I know one of the major arguments is about how it undermines and weakens the institution of the family, and in many ways, I agree. However, I think there are oodles of examples of damage done to children and families within the confines of heterosexual marriage - too many for this to be a valid argument for much longer."
Well … we love controversy … and this is par for the course. Podcast Episode 9 - Growing Pains (http://chrisasksthehaz.blogspot.com/2012/03/chris-asks-haz-episode-9-growing-pains.html) directly addresses this question but I also wanted to address it as a written blog.
My take? Well the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is sin. People who deny that lie to themselves and make up “so called” events that supposedly caused “homophobic” kings (specifically King James) to purposefully alter the writing of the Bible to keep to some personal vendetta against homosexuals. The problem with that is that King James didn’t write the Bible … neither did his translators. They translated the Greek and Latin documents … that were already (and still) in existence … as well as the Hebrew (Aramaic) books of the “Old Testament.” Even if King James had manipulated the text of the New Testament, he would have had no influence on the ancient letters. The message that homosexuality is a sin (along with every form of fornication – heterosexual sin) transcends King James translation of the documents. Furthermore, it is found all through the books of the Bible in their original languages … written centuries (and millennia) before King James was a thought.
Now, to address whether or not Scripture supports legislating morality … I have to strongly disagree with you. Read Leviticus 15 – 20. It is God’s “legislation of morality.” Whether the current politically misguided “guardians” of the Constitution want to believe or not … the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are completely founded on the Law found within the Bible. It is in all of our historical writings … just a little research makes that fact undeniable. So I think that the Bible makes it clear that God wants His statutes followed … and that, given the opportunity, we should be being His voice of righteousness to the people. But that was also HIS established government where He was King.
Your question, “Who are we to take away the option God has given everyone to disobey Him?” is a good one. In my opinion, we don’t have the right to do anything more than what God commands us in Scripture. So we have to balance the Old Testament with the New Testament. Watch as I seem to contradict myself …
1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
In the Old Testament, the Law was established as part of God setting the grounds for the need of the Savior and the work that He would have to do Himself. In the New Testament (Acts 15:23 – 31), one of the first problems that arose was the Jewish Christians forcing the Gentiles (who were becoming Christians) to keep their laws and traditions that God ordained. After much deliberation, the leaders of the issued this proclamation:
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
This was not a command, this was a strong recommendation because … we, as Christians, cannot legislate anything as a church.
But that doesn’t mean it should not be done … nor that Christians, as individuals, should be distanced from any form of government.
While I agree that we as CHRISTIANS do not have the right to legislate morality, our responsibility as citizens is a whole different subject. We are dutifully responsible to share our concerns and pursue them as best we are able within the guidelines of our constitution. As Americans, we have a responsibility … an obligation … to speak up for what is right and just. We call that responsibility “freedom.” If we fail to do what is right and just than we leave our obligations undone and are traitors. Some will speak up for what they feel is right that is direct contrast to what we feel as right. We have a charter that describes in detail how the different levels and branches of government are to act. That charter is called the “US Constitution” … and we have within our nation’s charter a method to determine what is the most agreeable right that does not in any way infringe on our guaranteed rights (Bill of Rights). We call that method “voting.” When it comes to matters of interpretations or suggestions to add or restrict previous amendments to our constitution, we all have a responsibility to do as we feel is right.
So to that end, I feel that those who feel like an amendment to protect “marriage” as exclusive to its original definition have as much an obligation to act as those who are opposed to it. That is how our nation was established … that is how it must run.
I do believe that we as Christians should not be surprised by this situation … it has been coming for some time. But still, it is disappointing to watch a nation so blessed fall into sin knowing what will ultimately come …
So … to address your statement, “I know one of the major arguments is about how it undermines and weakens the institution of the family, and in many ways, I agree. However, I think there are oodles of examples of damage done to children and families within the confines of heterosexual marriage - too many for this to be a valid argument for much longer.”
Well, the result of research is that child molesters and users of child porn are by far heterosexual men … and that fact brings a grave truth to the concept that most people believe … the idea that being homosexual means a person will be a child molester is not in itself proof. Now men who molest boys may present themselves as heterosexual but more accurately they are homosexual pedophiles. So the lines are crossed. Additionally, we as heterosexuals have destroyed the sanctity of marriage to the point that gay couples now see it as something they can commit to … because our commitments have been compromised. We have no right to get angry for their desires. We have every obligation to return the sanctity of marriage to what it was … two becoming one forever.
Legislatively, it boils down to this. A society is based around morals, norms, and taboos. Every society deals with these three issues. Laws are established to protect the moral standard that exists within most societies. Morals are standards that exist outside of opinion that set the values concerning the basic rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, relational standards, etc. Norms are subordinate standards that the members of a society feel are best for the good of the society. Taboos are questionable behaviors that cause concern but are not outright dangerous or able to be categorized as immoral or against the norms. Moral issues include murder, rape, robbery, adultery, physical abuse, property ownership, rights to risk personal investment, etc. Norm issues are speeding tickets, tax issues, public language usage, public appearance, property usage issues, maintaining and using natural resources, public usage of alcohol and narcotics, prostitution, etc. Taboos are tattoo parlors, strip clubs, bars, personal language usage, personal appearance standards, etc.
Marriage is a moral issue. It has existed in the same likeness for as long as books have been written. We cannot just redefine it to fit the picture other groups want to paint. If we change marriage from its original meaning, what stops it from being changed again to accommodate pedofiles, necrophilias, polygamists, etc.? Once the standard is moved, there is no end to how far it can be altered. Even in polygamist societies, marriages are still the sacred union between a man and a woman. A man who had 4 wives had to be faithful to them … sleeping with a fifth woman is still adultery and dealt with harshly. Historically, the commitment of marriage was first conceptualized as a quote from God. It was groups of humanity that decided to formalize a norm that directly went against the moral standard. The societies that encourage polygamy face consistent problems … because norms can never supersede morality … it will never be accepted. We see polygamy in the Bible from the beginning, and we see in almost every case where a Godly man practiced it, the costs and consequences were great. That is why slavery fell. It has always been a moral wrong to force a human to serve you that does not owe an unpaid debt to you. Eventually the social norms of slavery were compared to the moral standard and they failed. It may have taken 500 years … but fall it did (and is still happening in some parts of the world).
This, however, should not be something that is arguable at the federal level of our government. It is only there because of the federal judges that have abused their powers by deciding against State decisions. 30 stated have ratified their constitutions by declaring marriage to be between only a man and a woman INCLUDING CALIFORNIA!!! Yet the federal judges have usurped their authority … and nothing has been done to stop them. This forces the hand of people to look to the Federal Government for assistance. But it is wrong. These judges should be impeached and removed from their benches. Adding another amendment to our US Constitution will not stop justices from usurping their authority again! Remember, our current state of the Supreme Court is to view the US Constitution as a living, moving document … and that the letter of the law fails when compared to the “spirit” of it’s possible interpretations.
Instead, we need to remind congress of their authority to remove a matter from the courts ability to decide. Congress can prohibit the courts from deciding on a case. It’s their balance for the Judicial Branch’s authority.
I would not like to see it have to get this far. But, like I said on the episode, if my hand is forced having done all we can to inform people of what is going on … I would vote for the amendment. I would rather answer to mans’ disapproval than to God’s. We all have to decide within ourselves what we will do … and pursue fully what we are consciously convicted by. I am no less dedicated.
Now, to address whether or not Scripture supports legislating morality … I have to strongly disagree with you. Read Leviticus 15 – 20. It is God’s “legislation of morality.” Whether the current politically misguided “guardians” of the Constitution want to believe or not … the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are completely founded on the Law found within the Bible. It is in all of our historical writings … just a little research makes that fact undeniable. So I think that the Bible makes it clear that God wants His statutes followed … and that, given the opportunity, we should be being His voice of righteousness to the people. But that was also HIS established government where He was King.
Your question, “Who are we to take away the option God has given everyone to disobey Him?” is a good one. In my opinion, we don’t have the right to do anything more than what God commands us in Scripture. So we have to balance the Old Testament with the New Testament. Watch as I seem to contradict myself …
1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
In the Old Testament, the Law was established as part of God setting the grounds for the need of the Savior and the work that He would have to do Himself. In the New Testament (Acts 15:23 – 31), one of the first problems that arose was the Jewish Christians forcing the Gentiles (who were becoming Christians) to keep their laws and traditions that God ordained. After much deliberation, the leaders of the issued this proclamation:
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
This was not a command, this was a strong recommendation because … we, as Christians, cannot legislate anything as a church.
But that doesn’t mean it should not be done … nor that Christians, as individuals, should be distanced from any form of government.
While I agree that we as CHRISTIANS do not have the right to legislate morality, our responsibility as citizens is a whole different subject. We are dutifully responsible to share our concerns and pursue them as best we are able within the guidelines of our constitution. As Americans, we have a responsibility … an obligation … to speak up for what is right and just. We call that responsibility “freedom.” If we fail to do what is right and just than we leave our obligations undone and are traitors. Some will speak up for what they feel is right that is direct contrast to what we feel as right. We have a charter that describes in detail how the different levels and branches of government are to act. That charter is called the “US Constitution” … and we have within our nation’s charter a method to determine what is the most agreeable right that does not in any way infringe on our guaranteed rights (Bill of Rights). We call that method “voting.” When it comes to matters of interpretations or suggestions to add or restrict previous amendments to our constitution, we all have a responsibility to do as we feel is right.
So to that end, I feel that those who feel like an amendment to protect “marriage” as exclusive to its original definition have as much an obligation to act as those who are opposed to it. That is how our nation was established … that is how it must run.
I do believe that we as Christians should not be surprised by this situation … it has been coming for some time. But still, it is disappointing to watch a nation so blessed fall into sin knowing what will ultimately come …
So … to address your statement, “I know one of the major arguments is about how it undermines and weakens the institution of the family, and in many ways, I agree. However, I think there are oodles of examples of damage done to children and families within the confines of heterosexual marriage - too many for this to be a valid argument for much longer.”
Well, the result of research is that child molesters and users of child porn are by far heterosexual men … and that fact brings a grave truth to the concept that most people believe … the idea that being homosexual means a person will be a child molester is not in itself proof. Now men who molest boys may present themselves as heterosexual but more accurately they are homosexual pedophiles. So the lines are crossed. Additionally, we as heterosexuals have destroyed the sanctity of marriage to the point that gay couples now see it as something they can commit to … because our commitments have been compromised. We have no right to get angry for their desires. We have every obligation to return the sanctity of marriage to what it was … two becoming one forever.
Legislatively, it boils down to this. A society is based around morals, norms, and taboos. Every society deals with these three issues. Laws are established to protect the moral standard that exists within most societies. Morals are standards that exist outside of opinion that set the values concerning the basic rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, relational standards, etc. Norms are subordinate standards that the members of a society feel are best for the good of the society. Taboos are questionable behaviors that cause concern but are not outright dangerous or able to be categorized as immoral or against the norms. Moral issues include murder, rape, robbery, adultery, physical abuse, property ownership, rights to risk personal investment, etc. Norm issues are speeding tickets, tax issues, public language usage, public appearance, property usage issues, maintaining and using natural resources, public usage of alcohol and narcotics, prostitution, etc. Taboos are tattoo parlors, strip clubs, bars, personal language usage, personal appearance standards, etc.
Marriage is a moral issue. It has existed in the same likeness for as long as books have been written. We cannot just redefine it to fit the picture other groups want to paint. If we change marriage from its original meaning, what stops it from being changed again to accommodate pedofiles, necrophilias, polygamists, etc.? Once the standard is moved, there is no end to how far it can be altered. Even in polygamist societies, marriages are still the sacred union between a man and a woman. A man who had 4 wives had to be faithful to them … sleeping with a fifth woman is still adultery and dealt with harshly. Historically, the commitment of marriage was first conceptualized as a quote from God. It was groups of humanity that decided to formalize a norm that directly went against the moral standard. The societies that encourage polygamy face consistent problems … because norms can never supersede morality … it will never be accepted. We see polygamy in the Bible from the beginning, and we see in almost every case where a Godly man practiced it, the costs and consequences were great. That is why slavery fell. It has always been a moral wrong to force a human to serve you that does not owe an unpaid debt to you. Eventually the social norms of slavery were compared to the moral standard and they failed. It may have taken 500 years … but fall it did (and is still happening in some parts of the world).
This, however, should not be something that is arguable at the federal level of our government. It is only there because of the federal judges that have abused their powers by deciding against State decisions. 30 stated have ratified their constitutions by declaring marriage to be between only a man and a woman INCLUDING CALIFORNIA!!! Yet the federal judges have usurped their authority … and nothing has been done to stop them. This forces the hand of people to look to the Federal Government for assistance. But it is wrong. These judges should be impeached and removed from their benches. Adding another amendment to our US Constitution will not stop justices from usurping their authority again! Remember, our current state of the Supreme Court is to view the US Constitution as a living, moving document … and that the letter of the law fails when compared to the “spirit” of it’s possible interpretations.
Instead, we need to remind congress of their authority to remove a matter from the courts ability to decide. Congress can prohibit the courts from deciding on a case. It’s their balance for the Judicial Branch’s authority.
I would not like to see it have to get this far. But, like I said on the episode, if my hand is forced having done all we can to inform people of what is going on … I would vote for the amendment. I would rather answer to mans’ disapproval than to God’s. We all have to decide within ourselves what we will do … and pursue fully what we are consciously convicted by. I am no less dedicated.
I do feel that is vital to our nation that all sides sit down and discuss what is being desired. I have gay friends who do not believe that "gay marriage" is appropriate. I have gay friends who are married. Much of what I have learned is that is more the protections and benefits that are desired ... and if that is the case we need to sit down and discuss these very issues.
If a commitment is needed between two people to qualify for certain tax or medical benefits, than lets draw up the standards of that commitment and give them the same benefits as a marriage if that is what the public vote so dictates.
There are some formidable concerns when discussing medical complications of homosexuality ... specifically the medical consequences involved with sodomy (dislocation of the rectal tube, fecal matter in the bloodstream, etc (see CDC)) and that also needs to be addressed but rarely is (as compared to how often we make sure the public knows how bad smoking and drinking are for our anatomies).
But all we are doing now is chasing each other around a table ... and that has accomplished nothing!
QUESTIONS??
Don't be confused. LEARN STUFF!!!
Email your questions to askthehaz@gmail.com
Ask your question, go to http://www.patrickhazard.com/ask-the-haz.html and fill in the question box!!!
We are called to love others as Jesus did and not to judge or we will be judged... But that also doesn't mean we need to accept their lifestyles or have it shoved down our throats...
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts Robert, and I wholeheartedly agree. The church has no right to condemn unbelievers ... but we also don't have to stand quietly in a country that was designed for citizens to speak up and out against injustice ... or anything they didn't agree with.
DeleteI agree with public decency laws but it seems many places only enforce them w/ heterosexual couples bc they are afraid of dealing with the public fallout. It is a shame.
Thanks again for commenting!
Very helpful and clarifying on many topics... Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I appreciate it.
DeleteI thoroughly enjoed this blog, Pat!
ReplyDeleteIt was very clear and very informative, most especially within the government sides. I also agree that it is not correct for a states power to be undermined for the fact that it ultimately undermines the mass of voters in that area. I feel that if this were to continue that in time our voting power would become useless in our democratic nation.
Thanks for your comments Maury. I think some may feel a squeeze on our freedoms already in place.
ReplyDelete