Skip to comments.Sexual Freedom vs. Religious Freedom
Posted on 11/03/2008 6:13:56 PM PST by It's me
America is at a crucial juncture.
Prop 8 really comes down to what is right and wrong concerning marriage. Tuesday, it will be written into law: we will either be a state that supports free religion or free sexuality. One of them will be judged as less important.
Watch this video, pass it on to your friends.
This is not an issue that anyone can remain silent on.
I just returned ten minutes ago from standing on a major intersection waving the Yes on 8 sign. I had lots of company (around 50 I think) of all ages, including lots of teens, and there were a whole lot of supporting honks from the commuters. Only a few obvious dissenters. It was fun, even during a couple of drenching rain squalls that passed through. I am wet and chilled but warmed by the positive support we received. Yes on 8.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM of course
no LIEBERAL should have the authority to tell a church who they CAN and CAN”T MARRY that is up to the church and GOD
Christians ought to focus on reforming their churches and church discipline first before thinking anything at all about the government. Individual relationships with God (particularly through the Holy Spirit), churches and church discipline are far more effective at regulating immoral behavior than any government will be.
Also the government needs to stop telling churches and religious bodies and individuals that they cannot teach against immoral activity (such as illicit heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc.) We simply need less government intervention in the whole affair and more individual and church involvement in the matter. For Christians, these matters are our responsibility to handle, not the government's. They need to get out of the way and let us handle our own responsibilities.
But marriage is part of our secular law too, not just a matter of religions recognizing marriage.
That’s what Prop 8 is about, which is how marriage will be recognized in the secular law. I agree that churches should define marriage and morality as they see fit, however, our culture and society should still have societal standards, or cultural norms such as marriage, or whatever term you want to use.
If only churches dealt with marriage, then those who are not religious, or only loosely tied to religion, would never be married at all. And that would be a detriment to them, to society, and to their children, in my opinion.
Marriage is FAR beyond a “religious and personal matter”; it’s a natural, biological, physiological matter with global social ramifications.
“Marriage” is a literal impossibility for same-gendered pairs, because opposite gendered pairing is THE elemental prerequisite for “marriage”.
So, supporting Prop 8 in preserving the literal, natural, centuries-old definition of “marriage” has exactly NOTHING to do with rights; civil, moral, legal, or otherwise. It has everything to do with affirming the astoundingly obvious, but studiously ignored.
So, it’s time to get on out and tell the queerly beloved that “No, same-gendered pairs don’t ‘marry’, so you can’t call it ‘marriage’.”
It’s just THAT simple.
Liberal radicals have a serious problem with religion. It's a top down system. The Church shares its revelations about God with you. You do not define what that teaching will be. I'm so sick of people telling the Catholic Church, for example, it must ordain women, must support married priests, must support homosexual marriage, must give condoms to Africans, must leave the UN...
If you believe those things, then find a "community of faithful" out there which reflect those views and let Catholicism be Catholicism.
I believe Prop 8 is ONLY about a State contract between two adults that it chooses to call "marriage" and not what goes on in Churches and their religious sacrament which also happens to be called "marriage."
The State needs to get out of the "marriage" (term) business. Call this collection of law domestic partnership, civil unions or any number of things.
If that is our criteria for deciding which sorts of things we ought to legislate, then I might remind everyone that this is also the same sort of logic that the left uses to push their agenda against religion (particularly Christianity). They look at the worst examples of people who call themselves Christians (i.e. the murdering, persecuting popes and Reformers of past ages, also people who supported slavery and racial segregation using the Bible, etc.) and think, if we allow these people to continue teaching what they teach then this is the sort of effect it will leave on the population. "And that would be a detriment to them, to society, and to their children, in my opinion." It could almost be verbatim from a person on the left in their views as to why freedom of religious expression ought to be curtailed.
I say this to point out the fact that this is not a valid way to look at matters of morals. Illicit heterosexuality is equally (I think more, simply because it's more common and prevalent) detrimental to people, to society and their children, and yet not too many people are screaming about legal regulations of premarital sex, adultery, divorce, etc. This is the ultimate double-standard and reveals how our thoughts on this subject have gone awry. It is impossible for the societal and familial effects of immoral sex (of any kind) to negated by any sort of law. It has to be chosen on the individual level, one by one. Otherwise, it never works.
Well, now, see that gets down to the "dirty little secret" most people don't realize about the Prop 8 fight in CA: in this State, under the legal framework of a "Civil Union", a same-gendered couple has ALL of the rights and privileges government affords to a "Married" couple. They will gain exactly ZERO additional benefits if Prop 8 doesn't pass.
Now, knowing that bit of deftly hidden information suddenly recasts the ENTIRE effort to get Prop 8 voted down, because it demonstrates conclusively that the issue isn't about any kind of rights being denied too anyone, but it's about forcing aberrant social behavior uopn the mainstream under an co-opted title so as to give it a false legitimacy.
Someone last night fronted the argument that it's as if softball leagues around the country began agitating to have their game renamed "baseball", because -- dontcha know -- they have a "right" to be "equal" with the players in the MLB and the MLB farm teams.
Obviously, however, changing the name to something besides "softball" won't change the game, and — in plain fact — they DON'T WANT to change their game, they just want it called "baseball" even though it never will actually BE "baseball".
Oddly, the "softball"/"baseball" analogy fits especially well, since softball -- like the gaystapo -- is characterized by an underhanded pitch.
And dare I mention it — the size of the balls involved!