First let me start off by saying, yes...I am still a Christian! In fact, that has a lot to do with why I'm voting no on Prop 2 (designating marriage as one man, one woman). I do not have a problem with a law that would simply do what I just stated....confirm that "marriage" is between one man and one woman. However, Prop 2 goes way beyond just that. It does not allow for any kind of legal standing for other people, and I would like to see this. I see no reason why the law cannot allow for 2 adults of the same sex to designate each other as next of kin for hospitalizations, inherited property, etc. This type of thing is not allowed for by prop 2.
Not only that, but I'm sick to death of Christians acting like homosexuality is the greatest sin on the planet and warrants all of our resources, time and effort to stop it. What about adultery? It's sin, but not illegal. Same goes for sex before marriage. Is anyone fighting to put unwed mothers in jail? I don't think so. Even better....why not pass a law that says its illegal to remarry after divorce? After all, that's what the Bible says, right? The problem is that too many Christians break that rule, so they'll never fight to make it a law. That's exactly my point here. The fact of the matter is that most people simply cannot imagine themselves being homosexual, so they think it's the worst thing ever. Anything they can imagine themselves being tempted to do....not so bad, and definitely shouldn't be illegal.
Additionally, I do not believe that the Bible should be the standard for the law of the land. Just because we might possibly have the majority right now does not mean that we should legislate our faith. Heaven forbid the majority ever fall to the Muslims and we find our grandchildren living under Sharia law! It's just not right.
Lastly, I do not believe it's what Jesus would have done. Jesus was all about social justice, and that's what this law is about (or against, in this case). Jesus spent all of his time with those who were outside of the law, and outside of the religious, moral lifestyle of the day. He did not spend His time trying to change their behavior, He spent it trying to change their hearts. If we as Christians are so concerned about homosexual behavior, our time would be much more well spent developing friendships with gays and introducing them to the One who can change their lives. As it stands, I'm sure they only see Christians as antagonists who want to make their lives miserable and who seemingly hate them. I could not blame them for making those assumptions, based on the way "we" love to bash them.
As a human being, I cannot help but care about those who live in a lifestyle that is so shunned and despised by Christians....those called to love all. I sympathize with the fact that they are simply asking for a few laws to make their lives far less legally complicated. The passing of this law has nothing to do with whether or not having homosexual relations is a sin or not. This vote should not be a statement of one's morality or personal choices of lifestyle, as those have no place in the legal system. It is simply a matter of social justice. Until a law is presented that will provide social justice for everyone, it won't be getting my vote.
I need to add a special note of thanks to my brother, Ken, whose phrasing I occasionally borrowed in this post!
I'm alive . . .
1 year ago
Posts
10 comments:
Thank you! Finally, someone understands Christianity!
Tis one thing to preach love and outreach to those that aren't beleivers and engage in lifestyles that pronounce that fact, tis another to vote in favor of a law to sanction and give license to that behavior. Not voting would be one thing, but voting NO is quite another.
I never saw Jesus giving anyone permission to sin. Your wanting convienences under the law (next of kin rights, etc) encourages and gives license to this behavior.
Would I jail unwed mothers? Of course not? Would I jail two gay lovers? OF COURSE NOT! Would I give an unwed mother special rights because she is an unwed mother? Of course not. Would I give gay men special rights because they are gay? Of course not.
I would pray about this some more. There's nothing loving about encouraging people to engage in behavior that destroys them.
-JacquefromTexas
I'm wondering if you read my post correctly, or if I'm just that poor of a communicator.
No one is asking for "special except" for gays, in fact quite the opposite. It wasn't "special rights" when women and blacks were given the right to vote, and it's not "special rights" now. It is equal rights under the law. Regardless of whether a person chooses to follow God's law or not, they deserve equal rights under the laws of the land, which are NOT necessarily God's law. We cannot legislate and mandate Christianity. If we do, not only are we in error, we risk the chance that one day we will be subjected to laws that mandate a faith different than ours. That's why we cannot legislate ANY faith.
When you stop trying to make God's law the law of the land, you are left with what we are actually dealing with....an issue of social justice. For those of you who don't know what that means, it is simply having a social system in this country that treats everyone the same way.
This is not a question of equality. Period. It's a question of BEHAVIOR not being. I am a female. That's not my behavior; it's my being. To deny me the right to vote or own property because of my being is wrong, but if I as a female choose to engage in behavior that segregates myself, society shouldn't change age-old traditions to accomodate my behavior, especially when that behavior is harmful to everyone involved.
Suppose I like to run around naked but I want to eat at a restaurant. But they say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Am I being oppressed? I mean, I'm a person. You clothes-wearing people get to run around in public and eat where you please? Shouldn't everyone be treated the same way? That's social justice, right?
It's not legislating morality to NOT bless and sanction deviant behavior. This is a bahavior issue. Because I choose to have sex with females, or horses, or children, these behaviors do not mean that the stipulations reserved for marital unions should apply to me. We deny marriage certificates to polygamists- Is that social injustice?
Yes, the laws of this land are indeed NOT God's law. We deny equal rights to unborn babies and kill 4400 of them a day.
I guess you think that gay people are not in control of their behavior and are born gay?
Christians aren't the ones making homosexuality a big deal. The homosexuals are the ones that have made it a big deal. Christians are just responding to gays' political activism. If they hadn't tried to make gay relationships equal to marriage in the first place, none of this would be necessary. Yes, they are entitled to live their lifestyle any way they please. But don't try to change the traditional definition of marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. They are the ones trying to change that. This proposition is to clarify what most people consider marriage.
I agree that we should love them and treat them equally, just like all the rest of us sinners. The Bible teaches us to love the person though, not the sin. If we approve homosexual "marriage" we are condoning the lifestyle. I believe we can love the person without that. I think I've done that with gay family members. Yes, we all sin and have inclinations to particular ones that challenge us continually. But no one else is flaunting their sin and demanding that Biblical traditions be changed. I don't see adulterers, unwed mothers, child pornographers or drug abusers doing that.
From the things I read I've seen that Christian organizations are addressing other areas; pornography especially, divorce, gambling, etc. A few years back everyone was asking, "Why is divorce the only unforgivable sin?" That's what it seemed like. But it wasn't then, nor is it now. And neither is homosexuality. But it's the one in the forefront because the gays brought it there, so it must be addressed.
I have no problem with a person (anyone) choosing their next of kin for insurance purposes, hospitals, or anything else. But that doesn't mean we have to change the definition of marriage. There's got to be another way to address that.
It's a lot harder to change a law once it is in place. Look what happened with Roe v. Wade. And where are we now?
Dear T-Bug,
Thanks for your in-depth post.
"I see no reason why the law cannot allow for 2 adults of the same sex to designate each other as next of kin for hospitalizations, inherited property, etc. This type of thing is not allowed for by prop 2."
The section 2 of the amendment (click here to see the full language) says "This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint
guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Thus, it seems to me that designating each other as next of kin for hospitalizations and inherited property IS allowed for by prop. 2.
More later....
"...I'm sick to death of Christians acting like homosexuality is the greatest sin [snip] What about adultery? It's sin, but not illegal."
I am not aware that the proposition makes homosexuality illegal. It seems to me that the issue at hand is not make homosexuality illegal (BTW: I am against legally prosecuting homosexuality) but opening the door to making alternative forms of marriage legal.
A vote for proposition 2 is a vote to keep the definition of marriage to one man and one woman. A vote against prop. 2 opens the door to making other forms of marriage legal. Why create the possibility of legalizing alternative forms of marriage?
Why should 2 homosexuals be allowed to be married? Or 3? Or 5?
wow! does the separation of church and state mean anything anymore? news flash! The Bible is a book! Homosexuality causes no harm to the general public. why is it that that a word "marriage" is suddenly something that needs legal protection. if a marriage is based on what seems to be referred to as "God's law" why does the government have anything to do with it? Maybe if a couple wishes to be recognized by the state for hosp. benefits etc, then they should file for a "civil union"-type licenese. Then if the couple wishes to be recognized by a religion, any religion they should apply with that church. If we do wish to start legislating from The Bible we should by all means not allow divorce. "what God has joined let no man divide" and all. Therefore by allowing divorce (a behavior) and then allowing the divorced person to remarry (another behavior),not to mention passing on the next of kin rights etc., we are encouraging or at least condoning divorce. right? not to mention i am one of those persons who believes that people are infact born gay. not to mention this is in a way a sexual discrimination. If a man can only legally marry a woman, are we not dening women who wish to marry women the right that every man has? and vice versa? If we were all treated equally straight people would not be forced to marry gay people. we all just marry who we truly love. why is this so hard to grasp? I saw an advertisement the other day with the tag line "the marriage of innovation and design" or something like that. Shall we not allow such use of the word marriage? If prop 2 passes it will mark a rare time when a constitution will be used to curtail freedoms instead of expanding them and guaranteing them
hold the phone a minute. prop 2 is not disigned to MAKE gays get married it is designed to prevent them from both getting married as well as gaining the rights that accompany marriage. if you agree the gays have the right to marry but argue that since they are a relatively small minority we shouldn't ensure their rights as we would with a larger group of people. I agree, we shouldn't HAVE to make substitution rights for any American. That's why my is in an ideal world marriage would be for everyone. Period. gay straight or in in between. my formula about having 2 types of marriages was to illustrate a valid point. Marriage is both a religious and a civil matter. but we should not allow one to supercede the other. a gay couple should have the rights given by the government. Period. The different religions can decide if they wish to be inclusive of all human beings or not. In any event being that churches enjoy a tax exempt status they should not be allowed to make financial contributions to further ballot initives which would discriminate from a civil standpoint. If a religion chooses not to recognize marriages between certain people, so be it. But people would all be allowed the same rights under the law.
If the Bible says it is WRONG it Is WRONG so quit trying to dance around the issue and accept it for what it is. God made a woman for Adam not a man. It makes me sick how people take something that is plainly written in the BIBLE and twist it to fit their lifestyle. Just because you Vote yes does not mean you hate gays just the way they choose to live.
Post a Comment