For the life of me, I can't figure out what the big deal is here. Why can't Ted and Bob just go to another baker? Since gay marriage is as often as not ratified by judges over the will of the people, why can't some of those people live the way they want to live without further interference from the courts? Wasn't that the whole idea - the rest of us, no mater how much we vote or how we word our state constitutional amendments - couldn't tell Ted and Bob what does and doesn't constitute a marriage? If Ted and Bob are free to choose the definition of marriage for themselves, why aren't the rest of us?
Further, up until about ten years ago, none of this was in question. Ted and Bob couldn't get married anywhere and that was that. Why all the screaming about some of us not moving at the same speed as the libertines? Where's the understanding and compassion for those who doubt the wisdom of declaring all family structures equal?
This isn't rational or legal, it's simply a rioting mob, convinced that it's engaged in a righteous crusade. Since the mob has the entertainment industry, tech tycoons and academia on its side, it seems much larger than it really is. From the polls I've seen, the gay marriage question isn't a landslide in either direction, but most of the noise is coming from the side of the rioters.
I suspect this latest libertine, all-families-are-equal rage-fest will end the way most riots end.
 |
| Lots of things smashed to bits and no reflection on the consequences 10-20 years from now. |
15 comments:
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm
If it's good enough for God, it should be good enough for everyone else.
As religion-crazed as I am, I'm not with you on this one, Anon. If the majority of the population votes to allow marriage between 6 men, 4 women and 8 parakeets, then that's the way it should be defined, so long as the voting was done according to our legislative rules.
What I do object to is the court system overturning the clear, legal will of the people. Overturning Prop 8 here in California made the judicial system our overlords. Overturning legal and appropriate voting is a precursor for revolution. If your paper votes don't count, I'm sure we can find some more, err, substantial ways of voting.
My other problem is that the constitutional right of gays to marry is a fantasy, concocted out of thin air while our rights to free exercise of religion are explicitly called out. Again, if the judicial system can impose its will over the populace, then they've become implacable, unreachable tyrants. That's not good at all.
I'm getting close to retirement. I'd really prefer my investments stable and not subject to the wild gyrations that might accompany secession, revolution, riots, what have you.
So two followup questions jump out at me.
1) Did God get it wrong? If putting homosexuals to death is immoral, why does the Bible have a passage which instructs otherwise?
2) The Racial Integrity Act was also passed as the clear, legal will of the people. Would you have similarly objected to those votes being discounted when they were overturned by Loving v. Virginia?
KT, well said. It is also galling that the left acts as if this change has been wrought through popular elections, when most elections went against gay marriage, even in California.
Have there been *any* state elections that broke in favor of "gay" mirage?
Anon, since I'm not Jewish, I don't live by nor do I seek to fully understand the Book of Leviticus. It beats me as to what the thing is on about. If you think it calls you to slaughter gays, I'd suggest you reconsider. I've never heard any rabbis calling for that sanction and I'd say they know better than you or I.
Maybe after you do some research, let us know what modern Jews of any particular stripe have to say about that passage.
As to your second question, anon, re: Loving v. Virginia, being a chap who believes in the science of biology and evolution and all that, I, like those sciences and theories, differentiate between race and sex.
One more thing, anon. In our legal system, the Constitution takes precedence over everything and everyone. If it says we get freedom of worship, then until that amendment is revoked, that's the last word on the subject.
B-Daddy: Thanks!
Ilion: I'm not sure if there have been any states passing said laws. I do know that states who have passed traditional definitions of marriage by huge margins have been told to get lost.
One person, one vote! Well, so long as you're a judge that is. The rest of you can sit down, shut up and do as you're told.
The point has nothing to do with race or sex. As you said, "what I do object to is the court system overturning the clear, legal will of the people." Do you object to all such instances, or not?
"
Ilion: I'm not sure if there have been any states passing said laws. I do know that states who have passed traditional definitions of marriage by huge margins have been told to get lost.
One person, one vote! Well, so long as you're a judge that is. The rest of you can sit down, shut up and do as you're told."
My point, exactly.
Anonymous blatters on about the Torah as if it were written yesterday about people living in Indiana with advanced medical care, instead of an ancient tribal population of people living in a harsh environment on the edge of survival. It's the fallacy of "presentism", described by Wiki as "a common fallacy", even among historians.
Male homosexual activity is medically dangerous and has outrageous social costs: "Use [of preexposure prophylaxis] in high-risk MSM compares favorably with other interventions that are considered cost-effective but could result in annual PrEP expenditures of more than $4 billion". In fact, male homosexuals are counseled by the government to physically isolate themselves from one another with surgical latex for disease mitigation during penetrative sexual activity.
A vastly larger heterosexual population in the US has consented to bear the majority cost of that economic burden on behalf of gays.
But, for an ancient culture with nothing in the way of medical care, social safety nets, and no institutional means to isolate the behavior or treat its effects, which in many cases would have been a death sentence anyway, it is easy to understand why they would fear it.
"The point has nothing to do with race or sex."
That is utter nonsense. Laws are entirely contextual. The regulations for brain surgeons are completely different than the ones governing plumbers.
Race != sex.
"Race != sex"
And there never was any law prohibiting persons afflicted with homosexuality from marrying. Nor did any (real) law on marriage ever even make reference to or enquiry into the sexual preferences or practices of either party -- the nearest the law came to that was back in the so-called bad old days, before divorce-on-demand, when sexual infidelity was one of the few legally recognized grounds for divorce.
I love this argument. My friends and I spend an enormous amount of our free time and money cleaning up after the social disasters created by the libertine, all-families-are-equally-valid crowd. They've created mountains of human debris, mountains so high that those of us working to comfort the afflicted will never be able to even dent. All we're asking is to be left alone and conduct our business according to our faith, protected by the Constitution and what do we get? Ever-growing legal attacks, slanderous ad hominems and ignorant people hurling snippets of scripture at us.
Jeezey Moe, dude, give it a rest. Go find a hobby. There's got to be something more interesting than whacking Christians. Maybe you could collect stamps or something. It's not like we're asking you to turn the iMac off, leave Starbucks and come to the jails and homeless shelters with us.
If you really want to go crazy, pop on down to your local Catholic Charities and lend a hand. You might learn something about us.
Concerning whether God commands that we put to death persons afflicted with homosexuality --
One of the primary lessons Christ intends us to get is that *everyone* is a rank sinner who deserves to be put to death.
The other primary lessons Christ intends us to get -- and which lesson makes no sense apart from the prior one -- is that *he* took upon himself the death we all deserve -- he became our death, so that we could be filled with life. Christ purchased the life of the person afflicted with homosexual desire as fully as he purchased the life of the person with sticky fingers of a roving eye.
===
At the same time, Big Gay (and all its supporters, irrespective of what they do with their dicks), is about leftist politics; it's about "the end of the world as we know it" ... including actively pushing as as to cause that end.
So, there is more to consider than just the immortal souls of persons who may, someday, against all expectation, repent their sin. There is also to be considered that fact that in the meantime these persons are actively working to ensnare other persons in their chosen sin.
Post a Comment