tripe—nice sounding camouflage covering nothing but the blatant exercise of tyrannical judicial power. The will of the people and the good of the country be damned, but that’s OK with them and their supporters on this thread as long as they continue to get their way.
Report comment to moderator
“There has to be something else that the pro-gay marriagers want.”
They think by saying they are “married” that they are like a husband and a wife. They aren’t. They want you to say they are normal and force you to accept that their way of life is normal and “moral.” It’s not. They can’t accept that they are different. And they can’t accept that the freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate. They can get a lot of legislation passed, they can join a lot of clubs, but they will never be able to force people to spend time with them.
Report comment to moderator
“After all, who wants to have to stone their own child?”
Stoning wasnt a law…it was a punishment for breaking certain laws…
It has nothing to do with the actual law itself, so your notion of going back to said biblical “laws” doesnt jive. Now if youd like to suggest that “Do not Murder” is an outdated law, then by all means please suggest so, but something tells me youd agree that the Bible is still quite current in this regard.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: I was trying to say exactly what you clarified. Since we are no longer a moral/religious people, the Constitution cannot work. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear.
Report comment to moderator
The question is what stands as the basis of our law. As I understand it, the Founders would have said “the Natural Law,” by which they meant the morality common to all major religions which they believed just as much a part of the natural workings of the universe as gravity.
But this is a belief we no longer hold. And there are deep problems with any other scheme we’ve come up with.
This thread isn’t really about the “theocracy” scheme, which Lynn avoids anyway, so I’ll ignore it. I would hope that its problems are self-evident.
Even the “will of the people” scheme is flawed. Lynn talks about activists overturning the will of the people. Is she willing to say that the courts and federal government should not have intervened in the civil rights movement? That until 51% of white southerners were convinced of the equal status of blacks, they had a right, as the majority, to keep them at the back of the bus? Is she willing to say that until the pro-life movement can convince 51% of Americans that abortion is murder, women have a legitimate right to secure one? Is she willing to say that when 75% of Americans wanted withdrawal from Iraq in 2006, then the government was obligated to obey the will of the people?
I doubt she would say any of that. So clearly the “you can’t overturn the will of the people” argument has its limits.
Report comment to moderator
Bob #19-
What is ultimately wanted is approval. This is not a civil rights issue as with race and slavery. This is about a small group of people, who want the rest of the nation to approve of a choice they are making, a lifestyle they want to pursue. I get so tired of hearing all the references to striking down laws supporting segregation or slavery as a support for the gay agenda. Color of skin can’t be helped, and laws belittling born traits or handicaps should be addressed critically. But we are talking about choices people are making which not only go against religious, moral and social norms, but also carry destructive consequences in many personal, relational, social, economic, and phisiological arenas.
It is interesting how many laws being passed today, under the guise of toleration and freedom, are simply giving approval (and even preferential) status to choices and practices that have always been understood to be harmful and destructive both personally and socially.
Report comment to moderator
#9, “If judges (or government) don’t have the ability to redefine it then government shouldn’t be in the marriage business to begin with.”
If the government gets totally out of the so-called ‘marriage business,’ then hey, ANYTHING goes, right? We can all find a clergyperson or pay a pedestrian to define marriage any way we want and the gov’t has no say otherwise. No limit! So, forty people can proclaim theselves married. Anyone could marry their pet(s), and some will if allowed.
Andy Warhol literally defined art as “anything you can get away with.” Clearly, Jon Rowe thinks libertarians want to define marriage the same exact way.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that the definition of “marriage” has already been changed in our country. It didn’t take a legal decision, just the constant use of a redefinition by those desiring a new definition and a media sympathetic to the change. Much like the word “gay” which simply changed its meaning by popular usage.
The cultural and legal definition of marriage may change, but the Biblical definitions never will. (It will be interesting to see gays arguing their case before God.)
The word “marriage” may be usurped but the character and blessing before God of a man and a woman forsaking all others to cleave to one another in obedience and dependence upon God will never change.
When the state considers “marriage” to be other than it has traditionally been I expect that churches should and will refuse to participate in the civil ceremony and give sanction and blessing only to Biblical marriage.
Report comment to moderator
“Why is stealing wrong?”
It may be wrong for you, but not for me… at least not on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
“Why is it wrong for an adult to have sex with a child?”
Define “sex.” Define “child” Redefine “sex.” Redefine “child” What do you mean by the word “have?” Get the government out of all such moralizing!
Note: Sarcasim above!
Report comment to moderator
Well, I won’t do the I believe that murder and rape and torture is evil but I don’t believe homosexuality is evil bit. I don’t want to get I could be persuaded that homosexuals should be put to death screen name “Yeah” getting his knickers too much into a bunch.
I do think that “homosexual marriage” is a “civil right.” However, I do think that “civil unions” which allow homosexual couples the same legal rights as “married people” should be a civil right.
I also think that “marriage” should be a religious institution and each church should be allowed to “marry” or “not marry” whomever it pleases.
“Civil union” should be a legal institution, governed by our secular civil institutions.
If people posting here think that America is a “Christian nation” than they should have put their theocratic principles into our Constitution. The horse left the barn a long time ago.
We eventually abolished slavery and we put Indians on reservations where they are relatively safe (if often relatively poor). Win some lose some.
You (conservative Christians) are going to lose on homosexual marriage. Deal with it. Or go back to where you came from.
Report comment to moderator
Once upon a blog, I claimed that a point my opponent was arguing was a “mute point.” I soon learned that an irrelevant or inconsequential point is actually a “moot point.” My mistake.
The word enormity is also often misused. Enormity actually refers to an atrocity. It refers to the quality of passing all moral bounds into excessive wickedness. An enormity is a horrible offense or evil. It does not (at least not originally) refer to size. A correct usage goes like this: “The rampant dishonesty of some candidates is an enormity beyond belief.”
Enormity happens to sound like the word “enormous.” Thus, we hear politicians who think it means something “big,” use such incorrect phrases as “…the enormity of this crisis!”
Today, a court of law in Iowa ruled that it is unconstitutional to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman, regardless of the will of the people. This is governmental over-reach at its worst! Iowans cannot define marriage any longer. Elite judges won’t allow it.
Six of the seven justices in Iowa were appointed by Democrats. Shame on them. Shame on the one appointed by a Republican too!
The ‘enormity’ of this moral crisis is indeed enormous. We are crossing moral bounds into excessive moral chaos. The incredible arrogance of some judges is an enormity beyond belief.
Enormity is a problem in America, regardless of what words we use.
There is nothing moot about my point here. So whatever you do, don’t go mute now.
Report comment to moderator
Fisherman writes: “(It will be interesting to see gays arguing their case before God.)”
As I understand it, there will be no argument phase. It always amuses me when people think that God operates like an American court.
People will always look at “gay” marriage as a perversion of marriage. Deal with that.
Report comment to moderator
Enormous progress. Good for Iowa.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer #35
re: gays arguing their case before God.
I wasn’t seeking to accurately describe the day of judgment, but simply note the extreme foolishness of thinking we can disregard God and think we have a reasonable defense for doing so.
God’s righteous judgment stands even when an innocent Man is condemned to die while standing in for of all of sinful mankind. I don’t think He will change His definition of marriage no matter how many supreme courts oppose Him or how many marchers chant against Him.
The most amazing thing is that He paid their penalty too, if they will only accept it.
Report comment to moderator
Well, if the country really is becoming so immoral and intolerant of traditional moral and religious ideas as many of you seem to think, has it not occurred to you that a time will come when the “will of the people” is to close the churches and force Christians into secrecy?
When such a day comes, you may regret having disparaged the importance of the judicial branch of government in overturning laws that unconstitutionally discriminate against minority groups.
(Personally, I don’t think such a time is anywhere close … but if it were to come to that, I will bet that all of you would suddenly decide that ‘activist judges’ willing to rule against the majority are a good thing.)
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark’s comments on pedophilia are especially ironic in that modern society, with the full support of religious conservatives, has “redefined” the definition of “child.” The Bible — or at least, the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, defines adulthood for females at 12 and males at 13 (i.e., the Jewish Bar and Batmitzfas). But modern society now legally defines the “child-adult” standard at least for sex and marriage purposes as something closer to 18. AND I might add, the states vary re where they set the law as the standard for statutory rape varies from state to state.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN They, like most of the judiciary in this land, have long ago abandoned that legitimate duty.
JOEL MARK This is governmental over-reach at its worst! Iowans cannot define marriage any longer. Elite judges won’t allow it.
Is it not possible for a person to swear to his own hurt? Or for a constitutional convention not to foresee the implications of its declarations? I haven’t read the Iowa constitution or the court’s opinion, and it doesn’t sound as though either of you have either. But, if the words of the Iowa constitution don’t say what you would like them to say, that should be news you want to hear, however upsetting.
Report comment to moderator
If the government gets totally out of the so-called ‘marriage business,’ then hey, ANYTHING goes, right? We can all find a clergyperson or pay a pedestrian to define marriage any way we want and the gov’t has no say otherwise. No limit! So, forty people can proclaim theselves married. Anyone could marry their pet(s), and some will if allowed.
Honestly if someone wanted to go to a Church and find a minister to marry them and their pet, what’s it to you? The significance is that marriage has contractual like elements to it. “Marriage” would be replaced with a “civil union” like contractual deal that any two people could enter OR if more than two, they’d have to divide up the govt benefits that accrue to two people, and private entites like Churches, be it Joel Mark’s Church or Unitarian-Universalists, would get the final private say over who is married.
Andy Warhol literally defined art as “anything you can get away with.” Clearly, Jon Rowe thinks libertarians want to define marriage the same exact way.
And the fact that YOU want to stop some people from “getting away with” calling or believing themselves married shows you for the tyrant that you are.
Report comment to moderator
RPN: Enormous progress. Good for Iowa.
Iowa wasn’t first, but it was unanimous. Go cornhuskers!
Report comment to moderator
It’s amazing for a supposed pluralist democracy, the trouble we have had with this bothersome concept: equal protection under the law.
No we get to wait and see what happens next.
Report comment to moderator
If you want to make gay marriage unconstitutional, please be straight enough to say you don’t really believe in, or want, equal protection of laws.
Report comment to moderator
As a gay man in San Francisco, I can tell you that several guys at my gym are already talking about moving to Iowa and taking advantage of today’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling. Lots of gay men like fresh-faced farm boys, and see an opportunity to start a new gay community apart from SF and NY. All we’ll ask is to live in peace.
Report comment to moderator
#20 NOPM
I didn’t say we shouldn’t legislate. The concept of law originated with God (Adam and Eve were under law). But too many Christians see to think laws settle the matter, as if in establishing the extent of morals legally, we actually make people and/or society moral.
After all, Jesus didn’t tell the disciples to reform Rome which by the way, was more corrupt politically and morally than America. We yet have room to “progress” in that regard.
The church has tried to bring about morality apart from the Gospel and that isn’t going to work.
And by the way, the church helped redefine marriage a long time ago when it began to not only tolerate divorce but accept it.
Report comment to moderator
“Why is stealing wrong? Why is it wrong for an adult to have sex with a child? Because we as a society say they are wrong.”
Ah, Lynn loves the ethics of mob rule, so long as it is a fundamentalist and homophobic mob that rules.
It is wrong for an adult to have sex with a child simply because we say so?
Wow that’s weak!
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy,
There is no right to gay marriage in any constitution. Only insane whack job socialist jurists can find it. We can weed this flaw out through genetic engineeing one day just like the evolutionary mutant disease of being gay
Report comment to moderator
And by the way, the church helped redefine marriage a long time ago when it began to not only tolerate divorce but accept it.
Divorce has been around almost as long as marriage. “Homosexual marriage” is a whole new concept. Those who practice homosexuality already have the same rights to get married that everyone else has. They are and have only been bound by the same constraints that everyone else is bound by. There have been no ’special’ constraints just for them. There is no singling out of homosexuals for discrimination.
But now the courts are forcing the very assumptions of what marriage as an institution means to change. And it’s a public change, not a private one. It is a major public change, and the real negative effects of it will not be fully known for some time.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, only the first paragraph should have been italicized.
Report comment to moderator
“I can tell you that several guys at my gym are already talking about moving to Iowa and taking advantage of today’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling.”
I can’t imagine very many of them following through with it. I suggest you visit Iowa first! I think most of the men you are talking about have not.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn Vincent The Iowa constitution is apparently a document so miraculous . . .
Lynn is onto something here. In all the corn, a marvel.
The Iowa Supreme Court enforces its state Constitution — and always has! In 1839, the court struck down slavery. In 1868 and 1873 the court struck down segregation. In 1869 the court upheld women’s rights by allowing a woman to practice law, for the first time in America, if not for the first time since Shakespeare allowed a female (disguised as a man) to render a brilliant legal opinion in Act IV of The Merchant of Venice.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #44,
This isn’t about equal protection laws or some rationalized “justice”. This is about social engineering and the post-modern panacea of relative truth. Societies have always evaluated lifestyle choices as good or bad, normal or abnormal, healthy or unhealthy, socially uplifting or destructive. And the foundation for these evaluations has by-and-large been founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Laws which oppose certain behaviors have usually been based on good historical evidence as well as moral convictions. Stealing has been deemed wrong both by moral principle and social consideration. To allow stealing is both morally wrong and socially destructive. So also with drunkenness, rape, murder, etc. This has also been the case with homosexuality until recent decades. And in the wake of post-modern relative truth claims, has come the acceptance of the gay agenda, open sexuality, liberatalized drug standards, assisted suicide/euthanasia, etc.
Most Americans don’t call this movement progress, liberation, or advancement. The terms that come to mind are more in line with destruction, bondage, and regression.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
. . . several guys at my gym are already talking about moving to Iowa and taking advantage of today’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling. Lots of gay men like fresh-faced farm boys . . .
Iowa Supremes Out Virtue: Tired of Tricks, Gays To Wed Virgins
Report comment to moderator
Hi all,
I would like to share with you,
“Evaporated. That is a word we can use to describe what happened to the truth that we live in a moral universe, preserved by the self-revealing holy God. As David Wells pointed out in his book “Losing our Virtue”. the postmodern mind has substituted values for virtues; personality for character; shame for guilt; the self for human being nature in God’s image… and the exchanged has been devastating for our culture. Consider the last of these substitutions. As Wells pointed out, the self is unique to each individual such that no two individuals have a common reality-
except for that narcissistic and nihilistic swamp in which they paddle around in a vain hope of landing on common moral ground.
We can put out a buoy about the image of God to help us navigate the postmodern mind swamp in the safe channel of historic Christian teaching.”
I read this above from Tabletalk July 2005 “Imago Dei”
A Man Whom Christ Died,
Brance
Report comment to moderator
DJ: They are and have only been bound by the same constraints that everyone else is bound by. There have been no ’special’ constraints just for them. There is no singling out of homosexuals for discrimination.
Will all due respect, that’s bull puckey. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they are most strong attracted to, in love with, inspired by, supportive of, etc. Homosexuals have the right to marry someone they can be good friends with in a completely non-romantic, non-sexual relationship … because as it stands in most places, the marriage partner must be opposite-sex and the homosexual, by definition, finds no romantic or sexual appeal there.
That kind of facile argument seems clever, but we all know it’s just rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR DAVID To allow stealing is both morally wrong and socially destructive. So also with drunkenness, rape, murder, etc. This has also been the case with homosexuality until recent decades.
Are you saying that you want America to revert to prosecuting homosexual sex as a crime?
Even though the courts have taken away your key to the jailhouse, you still have the right to preach that homosexuality is a sin.
Part of what this case is about, is constitutional law. Have you read the Iowa decision?
It’s 69 pages long, by the way. I know that will seem like 666 to you, but it resolves the issues you raise.
Report comment to moderator
PastorDavid: The courts of America stopped interpreting the constitution long ago, they have been re-writing it for years.
The ministers of the world (including America) stopped interpreting “The Bible” centuries ago; and once they have stretched it as far as they can, a couple of them get together and write a whole new one.
Same process, only a democracy provides remedies and the churches are so proud and stubborn that they can’t. So they have to write a whole new text.
Report comment to moderator
Only 33 months until the Iowa caucus! Woohoo!
Report comment to moderator
42 Scroop Moth– On a lighter note, and maybe I’m missing something, but Nebraska is the Cornhusker state. We don’t like no Cornhuskers here.
Report comment to moderator
“I am so thankful that we are not living in a place where your bible sets the laws. I think most Christians would agree with that too. After all, who wants to have to stone their own child?’
As most of us would agree, this comment demonstrates rather nicely, that merely reading or quoting the bible doesn’t actually require thinking about it, much less understanding it.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #58-
Even though the courts have taken away your key to the jailhouse, you still have the right to preach that homosexuality is a sin.
A temporary oversight I am sure. It is illegal in Canada to preach “hate speech” (translate biblical morality). The same applies to many western european “progressive” countries. So the fact that we still have this liberty in America is a nagging burr under the saddle of those trampling the Judeo-Christian foundations of this land under their charging horses.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, that first paragraph should be in quotes, I can’t get the hang of this italics stuff outside of a word document.
Report comment to moderator
Pastordavid – 64
Here is the italics code message close in the spaces, after the i –
Report comment to moderator
MIM #62: Very true.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor David
Here is the link for this site, it will give you the code
http://www.worldmag.com/websitehelp.cfm
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #57
Feel free to dismiss my view as “bull puckey” if you like. But that won’t change the fact that it’s a valid point of view and I’m not the only one who holds it.
Report comment to moderator
So in the liberal view, the fact that two people love each other is reason enough for the government to recognize their “marriage”?
Do we recognize marriage because people love each other?
My opinion of the proposition, Two gay men should have their “marriage” legally recognized by the government, because they love each other, is that the definition of marriage (male joined to female) precludes it before you get to the word because.
Report comment to moderator
“I can’t imagine very many of them following through with it. I suggest you visit Iowa first! I think most of the men you are talking about have not.”
Agreed. Moving from SFO to Iowa would be a huge let down. Best to fly out for a weekend reality check before committing.
Report comment to moderator
“We don’t like no Cornhuskers here.”
You do now!
Report comment to moderator
Time for a vote of the peope rather than the Jack Boot of a court.
Report comment to moderator
“Lots of gay men like fresh-faced farm boys . . .”
Uh, the appropriate term is “corn fed.”
Report comment to moderator
“Miracle in corn country”
One of Lynn’s better titles – it is a miracle isn’t it!
Praise the Lawd!!!
Report comment to moderator
BB – “We have had all these same arguments about gay marriage. There has to be something else that the pro-gay marriagers want. I feel like this is what the fight is really about. Let us get beyond the gay marriage thing to what is really wanted.”
As one who lived w/a same-sex partner for 23 years, I would just like to have my relationship recognized *exactly* the way my prior heterosexual marriage of 12 years was. Sorry but I can’t seem to think of anything else I want out of this …
There are, of course, lots of other things I’d love to see personally – as is true for everyone I’m sure. I’d like to see Texas fire the creationist half of its board of education. Ah – that MUST be it!! You’re right BB – I DO want something else.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – “It is NOT the duty of the judiciary, state or federal, to literally rewrite a constitution.”
I didn’t see any redaction or insertion going on – I did see ‘interpretation’ – which is their job.
Report comment to moderator
From the Des Moines Register:
The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision striking down a state law limiting marriage to only a man and a woman is fully in the spirit of the Iowa court’s proud tradition of recognizing inherent rights of all citizens.
The very first reported decision in the territorial era protected the liberty of a former slave, and the court has built upon that foundation over the past 170 years. Today, the court added another historic decision to the body of Iowa constitutional law.
The unanimous decision clearing the way for same-sex marriage is both courageous and reassuring. The justices of the Iowa Supreme Court obviously care deeply about protecting the ideals articulated in the Iowa Constitution, a principled application of the law and the reputation of the court. Today’s decision achieves all of those goals.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #67
Thanks for the helpful link. That was so simple.
Report comment to moderator
And Steve thinks when the day comes that the “will of the people” is to close the churches and force Christians into secrecy” that the judiciary will be the ones to save freedom of religion? Considering they are the ones who feel free to redefine marriage, what makes you think they’ll save the church? The judiciary will be leading the charge!
Report comment to moderator
No, NJLawyer, what the judiciary does — and is doing in this case whether you see it as such or not — is protect the rights of groups without large numbers against “the tyranny of the majority.”
Majority rule works when choosing between options that don’t violate Constitutional principles. Should a town levy a special property tax to raise money to build a community center? Hold a referendum to vote on it. Should a town pass a law forbidding the construction of a synagogue inside the town limits? Doesn’t matter if 95 percent of the citizens say yes they should, it’s not Constitutional.
Whether or not the right of homosexuals to form legally-recognized partnerships is Constitutionally guaranteed is debatable; but to assume that the ruling is part of a secret agenda to undermine traditional morality is not supported by evidence or reason.
If there were some town that passed a law banning Christian worship, even the most liberal Supreme Court would overturn it in a heartbeat because it’s so obviously unconstitutional.
Report comment to moderator
Feel free to dismiss my view as “bull puckey” if you like. But that won’t change the fact that it’s a valid point of view and I’m not the only one who holds it.
Well that is really the heart of the matter isn’t it. “We don’t agree and you can’t change my mind.” Sometimes were aren’t in control of what happens and we don’t have the power to affect change. Conservatives are in that position now. Whether they like it or not, same-sex-marriages are legal in Iowa, and they won’t have the option of being illegal again until November 2012 at the earliest.
I wouldn’t take much comfort in that if I were one of you.
Report comment to moderator
“I wouldn’t take much comfort in that if I were one of you.”
I hope none of the Christians on this board do: Our comfort is from Christ, not the legal system.
Report comment to moderator
Seriously. If you don’t like “gay marriage” what is your objection to civil unions?
Report comment to moderator
Iowa Constitution
…in case anyone’s interested.
I’m guessing the court is using Articles 6 and 25 to justify its agenda. Of course, in order to do that they had to redefine marriage (as I explained in #69) before those articles could possibly apply.
Then they also would have had to engage in a little class warfare pitting homosexuals against heterosexuals, making them out to be a distinct group that was being discriminated against.
In reality though, all of us have sins or temptations that we struggle with. We all have our issues, things that have arisen out of hurts from our childhood. No one is immune; everyone has faced hurts in his/her past that result in some sort of struggle that we have, or have had, as adults. We didn’t choose to have these struggles, and it might feel like these struggles are ingrained in us; but we need to resist them, not in our own might but only with the power of Christ, so that we can have victory. Some of us may have more extreme struggles than others, but the rest of us need to have compassion for them to help them to victory. Denial of our struggles isn’t the answer, nor is giving in to them; these things need to be exposed to the light of Christ. These things may include the habit of using everyone around you for selfish purposes; resentment of authority; addiction to drugs or alcohol; addiction to sex; homosexual attraction; an inferiority complex; fears, such as fear of tight spaces or of the dark; or an inability to trust anyone, including God. We can overcome these things; God has promised that there will be no temptation that we are not able to bear.
The thing is, though, most of us don’t go around trying to get the government to legitimize our struggles.
Holier-than-thou bigot Fred Phelps, in his judgementalism, fails to recognize that we all are fallen humans who need God’s love. On the opposite end of the scale, the Iowa Supreme Court made the same mistake.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR DAVID: . . . a nagging burr under the saddle of those trampling the Judeo-Christian foundations of this land under their charging horses.
If you can fit that onto your church sign, you”ll pack the church house and fill the collection plates.
The prick in the but and the power between the legs. Too long?
You could sure grab an audience below the belt, so to speak.
Don’t worry about me trying to shut you up, though. The Supreme Court, either. Nazis parade every year in Jewish neighborhoods, and if worse ever came to worse, you could always preach the gospel in their midst and nobody would bother you.
Report comment to moderator
So, what is next on the agenda?
Report comment to moderator
So, what is next on the agenda?
Break for lunch (90 minutes)
Report comment to moderator
Sounds good, Steve! I’m going to call it dinner though.
Man, what a great day for human rights in the United States!
Report comment to moderator
Break for lunch???
Where are you? (if I may ask)
I’m in Ohio and it’s time for bed. (but I have a bad habit of staying up late).
Report comment to moderator
Ha! No, it’s nearly 11 p.m. where I am. I was just trying to think of a phrase that might appear on an agenda of any organization that meets in the daylight.
Report comment to moderator
As always, I read the entire opinion. It’s one of the best I’ve read on marriage equality. It’s well written, common sense, and easy to understand. And it presents a straightforward basis for it’s ruling based on the Equal Protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The fact that the ruling was unanimous is quite a feat.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, you know I love you, sister, but there is a fundamental flaw in your argument:
In one sense, law can only have two possible origins: God (theonomy) or man (autonomy).
But in another sense, since law ultimately indicates who we think has the final say about matters, all law is inherently theonomic. A nation’s laws are indicative of who is its god — whether Yahweh, the one true God of the Bible, or man (which is a heresy reflected just as well in a democracy as it is in a dictatorship).
All of which is just another way of saying, Lynn: Our nation and our states are overturning penalties for homosexual behavior and now giving moral sanction to homosexual unions not ultimately because the courts are usurping the will of the people, but ultimately because the people themselves, at all levels — whether the electorate or the legislatures, the courts or the executives — have begun to think themselves gods. They — the electorate, the legislatures, the courts and the executives — they get to say what’s right and what’s wrong, totally apart from what God hath said.
Report comment to moderator
And folks, be sure not to overlook what Spinoza said at (47):
Yes, Spinoza, that is weak. Still, I don’t expect you agree with me that pedophilia and many other things are wrong because God says so in His revealed Word. True, “we say” that adults having sex with children is wrong, but we don’t “simply” say so because that’s what we feel like saying today. We say so because we are made in God’s image, and our consciences and God-given sense show it to be true.
But when a society and its civil magistrate abandon God’s revelation as the basis of law, they make themselves out to be gods. At one time, “we” used to know that homosexual relationships were wrong — and criminal — because they defy God’s revelation and deny His created order.
Well Spinoza, what is your moral basis for denying adults and children having the right to engage in sexual behavior? Note well: A basis in anything less than the revealed will of God is a foundation of shifting sand — what you assert is wrong today will, when founded upon man’s reason alone, be toppled by different reasoning tomorrow.
Yesterday it was homosexuality. Tomorrow it will be polygamy, incest or pedophilia.
Count on it.
Report comment to moderator
Well said Frank.
We have mistaken the symptom for the disease, thinking that if only America became more moral and more religious we would gain our nation divine favor.
But even restoring Christian symbols to public places would only be cosmetic, as John MacArthur says, “like makeup on a harlot.”
Legislation to promote moral reform is too superficial to be a real solution. Moralism is religion reduced to moral practice. The Pharisees’ rigid adherence to Moses’ laws set a standard never even attempted by most people and Jesus had words of condemnation for them. Nor did their influence avert the devastating judgment of God in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem fell to the Romans.
The Church’s main strategy for influencing our nation cannot be the democratic process to mitigate public indecency or oppose immoral policies.
It is the Gospel, for this is a battle of truth against lies. The proclamation of God’s word is our best weapon. Moral reform and legislative efforts that leave people in unbelief are worthless for any eternal good.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: Yesterday it was homosexuality. Tomorrow it will be polygamy, incest or pedophilia.
You’ll have a hard time building a Biblical case against polygamy, because unlike homosexuality, God not only permitted it, in at least one case he took credit for facilitating it.
Pedophilia involves an unconsenting victim and I don’t see any signs that our society is anywhere close to approving that.
Incest (involving only consenting adults) may be a tougher one to argue against on purely secular grounds, so if any of your three will be next, it’s that. But I don’t see any significant incestors-right movement gathering steam.
I still maintain that the scriptural argument against homosexuality qua homosexuality is weak. The only specific command against it comes in Leviticus, which also includes many other commands that Christians consider no longer applicable. Most of the other references to it come in the context of promiscuity or rape (Sodom, for example), and don’t seem to pertain to homosexuals in committed, consensual, monogamous relationships. Paul’s description of same-sex attraction as the consequence of denying God (Romans 1) may or may not be a general statement; he might have had non-Christian Romans specifically in mind and didn’t intend his words to apply any more broadly than that. Certainly there are committed Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction, so it’s hard to conclude that they are being punished for rejecting God.
Report comment to moderator
#39, Jon Rowe wrote; “Joel Mark’s comments on pedophilia are especially ironic…”
If you read my comments at #32 honestly and in context, you will know that I identified the sarcasm in them and intended to illustrate the folly of a relativist impluse to redefine any moral issue according to personal or current preferences.
Also, Jon Rowe dishonestly misrepresents “religious conservatives,” the Bible and the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition and makes a false implication that his misrepresentation applies to any pedophilia discussion.
The age when Jews have Bar and Batmitzfas has nothing to do with any definition of “child” that would protect them from molestation or sexual attacks from perverts.
Report comment to moderator
There is no marriage equality in iowa. To suggest that this ruling brings marriage equality to the table is dishonest. There are many consenting adults who love each other who still cannot git married. If a man wants to marry 2, 3, 4 or more consenting adult women who love him and want to bear his children, this is still against the law in Iowa as I understand it. When will they be given marriage equality? If consenting adult roommates (say, 2 women and 3 men) want to be married, they still cannot. Where is marriage equality for them? If for financial, personal or other reasons, two (or maybe more) adult sisters want to marry, they cannot (to my knowledge).
Why does this court allow such “bigotry” in Iowa and deny marriage equality to so many consenting adults?
Report comment to moderator
#41, Jon Rowe wrote; “Honestly if someone wanted to go to a Church and find a minister to marry them and their pet, what’s it to you?”
You just don’t get it, Jon Rowe. It’s not really about me and me alone. Have you ever even heard of the word “civilization?” It involves thinking BEYOND YOURSELF! Do you not even grasp the concept of love and compassion for your fellow man writ large? At long last, have you no decency, Jon Rowe?
Report comment to moderator
STEVE
The Bible speaks about homosexuality in more places than Leviticus.
Romans 1
Galatians 5:19
I Corinithians 6:9
I Timothy 1:10
Jude 7
The passage in Galatians uses the word immorality, the Greek word PORNEIA from which the English word pornography comes from. It refers to illicit sexual activity including but not limited to adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and prostitution.
None of the Biblical passages speak of homosexual desires. It is not homosexual temptation that is wrong but the actual acts themselves. This reminds us that Scripture honors people successfully struggling with temptation (of all sorts) rather than condemning them for their temptations. The man who has never been tempted to commit adultery is not more virtuous than the man who has successfully resisted repeated temptation.
No place in Scripture does it speak positively of homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
No place in Scripture does it speak positively of homosexuality.
That’s true, but also no place in Scripture addresses the possibility of committed monogamous same-sex relationships. The very idea was alien to the cultures from which the Bible came. What if the prohibition is against promiscuous or adulterous homosexual acts (something very common in Rome and Greece) and not necessarily all homosexual relationships?
Report comment to moderator
If homosexual activity is regarded as sin biblically ( and it clearly IS), then dressing it up with a ‘civil union or a judicially enforced marriage certificate doesn’t negate the underlying immorality. You would have to show that the bible isn’t referring to homosexuality as an act, but only promiscuity. I don’t think you can show that. There is no reason to think the bible is talking about promiscuity and not homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You are being either disingenuous or are ignorant about Judeo-Christian history and the proper age for adulthood and consequently marriage (and consquently sex), and other adult responsibilities. It was 12 for girls and 13 for boys. THAT’S EXACTLY what the Jewish Bar and Batmit. mean.
Report comment to moderator
You just don’t get it, Jon Rowe. It’s not really about me and me alone. Have you ever even heard of the word “civilization?” It involves thinking BEYOND YOURSELF! Do you not even grasp the concept of love and compassion for your fellow man writ large? At long last, have you no decency, Jon Rowe?
You are the one who doesn’t “get it” Joel. Bestialy is already legal in many states and people are already free to find whatever church they can and minister they can to “marry” them and their pets. The problem is these people don’t exist other than in minimal numbers and never will. Therefore they aren’t a threat to civilization. And I might add you were the one who brought this extremely STUPID example which is utterly IRRELEVANT to gay marriage. One big difference between bestiality and homosxuality is that you can’t contract with an animal and never will be able to. Marriage has quasi contractual elements to it. In other words, as someone once put it, “marry your toaster oven if you’d like, but just don’t try to file a joint tax return with it.”
Report comment to moderator
The answer to Joel Mark’s argument about plygamy and “marriage equality” is that the legal institution of marriage fits two people at one time, not more. Removing the numerical limit has a different effect on the institution than ending gender restrictions. The relations between two people in a contract are complex whatever their sex; the relations between more than two are exponentially more complicated. Does polygamy mean joint and several responsibility for obligations? The same sexual access for each member? Does termination of a connection between two members of the polygamous marriage end the other relationships, too? If one spouse fails to pay child support, can all the others go to jail? Family courts would never be able to resolve these questions. People entering polygamous relationships couldn’t predict the consequences. Because everyone’s responsibility is no one’s responsibility, polygamy dilutes the benefits of marriage. Rightly or wrongly, societies have determined that polygamy isn’t worth the trouble.
As far as our rights are concerned, we are equal persons under law, not males and females. In recognizing and granting benefits to a union of two people, the government simply has no reasonable basis for limiting that union according to gender.
Gay marriage has the advantage of offsetting some of the harm of patriarchy (while polygamy only aggravates it).
Report comment to moderator
Conservative Christians are losing this fight because their premise is based on segregating out gay people and declaring them legal and social outcasts.
Too many Americans have either gay family members, co-workers, neighbors, fellow church members, or friends. And they are increasingly unwilling to see them discriminated against either legally or socially. Today’s young people are growing up with gay people just being a fact of life and of no special import. They can see no logical reason to treat them any differently than any other person.
Conservative Christians are desperate to continue the demonization of gays and see them treated as pariahs under the law and socially. They’re getting more extreme every day. It’s so retrograde. History will not be kind to them. Oh, there will always be those who will be anti-gay just as there will always be people who are racist. But they will be in the minority.
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with the poster that quoted John MacArthur. I don’t personally agree with his theology but I DO agree with his analysis on the Founding & religion and how political liberty is NOT a biblical concept. But, I would argue, to such a Christian who is concerned with Christ and NOT the the things of this world, the most important thing, politically, it seems to me is that government doesn’t stand in your way of advancing the Kingdom of Christ one soul at a time. In other words who cares if gays can get married or even people “marrying” their pets as LONG as you are utterly free to preach against behaviors that you regard as sin and continue in your conversion efforts.
To the extent that your freedoms come under attack by being “forced” to do something you don’t want with re to homosexuality or whatever, then you have a concern. But people being free to do what you regard as “sin” shouldn’t be a concern. It’s a fallen world; that’s just part of reality. Convert them, get them into the body of Christ. And at that point the Church can exercise discipline over the person (and they probably do a much better job than government). I listened to one of MacArthur’s sermons where he talked about exactly this. He noted a very convincing (probably Asian) transsexual joined his congregation (convincing because you couldn’t tell). He told the person that they had to stop living as a woman. Ultimately he had to kick the person out of his church.
But ultimately THAT’S the best way morality is best “legislated.” Not by the government, but by conversion efforts and church disclipline.
So, ironically even though political liberty is NOT a biblical concept (as MacArthur argues) it still makes sense for such Christians to be political libertarians.
Report comment to moderator
Tominsanfrancisco (#45) writes:
“Lots of gay men like fresh-faced farm boys, and see an opportunity to start a new gay community apart from SF and NY.”
Tom may have inadvertently said more than he intended here, but his attitude clearly shows the predatory tendency of many homosexual men. The Boy Scouts long ago recognized this and closed their doors to homosexuals as a class because of the high proportion of predators in their midst. Allowing a homosexual unsupervised access to young boys is like allowing them to play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. Those who see no danger to our society in this, are being willfully blind to reality.
Report comment to moderator
Tom may have inadvertently said more than he intended here, but his attitude clearly shows the predatory tendency of many homosexual men.
This is correct only insofar as heterosexuals EQUALLY have a “sexual predatory” instinct. Men in general have a sexual predatory instinct that needs to be tamed. To single out homosexuals while ignoring the EQUAL issue of heterosexuals is smear.
And men (both heterosexual AND homosexual) tend to be predatory only towards that to which they are attracted. Though nature doesn’t draw the line at 18. Adults in general do tend to be attracted to post-pubescent teens, NOT pre-pubescent children.
Though civilized gentlemen (and the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are civilized gentlemen) know to play within the rules and not have sex with folks until they are age appropriate.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#108):
The sinful, predatory nature of men in general is acknowledged. That is bad enough, but to add another layer of predation and perversion—homosexuality— on top of that makes it far worse. That is the issue here, not the general nature of all men. Of course it would be far better if the whole problem of man’s sinful nature were solved; homosexuality would then no longer exist.
If you had a young son in the Boy Scouts, would you be comfortable sending him on an overnight camping trip with Tominsanfransico? Or would you be more comfortable with a normal, straight Scoutmaster?
Report comment to moderator
Michael’s slur is the same slur that people used against black men back in the day. They said “you can’t trust black men around white women because they can’t control their sexual appetites”. It was despicable then and it’s despicable now.
Report comment to moderator
MM,
Honestly I’d far FAR more comfortable sending my son with an openly gay Boy Scout Master than one who pretends to be straight. The difference is the Scouts current policy permits the latter not the former.
Report comment to moderator
From what I know of the Scouts, they already exclude people like TOMINSANFRANCISCO yet still have problems.
Personally, I’d rather put a child in the company of an out gay than a model of machohood. A normal, straight man obviously is preferable to a predatory homosexual, but not all straight men are “normal,” and a normal homosexual would make a better Scout leader than a predatory heterosexual.
As Jon points out, many men are predators. Since homosexuals are men, many are also predators. Fewer women are predators. Therefore, predation seems to have more to do with male gender than with sexual orientation. We know who your culprit is, Michael: patriarchy.
Report comment to moderator
STEVE,
God stated a strong case for monogamous relationships as being the norm with the creation of the first couple. The first departure from this standard came with Lamech in Gen. 4:19 when he took two wives.
And the exceptions to one wife for each man are not so numerous as first impressions may seem.
Apart from the kings of Judah and Israel(the consideration of using the foreign wife as a hostage to assure compliance with treaties was a common reason), there are hardly more than a dozen and a half examples of polygamous marriages in the entire Old Testament.
The model of the monogamous marriage was held forth throughout the Old Testament as the norm. Proverbs 5:15-23 taught the same truth by means of the allegory of drinking water from one’s own well.
Moreover, a whole book of the Old Testament was dedicated to celebrating the joys and desirability of reserving oneself for only one other person of the opposite sex, The book Song of Songs or the Song of Solomon.
ANLIR,
Political efforts to moralize society results in making those the church is supposed to reach with the Gospel into enemies. Immoral people, pornographers, homosexuals and abortionists have become vilified and hated among believers.
Many Christians regard them as enemies but they are our mission field.
Jonah hated the Ninevites so much he would do anything to avoid preaching to them. Even after he did finally preach to them and revival swept the city, he sulked because he wanted
God to destroy them!
And the people of Nineveh were wretched; they slaughtered their enemies, built pyramids out of the skulls of their victims. They loved torture and bloodshed and violence.
But God displayed his love and mercy to them and he rebuked Jonah for not having compassion toward them.
Christians have received mercy from God and we are instructed to show mercy to others, not covert them to our political view or enlist in causes.
The politics of moralism has caused Christians to be persecuted for the wrong reasons. If we suffer for the Gospel, we count it a privilege, but to be vilified by the world for our political positions and our hostility toward the very people we are suppose to reach with the Gospel actually hurts the testimony of the church.
Let’s be respectful gentlemen (and ladies)as we discuss this. Let’s not resort to insult if we can’t defend our point. resorting to insult
Report comment to moderator
Part of that last statement should have been erased (resorting to insult).
Sorry. Editing isn’t my strong point.
Report comment to moderator
“The Bible speaks about homosexuality in more places than Leviticus:
Romans 1
Galatians 5:19
I Corinithians 6:9
I Timothy 1:10
Jude 7″
Also Genesis 19.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#111):
You didn’t give a straight answer. You dodged the question. The two alternatives you proposed were both homosexuals, one honest and the other a liar. That’s not what I asked about.
Report comment to moderator
#102, Jon Rowe, I spoke for myself rather clearly. Your inability to understand me on fair and honest terms is something I cannot realy do anything about.
The Bible does not condone any homosexual sex or any heterosexual sex outside of marriage. You are not forced to live by those high moral standards, Jon Rowe.
Report comment to moderator
#103,
You still don’t get it Jon Rowe. Bestialy is NOT marriage in America, at least not yet. If you take the gov’t out of the marriage business totally, then marriage is anything anyone wants it to be, period. No standards. No limits.
Jon Rowe, you missed my clear point (in my view, on purpose). We cannot subject marriage to total anarchy under the name of “libertarianism.” Without SOME sort of enforcable standard for marriage, it is necessarily anything anyone wants it to be at any time. And gov’t is about setting enforceable standards for society. Without it, we have anarchy. Yes, indeed, we would have bestiality in the name of marriage and no way to stop it.
Thus, your call to get gov’t out of the marriage business is unrealistic and naive’ in the extreme. That was my point and an ounce of honesty would have allowed you to grasp it.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
If someone is OPENLY homosexual and adult, I see no good reason to ban them from the Boy Scouts. If you are worried about them, then keep them under the microscope.
Report comment to moderator
All forms of responsible freedom and liberty are biblical topics, including political, personal and spiritual liberty, and more. An exxtremely narrow view of the Bible will blind one to that fact. There are a variety of political approaches to freedom and liberty and the Bible does not necessarily nail down only one political approach to it, because the Bible cares more about our personal and spiritual freedom. But all forms of liberty are in principle dealt with in the Bible.
So, political liberty is certainly a biblical concept, even though the Bible allows for diverse approaches to it. The Bible is a book of law, history, ethics, morality, God, man, society, art and so much more. The topic of political liberty touches nearly every book out of the 66 that comprise the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Cut the crap. I answered you honestly and straightfowardly. And my point in 102 stands. You are who added an obfuscation “has nothing to do with any definition of “child” that would protect them from molestation or sexual attacks from perverts”) to my underlying honest and truthful point which is that for most of “Judeo-Christian” history, up until the recent modern era girls were considered adults (hence marriagable and sexable) at 12, boys at 13.
I disagree with this standard. I think it was wrong that 12 & 13 year olds are NOT adults. But this just shows that longstanding Judeo-Christian tradition is capable of getting it drastically wrong.
Report comment to moderator
#112, Jon Rowe wrote; “I’d far FAR more comfortable sending my son with an openly gay Boy Scout Master than one who pretends to be straight. The difference is the Scouts current policy permits the latter not the former.”
Incorrect. False! The Boy Scouts of America expressly do NOT have ANY policy that “permits” anyone who “pretends” to be heterosexual. The moment it became clear that any scout leader was “pretending,” they would be gone! That’s their current policy. No policy exists that expressly permits a pretender.
Boy Scouts actually have moral standards. They also strive to tell the truth, Jon Rowe, and that’s their policy. The Scout Law specifically states that a scout is “trustworthy” and trustworthiness is not so compatible with “pretending.”
And the Scout Oath affirms the resolve for a Scout to be “morally straight.”
Report comment to moderator
You still don’t get it Jon Rowe. Bestialy is NOT marriage in America, at least not yet. If you take the gov’t out of the marriage business totally, then marriage is anything anyone wants it to be, period. No standards. No limits.
And why do YOU need the government to declare what’s “marriage” in America or set standards? That’s what YOU haven’t answered. As long as YOU are free, as a Christian minister, to refuse to marry same sex couples, polygamous groupings, interracial couples, interreligious couples, or man on dog couples, and as long as your church has every right to sanction members to the point of excommunication for sin, WHAT’S IT TO YOU?
Jon Rowe, you missed my clear point (in my view, on purpose). We cannot subject marriage to total anarchy under the name of “libertarianism.” Without SOME sort of enforcable standard for marriage, it is necessarily anything anyone wants it to be at any time. And gov’t is about setting enforceable standards for society. Without it, we have anarchy. Yes, indeed, we would have bestiality in the name of marriage and no way to stop it.
Your idea that if we don’t have government running the marriage game is an utter non-sequitur. Thank God some Christians realize this.
Let me show you. “I Jon Rowe am married to my male Dog Louie, 1/2 American Eskimo, 1/2 Border Collie. He is 3 years old.” There you go Joel, I just declared it and we have bestiality, homosexuality and because my dog is 3 arguably pedophilia, though if doggie years are 7 then maybe wed don’t because maybe he is 28. Did the world just fall apart? I didn’t notice it.
Thus, your call to get gov’t out of the marriage business is unrealistic and naive’ in the extreme. That was my point and an ounce of honesty would have allowed you to grasp it.
Joel I’m usually a very civilized person in these debates. But when you insult me with such ridiculous characterizations in thse debates as not having an “ounce of honesty” don’t be surprised if I don’t return the favor and show you what it’s like to get hit by a ton of bricks.
Report comment to moderator
No Joel, if you pretent to be a straight person, you GET AWAY with being a Scout Masters regardless of whether you are homosexual or not.
Report comment to moderator
This should have read:
Your idea that if we don’t have government running the marriage game [marriage falls apart] is an utter non-sequitur. Thank God some Christians realize this.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#112):
The communities such as San Francisco and N.Y. where homosexuals congregate in great numbers demonstrate the highly promiscuous nature of the lifestyle. Faithful, monogamous relationships among homosexuals is the exception rather than rule. Predatory tendencies also go hand-in-hand with promiscuity, be it among homosexuals or heterosexuals. Homosexuals lustfully prey on one another, young and old. It just seems to go with the life style. Sex is an obsession with them.
I believe Tominsanfrancisco is more the norm than any homosexual apologist on this site is willing to admit. Putting a vulnerable young person in the care of a homosexual is like playing Russian Roulette with the life of your child. The homosexual MAY be able to exercise self-restraint when his lust is up, but the potential is high that he will not. Where your children are concerned, it is far better to be safe than sorry.
This issue is just one aspect of the dangers that homosexuality brings to our society—corrosive dangers that have already exacted a terrible toll on the moral fabric of our culture. The Iowa Supreme Court decision is another carcinogen to what may prove to be a terminal case of cultural cancer. The ONLY answer to this problem, either individually or nationally is Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
Homosexual men are just like heterosexual men, subject to the same imperfect nature. Why don’t we begin with this self-evident truth as opposed to something that views homosexuals that reads like a Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#127):
As I have already said (#109) I agree with your assessment of human nature in general. If we were able to solve that problem, the current issue of homosexuality wouldn’t even exist. Any Christian would like to get to the root of the problem rather than just deal with one of the many symptoms. However, one must also deal with the reality that sin is a self-perpetuating growth that grows worse the more you indulge it. So, curtailing sins like homosexuality may not solve the basic problem, but it stems the cancer, while we also work at the core of the problem through the power of Christ to forgive the repentant soul.
Your comparison with the “Protocols…” is ludicrous. The “Protocols…” were totally false, whereas the Biblical assessment of homosexual sin is 100% correct.
Report comment to moderator
There is point, Jon, in that the female presence tempers the male drive in a way that two males don’t. (Not that healthy women don’t want sex, but the rhythms and patterns are different, and they serve to balance each other.)
Report comment to moderator
No Michael. Experience shows that the “sin” of homosexuality (if it is a sin) is not something that grows like a “cancer.” Your assessment of the human nature of homosexuality is as inaccurate as the Protocols. And I’m being very generous in condeding the possiblity of YOUR worldview that homosexual sexual relations are sinful.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#130):
We disagree. However, my view is not merely a personal opinion. It is the biblical view, whereas your view is YOUR view. I’ll stick with the Bible, thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I don’t think so. I see certain parts of the Bible that claim homosexual behavior to be sinful (one of them, strangely enough, states homosexuals should be executed for said conduct). But I don’t see from the Bible the notion that homosexuality can grow like a cancer. Though perhaps you can inform me.
Everything we see from human nature shows the orientation to be fixed for a small but constant number of individuals, and that a large number of ordinary heterosexuals have the ability partake in said behavior without affecting their overall heterosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
From NYT today –
But for now, New England remains the nucleus of the same-sex marriage movement, with a campaign under way to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians in all six of the region’s states by 2012.
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and Connecticut began allowing it last fall. The Vermont Legislature just voted to let same-sex couples marry, and supporters hope to gather enough votes to override a veto promised by Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican.
New Hampshire is not far behind; its House of Representatives approved a same-sex marriage bill last month. The legislatures in Maine and Rhode Island are considering their own versions, though they are not as far along in the process.
Sounds great!
Report comment to moderator
#92 Frank – Lynn actually agrees with you, but she pretends to be democratic to hide her theocratic leanings. This all disappears when talking about a woman’s right to choose, however. Even though a majority of Americans think a woman should have the right to choose, Lynn will never concede in the interests of “democracy.”
She’s a creature of political convenience, like most GOP propaganda writers.
Report comment to moderator
Still, I don’t expect you agree with me that pedophilia and many other things are wrong because God says so in His revealed Word.
Does it really say that?? I must have missed that one. Heck, Lot was handin’ up his daughters. I wonder how old they were?
I think that any acts that psychologically damage children purely for the pleasure of selfish adults are intrinsically unethical. I don’t care what the majority thinks, and I don’t care what a Hebrew tribal deity or his alleged spawn supposedly thinks.
Report comment to moderator
St. Paul notoriously says that homosexuality is its own punishment as well as the punishment God inflicts upon unbelievers who worship man instead of God. St. Paul repeats three times that God has given homosexuals up to “unnatural” desires. This explains why homosexuals lack the advantage of natural desires, and why God abominates them. Homosexuals are not what God intended to make. They are the crumpled pages He throws into the fire. Look at Romans 1, language that could only apply to an “unforgivable sin.”
I think “cancer” is an OK metaphor for the metastasis of evil that St. Paul says proceeds from homosexuals. Michael sees homosexuals as a deadly threat to children and society.
His use of the term “cancer” doesn’t imply much hope for a cure, despite the (theologically dubious) course of treatment that he prescribes.
We need to encourage the Michael Martins in our midst because their obsession, prosecutorial animus, and meticulous indictments of homosexuals will turn most people off and alert them view the Bible with wholesome skepticism. We don’t have the homeopathic therapy of Jonathan Edwards sermons anymore, which effectively scoured New England. We have nothing to gain from ameliorating the Bible, a patriarchal, sexist, colonialist, and homophobic book that I dearly love, warts and all, but couldn’t ever live by.
Besides amending the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, I wonder would Michael Martin like to amend the constitution to permit the criminalization of gay sex? And what kind of punishments would be appropriate to deter a deadly danger?
Report comment to moderator
One of the most consistent pieces of nonsense in Christianity (though they are hardly alone in it) is that we can control human sexuality by exhortations, rules, threats, prayer, and a thousand other fantasies.
This was true in Christianity 2,000 years ago, and it was true not long ago when Sarah Palin told her daughter how to conduct herself with her boy friend.
To choose one out of a million examples, in terms of male homosexuality, men who are drawn to other men often marry a woman in the hope their urges can be directed in the approved direction. To mention one common problem, without getting too graphic, it is uncommon for a man to successfully “will” or “force” sexual performance toward a person he does not find desirable. I know this news will come as a great shock to everyone reading this.
A common result is a marriage (and often a family) that suffers many torments and miseries, all in the name of wishful thinking. Christians (and other religious fanatics) have little connection with reality in this regard.
Report comment to moderator
As I’ve said a number of times, I don’t believe civilization will survive this century. There are so many ways available and likely to bring chaos and destruction, it would take a year to list them all. Society coming to terms with homosexuality and allowing homosexuals to live openly, and to have legal arrangements (whatever they are called) to pair up, is well on its way and probably inevitable–and I suspect very low on the civilization destruction list.
We survived the end of monarchy, we survived poor people getting the vote, we survived ending slavery, we survived freeing slaves, we survived letting women vote, we survived letting inter-racial couples marry, we survived integration and so on. All of these changes were at a time regarded as horrible and shocking.
How will “gay marriage” affect our society? I don’t really know. It makes me a little uneasy, to be truthful. It’s going to happen. It’s the right thing to happen. As I’ve said, Christians missed their opportunity to set up a Christian theocracy. Now they are less and less relevant. They lost the White House. They rant and rave on this web site, where hardly anybody cares.
I won’t live long enough to see it, but the day will come when we will see messages by evangelical homosexual Christians whining about letting androids marry.
Report comment to moderator
I have no doubt that if conservative Christians like Michael were around in the Nazi era, they’d be calling for a “final solution” to “the gays”, and under the banner of Christ no less!
Report comment to moderator
“I won’t live long enough to see it, but the day will come when we will see messages by evangelical homosexual Christians whining about letting androids marry. “
Report comment to moderator
If anyone doubts the predatory nature of homosexuals, they need only remember what went on in the Catholic Church.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: If anyone doubts the predatory nature of homosexuals, they need only remember what went on in the Catholic Church.
So you equate consensual adult homosexual relationships with pedophilia?
Report comment to moderator
“Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and Connecticut began allowing it last fall.
This was FORCED on the citizens of Connecticut–not ‘allowed’.
Many in the homosexual movement do not even want civil unions. They want to redefine marriage until it is socially meaningless. Civil unions open the door to judicial activism, which is what happened in Connecticut.
Report comment to moderator
Huh?! I can’t believe you’re calling the victims of Roman Catholic pederast priests consensual homosexual partners. I sure hope you don’t get called to serve on a jury in any of these cases!
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I don’t think you understood his critique. He is saying the RC scandal was not ABOUT homosexuality but pederastic abuse and it’s wrong of NJL to conflate the two.
Report comment to moderator
Umm … Ree: What?
Just the opposite. How the heck did you get it turned around?
NJLawyer says that “what happened in he Catholic Church” shows “the predatory nature of homosexuals.”
My reaction, expressed in my question, is that what happened in the Catholic Church says nothing about consensual homosexual adult relationships. It may say something about the predatory nature of pedophiles, but homosexuals are not generally pedophiles (and heterosexuals sometimes are.)
So — and re-reading it, I think I was clear — I am certainly NOT suggesting the victims were consenting. I am suggesting that the behavior of the predators says nothing about the nature of homosexuals who are not also pedophiles.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for misunderstanding you, but I think I did so because it didn’t even occur to me that one could dismiss NJL’s logic. The Roman Catholic priesthood has a much higher rate of homosexuals than is seen in the general population–some estimates are around 50%. And the rate of sexual predators among the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than among the general population. Since this has become so apparent to the public, it seemed to me that instead of denying the obvious, you were defending these predators by claiming that their victims were consensual sexual partners.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Well I’m not going to perpetuate the Catholic-bashing, but I challenge you to provide any evidence that homosexuals in the general non-clergy population are likely to be predatory pedophiles.
All I’m asking, as always, is for a fair debate. If homosexuality is morally wrong in and of itself, then it isn’t necessary to demonize them with the intent of stirring up visceral revulsion. So show some evidence to back up the claim.
For the record, clergy being human beings, I think the celibacy requirement is a bad idea. But the best research on sexual abuse by priests suggests that only about 4 percent of all priests in a 52-year period (1950-2002) had abuse allegations made against them that weren’t later proven false or withdrawn. If half the priests are homosexual, then even if clergy sexual abuse is under-reported, it would have to be grossly under-reported for it to approach the number needed to draw any reasonable inference about predatory behavior being a common trait.
I don’t mean to minimize it, it’s a horrible betrayal of trust, and the Catholic authorities have mishandled it badly, but it’s not really evidence that homosexuals in general are likely to be pedophile predators.
This article reports that 30 percent of Protestant ministers have had extramarital affairs. Would you conclude from that that Protestant ministers are by nature adulterers? It’s a much larger number, so why not?
Report comment to moderator
Since this has become so apparent to the public, it seemed to me that instead of denying the obvious, you were defending these predators by claiming that their victims were consensual sexual partners.
Well, given NJLawyer’s track record for ascribing false and horrible positions to me, I’m sure she’ll now add that to her list. So, thanks for that.
By the way, given my recent change of mind that everyone was so nice to me about, I’m willing to consider that I may be mistaken on homosexuality per se, but I am not yet convinced. (I am in the pro-life camp now, for what it’s worth. So maybe NJLawyer will at least stop calling me a ghoul.)
Report comment to moderator
If anyone doubts the predatory nature of homosexuals, they need only remember what went on in the Catholic Church.
If anyone doubts the insanity of religious prohobitions of gay marriage, they need only remember what went on in the Catholic Church!
Wait a minute …
Report comment to moderator
“prohibitions” not pro-hobitions (whatever that is…sounds a bit like advocacy for the homeless)
Report comment to moderator
#149 – Spring has the oddest effect on people …
Report comment to moderator
“prohibitions” not pro-hobitions (whatever that is…sounds a bit like advocacy for the homeless)
I thought maybe it was people who are in favor of Hobbits.
Report comment to moderator
If anyone doubts the insanity of religious prohobitions of gay marriage,…
The real insanity is the presumption that hundreds–even thousands of years—of male/female defined marriage across radically different cultures and religions has somehow become suddenly ‘discriminatory’. More insane is the presumption that christians are somehow responsible for it. The human race continues largely because this type of ‘insanity’ is confined to a relatively few people.
Humane treatment of troubled folks is a virtue; basing your public policies on their claims is not.
Report comment to moderator
Why would you presume that homosexuals in the clergy wouldn’t be representative of homosexuals in the general population? Anyway, I don’t think that homosexuals are necessarily “likely” to be predatory pedophiles, but I do think that disordered sexual behavior in general, whether it’s promiscuity, use of pornography, homosexuality, pedophelia, etc, is more likely to lead to other sexually disordered behavior. It’s not politically correct to say it, but the evidence seems to indicate it, and it’s consistent with human nature that people who are prone to certain sins (disordered behavior) often get deeper and deeper into other behaviors in the same category.
I don’t think there’s a shred of evidence that would either support or refute my claim that wouldn’t be dismissed by the opponents of the given position for being biased. People seem to see what they expect to see and to dismiss what they don’t like.
How does the percentage of heterosexually inclined predatory priests compare with the percentage of homosexually inclined predatory priests, I wonder. That would be an interesting statistic to see.
I think that extramarital affairs are a much more common behavior, in general, than sexually preying on children, so I don’t think any kind of comparison can be made. But it sounds like an awful indictment about the church, just the same. But before I drew any conclusions about the degree of depravity of the contemporary church from that statistic, I’d want to know what kind of Protestant churches these men were pastoring. If a significant percentage were not pastoring orthodox, conservative churches, I’d consider the statistic way overblown. I’m sure that plenty of them were, though.
If you’re interested in reading a great parody of evangelicalism in America written by Reformed pastor, Douglas Wilson, check this out. Evangellyfish. Scroll down to the bottom for the first chapter and go up for successive chapters.
Report comment to moderator
I think you explained yourself clearly. I’m sure she won’t misrepresent you on that.
I’m just encouraged to see that you seem to being open to being persuaded of truth by Scripture. When a person claims to be a Christian, but dismisses a priori all Scriptural proofs for anything because of Scripture’s inherent “subjectivity,” I can’t regard that person as being in any sense submitted to Christ. You don’t seem to be taking that tack, and I’m glad.
Report comment to moderator
REE,
Thanks for recommending the parody, Evangellyfish. I’m only on the 2nd chapter so far, but I’m completely hooked!
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Why would you presume that homosexuals in the clergy wouldn’t be representative of homosexuals in the general population?
Catholic priests are forbidden to have any open intimate relationship at all, whether homosexual or heterosexual. If they have sexual urges they cannot fight, they may resort to surreptitious activities that end up developing into sexual abuse.
They are under pressures that homosexuals outside of the clergy are not. They may also have secret heterosexual affairs — I would be amazed if that never happened — because celibacy is unnatural for all but a small number of people.
I can’t tell the Catholics how to run their church, but as an outsider, the celibate clergy just seems like a recipe for disaster.
Report comment to moderator
If you’re interested in reading a great parody of evangelicalism in America written by Reformed pastor, Douglas Wilson, check this out. Evangellyfish. Scroll down to the bottom for the first chapter and go up for successive chapters.
Ha! I will give that a read. Looks good!
Report comment to moderator
#158 – yeah – what he said …
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you that mandatory celibacy for the clergy is a terrible idea, but I don’t believe that the rest of your logic follows.
It’s a known fact that the priesthood attracts an inordinate number of homosexuals–the “Lavendar Mafia,” and all that. So for the sake of argument, let’s say that 50% of priests are homosexual and 50% are heterosexual. Now, say you’re correct that plenty of heterosexual priests have affairs. Those who do are willing to risk positions and their reputations because they can’t control their sexual urges. But you don’t hear about them molesting children. I’m not saying it’s never happened–it probably has. But it’s apparently not common enough for it to have received publicity.
The homosexuals, on the other hand, have plenty of other homosexual priests available to them. They could fulfill their sexual urges with others who are in the same position they are with little risk to their reputations and careers, because exposure of one partner would expose the other as well. No doubt, plenty of this probably does go on. But even so, lots of them are still preying on young boys.
So to sum it up, both homosexually and heterosexually inclined priests are supposed to be suppressing and resisting their sexual urges, but some of them aren’t. But even though the homosexuals have a greater number of available adult men with whom they can satisfy those urges and a lower risk of ruining their careers and reputations than the heterosexual ones do, the homosexual ones are much more likely to prey on children than the heterosexual ones.
Report comment to moderator
DJ and Steve,
I actually should have called Evangellyfish satire and not parody, but you get the drift. Anyway, I’m glad you’re enjoying it.
Report comment to moderator
The final sentence in my previous post should not have the word “men” after the word adult and adult should be plural. In other words, it should read,
“But even though the homosexuals have a greater number of available adults with whom they can satisfy those urges and a lower risk of ruining their careers and reputations than the heterosexual ones do, the homosexual ones are much more likely to prey on children than the heterosexual ones.
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!