Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is mista

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Please do. I may be an optimist, but I have faith that there are still enough people who haven't been brainwashed by the PC crowd. However, should the tables turn and a majority of citizens wanted gay marriage, I certainly wouldn't run to the courts to get an outcome that I couldn't win at the polling place.

That's the inherent difference between you and me.....I'm willing to abide by the will of the majority. That doesn't mean I have to like it, but it's a price I'm willing to pay to live in a democracy.

Are you serious? And people wonder why I call it a slippery slope....

No, but nice try on the subtle insinuation. I was illustrating how the floodgates would open once the valve is turned. You yourself admitted that polygamy wouldn't be far behind gay marriage. What's next? You know it wouldn't stop there.

 

That's fine with me.

The very fact that all of us can have this type of discussion in a public forum is just proof of the great country that we live in (no offense to non-US people, I just haven't seen any participating in this thread).

 

I am impressed such a controversial subject is being handled so well. It is most civil.

And, I might add, the cacophony of opinion characteristic of the American experience is also impressive.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Yes, busing in Boston is a shining example of how well forced desegregation works.

The parents didn't want it, the teachers didn't want it, the principals didn't want it, the police didn't want it, the politicians didn't want it, and most of all............the students didn't want it.

However, the Federal court wanted it, and that's really all that matters in the end.

The end result was zero improvement in education, millions of dollars spent, countless childhoods ruined, a few deaths, and one supremely arrogant Federal judge (W. Arthur Garrity) and some limousine liberals from the affluent suburbs feeling very good about themselves.

Was it really worth it?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

In many parts of the country, fifty years after the end of slavery, similar arguments could have been made (except that the death count was thousands of times higher, and it was an arrogant President, rather than an arrogant judge.)

Was it really worth it?

 

Thanks for your response. I misunderstood your comments -- I thought that you were implicitly supporting the idea that the Bible is the only legitimate basis for morality in our society.

 

Re: Answer to Biblical Questions

And let me say that not all Christians agree with this point of view, particularly where homosexuality is concerned.

I have dealt with Christian activists who proudly displayed signs that said "God Hates Fags" and who rejoiced in the lynching of a young gay man named Matthew Sheppard. In fact, they are currently working on putting up a monument to commerate this in the town where it happened.

Of course, they are wrong, based on your theology. But you advocate a society based on the Bible, and they can make a very strong case that their point of view is completely based on the Bible.

 

Re: Re: Answer to Biblical Questions

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Bruce, I was living in Mississippi during the Boston busing controversy.

I remember Louise Day Hicks from that time. Is she still living? What's she doing now?

Also, I would say some politicians wanted busing. EMK is an example.

The liberals wanted busing yet most sent their children to private schools ala EMK.

That's what I liked about Scoop Jackson. He supported public education and, if I am not mistaken, busing, but sent his children to public schools.

I supported busing at the time because living in Mississippi I was an eyewitness to the horrors of discrimination and abuse.

We have to remember that many of these attempts (busing, affirmative action, etc.) to correct wrongs were just that, attempts.

Sometimes in order to correct a wrong, extreme measures, while not always the most efficient and productive manner to deal with "hot button" issues, are used.

As I said on another thread, the pendulum always swings back to common sense and order.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

There is no comparison, unless you want to try to tell me that the standard of living for blacks in the United States hasn't improved since 1865. Is that what you're trying to say? BTW, I assume the "fifty years" was a typo, since I don't think you're dumb enough to think that slavery existed in 1954.

The Boston public schools are still a mess, after almost 20 years of court-ordered desegregation. That doesn't even take into account the generations of lost people (black and white) who now spend most of their time in jail or on welfare because Judge Garrity decided to destroy their childhoods.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Mrs. Hicks died in October last year.

Whatever anyone thought of her political views, she was one of the first female politicians in this area, and no doubt paved the way for many other women in politics.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

It was not a typo, Bruce, but thanks for the back-handed compliment.

I won't make any snide comments on your intelligence, but what I said was:

"In many parts of the country, fifty years after the end of slavery, similar arguments could have been made (except that the death count was thousands of times higher, and it was an arrogant President, rather than an arrogant judge.)"

These are the arguments that could have been made 50 years after the end of slavery. I did not say they were arguments that could be made today.

And 50 years after the end of slavery, the only way that life had improved for many blacks in the South was that they were no longer "owned." Every other aspect of life was the same, or worse.

Fifty years after the end of slavery, many people would have argued it was not worth it; just as you argue today, fifty years after the end of segregation, it was not worth it.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Okay, I got you now. I worked late last night, and hadn't finished my first cup of coffee.

However, and I'm sure this won't surprise you, I disagree. There is no way you can convince me that the standard of living for blacks in the US was no better in 1915 than it was in 1865.

In any event, this is really comparing apples to moonrocks. Many parents (black & white) in Boston who can't/couldn't afford private schools for their children simply let them drop out rather than have them bused across the city to participate in a perverted social experiment. I deal with the end result on a daily basis.

 

Well, unfortunately, the books that arrived were for my wife and not me. So, I have some time to post a little bit longer.

Jeff,

I suspect all this is relative to what areas of the country in which blacks reside.

Blacks in the South today are away better off than they were 50 years ago.

Blacks in most northern cities (Detroit, Gary, e.g.) are worse off than they were fifty years ago.

When I lived in the South blacks went north in droves. Now, blacks are going south in droves.

For Bruce: Thanks for the info and link!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

And I would not try to convince you of that. I was clearly referring to "many blacks in the South," not all blacks in the U.S. Just as you were referring to life after segregation for those people (of all races) living in Boston.

 

I agree.

However, I think that even if, by some measures, our country as a whole is worse off in the short term (and yes, when talking about race relations, I consider 50 years short term), it is still worth it.

I am so glad that our country finally stood up and said that segregation is wrong.

I grew up with people who thought James Earl Ray was a hero, and who proudly proclaimed that their grandfathers had participated in lynchings of black people.

I understand that the Brown decision and the Civil Rights Acts did not change these peoples' opinions. But at least it told them very clearly that our government would no longer stand for it (as it so clearly had not in the past.)

Was it worth it?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

I used that as just one example of the consequences of the Brown decision, and judicial activism. Public schools in Boston will not get better until the Garrity decision is vacated.

Except for the "exam schools" (Boston Latin, Boston English), public education is a disaster in Boston as a direct result of court interference. Don't expect the legalization of gay marriage through judicial fiat to be any different.

 

Hi Jeff: If the "worst" homosexual and the "worst" (so-called) Christian are taken as paradigmatic of all homosexuals and all Christians, then civil discourse becomes impossible.

Just for fun, in the spirit of good ole fashioned 17th century Lutheran casuistry, let's take a look at who's headed for hell.
This is also my last shot on this thread, so take it for what it's worth, if anything. Tot siens.

Case #1:
Matthew Shepherd and the "God hates f*gs" guy

Statement: If Shepherd repented of his sins and trusted in Christ, he's in heaven. Not because he's a gay saint or martyr, but because Christ died for his sins.
Question: What if he did not repent of his homosexual activity, called sin in the Bible?
Reply: If he did not know it was sin, he could not repent of it. Forgiveness is based upon the mercy of God, not the qualitative or quantitative perfection of our repentance--or any other human work. If he knew and did not care, then he rejected God's forgiveness.

Q2: What IF not?
Sta2: He's in hell.
Q2a: Because he was engaged in homosexual activity?
Reply2a. Only secondarily. Primarily, because if he knew and did not care, he made the word of God of none effect and died without repentance and without faith in Christ.
Obj2: But we cannot know that that was the case, especially given the horrific circumstances of his death.
Rejoinder: True. We cannot know. Therefore, according to the very same law of God which condemns homosexual sexual activity, we must not say that Matthew Shepherd is in hell, because that would be bearing false witness against one's neighbor.

Q3: May we hope for the better outcome in this case?
Reply: We are commanded to do so, since God teaches us that He "does not desire the [eternal] death of a sinner, but that he turn from his wickedness and live."
Obj3. But isn't the "God hates f*gs" guy trying to get homosexuals to do just that?
Rejoinder. No. He is not using the God-ordained means of Word and Sacrament, nor is he correctly distinguishing Law and Gospel.
Obj3a: Are you not judging his heart in a way you refused to do with Shepherd?
Rejoinder: By no means. I am basing this response on his public confession alone.

Q4: So "GHF" is a false teacher, and must repent?
Reply: Yes.
Obj4. But what if he doesn't know he is a false teacher?
Reply: Reply1 applies by analogy. He cannot repent of what he does not know to be sin.
Obj4a: As a clergyman, doesn't he have a particular responsibility to know, and will not God more strictly judge him as a consequence of his failure to know?
Rejoinder: Indeed. God says so in the Bible.

Q5: Is "GHF" telling the truth about God in saying "God hates f*gs"?
Reply: No. God's Law clearly condemns homosexual activity in both the Old and New Testaments. God does nowhere say that He hates homosexuals as such, however. God hates all that He considers sin (and who should know better?). But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Obj.: But is not the Law also given for the growth in holiness of the Christian [third use of the law]?
Reply: Yes, of course.

Q6: By attributing to God sentiments which God has not declared, is the "God hates f*gs" fellow not only taking the Lord's name in vain, but also bearing false witness, even against God?
Reply: Yes.
Obj: But such sins, indeed all sins, merit nothing but death and hell. And blasphemy is a particularly horrid sin, because it directly insults the majesty and mercy of God.
Reply: Yes.

Conclusion: So Matthew Shepherd may be in heaven, or he may be in hell. But the "God hates f*gs" fellow MUST "turn or burn," because his sins are separating him, even in this present hour, from the grace of Christ.
Finis: Yes.

 

OK, fine. But when I hear people telling me that as a non-Christian American, my life should be governed by laws based on the Bible, why would I believe that they accept in your interpretation, and not that espoused by "God Hates Fags." In fact, I think I have reason to believe the opposite, since I don't think you would attempt to foist your views upon me.

Moreover, even if they are advocating our laws be based on some ideal Christianity based on love (i.e., things Jesus actually said), why should I, as a non-Christian, be forced to live in a society based on someone's interpretation of the Bible?

Sure the founding fathers were mostly Christians, but most of them were Unitarians, and even though Unitarianism was different then than today, it still placed reason above doctrine.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Considering that over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, I don't see how it could make the situation much worse.