Lesbians in California are attempting to use government power to force doctors to artificially inseminate them, regardless of the doctors' moral or religious objections.
From CNS News:
Justices on the California Supreme Court unanimously held Monday that Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, who work at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., could not use the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and free speech to be exempt from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian.
In the unanimous decision, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote: “Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no.”
If these women want a child this badly, they should seek children in the legitimate manner: marry a man and have him impregnate them.
Just because they don't like the correct way of doing things doesn't mean society, doctors or morality should bend to accommodate their rebelliousness.
The Hippocratic oath says to do no harm. This would do harm to children intentionally born into a situation where they are robbed of a father. This action would cause these doctors to violate a medical tenet that goes back thousands of years and transcends any one religious belief.
These doctors also have a moral conviction about the natural way for creating a family, and for the welfare of the resulting children themselves.
These homosexual women are entitled to have any nutty idea that enters their head, but they are not entitled to force others to accommodate their nutty ideas--especially when what they are demanding is contrary to the good health and welfare of the resulting children.
This would also involve using government power to force a person (the doctors) to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
Given that this is California, there is no doubt that these women could easily find a doctor as morally bankrupt as themselves who would perform the procedure. But it isn't about that; it's about their agenda to undermine societal morality and force others to accommodate their perverted agenda. Homosexual activists don't simply want tolerance; they demand complete acceptance and legitimacy from all corners of society.
Our society once recognized that individuals have the right to believe whatever they want, and to do whatever they want so long as that action doesn't infringe on the rights and welfare of another.
That wisdom has been thrown out the window in favor of an authoritarian system which says that, if one can enlist the power of government, they can force someone else to serve them and meet their desires. This philosophy is based on the transient morality of the moment and whoever can successfully get the power of government on its side at the moment.
Ultimately, such a philosophy which ignores transcendent moral values leaves everyone in jeopardy. You might win your battle in this area today, but someone else may come after you tomorrow...and if they can successfully convince government power to back them, then you're toast.
Better that we should return to the Judeo-Christian worldview of transcendent moral values that our great nation was founded on.
50 comments:
Bob Ellis... I live in California and we are quite happy treating people here with respect.
That's something apparently you know nothing about because you seem to live in a by-gone era where discrimination and bigotry was an acceptable practice.
So along with the abolishment of slavery, emancipation of women, denial of segregation and allowance of interracial marriages, your beliefs are quite outdated.
And as for your relgious beliefs, if you're going to talk about morality, then at least show a little less mean-spiritedness and learn the value of love and compassion.
And if we are on the subject of immorality, let's take a look at our fellow heterosexuals: infidelity, spousal abuse, spousal abandonment... need I go on? You're too busy throwing stones at others to bother you look over your shoulder at our own moral shortfalls.
obviously you have not heard of the seperation of church and state. thank god the supreme court has. thank you for vocalizing your understanding. you are making it common knowledge how important seperation between church and state is.
why is it that believers cannot merely say i believe homosexuality is a sin..........period. why do they have to add how they are instruments of satan do disgusting things, and are filled with evil. and then attempt to discriminate against them by withholding public access.
I've amended one of your paragraphs for you as you seem to have let a couple of errors creep in...
These doctors are entitled to have any nutty idea that enters their head, but they are not entitled to practise discrimination in who they treat according to their nutty ideas--especially when what they are doing is contrary to the good health and welfare of their patients.
Anonymous, morality, right and wrong are never outdated. They don't change with our whims as you seem to think they do.
It isn't a loving act to subject children to a situation where they are robbed of a father. Nor is it a loving act to subject a child to a sexually abnormal environment.
It also isn't a loving act to force a doctor to do something that violates their conscience.
Heterosexuals have their own list of sins. But let's not add to society's problems. Surely you've heard of, understand and hopefully see the sense in "Two wrongs don't make a right."
feetxxxl, I know exactly what "separation of church and state" is; apparently you have no idea what it means, or you'd realize it is totally irrelevant to this issue.
"Separation of church and state" means we do not have a state religion in this country. It means the state does not set church policy and it also means the state is not run by theological doctrine.
It does NOT, however, mean we can or should sanitize the public square of religious expression (remember the First Amendment?), nor does it mean that our moral values cannot or should not inform public policy. If you read the writings of the founders--and actually most of our leaders until recently--you will find that they recognized the importance of our Christian value system to the health of our society.
No, Anonymous 3:53, it was correct the first time.
The nutty idea is that fathers are irrelevant. The nutty idea is that two women should force a doctor to do to one of them what any sane person realizes a husband should do.
Indulging these women in their nutty ideas (see above) isn't good for their mental health, just as indulging someone who thinks they're Napoleon isn't good for them.
And subjecting a child to this kind of environment definitely isn't good for the health and welfare of that poor child.
That poor child? Are you people for real? What cave did you just crawl out of. Loving families are NEVER a bad thing, whether it be to moms or two dads or a mom and dad. Homosexuality is ONLY a sin in the mind of people who are trying to cover their own sins. Since when was love, in any form a sin.
GET A LIFE, or better yet, move to Saudi Arabia where women still don't have the right to vote, or go to Conga where hundreds of women are raped everyday...you know, the way God intended sex, a man and a woman.
What about two people having children for whom they are capable of raising and paying for (usually much better off than straight parents) affects your life? How does who or how anyone else loves affect you life? IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! DON'T LIKE IT, LEAVE PLANET EARTH!
James, one of the key reasons we don't experience conditions like those in Saudi Arabia and Congo is because America was founded on Christian values. Among those values are respect for the individual no matter how big or small, recognition that women and men perform vital and specific roles in society, and that there is a transcendent moral code and a transcendent moral authority to whom we are accountable.
If we abandon it as you advocate, we will likely have what you see in many places (like the ones you mentioned) where they don't recognize these values.
Intentionally robbing a child of a mother or a father is NOT a loving act, so one could not really define a homosexual family as a "loving family." The two men or women might feel love for the child, but they would not be placing the child's best interest ahead of their own selfish desires, so it could not be said to be a "loving home."
Study after study has found that children do by far the best in homes where both mother and father are present. They not only have role models from each sex, so that they can see how the sexes work together and interact (thus preparing them for a well-adjusted adulthood), they also experience far greater stability which results in better academic performance. Children robbed of a parent usually get into trouble with the law and experiment with drugs and/or alcohol.
Numerous studies also show that homosexuals suffer from a far greater incidence of AIDS, other STDs, anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide. This is the LAST place we should put a developing child.
The two-parent family is both ordained by God and is obviously the proper way for child rearing; even nature teaches us that.
If you don't like that, perhaps YOU should find another planet where homosexual relationships are normal, natural and healthy--because that isn't the case on this planet.
Bob, I really love your conviction and devotion to your beliefs, but you really need to do your own research and stop regurgitating what you've heard from your "religious leaders". They will tell you whatever is necessary to keep you fearful and obedient to them.
First your research on a mother father family. Where did that information come from? I bet it was from some religiously bias camp. As it stands right now there hasn't been a lot of research on how children fair in families that have same sex couples. On a side track, when was the last time you heard of a same sex couple abusing, neglecting or killing their children? Back on track now, what would those religious leaders do if research came back saying that children of gay couples were just as normal if not more well rounded than those of heterosexual couples?
On to gay people are more likely to do harm to themselves. The main reason why gay people suffer from those conditions is because of people like you and your religious leaders that make us feel less than worth or even human. Bob, I think if someone told you from the time you were conscience of yourself, that you were evil and full of sin and were going to hell, you might suffer from those conditions.
And if you want to throw the bible into the mix, if you've cut your sideburns or allowed your wife to cut her hair, it’s an abomination. If you enjoy shrimp or a nice ham roast, guess what, it's an abomination.
Before you talk about the fleck that is in the homosexual community’s eye, get ride of that mass caked over yours.
All this I say to you in love and understanding.
Bob, you said: "Intentionally robbing a child of a mother or a father is NOT a loving act."
Two things. First, this implies that single parents do not love their kids. Are you sure you want to commit to that sentiment?
Second, I'd be careful not to use such broad strokes when discussing morality and love. If a child lives only with his father, and that father happens to be a sexually abusive drunk, wouldn't the loving thing be to get that child out of such an unstable environment? In the process, you'd be intentionally robbing the child of his father (your exact words), but ultimately you're doing the right and loving thing, aren't you?.
Maybe you should stop being such a moral absolutist and THINK for once about how your words apply to real situations, or at least qualify your outdated beliefs. Right now, the consistently generalized pearls of wisdom you offer convey nothing but your ignorance and prejudice.
im still waiting to hear how the parents of the same gender provide a less nurturing less ;loving environmemnt for raising children.
history is filled with people wjho excelled in my body and spirit who were raised by a single relative.......grandmother, aunt, father, concerned neighbor,etc. where is the indication they were limited by being raised by a single gender.
there was none, because caregiver having received the love of god in his heart( he loved us believers first) in the SPIRIT of that love, loved themselves and those they were parenting.
how is it that a believer could possibly put such limitations on that love that is credited with everything, and when 1cor13 says that anything without love is nothing and gains nothing.
1cor13:4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8LOVE...........NEVER FAILS.
where in scripture does it put limitations on the agape love that is god?
where does it say, that even if a child is raised in the love that is god, there is something else that is required to be god's best
Actually "Who I'm Suppose to Be," I don't simply "regurgitate" what I've heard from the religious leaders of my faith, though most of them are reliable. I use the Bible for the high-level details of morality, and good science to shed light on the details of how that works.
My information comes from sources like the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Justice statistics, books such as "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence" by D. Island and P. Letellier, "Handbook of Family Development and Intervention" by William C. Nichols, reports such as "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications" by Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier in the Journal of Social Service Research, and other publications such as the American Sociological Review, and even homosexual groups and publications such as the Washington Blade and HRC surveys.
You asked about "the last time you heard of a same sex couple abusing, neglecting or killing their children." Ian Wathey and Craig Faunch were jailed last year in Great Britain for repeatedly abusing four foster children placed in their care.
Dawn Stefanowicz is a grown woman who was raised in a homosexual home, and she tells a heart-wrenching story of the high-risk sexual behavior of her biological father, his promiscuity, domestic abuse, abuse at the hands of her father's partners, etc.
As I stated before, simply subjecting a child to an environment where they are robbed of one or the other adult sex role model, with high-risk sexual behavior, promiscuity, increased risk of disease, increased domestic violence, increased substance abuse, increased depression and suicide...intentionally subjecting a child to this environment is unconscionable.
Your protest that homosexuals engage in dangerous, unhealthy behavior and suffer from substance abuse and depression also doesn't hold water. There is no substantive difference in these behaviors even in areas (such as San Francisco or Scandinavia) where homosexuality is much more accepted. It would appear that, like all immoral behaviors, behaving contrary to what the conscience tells us is wrong takes a mental and emotional toll on a person.
It might also help you to know that the Bible references you quoted dealing with grooming and diet are no longer in effect. They were superseded by the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ. An example of this can be found in Acts chapter 10. Homosexual behavior, however, is repeatedly condemned even after the New Covenant was established, because it has nothing to do with ritual or dietary laws, but is a behavior contrary to God's design for human sexuality as outlined in Genesis chapter 2 and Mark chapter 10.
As if this wasn't enough to establish that homosexual behavior is immoral and unnatural, nature itself illustrates that homosexual behavior is aberrant and not in the natural order. If it were, biological species could not continue because they could not reproduce to replace dying organisms. Simple biology also illustrates the proper use for our body parts; it isn't in a homosexual manner.
All this is said in love, in pursuit of greater understanding and enlightenment.
Anonymous 11:32, I did not say single parents do not love their children. I said: "Intentionally robbing a child of a mother or a father is NOT a loving act."
Some single parents do not intentionally rob their children of a mother or father; some are single parents because of the death of a spouse, or are unwillingly made single parents because of the irresponsible behavior/insistence on divorce by their partner.
But regardless of the love that any parent, homosexual or heterosexual, may feel for their child, intentionally robbing a child of a mother or a father is NOT a loving act.
To answer your second issue, yes, the loving thing to do would be to remove the child from the sexually abusive environment. I think common sense (which you seem to be ignoring) would indicate that, since the father has proven himself a direct threat to the well being of the child, this danger supersedes the immediate need to have the father in the home. Try to at least use common sense in your attempts to justify immoral behavior; it will at least make your arguments slightly more credible sounding.
Morality, the best family structure, and the needs of children will never be "outdated" because people as an organism do not change. We do not "evolve" or "outgrow" the basic human needs, which for children include a stable home environment with a mother and father.
Just wishing for John Lennon's non-judgmental "Imagine" world won't make it real. In fact, it will never be real because it, along with the part of it that fits with the homosexual agenda, attempt to completely ignore human nature and moral law.
Adults understand that "Because I want it" doesn't produce reality. It would be much more healthy if homosexual activists just knuckled down and accepted reality. It would be far more healthy for everyone.
feetxxxl, God designed the human family to be created by a mother and father (Genesis 2 and Mark 10). As I've already explained, children need a mother and a father to model the sexes and their daily interaction so that they can learn both how they are supposed to act and how they are supposed to interact with the opposite sex.
Yes, people throughout history and today are raised by only one parent...but they are at a disadvantage. It is unconscionable to intentionally place children in that environment.
Love demands that we not rob children of the best possible environment in which to grow and develop, and it also demands we not place them in a home which is likely to be characterized by promiscuity, disease, substance abuse, depression and suicide.
I remember we have had essentially this same discussion before, feetxxxl. You desperately need to study the Bible, and likely need some help from a good Biblical scholar. You are either pulling my leg with your infantile interpretations of Scripture, or are in desperate need of help in understanding.
Bob,
True, death is a good example of how not all single parents intentionally deprive their children of a parent. But what if the surviving spouse chooses not to remarry?
By the way, I never said that you SAID single parents rob their kids of a mother or father; I said that your comment IMPLIES it. You really do seem to have some kind of reading disability.
Ah, no, Anonymous. There is no reading disability here.
There is, however, a refusal to put anything ahead of your own selfish desires on your part, though. As long as you remain committed to subordinating the welfare of children--and society in general--to your lusts, you'll never understand anything I've said here.
"Yes, people throughout history and today are raised by only one parent...but they are at a disadvantage. It is unconscionable to intentionally place children in that environment."
Well as long as you're throwing stones and telling complete strangers how to live, why not vote for a federal amendment requiring all single parents to marry?
Or here's a better idea: mind your own business and stop trying to police the world. It's pathetic.
Perhaps it would make more sense to teach people to be sexually responsible, rather than to teach them to follow their animal lusts.
Another good idea would be to do away with the no-fault divorce that has devastated our society over the past 40 years.
I'll mind my own business when homosexual activists quit trying to change society, rewrite nature and force everyone to accept an unnatural, unhealthy and immoral lifestyle.
Did you think I was kidding? If you would seriously vote for a ban on no-fault divorce, then I genuinely want to know how you'd feel about forcing single parents to marry.
Bob Said "James, one of the key reasons we don't experience conditions like those in Saudi Arabia and Congo is because America was founded on Christian values. "
Always so convenient you theocrats! Don't look at Saudi Arabia or the Congo. You don't have to look so far. Colombia was founded on Judeo-Christian values and they are in constant disruption. The world's largest Catholic country, Brazil, is inundated with poverty and strife (but for your kind Catholics may not be Christian enough but the basis of their values are Judeo-Christian). Haiti is a country based on Christian values... need I even say more? Haiti! Get over your materialistic superiority complex.
Bob if those verses of the Bible were superseded by the New Covenant why is the one verse not? Also, if you read and understand the context of the Bible as a tribal book you will understand that they meant that in a way to make their tribe grow. Remember the gentleman in the Bible that allowed his seed to spill on the ground, he was put to death because he had wasted his seed. If that's they case not one man alive, except for maybe you, would be dead. I also want to know why you're so knowledgeable about all things gay? Why are you so concerned about what we do? Do you have any gay friends? Maybe you should get one and realize we are the same the only difference is who we chose to love.
Hahaha!
If these Lesbians want to have kids, they should just stop being lesbians, and have husband impregnate them!?!?!
I'm sorry, but THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
I don't think you do, Anonymous 1:52. There's a big difference between requiring someone to meet the obligations of a contract they entered into willingly (especially one which involves the welfare of children) and forcing someone to marry.
If you don't understand such an elemental truth, well, I suppose that goes along with a lot of other elemental truths you don't understand (or more likely, DO understand but just refuse to accept).
Myopic, Marcos D.
First, I'm not a theocrat. I don't advocate a theocracy. In a theocracy, the country is ruled by church officials.
America, conversely, has since its inception always been governed by people and laws based on the precepts of the Bible. There is no official state religion or state church. The people and laws, however, are influenced and informed by the Christian worldview. Has been since colonial times, and it has produced the greatest, most free, most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. I would suggest you read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" to understand better how Christianity has profoundly influenced America without being an official part of our government.
Also, don't confuse Catholic influence with Christian influence. That is no more proper than to confuse Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian influence with Christian influence. While Catholic and Baptist and Methodist and Presbyterian doctrine is based on Christianity, none of them are synonymous with Christianity, provide what Christianity does, or are infallible as is Christian doctrine.
Haiti has some Catholic roots, but it also has a heavy pagan Voodoo influence, along with an unhealthy dose of humanism it inherited from the French. A large number of Haitian settlers were also lawless pirates who had no interest in morals or noble ideals.
Brazil also has heavily Catholic roots...but historically little commitment to living by the Christian worldview. Its rulers have been more interested in feathering their own nests than human rights, God-given dignity and liberty, fairness and integrity.
In both countries, corruption has become a way of life. The people and leaders of these countries have for a long time had no interest in living according to a Christian worldview...and it shows in the conditions you described.
Our nation is not perfect; no person or people lives perfectly according to Christian precepts. But our country was founded more closely on those precepts than any other nation (except perhaps ancient Israel) by a people more dedicated to following those principles than any group of people has ever been.
Most of the problems our nation is experiencing is because approximately 60 years ago we began to walk away from the Christian worldview. And as we move farther and farther away from it, we will see more of things like more burdensome laws, loss of freedom, more crime, more youth rebellion, disintegration of the family, more government corruption, until our cilivlization eventually becomes ripe for collapse because everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes and there is no acknowledgement of a common objective moral standard to bind us together.
Saying something is "this" denomination or "that" denomination really says nothing about its adherence to Christian principles. Even saying something is "Christian" is meaningless if Christian principles aren't lived out.
As Christ said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." Christian means "Christ follower." If the person or nation isn't following Christ's commands and living according to them, then they don't live up to the title "Christian."
The founders of this nation did live up to Christ's teachings as well as any group of human beings ever have. And it is only because of the foundation laid by their commitment to Christ that we enjoy this great, free, peaceful and prosperous nation.
And the quickest way to destroy that peace and prosperity is to walk away from the foundation which produced it...which we are beginning to do.
Anonymous 4:37, I think I explained the "one verse" already; please go back and read what I said again. To elaborate a little on that, many of those old ritual and dietary laws were given to illustrate spiritual truths to the Old Testament Jews that pointed to and were fulfilled in the coming of Christ.
Your "tribal book" analogy is a tired and irrelevant excuse long trotted out by homosexual activists to try and justify what God makes abundantly clear in both Old and New Testaments is immoral for Jews and Gentiles alike.
The reference about the spilled seed also has to do with disobedience, not masturbation or a "failure to grow the tribe."
I've studied about homosexuality because it is probably the single greatest area of assault on normality, sexuality, the family, marriage and Christian values today. I'd be a fool not to study the single greatest threat to the foundations of American society--and society as a whole.
If homosexual activists would quit trying to undermine society and demanding that everyone legitimize an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice, I wouldn't have the same need to be concerned. Until they do, I will be.
God has called me and all his followers to be salt and light to a dark and rotting world. I can't obey God and ignore such darkness and decay.
Matt, if I want a Big Mac, I need to go to McDonalds. I have no right to demand Pizza Hut give me a Big Mac.
If these women want a child that bad, they should go and get one the proper way; otherwise, do without.
Their demand for one in this manner--and especially at the expense of another person's convictions--is the height of self-centered arrogance.
This is first anonymous posting above(guy in California).
I see you are very adamant about your opinions. But it doesn't matter, bigotry is bigotry and discrimination is unacceptable regardless of your justifications.
A doctor takes a hippocratic oath to help others and if they can't do that, then they should take up a different profession.
It is not acceptable for a doctor to not help someone who's Jewish because they feel they are "christ killers". They can not refuse to help blacks just because they have the "mark of Cain". They can not refuse to help Atheists, Catholics or Muslims just because they disagree with their beliefs.
Nor can a doctor use passages of the bible to refuse to help adulters, divorcees nor homosexuals just because he feels his religious beliefs oppose those sinners.
So it boils down to allowing a person's bigotry to use the excuse of religious beliefs to justify refusing to help someone. Sorry, but this doesn't cut it and the judges have ruled discrimination is wrong no matter who the target of the discrimination is.
So, you can talk all you want about justifications for your own bigotry and prejudices, but its unacceptable, plain and simple!
Guy In California
Bob Ellis wrote: "God has called me and all his followers to be salt and light to a dark and rotting world. I can't obey God and ignore such darkness and decay."
You say "God" called you???
If God was really talking to you, he'd suggest you get some psychological help there buddy.
When the time comes, let God deal with the homosexual and heterosexual sinner and maybe you should focus on your own sins/issues?
Why continue this personal crusade against homosexuals as it seems to just peril your chances of going to heaven if you truly aren't doing the right thing showing such mean-spritedness... ever think about that?
Bob Ellis writes: "I've studied about homosexuality because it is probably the single greatest area of assault on normality, sexuality, the family, marriage and Christian values today. I'd be a fool not to study the single greatest threat to the foundations of American society--and society as a whole."
I'm curious... and just how did you "study" about homosexuality? Did you read about them in a book or just use the bible as your reference?
Can you tell me Why is it people who have such strong negative opinions about homosexuals are usually the ones who haven't a real clue about them?
IF you had homosexual family members and friends, you wouldn't write half the stuff you say is based upon "studies".
So tell me Bob Ellis, you have any gay children? Any gay brothers or sisters that you are still in contact with? Any really gay people, who can give you better insight to what being homosexual is really all about?
If you don't, then stop your lies.... at least I've got gay friends and they've educated me to understand them.
It's intolerant bible-preaching people like you, I've yet to understand....???
Anonymous 10:41, it would be unacceptable for a doctor to withhold live-saving treatment for any reason, regardless of whether the person is homosexual, Jewish, Christian or Martian.
This is not life-saving treatment.
And what these lesbians are demanding is not "help." It is a demand to intentionally subject a child to an abnormal home life where the child is intentionally deprived of a father.
That would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath (not to mention Christian values, and common sense for that matter) for someone who takes all those things seriously.
Anonymous 10:50, I didn't hear God's audible voice, but God made it clear in multiple places in the Bible that if someone is going to seriously accept his truth and be one of his followers, you have to help bring that truth to other people.
I worry about my own sins every day and confess them.
When homosexual activists quit demanding society accept their sin as normal and legitimate, then I can focus more on my own sins and less on helping people identify the truth about this one.
Why don't you help me with that by admitting homosexuality is a sin and asking God to forgive you?
"There's a big difference between requiring someone to meet the obligations of a contract they entered into willingly (especially one which involves the welfare of children) and forcing someone to marry."
So it's unconscionable to force people to marry? What about an unmarried couple who live together and raise three children? Would you force THEM to marry? Under what penalty? It's all about the children after all, so wouldn't it behoove you to honor your loyalty to God and see to it that these kids are being raised under a legitimate and God-ordained union? You seem to think it's your business when a married couple gets a no-fault divorce, so wouldn't it also be your business to impose God's holy will upon this unmarried couple living outside the sanctity of wedlock?
As I said, Anonymous 9:18, we should not force people to marry.
However, if THEY truly had their children's best interest at heart and truly loved them enough to provide what is best for them, they would make the commitment to provide the stability and security children should have and get married.
You can't force someone to enter into a contract, but once it has been entered into, it should be kept.
So I'm curious.
What happens if Proposition 8 is defeated and Same Sex marriage becomes fully legal in California as it is in Massachusetts?
What do you do then Bob as homosexual rights slowly spread across the country? Even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of homosexuals so eventually they will probably side with them.
From what I'm seeing we can't stop the homosexuals from forcing their lifestyles on the rest of us. Once they came out of the closet, it just seems impossible to shove them back in there...
That's a good question, Anonymous, and I really don't know.
All I do know is that we need to remain faithful to the truth, keep telling the truth to society, and keep trying to fight the decay.
If more people would speak up to spread that truth, and if we would all hold our leaders accountable to the law, we would fare better.
Judges that make up law by pulling something out of the air have clearly violated their duty and oath of office, and should be impeached. That would be the best way to put a quick halt to much of this...but again, it requires that the people hold their elected officials accountable for in turn holding the judiciary accountable (i.e. impeachment).
Bob,
In a manner of speaking, you CAN force someone to enter into a contract. You used to be a cop, right? The vow you took to uphold and enforce the law was a requirement, a contract between officer and community. You chose to be a cop, of course, but you had no choice but to enter into this contract to achieve your goal. Likewise, a surgeon cannot practice unless he enters into a contract between doctor and patient to do no harm; if you want to be a doctor, you are REQUIRED to take this step.
Now, just as you were not forced to become a cop, you were not forced to get married. But if you want to be sexually active with the woman you love and raise children together according to God's will, you are required by your religion to enter into the contract of marriage. If that is truly what you want, then you have no choice in the matter when it comes to this contract. Some people make it their job to raise children; they have no profession other than to stay at home and make sure their kids turn out right. According to the Bible, the best way to be a parent is within the context of marriage. In fact, all of your research about children and families tells you that kids are more likely to succeed, contribute to society, excel in school, learn morality, obey the law, and be all-around better citizens if their parents are married. So it should be a no-brainer...if society really cares about children, then it will require parents to have a marriage license, just as a doctor needs a medical license.
Let's look at parenting as a profession like any other. A patient has a better chance of surviving an operation if his surgeon has a license, training, and years of practice, right? A student has a better chance of learning and making it to college if his teachers are educated themselves. An airline passenger has a better chance of landing at his destination if his pilot knows how to fly a plane. These professionals are not merely bending to suggestions; they are following legal requirements in order to perform their job to the best of their ability and for the benefit and safety of the people they serve. Likewise, in order for a parent to raise children to the best of his or her ability, the Bible and nearly every resource you encounter tells you that marriage is the best way to go. So why not make it a legal requirement that all parents be married?
Think about it: let's say that you live next door to a couple in their thirties who have two kids and are working on their third. They have been together for over ten years, and they appear to have a solid relationship. There's just one problem -- they're not married. This goes against everything you've learned about how best to raise children, so you politely ask your neighbors if they have any wedding plans in their future. They tell you they're against marriage as an institution, that they don't need a contract and a gold band to tell them that their relationship is important and sacred.
If you believe that the single most important job one can have is to raise children and prepare the next generation, then wouldn't you want your neighbors to meet certain criteria? If God's Word is truly the best source for wisdom and morality, then shouldn't there be a law influenced by the Bible that says it's illegal for your neighbors to raise children out of wedlock? That if you want to be a parent, you are REQUIRED to earn a marriage license?
Furthermore, if marriage is really the best environment for children, then shouldn't the government remove children from divorced parents and place them in a home that provides the stability, comfort, and moral foundation of marriage? Just as a doctor is no longer allowed to treat patients if she breaks the Hippocratic Oath, shouldn't divorced parents be prohibited from raising their own children if they break the sacred and legally binding contract of marriage?
I'd like to hear a compelling argument.
Anonymous 1:50, in one sense, parenting is a "job."
However, your analogy falls flat when it encounters reality, which is pretty quickly.
In order to be a cop, there are certain things you must be endowed with from society. Before you can even begin to perform those duties, you must meet certain physical, mental and academic standards. Then you must be issued the proper equipment (e.g. badge, uniform, gun, official sanction, etc.). Without these, you aren't a copy, but a vigilante at best.
In order to be a parent you must first...have sex. Unless you're going to assign a camera and/or a cop to follow every person around 24/7, there isn't anything practical to prevent two individuals from taking this upon themselves and possibly bringing another person into the world.
Our societal sense of values and decency used to be enough to unofficially but highly encourage two people who had sex outside of marriage to get married for the good of the child. But we have abandoned objective truth and undermined that societal ethos, so that is no longer in place to help protect children.
This sort of thing is why the founders of our country recognized the vital importance of religion and morality to the welfare of a healthy and free society. When we abandon objective morality, people begin to suffer because some people will not restrain themselves and thus undermine the welfare of others. At this point, we have two choices (other than attempting to rebuild that objective ethos): let the suffering continue, or take away people's freedom.
As Ben Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Those masters can come in the form of rulers or laws themselves.
The best choice is to remain with or go back to the value system which founded the most free, most successful and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. Society would essentially go back to, for the most part, a setting where each person disciplined themselves and held themselves accountable to good moral standards that preserve not only their own well being, but that of the people around them. After all, when people will assume the role of governing their own behavior, they have less need of other government officials or laws to govern their behavior.
But remember, the original topic of this post was not so much marriage as it was two lesbians demanding that doctors, against their moral conviction, do to them what they are scientifically and biologically incapable of doing to themselves.
In this sense, God's built-in scientific laws have prevented a most egregious violation of his moral law protecting children: the intentional subjection of a child to a home where he/she will be intentionally deprived of a father, and actually taught by example that fathers are NOT necessary.
These women are demanding that other people help them do what they cannot do themselves, in violation of God's moral and scientific law. Their arrogance is staggering on several levels, when you stop to think about it.
Oh please. My focus goes far beyond the myopic scope of what society expects of parents. Forget what you or I expect of someone who raises a child. It's what God wants that matters. He must first endow potential parents with the blessing of marriage, so is there any higher standard you could meet? Without God's blessing, a relationship is illegitimate and unholy, and one must be crazy to place children in a situation that God himself disapproves of! And of course people can become parents simply by having sex, but they're not going about it the RIGHT way unless it's within the context of marriage, right?
So if you really care about the welfare of children, you should see to it that under no circumstances are they raised outside the bond of marriage.
You are in favor of seeing laws that would prevent marriages from falling apart for the many frivolous and unnecessary reasons they do today, but wouldn't the more effective approach be to require that kids are brought up in marriage from the beginning? I mean, I really don't understand how you can talk about individual freedom while being in favor of prohibiting parents from divorcing for reasons other than adultery, abuse, etc. and not for unbiblical ones. At what point does the marriage of two complete strangers become your business? Talk about arrogance...
Anonymous, I suspected you were being sarcastic and/or disingenuous before...so thanks for clearing that up and removing all doubt with your last comment.
You obviously have no interest in the truth, what is right, or what is best for children. Otherwise the difference between preserving a marriage vow--willingly entered into--and the lack thereof would be obvious to you.
But your agenda is justifying immoral behavior and reprehensible disregard for the welfare of children.
Logic and reason are obviously secondary or tertiary considerations behind such a priority.
It takes some people longer than others to know when they're being insulted.
I just try my best to assume of others, until proven otherwise, positive motives and attempts at rational thought.
It's a fault of mine, I admit. I try to react accordingly once proven otherwise, though.
Anonymous 2:37, I've read about homosexuality in the Bible and countless other books
I also know homosexuals and have known homosexuals for over 20 years.
It might surprise you to know that a family member died of AIDS several years ago, that he contracted in the most common way in America: homosexual contact.
Whether I had or have family members who were homosexual, it would not change the truth of anything I've written one iota.
I'm sure from your comments you desperately wish that association could somehow change truth, but it doesn't. Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy, regardless of whether the behavior is practiced by a stranger, friend or family member. These factors simply are not relative.
If anything, for the person more interested in truth than emotional compromise, knowing a homosexual is an even greater motivation to counter the positive lies about homosexual behavior. Because someone who knows a homosexual has likely seen the hurt, the pain, the degradation, and often the terrible price (AIDS?) such activities can bring.
Facts and truth do not change.
Wow Bob, you think about homosexuality A LOT.
I try not to, but when homosexual activists are aggressively trying to turn our culture upside down, one doesn't have a whole lot of choice if one plans to oppose it.
I wouldn't worry about it, Matt. Not even the choir Bob is preaching to seems to care anymore:
"Young evangelicals are far more accepting of gay and lesbian lifestyles than their parents are: 34 percent of evangelicals between 18 and 29 think homosexuality 'should be accepted,' compared with 24 percent of those from 50 to 64, according to the Pew Forum." http://www.newsweek.com/id/153850
I think there's been a Bob Ellis at every point in America's Christian history. When the southern Christians insisted that the Bible permits slavery, a Bob Ellis was right there in agreement. "It says so in the Bible, and every Christian I know agrees with me!" Of course, history proved him wrong.
In the 1950s, when it was considered God's will that women stay in the home and act like good little housewives while the men got to work, vote, legislate, and basically do everything else in society, a Bob Ellis was right there with his Bible, saying, "That's right, it says so right here that women are to be submissive and men should make all the rules." Again, history proved him wrong.
And now, today's Bob Ellis is swept along the same Christian current of claiming that homosexuality is an abomination, an abnormal and unholy lifestyle, because the Bible backs him up. As it did before, time will reveal the truth that was hiding there all along.
Bob, you're right that fact and truth do not change. But our ability to RECOGNIZE that truth makes all the difference. In the 1800s, Christians couldn't recognize the objective truth that it's wrong to own slaves. Later, they lived in a time where they couldn't recognize that it's wrong to treat women like second-class citizens. And today's climate of unwarranted animosity and ignorance toward homosexuals prevents people like you from seeing the objective truth that homosexuality is not unnatural, not inherently unhealthy, and not inherently immoral.
Unfortunately, you will never gain the ability to recognize this truth. So you will waste your life demonizing homosexuals, only for people to look back on your work years from now and see you as nothing more than an alarmist, homophobic zealot whose articles are completely irrelevant and outdated. That's how history will remember you.
Anonymous 9:53, one little problem with your fantasy here: the Bible never did justify slavery or require women to stay bearfoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
And Christians understood even before the 1800s that slavery was wrong, unBiblical, and incompatible with the ideals of freedom upon which our country was founded. Many of the founders back in the 1700s hated slavery, founded abolitionist groups, and tried hard to completely rid our country of it when the nation was founded.
And if you bother reading the Bible, you'll also find that while women and men have different biological and Biblical roles to perform, God recognizes them as equal, with equal value. Even going back to the period of the Judges in ancient Israel, women such as Deborah have had positions of leadership.
What has never changed in all of human history is that homosexuality is a blatant violation of God's design for human sexuality, and God has made that clear repeatedly in both Old and New Testaments. There is simply no other way to interpret what God has made clear on this.
Homosexual activists desperately hope they can fool ignorant people into equating their quest for legitimacy with things such as the civil rights movement, but such hopes do nothing to change the truth and can at best de-legitimize what blacks fought so hard to gain.
Homosexuals aren't being sent to the back of the bus. Homosexuals aren't being denied a place at the lunch counter.
In fact, you can look at a crowd of any 1,000 people and while statistically 30 of them would probably be homosexual, unless they are in some garish outfit such as might be seen at a Folsom Street Fair or gay pride parade, you'd never be able to pick them out of the crowd....as you would a black person or a woman.
Sex and skin color are legitimate biological states which carry no inherent immorality. Homosexuality is a behavior like alcoholism or drug abuse which can be indulged or refrained from, and is immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy.
There has always been a discontented minority throughout history who have been willing to resort to tortured misrepresentations of Scripture in an attempt to justify immoral acts (whether it be oppression of women, hatred of Jews, or subjugation of black people), even as some now try to fool people into thinking God approves of homosexuality. Now, just as then, such misrepresentations don't pass the smell test.
And no amount of propaganda which attempts to piggyback or hijack the civil rights movement is ever going to change that.
"Homosexuality is a behavior like alcoholism or drug abuse which can be indulged or refrained from, and is immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy."
If it's really just a behavior, with no psychological or natural causation behind it, then anyone -- even YOU -- could engage in it, right?
"Now, just as then, such misrepresentations don't pass the smell test."
Unfortunately, the fact that young evangelicals are gradually accepting homosexuality proves that, actually, they do. Times are changing, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
Yes I could do it...but I choose not to. Just as you could choose not to.
Have you ever been around a farm or corral or other place where there was some kind of stink? Eventually you can get used to it...just as you can get used to the moral stink of sexual immorality.
But it still stinks, whether you're aware of it or not.
Did my last question not make it to print again? Something verrrry suspicious is going on with your commenting system.
Here we go again: You are absolutely right that you can choose to have sex with another man. But if you did, would you enjoy it?
Your last comments intentionally didn't make it...and your future ones won't either. This discussion has degenerated enough without disgusting chit-chat on the enjoyment of homosexual sex.
If you can't provide relevant, decent comments, your comments won't be posted.
Post a Comment