I heard something absolutely amazing today. I heard that polygamy causes issues. I am assuming emotional issues. Basically we should not have polygamy because it will harm society. If a man has ten wives then there are nine young men who won't be able to find a wife to marry. I think she is unaware of the slightly higher number of marriageable women than men.
Can the arguments against polygamy and bigamy get any more ... "Gay?"
I believe that bigamy, polygamy and gay marriage are wrong. I also believe that it is wrong for our government to deny consenting adults to enter into legal partnerships because people like me are bigoted and morally restrictive.
The Fourteenth amendment grants "Equal Protection" under the law. Unless someone can prove that a particular situation or relationship(s) are inherently harmful to society and individuals then under the Constitution they should not be banned. I can see cigarettes and alcohol banned from women who could potentially get pregnant before determining that every single relationship of a certain type is harmful. That isn't a road any one should desire.
To say that these other relationships that I believe to be immoral are harmful...
I remember hearing that homosexuality was an illness a mental illness that needed to be healed sometimes with barbaric and ultimately futile treatments. I have heard that gay parents are harmful to the children exposed to gay relationships. I have heard that it turns the kids gay.
I have heard lots of stuff that is total crap expressed as an absolute given that any reasonable person would have to accept as the absolute truth. Now that it looks like we will be getting legal marriages between consenting homosexuals I find it absolutely laughable (but not in a good way) that now proponents of Gay Marriage want to use the same half truths and lies that were used against homosexuals to marginalize them being used because they want to refute and refuse marriage to other people who would quite naturally want to get their lifestyles approved and legalized too.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
gay marriage whats it all about?
George Takai married his long time boyfriend. Heterosexual marriage crumbles...
Or did it?
civil union vs gay marriage
I had been told that civil unions were basically marriage. If the information on the link above is correct that is almost correct which means not really true.
Disclaimer time...
One of my nephews is openly gay, a fact that I was unaware of until I heard that my sister had kicked him out of her home, for that and apparently other reasons. She apparently does not even acknowledge him as her son on Facebook. My brother as an early teen was sexually assaulted multiple times by a man claiming to be gay. My brother currently is an inmate in a Texas prison pretty much because of the same person who attacked my brother perjuring himself to avoid going to prison for another crime. I was brought up very religiously, Southern Baptist, and for several years thought I would be a Youth pastor or maybe a preacher. I spent significant amounts of time over three years working at a Mission Center. To say that I am conflicted about this subject is an understatement.
I believe that it is unfair and uncharitable to deny two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other the legal protections of marriage. It puts undue burden on them financially to get a lawyer to give them the same protections and Civil Unions do not extend past state borders.
It is also STUPID to blindly assert that allowing Gay Marriage would not open the door to other types of marriage currently not allowed. The people who use this argument state it poorly. Let me try to put it in prospective. If we decide that two men can marry each other or two women, why not let bi-sexual people in consensual and knowledgeable relationships with two other people the same "Equal Protection" provided by certain interpretations of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Why don't we allow marriage between two men and one women or vice versa? If group marriages are allowed there should always be a baby sitter available, and one person losing a job has far less of a financial impact if there are multiple partners working. Any type of relationship has problems, and people will emphasis or deemphasis those problems based on what they want to "prove."
At what point, if we allow gays to marry each other, and then allow bisexuals, then group marriages, who do we say "no" to? Most countries do not accept teen-agers as non-adults. Most less technologically advance nations can't afford to allow potentially productive people to not work. Here in the U.S. except in Mississippi you generally have to be 16 years or older to get married. Mississippi Marriage Laws
In Texas, where I grew up that would be statutory rape if the male was at least 18 years old. So just to put this in perspective, because of the way our laws are written forty-nine states MUST accept as legal a marriage in Mississippi if the couple moves to another state what amounts to a minor being forced into marriage before she would be able to make a mature reasoned decision, but two grown adults can get a Civil Union in one of I believe three states only to be unmarried if they exit the state in which they were joined.
The real problem is that it really isn't about marriage. It is about being forced to accept something that many people do not want to accept. Laws should be made to force people to accept that people can be joined together even when others do not approve, but the laws need to be written in such a way that it is clear that this is only a legal/government decision and that it does not and cannot force people to change their religious beliefs or tolerate immoral behavior within their own religious structure.
Note some religious organizations accept homosexual relationships and that is fine. God and time will determine whether acceptance or failure to accept any one behavior is the correct path to take. I would also like to state that Biblically speaking, homosexuality when it is mentioned specifically largely seems to point to groups of young men in gangs forcing themselves on others and then killing them. Whatever Gay Marriage is really about for those who are gay, I'm pretty sure that rape and murder of strangers is NOT what they are seeking to legalize.
Or did it?
civil union vs gay marriage
I had been told that civil unions were basically marriage. If the information on the link above is correct that is almost correct which means not really true.
Disclaimer time...
One of my nephews is openly gay, a fact that I was unaware of until I heard that my sister had kicked him out of her home, for that and apparently other reasons. She apparently does not even acknowledge him as her son on Facebook. My brother as an early teen was sexually assaulted multiple times by a man claiming to be gay. My brother currently is an inmate in a Texas prison pretty much because of the same person who attacked my brother perjuring himself to avoid going to prison for another crime. I was brought up very religiously, Southern Baptist, and for several years thought I would be a Youth pastor or maybe a preacher. I spent significant amounts of time over three years working at a Mission Center. To say that I am conflicted about this subject is an understatement.
I believe that it is unfair and uncharitable to deny two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other the legal protections of marriage. It puts undue burden on them financially to get a lawyer to give them the same protections and Civil Unions do not extend past state borders.
It is also STUPID to blindly assert that allowing Gay Marriage would not open the door to other types of marriage currently not allowed. The people who use this argument state it poorly. Let me try to put it in prospective. If we decide that two men can marry each other or two women, why not let bi-sexual people in consensual and knowledgeable relationships with two other people the same "Equal Protection" provided by certain interpretations of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Why don't we allow marriage between two men and one women or vice versa? If group marriages are allowed there should always be a baby sitter available, and one person losing a job has far less of a financial impact if there are multiple partners working. Any type of relationship has problems, and people will emphasis or deemphasis those problems based on what they want to "prove."
At what point, if we allow gays to marry each other, and then allow bisexuals, then group marriages, who do we say "no" to? Most countries do not accept teen-agers as non-adults. Most less technologically advance nations can't afford to allow potentially productive people to not work. Here in the U.S. except in Mississippi you generally have to be 16 years or older to get married. Mississippi Marriage Laws
In Texas, where I grew up that would be statutory rape if the male was at least 18 years old. So just to put this in perspective, because of the way our laws are written forty-nine states MUST accept as legal a marriage in Mississippi if the couple moves to another state what amounts to a minor being forced into marriage before she would be able to make a mature reasoned decision, but two grown adults can get a Civil Union in one of I believe three states only to be unmarried if they exit the state in which they were joined.
The real problem is that it really isn't about marriage. It is about being forced to accept something that many people do not want to accept. Laws should be made to force people to accept that people can be joined together even when others do not approve, but the laws need to be written in such a way that it is clear that this is only a legal/government decision and that it does not and cannot force people to change their religious beliefs or tolerate immoral behavior within their own religious structure.
Note some religious organizations accept homosexual relationships and that is fine. God and time will determine whether acceptance or failure to accept any one behavior is the correct path to take. I would also like to state that Biblically speaking, homosexuality when it is mentioned specifically largely seems to point to groups of young men in gangs forcing themselves on others and then killing them. Whatever Gay Marriage is really about for those who are gay, I'm pretty sure that rape and murder of strangers is NOT what they are seeking to legalize.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Christian Government Part 6
I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
A true Christian Government would still have a need for prisons. Those prisons would probably have two types. A reform prison for people who have committed relatively minor crimes. They would be for people who had slipped through the cracks and needed training of some kind to be able to adjust to the peaceful society in which they lived.
The other type of prison would be one to hold people who had no desire for redemption. It would not be a place of torture. It would not be a death mill. It would be for hold people for the rest of their lives or a change of heart. As long as there is life there is a chance for redemption. Only God has the right to punish. Only God knows for sure who will never turn to HIM.
That being said, those being held to keep them from harming the weak and poor would be unlikely to seek redemption outside of punishment. They would need good examples of why redemption is desirable. They would need to know that people love and forgive them.
Prisons might very well have to carry some kind of punishment. The punishment given in prison would have to be just and not cruel or revenge for the crime. The visiting prisoners in prison is a sign of comforting those who are in need of comfort.
A true Christian Government would still have a need for prisons. Those prisons would probably have two types. A reform prison for people who have committed relatively minor crimes. They would be for people who had slipped through the cracks and needed training of some kind to be able to adjust to the peaceful society in which they lived.
The other type of prison would be one to hold people who had no desire for redemption. It would not be a place of torture. It would not be a death mill. It would be for hold people for the rest of their lives or a change of heart. As long as there is life there is a chance for redemption. Only God has the right to punish. Only God knows for sure who will never turn to HIM.
That being said, those being held to keep them from harming the weak and poor would be unlikely to seek redemption outside of punishment. They would need good examples of why redemption is desirable. They would need to know that people love and forgive them.
Prisons might very well have to carry some kind of punishment. The punishment given in prison would have to be just and not cruel or revenge for the crime. The visiting prisoners in prison is a sign of comforting those who are in need of comfort.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Christian Government Part 5
I was sick and you looked after me
A Christian Government would have health care as a non-profit program that would provide the best care for every person that was possible. That is not to say that no one would ever die because of illness. Part of the visit would merely be for comforting the ill.
The only way to afford that health care would be to share the cost among everyone. The reason is obviously that everyone could get sick or be hurt. Health care for all would exist because in this messed up world we grow and become more Christlike be helping each other. We would do it out of love.
I am not certain that an actual organization would be able to do this other than by action. The people who were within the government would have to provide the "in Spirit and Truth."
A Christian Government would have health care as a non-profit program that would provide the best care for every person that was possible. That is not to say that no one would ever die because of illness. Part of the visit would merely be for comforting the ill.
The only way to afford that health care would be to share the cost among everyone. The reason is obviously that everyone could get sick or be hurt. Health care for all would exist because in this messed up world we grow and become more Christlike be helping each other. We would do it out of love.
I am not certain that an actual organization would be able to do this other than by action. The people who were within the government would have to provide the "in Spirit and Truth."
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Christian Government Part 3
I was a stranger and you invited me in
A Christian government would take strangers in...
I see this section of a verse as applied to the world today meaning we would help people who are different from us. Directly it would mean giving them a place to live, a home if you will, shelter if actually taking someone into your own house is beyond what you are presently able to give. Adding this to the feeding and giving the thirsty something to drink sounds like what some might call welfare for illegal aliens.
I believe this goes two steps further than that. It would also mean giving these strangers a chance to earn a living by giving them jobs and paying them enough that they could support themselves without suffering abject poverty. If this were not also part of Jewish law and custom Boaz probably never would have met Ruth. They would not have had Obed who was the father of Jesse,who had King David from whom the Savior sprang.
I'm going to leave you with two more words that show that this country is not in any way shape or form willing to follow this vital example of what Christianity means...
Arizona
Utah
A Christian government would take strangers in...
I see this section of a verse as applied to the world today meaning we would help people who are different from us. Directly it would mean giving them a place to live, a home if you will, shelter if actually taking someone into your own house is beyond what you are presently able to give. Adding this to the feeding and giving the thirsty something to drink sounds like what some might call welfare for illegal aliens.
I believe this goes two steps further than that. It would also mean giving these strangers a chance to earn a living by giving them jobs and paying them enough that they could support themselves without suffering abject poverty. If this were not also part of Jewish law and custom Boaz probably never would have met Ruth. They would not have had Obed who was the father of Jesse,who had King David from whom the Savior sprang.
I'm going to leave you with two more words that show that this country is not in any way shape or form willing to follow this vital example of what Christianity means...
Arizona
Utah
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Christian Government Part 2
I missed the thirsty and gave you drink. This can still work.
One thing that really irritates me is not the sudden abundance of Natural gas but the method in which it it retrieved. There are parts of this country where people get their water from water wells. Some parts of the country that water has been polluted by a proprietary process that has made the Corporation Haliburton another fortune. A movie called gas land covers this story.
This was not the movie I wanted but it does point out some of the issues with our dependence on fossil fuels.
The movie I was looking for has a man who goes to some of the areas in this country where Haliburton has polluted local water tables so that water straight from the tap is flammable.
We as God's children were, according to the Bible, given dominion over the Earth to take care of it and the creatures on it, under it, and over it. Wiping out large areas of life, destroying delicate ecosystems, and doing it to enrich a small group of people that own a corporation that then is moved to another country primarily to avoid rendering to Cesar the things that are Cesar's does not exemplify the Christian spirit. A Christian government would no allow the irresponsible destruction for profit that multi-national corporations wreak in the name of what can reasonable be seen as obscene.
Back to more relevant topics for this set of verses next.
One thing that really irritates me is not the sudden abundance of Natural gas but the method in which it it retrieved. There are parts of this country where people get their water from water wells. Some parts of the country that water has been polluted by a proprietary process that has made the Corporation Haliburton another fortune. A movie called gas land covers this story.
This was not the movie I wanted but it does point out some of the issues with our dependence on fossil fuels.
The movie I was looking for has a man who goes to some of the areas in this country where Haliburton has polluted local water tables so that water straight from the tap is flammable.
We as God's children were, according to the Bible, given dominion over the Earth to take care of it and the creatures on it, under it, and over it. Wiping out large areas of life, destroying delicate ecosystems, and doing it to enrich a small group of people that own a corporation that then is moved to another country primarily to avoid rendering to Cesar the things that are Cesar's does not exemplify the Christian spirit. A Christian government would no allow the irresponsible destruction for profit that multi-national corporations wreak in the name of what can reasonable be seen as obscene.
Back to more relevant topics for this set of verses next.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Christian Government Part 1
Many people claim that the US government was built on "Christian" principles. This is not even close to being true. No government despite claims of Christianity has ever been built on Christian ideals. I am not sure that it is even possible for an entire nation to be truly Christian. There are issues with things like turning the other cheek when attacked that are incompatible with survival of a country against an aggressor nation. At what point do you defend yourself, or is it only allowable to defend the weak and helpless? Those that don't work don't get to eat, but what about people who can't work for some reason. That would have to be reason for not working not excuse. That also applies mainly to those within the church. What do you do with those who live in your nation who are not Christian? There are many issues that would come up that make it difficult if not impossible for an entire nation to be Christian or be built on Christian principles.
I am Choosing Mathew 25 vs 31-46 to base this on. I do this because it is:
A. Jesus speaking
B. Jesus telling his followers who gets into heaven
C. It isn't people who self identify as Christians but people who live in spirit and in truth as God would have us do.
Criteria number 1. Feed the hungry. Any Christian government would have the obligation to feed those who do not have food. They must also do it willingly or it may not count.
If a local area is unable to provide good healthy food for all of the people that live there, the government based on Christian principles, would need to find ways to shift good healthy food around. No one should go hungry when there is enough food for all. Feeding people garbage would not count unless poor quality food was all that was available.
I will continue with other criteria that show that we as a nation are not Christlike at all in later posts.
I am Choosing Mathew 25 vs 31-46 to base this on. I do this because it is:
A. Jesus speaking
B. Jesus telling his followers who gets into heaven
C. It isn't people who self identify as Christians but people who live in spirit and in truth as God would have us do.
Criteria number 1. Feed the hungry. Any Christian government would have the obligation to feed those who do not have food. They must also do it willingly or it may not count.
If a local area is unable to provide good healthy food for all of the people that live there, the government based on Christian principles, would need to find ways to shift good healthy food around. No one should go hungry when there is enough food for all. Feeding people garbage would not count unless poor quality food was all that was available.
I will continue with other criteria that show that we as a nation are not Christlike at all in later posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)