You Call This Bold?

Today, Brian McLaren made two brief comments regarding the recent decisions made by the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). The word he used to describe both is “bold.” The first “bold act” regards what McLaren describes as “Israeli occupation.” According to the New York Times article he links to:

After passionate debate over how best to help break the deadlock between Israel and the Palestinians, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted on Friday at its general convention to divest from three companies that it says supply Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory.

The vote, by a count of 310 to 303, was watched closely in Washington and Jerusalem and by Palestinians as a sign of momentum for a movement to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to end the occupation, with a campaign known as B.D.S., for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), one of a handful of historic mainline Protestant denominations and the church of many American presidents, is the largest yet to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention, and the vote follows a decade of debate — and a close call at the assembly two years ago, when divestment failed by only two votes.

I rarely, if ever, comment on Israeli/Palestine troubles so I will leave this where it is.

The other decision the PCA made that McLaren considers bold regards their vote on same-sex marriage – a decision McLaren refers to as “LGBT equality.” At the very least I guess we can safely say that clarity isn’t as overrated as McLaren has been telling us all these years. Nevertheless, here is what the PCA decided according to the New York Times:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted at its General Assembly on Thursday to change its constitution’s definition of marriage from “a man and a woman” to “two people,” and to allow its ministers to perform same-sex marriages where it is legal.

Both measures, passed by large majorities, are a reversal for a church that in 1991 and in 2008 barred its pastors from performing same-sex marriages, and that has held ecclesiastical trials for ministers who violated the ban and blessed gay couples.
The Presbyterian Church, a historic mainline Protestant denomination that spans a broad spectrum from liberal to conservative evangelicals, has been mired in the debate over homosexuality for about three decades. The General Assembly’s decision in 2010 to ordain openly gay ministers caused many congregations, including some of the largest, to depart.

My beef here isn’t the PCA, but with McLaren’s assertion that the PCA decision-making should be considered “bold.” Regarding “Israeli occupation,” I’ll let the reader decide. But I am at a loss how anyone can consider the latter decision, by a mainline denomination no less, bold. To go along with the prevailing culture is not bold. To abandon biblical Christianity in order to jump on board the right-side-of-history-ship is not bold. Praising such denominations who agree with you from a distance as McLaren is doing here is not bold.

There is nothing bold here. Standing against the tide of sexual autonomy is bold. Defending traditional marriage is bold. Fighting for religious liberty against the encroachment of erotic rights is bold. What conservative Christians continue to defend on issues like gender distinctions, sexual sin, and the rest is bold. I would label what countless churches and denominations who are letting the culture direct their theology cowardice – a finger to the wind.

Its easy to agree with the majority because it gives us the allusion of security and allusive “relevancy.” Its takes courage to stand against the world and proclaim “Jesus is Lord.”

For more:
Farewell Old Friend: Saying Goodbye to the Emergent Church
Thesis | Brian McLaren and Emergent Soteriology: From Cultural Accomodation to the Kindgom of God – Full Series
I Don’t Think That is What Palm Sunday is All About
I Don’t Think This is What Good Friday Means
I Don’t Think This is What the Empty Tomb Means
I Don’t Think This is What Easter Means
McLaren on Hell and Universalism . . . Again
Hades, Hell, and McLaren’s Eisegesis
The Clarity of Ambiguity: The Erosion of the Perspicuity of Scripture in the Emergent Church – the Complete Series
Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads 
“A New Kind of Christianity” – A 11 part review and critique of McLaren’s book
Revelation and the Ambiguity of Justification: McLaren Adds to the Confusion
Does McLaren Reject Penal Substitution?: A Review of the Evidence
Hamilton: McLaren and Whole Foods Stores
SBTS and McLaren: A Response to SBTS Panel Discussion
The Evolving God: McKnight’s Critique of McLaren
The Future of the Emergent Church: McLaren Weighs In
Repost | Occupy Wal-Mart?: So This is What the Kingdom of Heaven Looks Like
Repost | Pinata Theology: Ignore the Issue and Swing at the Distraction – What Piper Has Taught Us About the Church
Emergent Panentheism: The Direction Towards Process Theology Continues
Will the Two Become One?: Emergents Turn to Process Theology
God’s Many Names?: Emergent Pluralism in the Extreme
Theology Thursday | Don’t Be Fooled: The Conversation Is Not Open To Everyone 

Do Gay Rights Conflict with Conservative Christian Values?: A Debate Between Doug Wilson & Clarke Cooper

The following video is a debate between Doug Wilson and R. Clarke Cooper on the question, “Do Gay Rights Conflict with Conservative Christian Values?” It runs over two hours and so is quit an investment. I have not seen all of it, but from what I’ve seen, this is a good debate worth watching.


HT: Denny Burk

For more:
Must Christianity Change or Die?: The Mohler-Spong Debate
Is the Original NT Lost?: Ehrman vs. Wallace
Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?: The Wallis-Mohler Debate
Is Christianity Good For America?: The D’Souza/Silverman Debate
The Atheist Debates
Atheism Is Not Great – The D’Souza and Hitchens Debate
John Lennox: The New Atheism and the Gospel
Does Atheism Poison Everything?: Berlinski and Hitchens Go At It

The Marriage Debate: A Debate About Rights or Definitions?

In an important blog post, Amy Hall over at the Evangel blog makes the argument, as the title of her post suggests, that when it comes to the debate over gay marriage, We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights. She begins by stating that One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. She suggests that marriage rights is a myth commonly used by gay activists.

This is an important point and something missed by many people.  When the case is made for a redefinition of marriage, it doesn’t take long for the rights argument to be put forward.  “How can you rob me of my right to be married?” This is effective in America because America is defined by rights.  But is marriage a right?

The fight over rights is a big deal today.  Oftentimes when one promotes some form of social engineering or social change, the argument from so-called rights is made.  Remember the health care debate?  For many it was a debate over rights.  Marriage is no different.

But Hall’s four points are significant when thinking about the issue of the “right” of marriage:

1. Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges. Even you!


2. You can’t consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.

3. If you’re not willing to argue this, then you’re for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.

4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It’s fine for you to argue that your definition of “two people who love each other” is better than my definition of “one man, one woman,” or someone else’s definition of “one man, multiple women,” but we need to start off by understanding that we’re arguing definitions, not rights.

This is an excellent set of arguments.  If marriage is about rights, then there are no boundaries.  After all, if denying same-sex couples access to marriage is robbing them of their “right,” then denying any for of relationships is denying them their individual rights.  This leads us directly to the slippery slope argument that has been made for years by proponents of traditional marriage.  By the means of equal rights, the arguments made for gay marriage can easily (and are being) made for other sexual and marital lifestyles.  Proponents of polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia, etc. can easily make the same arguments for their “right” to marry as same-sex proponents have been making for years now.

This means then that Hall’s basic premise is correct.  We are debating the definition of marriage, not the right of marriage.  And that debate over definitions may be one worth having but when we make arguments from rights we do so dangerously.

Thus the debate over the meaning of marriage remains a crucial one.  How a society defines itself and the parameters by which a society sets is crucial. If the definition of marriage is a fickle one, then boundaries are not only worthless, but unconstitutional.  And if saying no to marriage violates one’s individual rights, then does saying no regarding anything else violate one’s personal constitutional rights?

This is why the Founder’s defined rights as originating with God – our Creator – not with government.  Government picks favorites and eventually rationalized all types of depraved behavior especially large, secular governments (like ours).  But rights that originate with God are very different.

Hall is right:  We are arguing about definitions, not rights.  And that should change the debate.

Amy Hall (Evangel) – We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights  

This was originally posted on August 15, 2011 but is reposted here in light of the federal repeals court ruling the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

For more:
Blogizomai – The Missing Gene and Ray Boltz: The Theistic Argument, Did God Make Him This Way?
Blogiozmai – The Missing Gene: The Failed Search For the Gay Gene
Blogiozmai – The Piling Evidence:  Homosexuality Is a Choice  
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom (Part 1)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?  The Great Chasm Between Nature and Morality (Part 2)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  The Way Forward is Backwards – Cave Men and the Return to Amoral Sexuality (Part 3)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  Monogamy and What Jealousy Says About Naturalism (Part 4)
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 1
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 2
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 3
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 4   
Blogizomai – The Next Step: Is Polyamory the Next Sexual Movement?
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? The Dire Destination Of The Homosexual Agenda – Part 1
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? Where the Homosexual Agenda Leads – Part 2
Blogizomai – D’Souza: The Equal Protection Hoax
Blogizomai – Marriage and the Limits of the Law and Courts:  Why Only the Gospel Regenerates & Changes Behavior 
Blogizomai – What’s the Big Deal:  Christianity and Homosexuality   
Blogizomai – Jesus is into Offending People:  Its Time For Christians to Admit the Obvious and Proclaim with Boldness

Repost | The Marriage Debate: A Debate About Rights or Definitions?

In an important blog post, Amy Hall over at the Evangel blog makes the argument, as the title of her post suggests, that when it comes to the debate over gay marriage, We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights. She begins by stating that One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. She suggests that marriage rights is a myth commonly used by gay activists.

This is an important point and something missed by many people.  When the case is made for a redefinition of marriage, it doesn’t take long for the rights argument to be put forward.  “How can you rob me of my right to be married?” This is effective in America because America is defined by rights.  But is marriage a right?

The fight over rights is a big deal today.  Oftentimes when one promotes some form of social engineering or social change, the argument from so-called rights is made.  Remember the health care debate?  For many it was a debate over rights.  Marriage is no different.

But Hall’s four points are significant when thinking about the issue of the “right” of marriage:

1. Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges. Even you!


2. You can’t consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.

3. If you’re not willing to argue this, then you’re for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.

4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It’s fine for you to argue that your definition of “two people who love each other” is better than my definition of “one man, one woman,” or someone else’s definition of “one man, multiple women,” but we need to start off by understanding that we’re arguing definitions, not rights.

This is an excellent set of arguments.  If marriage is about rights, then there are no boundaries.  After all, if denying same-sex couples access to marriage is robbing them of their “right,” then denying any for of relationships is denying them their individual rights.  This leads us directly to the slippery slope argument that has been made for years by proponents of traditional marriage.  By the means of equal rights, the arguments made for gay marriage can easily (and are being) made for other sexual and marital lifestyles.  Proponents of polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia, etc. can easily make the same arguments for their “right” to marry as same-sex proponents have been making for years now.

This means then that Hall’s basic premise is correct.  We are debating the definition of marriage, not the right of marriage.  And that debate over definitions may be one worth having but when we make arguments from rights we do so dangerously.

Thus the debate over the meaning of marriage remains a crucial one.  How a society defines itself and the parameters by which a society sets is crucial. If the definition of marriage is a fickle one, then boundaries are not only worthless, but unconstitutional.  And if saying no to marriage violates one’s individual rights, then does saying no regarding anything else violate one’s personal constitutional rights?

This is why the Founder’s defined rights as originating with God – our Creator – not with government.  Government picks favorites and eventually rationalized all types of depraved behavior especially large, secular governments (like ours).  But rights that originate with God are very different.

Hall is right:  We are arguing about definitions, not rights.  And that should change the debate.

Amy Hall (Evangel) – We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights  

For more:
Blogizomai – The Missing Gene and Ray Boltz: The Theistic Argument, Did God Make Him This Way?
Blogiozmai – The Missing Gene: The Failed Search For the Gay Gene
Blogiozmai – The Piling Evidence:  Homosexuality Is a Choice  
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom (Part 1)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?  The Great Chasm Between Nature and Morality (Part 2)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  The Way Forward is Backwards – Cave Men and the Return to Amoral Sexuality (Part 3)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  Monogamy and What Jealousy Says About Naturalism (Part 4)
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 1
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 2
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 3
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 4   
Blogizomai – The Next Step: Is Polyamory the Next Sexual Movement?
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? The Dire Destination Of The Homosexual Agenda – Part 1
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? Where the Homosexual Agenda Leads – Part 2
Blogizomai – D’Souza: The Equal Protection Hoax
Blogizomai – Marriage and the Limits of the Law and Courts:  Why Only the Gospel Regenerates & Changes Behavior 
Blogizomai – What’s the Big Deal:  Christianity and Homosexuality   
Blogizomai – Jesus is into Offending People:  Its Time For Christians to Admit the Obvious and Proclaim with Boldness

Breaking: 9th Circuit Court Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

I’m not surprised and I doubt anyone else is either especially coming from one of the most liberal courts in America.  This issue will be decided before the Supreme Court and I suspect that gay marriage will become the law of the land through judicial fiat.

Here is the story from the AP:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

The passage of the ban followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his lower-court decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man. Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker’s ruling on constitutional grounds and because of the judge’s personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist’s sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.

Walker’s successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected the claims about Walker’s personal life.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court’s decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples married during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.

With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los Angeles, plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8.

APCourt: Calif. gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

For more:
Blogizomai – The Power of the Few Over the Many:  Proposition 8, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Fiat    
Blogizomai – Deja Vu All Over Again: Prop 8 Goes To Trial and What That Could Mean For the Rest of America
Blogizomai – Marriage & the Limits of Law and the Courts: Why Only the Gospel Regenerates & Changes Behavior
Blogizomai – Is This a Fight Homosexuals Want to Have?:  Massachusetts and the 10th Amendment 
Blogizomai – What’s the Big Deal:  Christianity and Homosexuality  
Blogizomai – From Morality to Law:  The Question and Challenge Incest in a Post-Sodom Culture 
Blogizomai – Polygamy on Trial – Canada Opens the Legal Debate of Plural Marriages 
Blogizomai – Punishing Prejudice By Being Prejudice:  The Lesson and Legacy of Hate Crimes  

Are You A Bigot?: Morgan Just Can’t Help Himself

The more I watch Piers Morgan, the less I like him.  When he interviews conservatives, particularly those known for their opposition to gay marriage.  In a recent blog post, Dr. Denny Burk at Boyce College asked the question raised by Morgan, how would you respond if you were asked if you were a bigot?  That’s the question Morgan asked Presidential candidate Rick Santorum who is perhaps best known for his social conservativism and opposition to gay marriage.

Santorum gives a good answer suggesting that to disagree with someone does not automatically make them a bigot.  The reason this line of thought is so prevalent – that to be against homosexuality is to be bigot – is because secularist believe that their worldview is normative, thus anyone who disagrees with them must be dangerous or foolish.  Morgan illustrates that perfectly.  Every question carries the tone of an obnoxious snob who speaks down to the accomplished candidate.

Expect this sort of bigoted snobbery to continue by our post-Christian society.  A culture that abandons its moral origins and commitments will stop at nothing to rationalize their own sin. Part of that process is to demonize and to belittle those who disagree with them.  The amazing part is that the secularist have managed to hijack the word “tolerance” in the process, though they remain the most intolerant among us.

Furthermore, the question, “are you a bigot?” is like being asked “do you still beat your wife?”  Regardless of how you answer, you lose.  To say no, your not a bigot, is to give credence to the suggestion that to disagree with the questioner is bigotry. Santorum does a good job at avoiding that question, but many Christians fall for this overused trap.

HT: Denny Burk  

For more:
Blogizomai – Poverty and the Breakdown of the Family: Santorum Raises an Important Point
Blogizomai – The Piety of Hate: Identifying the Real Source of Bigotry in the Debate Over Homosexuality
Blogizomai – What’s the Big Deal:  Christianity and Homosexuality  
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? The Dire Destination Of The Homosexual Agenda – Part 1
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? Where the Homosexual Agenda Leads – Part 2
Blogizomai – Punishing Prejudice By Being Prejudice:  The Lesson and Legacy of Hate Crimes  
Blogizomai – The Power of the Few Over the Many:  Proposition 8, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Fiat  
Blogizomai – Christianity Without Christian Distinctives Based on Christian Doctrine is Not Christianity:  The CLS and Our Fear of Discrimination
Blogizomai – Jesus is into Offending People:  Its Time For Christians to Admit the Obvious and Proclaim with Boldness
Blogizomai – “Friendship With the World is Enmity With God”: Rick Warren Tries to Have it Both Ways
Theology – The Stipulation That Paralyzes: Tony Jones and the Limit of the Emergent Worldview 
Theology – Pinata Theology: Ignore the Issue and Swing at the Distraction – What Piper Has Taught us About the Church 
Blogizomai – Heteronormativity: Another Word for Heterophobia
Blogizomai – Deja Vu All Over Again:  Prop 8 Goes to Trial and What That Could Mean for the Rest of America  
Blogizomai – Is This a Fight Homosexuals Want to Have?:  Massachusetts and the 10th Amendment
Blogizomai – 2012 Presidential Debate 1: Republican Hopefuls Make Their Case
Blogizomai – 2012 Presidential Debate 2: Republican Hopefuls Make Their Case
Blogizomai – 2012 Presidential Debate 3:  Republican Hopefuls Make Their Case
Blogizomai – 2012 Presidential Debate 4:  Republican Hopefuls Make Their Case
Blogizomai – 2012 Presidential Debate 5:  Republican Hopefuls Make Their Case 
Blogizomai – 2012 Presidential Debate 6:  Republican Hopefuls Make Their Case
Blogizomai – 2012 Presidential Debate 7: Republican Hopefuls Make Their Case

The Marriage Debate: A Debate About Rights or Definitions?

In an important blog post, Amy Hall over at the Evangel blog makes the argument, as the title of her post suggests, that when it comes to the debate over gay marriage, We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights. She begins by stating that One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. She suggests that marriage rights is a myth commonly used by gay activists.

This is an important point and something missed by many people.  When the case is made for a redefinition of marriage, it doesn’t take long for the rights argument to be put forward.  “How can you rob me of my right to be married?” This is effective in America because America is defined by rights.  But is marriage a right? 

The fight over rights is a big deal today.  Oftentimes when one promotes some form of social engineering or social change, the argument from so-called rights is made.  Remember the health care debate?  For many it was a debate over rights.  Marriage is no different.

But Hall’s four points are significant when thinking about the issue of the “right” of marriage:

1. Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges. Even you!


2. You can’t consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.

3. If you’re not willing to argue this, then you’re for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.

4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It’s fine for you to argue that your definition of “two people who love each other” is better than my definition of “one man, one woman,” or someone else’s definition of “one man, multiple women,” but we need to start off by understanding that we’re arguing definitions, not rights.

This is an excellent set of arguments.  If marriage is about rights, then there are no boundaries.  After all, if denying same-sex couples access to marriage is robbing them of their “right,” then denying any for of relationships is denying them their individual rights.  This leads us directly to the slippery slope argument that has been made for years by proponents of traditional marriage.  By the means of equal rights, the arguments made for gay marriage can easily (and are being) made for other sexual and marital lifestyles.  Proponents of polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia, etc. can easily make the same arguments for their “right” to marry as same-sex proponents have been making for years now.

This means then that Hall’s basic premise is correct.  We are debating the definition of marriage, not the right of marriage.  And that debate over definitions may be one worth having but when we make arguments from rights we do so dangerously.

Thus the debate over the meaning of marriage remains a crucial one.  How a society defines itself and the parameters by which a society sets is crucial. If the definition of marriage is a fickle one, then boundaries are not only worthless, but unconstitutional.  And if saying no to marriage violates one’s individual rights, then does saying no regarding anything else violate one’s personal constitutional rights?

This is why the Founder’s defined rights as originating with God – our Creator – not with government.  Government picks favorites and eventually rationalized all types of depraved behavior especially large, secular governments (like ours).  But rights that originate with God are very different.

Hall is right:  We are arguing about definitions, not rights.  And that should change the debate.

Amy Hall (Evangel) – We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights  

For more:
Blogizomai – The Missing Gene and Ray Boltz: The Theistic Argument, Did God Make Him This Way?
Blogiozmai – The Missing Gene: The Failed Search For the Gay Gene
Blogiozmai – The Piling Evidence:  Homosexuality Is a Choice  
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom (Part 1)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?  The Great Chasm Between Nature and Morality (Part 2)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  The Way Forward is Backwards – Cave Men and the Return to Amoral Sexuality (Part 3)
Blogizomai – Is What is Natural Moral?:  Monogamy and What Jealousy Says About Naturalism (Part 4)
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 1
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 2
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 3
Blogizomai – The Slippery Slope:  From Victorian Values to Bestiality . . . And Beyond – Part 4   
Blogizomai – The Next Step: Is Polyamory the Next Sexual Movement?
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? The Dire Destination Of The Homosexual Agenda – Part 1
Blogizomai – Where Does The Madness End? Where the Homosexual Agenda Leads – Part 2
Blogizomai – D’Souza: The Equal Protection Hoax
Blogizomai – Marriage and the Limits of the Law and Courts:  Why Only the Gospel Regenerates & Changes Behavior 
Blogizomai – What’s the Big Deal:  Christianity and Homosexuality   
Blogizomai – Jesus is into Offending People:  Its Time For Christians to Admit the Obvious and Proclaim with Boldness

The Slippery Slope: From Victorian Values to Beastiality . . . And Beyond – Part 1

Many traditional marriage proponents raise the issue of the slippery slope regarding the legalization and normalization of homosexuality and other lifestyles. Gay activists cry foul and say that such an argument is unfounded. They claim that homosexuality is a civil right and they should have the right, privacy and moral freedom to practice their sexual lifestyle. But they offer no evidence to support the argument that opening the doors for homosexuality would not lead to other sexual deviances like pedophilia, sodomy, polygamy, polyamory, and bestiality.

The slippery slope argument, however, does hold water and we have seen this already take place in America. The very fact that we are even debating same-sex relationships is proof of the slippery slope. Just a few centuries ago, adultery, lust, fornication, sex before marriage, and certainly divorce were social ills and embarrassments. No one divorced except in the worst of circumstances, and even then no one talked about it. But slowly, overtime, persons began to compromise on the ethics of divorce until eventually no-fault divorces were passed throughout the United States. Now, not only was divorce becoming common, it became much easier to attain one.

Where this will lead us is inevitable. The children of a divorced generation are left with two choices. Either they will get married and fight for their marriages because of what they experienced in their childhood or they will refuse to marry. And as the days go by, it seems that the current generation has chosen the latter. Marriage has become nothing more than a certificate with loaded baggage instead of a covenant made before God and man. Since divorces are so ugly, why marry? If one can attain civil unions with their partner, live with one another, enjoy the same benefits as those who are married, yet without as much legal formalities, then why ever get married in the first place?

Furthermore, the sexual revolution radically changed how our culture views sexual ethics. The sexual revolution, at its heart, was an Utopian dream of liberation and peace. It was believed that if we would be liberated from traditional morality and experience sexual ecstasy, there would be no more need for war (thus the “make love and not war” slogan), violence, or injustices. But instead of peace and tranquility, the sexual revolution led to increased sexually transmitted diseases, broken homes, divorce, rape, increase pornography, sexual confusion and experimentation, and an increase demand for contraceptives and abortion.

This ideal continues with us today. Though the philosophy of the sexual revolution is not as common and most hippies have traded their guitars for ballot boxes, the slippery slope was well on its way. The stonewall riots took place in 1969 and is considered the beginning of the modern homosexual movement. So much so, that President Barack Obama gave a major speech before the gay community on the 30th anniversary of the riots noting the riots significant and how he will fight to give homosexuals their rights.

The sexual revolution introduced the culture to sexual extremes long ignored and left unpracticed. What was once considered extreme lifestyles has now entered into the mainstream were every TV show and movie involves at least one homosexual or some other alternative sexual lifestyle. Beginning with experimentation, the sexual revolution has led to sexual choices, then to sexual lifestyles, to now to sexual orientations. The slippery slope of “sexual orientation” is especially dangerous. Without a shred of evidence, the homosexual community has convinced Americans that sexuality is not a choice, but a gene. Therefore, homosexuality is not morally wrong, but natural. And if it is natural, then homosexuality should be compared with the civil rights of blacks and women. Just as one does not choose their race or gender, and the sexual orientation argument suggests, neither does one choose their preference for the same-sex.

If homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice or a lifestyle, then what else is predetermined? See the slippery slope? Already many are promoting other sexual lifestyles as polyamory and polygamy and it will not be long before persons claim that they did not choose these other sexual preferences. With these will come a push to lower the age of consent and to loosen laws regarding incest. Though this seems far fetched now, let us not forget where we were a few decades ago when homosexuals were among the most marginalized and rare in America. Now, however, they are a serious voting block and are a cultural movement who are pushing for their right to marry. Decades before the sexual revolution, it would have been inconceivable that fifty percent of marriages would end in divorce, but now one cannot attend a wedding without trying to guess how long the couple standing at the altar will remain together.

The slippery slope is in full effect without any signs of slowing down. The normalization and legalization of homosexuality will be the cultural revolution in which there will be no end. It will, inevitably, open the doors to all other sexual lifestyles including an even greater increase in pornography access, polamory, polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and yes, even bestiality.

The slippery slope is in full effect without any sign of ending.

Deja Vu All Over Again: Prop 8 Goes To Trial and What That Could Mean For the Rest of America

Its like Deja Vu all over again, only this time the right of the people and the defense of marriage is at stake. 1973 was the year that gave us Roe vs. Wade and perhaps 2010 could be the year that gives us a national redefinition of marriage. A California court in San Francisco are now hearing arguments from a number of homosexuals who say they are made to feel like second-class citizens after the passing of Proposition 8 which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Though many courts have heard similar arguments from gay activists, this one is different. Many believe that if Proposition 8 is overturned via judicial fiat the case will almost certainly be taken up by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the homosexual movement rather than the people of California (and the rest of Americans who have clearly cast their vote in favor of traditional marriage every time it has been voted on), this case could be this generations Roe vs. Wade. By judicial fiat, the right for homosexuals to marry would be made legal for the entire nation.

This is simply amazing. So far over thirty states have voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Those states that currently recognize same-sex marriage and unions have done so through legislation and judicial decree. If this case plays out as many fear that it will, nine justices (actually, perhaps only 5 or 6) will override the will of 60% of the states!

This becomes even more troublesome for traditional marriage advocates considering that President Barack Obama may have the opportunity to select yet another Supreme Court justice to the bench. Many believe that Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 89, may retire soon. Though Stevens is oftentimes considered a more liberal leaning judge, any appointment by a President is significant. Most justices remain on the court for several decades. Stevens himself has served for over three decades.

This case certainly means that 2010 could be a signature year for our nation. If same-sex marriage is legalized (apart from the will of the people) as many fear, then expect one major difference between Roe vs. Wade and this case. Though the assault on human life has continued relentlessly, there have been significant grounds made by pro-life supporters. However, if same-sex marriage is legalized without clear boundaries established, then the slippery slope will take affect almost immediately.

The difference between abortion and cloning are legally two different issues. One, in the eyes of the law, has to do with a woman’s right to choose. The other has nothing to do with such a standard. Same-sex marriage and other forms of marriage are not as distinct. As many have suggested before, the arguments made for same-sex marriage can equally be applied to bigamy and polygamy (which is why the amendments voted on in the various states clarified marriage as between one man and one woman), polyamory (especially regarding civil unions), incest, and eventually the lowering of the age of consent, pederasty, and even bestiality.

If homosexuals can make the argument of feeling like second-class citizens and denied their rights to marry the ones they love and that government should stay out of the bedroom, then the same exact arguments could be applied to other forms of marriage. In a diverse population like ours, it is not a stretch to believe that some would begin the push for polygamy and other forms of marriage once same-sex marriage is nationally legalized. The history of Mormons and Islam in America would seem to be immediate candidates to push such a mandate.

2010 could be a very significant year for American morality and law. Though it is too early to sound the alarm, Christians and advocates of traditional marriage should not overlook what is happening in San Francisco. Many have concern that the will of the majority of Americans could be overturned by a handful of judges. But as we have learned regarding abortion, one court case does not change the attitudes and convictions of Americans. Though abortion remains legal in America and millions of children are being slaughtered each year, millions more Americans continue to fight for the right of the unborn to live. Likewise, regardless of what may happen in California or in Washington DC, Americans will remain steadfast in their convictions.

At the end of the day, the one thing we can conclude is: this debate is far from over and it might just get a little more heated.

For more:

World Magazine – Marriage on Trial
The Next Step: Is Polyamory the Next Sexual Movement?

Where Does The Madness End? The Dire Destination Of The Homosexual Agenda – Part 1
Colson: Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Today…Polygamy Tomorrow
Where Did I Really Come From?: Human Sexuality For Two-Year-Olds
Update: “Let’s Talk About Sex Baby” – Barack Obama and Sex Education
Polygamy on the Rise: See, I Told You So
Pro-Marriage and Un-American: The Logic of the Left
Olbermann, Proposition 8, and the Left
1st Graders At a Lesbian Wedding: The Secular Indoctrination of Our Children
Obsess Much?: Understanding Our Cultures Obsession With Sex
Mohler: From the Bible to “Intimacy Kits” — Goodbye to the Gideons?
An Oversexed Culture Coming to a Middle School Near You
A Seven Year Itch? Recovering Marriage in a Culture That Took It Out of It’s Vocabulary – Part 1
D’Souza: The Equal Protection Hoax
A Day of “See, I Told You So’s”

The Great Magician: Obama Thanks the LGBT While the World Mourned Michael Jackson

The key to a good magician is distraction. Get the audience to focus on one hand while setting up the trick with the other. Get the audience to look elsewhere while the magician works his “magic” where the audience isn’t looking. The same happens in the world of politics. It is easy to get things done whenever the public is distracted.

The past few weeks, the public has been distracted. Several celebrities have died and Michael Jackson’s death has been particularly interesting. Jackson’s death has been given wall to wall coverage from the mainstream media. And so, while Americans were watching their favorite Jackson videos and unending documentaries on his life, legacy, and music, our President continued working. Though the news was stalled, lingering on Jackson, everyday life in the world and the Whitehouse continued.

While all the world was mourning the lost of pop singer Michael Jackson, our President was hosting a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender reception thanking them and vowing to fight for the movement. Virtually no one has reported on it and if it weren’t for the Internet and talk radio, virtually no one in America would have been aware of this speech.

The President declared the month of June to be the national month for LGBT pride. The climax, it would seem, of this declaration came on June 25, 2009 when the President gave this speech in a room consisting of the leaders of the homosexual movement. The significance of this date was that it marked the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall protests which was led by homosexuals in their fight for “freedom,” many of whom were present at the giving of this speech.

The President gives those in the room, who represent the LGBT movement in America, credit for his election as president. He begins, “It’s good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I’ve received from so many of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities – and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

The President then shares sympathy for the homosexual community due to prejudice from those “who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I now it can be heartbreaking . . . For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never beings in Washington.”

The Presidents attack against “old attitudes” and “worn arguments” is itself an old attitude and worn argument. Homosexuals and proponents of the gay rights movement consider persons like myself too old fashion and unwilling to change. Rather, persons like myself are unwilling to compromise our faith, our values, our families, our convictions, and our rights. Without going into detail, I have already raised the argument that the sexual liberation movement does not end with homosexuality. First will come homosexuality, then issues such as polygamy and other sexual issues will be fought for with the same arguments.

Furthermore, I am surprised to hear the President say that change doesn’t happen in DC and yet he ran on a campaign of “change” and vowed (even in this address) to force change by enacting legislation. Grant it, his argument is that change doesn’t begin in DC, but rather legislation reflects national opinion. If that be the case, then why have the majority of states to vote on the issue define marriage as between one man and one woman? Furthermore, why have many states who marry homosexuals done so through the activism of a single judge? Obama may not think that movements begin in DC, but certainly they are oftentimes forced on the unwilling through the gavel of a judge or the stroke of a pen from a politician.

Next, the President seems to connect the gay rights movement with Civil rights. I have to say that I strongly disapprove of this connection. What blacks rightly fought for and achieved during the age of Civil Rights was equality over something that they, nor their opponents could control: that is, their race. Homosexuality is not biological, but chosen. One can blame it on their upbringing or experiences, but in the end, it is a choice. The President said:

Indeed, that’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality — not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them.

It’s the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could.

That’s the story of a civil rights pioneer who’s here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired — (applause.) Frank was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. (Applause.)

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens — with few options, and fewer supporters — decided they’d had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton discrimination. And two men who were at those protests are here today. Imagine the journey that they’ve travelled.

It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need — that we all share the capacity to love. So this story, this struggle, continues today — for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and will not — put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.\

And I know that many in this room don’t believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.

So then, the fight for gay rights is a fight for civil rights. One must wonder what else could be considered a civil right, especially regarding sexual identity and preference. We can legislate morality against bestiality and pedophilia, but somehow homosexuality is different. Does the pedophile not love the little child too? What if it is consensual? Do they not love each other as the homosexual or heterosexual partners?. If sexual preference is a civil right issue, I ask the question, where does the madness end?

The President then makes some serious promises to his listeners and supporters from the gay community:

But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I’ve made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive — (applause.) We’ve been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration. (Applause.)

So progress has been made and more progress will be made through DC afterall. The President then details what progress he has already made:

Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we’ve already put in place since coming into office. I’ve signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don’t exist. And I’d like to note that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is here today. And I want to thank John Berry. (Applause.)

I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination — (applause) — to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.

I’m also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children. (Applause.) My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we’re making progress on both fronts. (Applause.) Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today. I met with Judy in the Oval Office in May — (applause) — and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew. (Applause.)

In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy. And we all know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. And that’s why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested. (Applause.)

The President goes on to discuss issues such as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military. By now I’m sure you know where he stands on that issue.

Before talking about the events at Stonewall, the President said:

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters — not yet.

“Not yet.” And the President intends on doing all that he can to open the hearts of those who resist the gay agenda. Although America will likely, eventually, fully accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle, it will not happen without a fight. Though the President can make many promises, keeping them will be much more difficult. If the President wants to be re-elected, he will have to play his cards right. The gay community is already beginning to feel abandoned by the Obama administration and so he must do something before loosing their support. At the same time, to force the homosexual agenda down America’s throat will certainly destroy any chance he may have to get re-elected in 2012.

In the end, what is most appalling about this speech is how little anyone has cared or noticed. Virtually no one in the mainstream media reported it. Though Michael Jackson’s death was a significant news story, the media fell asleep at the wheel. As viewers, we should expect news that affects our lives, not just news that will increase the ratings. Sadly, we get the latter rather than the former.

There are some things more important than the death of Michael Jackson. As a parent, I am concerned about the future that my son will grow up in. And I fear that I will have to tell him, “sorry son, we were too busy watching celebrities sing their favorite Michael Jackson tune on TV, while the culture was secretly decaying at rapid speed.” Our world is changing and rather than caring, we flip through the channels and watch another special about the life, legacy, and career of yet another dead celebrity. God save us from our idolatry and ignorance.

For More:
President Obama’s Speech can be assessed at the Whitehouse website
Whitehouse: President Obama Declares June to be national LGBT Pride Month
Crosstalk: Obama’s Message to the Gay Rights Movement
Punishing Prejudice By Being Prejudice: The Lesson and Legacy of Hate Crimes
Politics Is Thicker Than Promises: Lessons Learned From Obama And the Gay Community
The (In)Tolerance of the Homosexual Movement: See, I Told You So
The (In)Tolerance of the Homosexual Movement: A Response
Where Does The Madness End? Where the Homosexual Agenda Leads – Part 2
D’Souza: The Equal Protection Hoax
Colson: A New Form of Discrimination
Mohler: “An Enforced Secularism” — A Threat to the Pulpit
A Day of “See, I Told You So’s”

Here is the video of the speech: