Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Mon, Jun. 09 2008 06:57 PM EDT

Calif. Marriage Amendment Raises Complex Legal Questions

By Alexander J. Sheffrin|Christian Post Reporter

As pro-family groups throughout California prepare and gather support for a state amendment to protect marriage, legal experts find themselves confronted with a series of complex legal questions.

“If the amendment passes, what will become of the thousands of gay couples throughout the state that were ‘married’ just months before?”

According to pro-family groups, nothing short of absolute chaos would ensue.

“The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of legal chaos,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, in a statement last week after the court refused to consider staying its gay “marriage” ruling until after the results of the November ballot.

“The court has ignored the will of the people and demonstrated no concern for the legal turmoil it is likely imposing upon the entire country,” he explained.

The belief that “legal chaos” would strike throughout California is not a view isolated among only pro-family lobbyists and gay “marriage” opponents. Most legal experts have admitted to being unsure about what the marriage amendment – which would nullify and overturn the state’s high court ruling on gay “marriage” – would really mean for the state’s legal system.

"If the November measure were to pass, we would be entering unprecedented territory," said David B. Cruz, constitutional law expert at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, according to The Washington Post.

"We have never seen a constitutional amendment like this in California that would take away rights that people had already exercised,” he added.

Legal experts say that the state’s legal system could undergo an immense burden if it were suddenly required to dissolve thousands of previously legal same-sex “marriages.” Couples with joint-insurance policies, signed contracts, or assets could become a legal nightmare for state officials to untangle, they argue.

But others say that the language of the measure doesn’t make clear whether gay couples who get “married” before the amendment is passed would have their “marriage” licenses revoked.

“It just means that people who didn't take advantage of that window can't get married until or unless that amendment was repealed down the road," explained law professor Vikram Amar of the University of California at Davis to the Washington Post.

Regardless of the legal implications of the amendment, however, pro-family groups are adamant that state residents will come out in droves this November to protect the sanctity of marriage.

“The people will decide in November,” explained. Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s School of Law, in a statement. “If any same-sex marriage licenses are issued before November, the passage of the constitutional amendment will make them invalid and invisible.”

Nationally, support for gay “marriage” has been mixed.

Although a Gallup Poll released last month revealed that only 40 percent of Americans “currently say marriage between same-sex couples should be legal,” a more recent, combined USA Today/Gallup poll released this week said that nearly 60 percent of Americans also “believed government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose.”

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you truly study history, you will see Rome was already weak due to immorality when It forcibly adopted Christianity. All the adoption of Christianity as the state religion did was infect the church with pagans, not improve the moral state of the country.

    As the morals in any country weaken, that country becomes irrelevant and slowly crumbles.

  • Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes, you said "Moral decay was a contributing factor in the decline of great civilizations of the past. I don't want the US to decay, crumble + fall as they did" I think you need to study history more deeply. The Roman Empire, for example - the last Roman Emperor was overthrown in 476, almost 150 years after the first Christian emperor (Constantine, who became Emperor of the Western empire in 312 and legalized Christianity in AD 313), and well over 100 years after Christianity became the official state religion; in fact, all other religions had been OUTLAWED by AD 392. Curious. An empire that lasted 900 years under pagan rule, then gone 100 years after the Christians got control. Did Christianity - Christian morals - doom Rome? Yeah, I think so. The same Christian fundamentalist values that are destroying the U.S. today - divisiveness, intolerance, establishing the economic roots of feudalism - are what ruined Rome.

    And what about all those good German Lutherans and Catholics that "Seig Heiled" Hitler while he brought ruin to Germany and death to 60 million. I could go on, but you see my point. Be careful when you appeal to history to support the Christian religion. It doesn't have a good track record.

    One might conclude that the onset of Christian rule and Christian intolerance were what doomed Rome.
    "

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:15 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Biggie,

    I find it interesting that many homosexuals will argue that the Bible is old and outdated, even a fairy tale book, yet the very same people use Scripture to convey God's love, when their very own behavior is clearly identified as sin that God calls an abomination.

    How does one reconcile in their heart accepting God's love and ignoring His coming wrath and judgment against sin? Wouldn't someone like that be considered a hypocrite, just like the person who calls themselves a Christian but is a closet homosexual, or addicted to pornography, or who is having an adulterous relationship outside of their marriage? Isn't that hypocritical? How is the Christian hypocrite any different from the homosexual hypocrite? And not all Christians are hypocrites just like not all homosexuals are hypocrites.

    It is true, biblically true that Jesus Christ, who is God, represents love and His love is seen in the cross upon which Christ died on, for sin, not for love, but for sin.

    Those who say that a homosexual lifestyle is not a sin are the very same people who are calling God a liar (1 John 1:10, Jeremiah 2:35) and God will present a clear case against them where they will not be found innocent.

    There really is no joy in this matter at all, but sorrow. Sorrow for those who believe that what is wrong is really right. Sorrow for their very soul and the horrible eternal consequences that await them, unless they repent and find salvation in Jesus Christ.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    God Bless America!
    Land that I love!

    I am truly proud of all Americans for their tolerance and acceptance of others who are different from them into the family!

    Christians - behold! This is a wonderous day! For your hearts have melted with love and admiration for LOVE in its graceful beauty.

    Same-Sex Marriages have begun in California.

    This is a historic day and a turning point advancing all that is good about America.

    God Bless the wonderful country America is becoming. Embracing views of acceptance, embracing change, and abiding by its values enshrined in its Constitution.

    Gay-haters: Do not fear this day. For as you learned to accept racial tolerance. The vast majority of you will also accept same-sex couples.

    As you have learned to accept the world is not flat, that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, so too will you one day accept that Jesus Christ represents Love. And Love is what is being shared today between same-sex couples.

    Christians - do not shed a tear for this historic day. For I know you have greatness within you. To accept change. To embrace Love. And to reinterpret your texts in a modern age based on love, acceptance, tolerance, and mutual respect.

    Christians - I am proud of your progress you have achieved so much in changing your beliefs during the past two millenia. I know you will eventually do what's right, and accept Love.

    God Bless all of the Same-Sex Couples getting married! Your wedding vows represent Love, and the Love of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit embraces the sanctity of your Love!

  • Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:21 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    biggie,

    And you almost made it through the 1st sentence before tossing in a personal attack. Maybe next time.

    You love to talk in layman's legalese. Unfortunately, you don't seem to grasp the concept of precedent, kind of like the CA Supreme Court. As the law is reinterpreted, it is sometimes expanded beyond the scope of the founders' intentions.

    The study of history also helps us understand the future. Moral decay was a contributing factor in the decline of great civilizations of the past. I don't want the US to decay, crumble + fall as they did.

    Your opinion of me or my post is the least of my worries. There is only One to whom I have to answer, the Lord God. One day we all will give account of ourselves.

    I am praying for you that God will open your eyes to the love + grace He offers you, + that you will repent + accept His gift of eternal life.

  • Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:10 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    Hi mathestes - good points you raise for someone of dim intelligence. However, your inability to argue the case at hand demands that you obscure your point with other arguments, such as polygamy, and 60's drug induced days of yesterday, all irrelevant.

    Bottomline, you are UNABLE to argue against why same-sex marriage should not be the law of the land.

    Here's something to consider: polygamy will never be embraced simply because gays are able to marry. Why? Easy... the California Supreme Court is issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples this Monday because of equal protection. If 2 straight people can get married, then equal protection DEMANDS that two gay persons can as well.

    Your sissy arguement about polygamy is another red herring. Go fight your battle against the Mormans on this issue. You don't see any gays demanding poligamous marriages.

  • Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    sunshine,

    You said, "And your argument about smoking is silly. What harm does a monogamous same-sex relationship cause yours?"

    It takes some time for the serious effects of second-hand smoke to become apparent. Same with the slippery slope of sexual immorality. It affects the society in which I live, and teaches our children to approve of things which are against my religious beliefs. Case in point:

    The "free love" culture of the 1960s led to increased rates of cohabitation, abortion and out-of-wedlock births. The boundaries that were merely pushed against back then were severely broken down later. When a woman became pregnant but refused to get an abortion, the man often refused to support the child, so the mother was forced to raise the child alone. Children raised by a single parent are much more likely to drop out of school, have poor-paying jobs, and find themselves stuck in the lowest income brackets or be incarcerated.

    Fast-forward to the 1990s. "Tolerance" was pushed on society as a whole, even as the LGBT agenda was surreptiouly forced into our schools. Our children were taught that homosexuality is okay. Now these children are grown up, and are siding with the LGBT lobby to redefine marriage, claiming sexual orientation should be a protected civil right (which angers a whole lot of persons of color, by the way). If we redefine marriage today to include two people of the same sex, what prevents it from being further redefined later? Why just two people? An article in the London Telegraph reports a California couple has "married" another couple, to form a foursome. The older man from the first couple impregnated the younger woman of the second couple, and together they are raising the child. If that child considers her four-parent family "normal," how far will she and her generation push the boundaries of what makes a family?

  • Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    sunshine,

    I did copy + paste. They are my own words, as opposed to biggie's which he obviously copied from some website. As usual, you missed my point, but that doesn't stop you from name-calling.

    I posted it over there because there are some posters there not on this forum. Did I break imaginary rule of yours in doing so?

  • Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:44 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    mathetis - you just cut and paste your own comment! I just saw your comment about smoking on a different article. hypocrite.

    And your argument about smoking is silly. What harm does a monogamous same-sex relationship cause yours?

  • Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    biggie,
    Must be difficult to cut+paste from your source, as evidenced by your repetition in the first 2 sentences. Or maybe you just like claiming it's all irrational fear, even though the people here have been very rational in their discussions.

    Regarding homophobia:
    It's legal for my friend to smoke 3 packs a day, but no one would call it healthy. Associated with this behavior are costs to himself, his family, + society. If I truly care about him, I will not be silent, but with love I will warn him what his behavior will bring.

    Am I "smoke-a-phobic" for doing so? Not necessarily, though 2nd hand smoke could cause problems for me + others. I warn him primarily because I care about him; I'm much less worried about myself, increased insurance costs, etc.

  • Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is a term used to describe irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals. It can also mean "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Homophobic is the adjective form of this term used to describe the qualities of these characteristics while homophobe is the noun form given as a title to individuals with homophobic characteristics.

    The usage of the word homophobia in its modern form is controversial as it may be used pejoratively against those with differing debatable value positions.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Next, Christianity says morality is not culturally based, but instead it grows out of the very character of God. Otherwise, you end up with the dilemma from philosophy of old: is the moral law over and above you, or is a moral law subject to you? If it is over and above you, where do you find its root, then? The only way to explain that is to find it in an eternal, moral, omnipotent, infinite God who is inseparable from his character. Thus, Christianity explains morality in a coherent manner." Ravi Zacharias. (The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel, 2000, Zondervan, page 152-153)

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Torus, I thought you might find this statement from Ravi Zacharias interesting --

    "Great scholars will tell you there is incoherence," he said. "Even Gandhi said that if he had his way he would expunge some of the scriptures from Hinduism, because they are so contradictory with each other. By contrast, Jesus provides answers to these four fundamental questions of life (Origin, Meaning, Morality, Destiny) in a way that corresponds with reality and has internal consistency, unlike any other faith system." (The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel, 2000, Zondervan, page 152)

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    torus,
    You wrote, "The bible is ONE BOOK. Your religion is ONE RELIGION. You have no evidence that it is true and nor that it is more true than any other religion. Zero. None."

    Your first two sentences are correct; very good. A simple example disproves the rest. Archeological data does nor prove a religion true, but it can support its veracity. Artifacts at Kiyyun in Egypt support the biblical account of the Hebrews stay in + exodus from that place. skeptics denied the existence of Roman governor Pilate until a massive stone bearing his name was excavated at Caesarea Mari. Many more examples exist. on the other hand, no archeological evidence has ever been found in the US to support the claims of the Book of Mormon.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Torus,
    You said you trust scientists " because they offer data from repeatable experiments." Please tell me about the experiment that demonstrated multicellular organisms came from a single-celled organism. Or was that a leap of faith without a repeatable experiment?

    You said, "You write a lot about god but you never answered my question." I have answered it twice in the negative + gave you my reasons why. I anticipated the standard atheist attack of "you're picking + choosing," so I tried to answer it before it was made.

    While we're on the Bible, I'll try to answer any inconsistency you think you've seen, tho I already know you probably won't accept any explanation I give. I might even refer to a commentary. Oh, the horrors! ;-)

    Which brings me to your rules. You have said commentaries don't count. Who sez? Why not? 'Cause yousaid so? You flatly state all religions are the same. Have you discovered that by trying them all? Or is that the view of a jaded outsider? I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone here that you are objective when it comes to God + religion.

    By the way, most religions are exclusive so they cannot all be true, but how did you prove they are all false? Unless you have some all-encompassing knowledge, you can't be 100% sure.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus,

    There is not enough room to debate the distinguishing differences of other religious texts to the Bible. In addition to that, debating about the authenticity of the Bible is not the focus of this article.

    I have pointed you to a resource that provides substantial evidence for the Bible and it's your choice to read that or not. You can argue that it's not a credible book, but you cannot prove that it isn't. By ignoring the resource that has been suggested, you negate what you profess to your students. A coherent argument is based on two sets of facts, hence the prefix of the word.

    I cannot say what my life would have been like 4,000 years ago and the walk of faith I would have had then. I can only speak about my life today and point to where my faith is rooted, which is upon the inspired Word of God.

    equalityforall - someone else posted a comment about your points and would refer you to that post.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ktm -

    The bible is ONE BOOK. Your religion is ONE RELIGION. You have no evidence that it is true and nor that it is more true than any other religion. Zero. None.

    I can easily make a judgement call on your church. It's a church, ergo it's founded in the lack of rational evidence (politely called "faith") and ancient superstition. Feel free to make a judgement call on my rational approach to things just as I make a judgement call on your irrational approach. When my students (math students) can't put together a coherent argument it's my job to call them on it. You don't have a coherent argument.

    The bible is one choice at the buffet of religions. There have been hundreds before and there will be others to come in the future. They've all tried to do the same thing and their followers have all equally zealously defended their "truth". How is your choice of religion different?

    If you were born four thousand years ago which gods would you be proclaiming the truth of?

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In reading all of these posts, a couple of thing strike me in the rationales presented for limiting the marriage definition to a union between a man and a women:
    • The concept of “majority rules” seems to outweigh the rights of the individual
    • The rights of the individual are to be abridged bases solely upon the religious beliefs of the majority

    Given those concepts, I see some fundamental flaws with the argument against same-sex marriage, with respect to the values/precedents set by our founding fathers:

    First off, the judicial branch of our government was designed to interpret the laws as they exist and, if necessary, apply them to state and federal constitutional tests, even if that means ruling against the majority of the voting population. This concept of “activist judges” is contrary to the foundations of our system of government – judges are not bound by “majority rule”!

    Secondly, using the text of the bible to drive legislation is clearly the intermingling of religion and government (and, in my humble opinion, attempt to circumvent the 1st amendment of the US Constitution). The constitution contains nothing that protects the structure of family and little about the rights of the masses over those of the individual. Abridging rights (any rights) on the basis of religion is clearly something our forefathers intended to prevent (the first settlers of our country were seeking to avoid religious persecution)

    If we let the camel’s nose under the tent, in this way, not only is it destructive to the rights of every individual, but it also threatens the protections granted to religion in this country. What is to prevent the majority from abridging the rights, benefits and protections from just Baptists, if majority rules with no respect for the judiciary (that would be enforcing constitutionality). Baptists only make up 17% of the population (seems demographically “abnormal”, doesn’t it? Isn’t religious affiliation a choice, too?).

    These same arguments to encourage “plurality within a nation” have been used to abridge the rights of minorities (including Christians) throughout history. Have we all forgotten that America was founded on the concept of strong individual liberties, free from religious persecution? When we forget this, we move our policies closer to early to mid 1900s Germany and Colonial England – exactly what most of us espouse is un-American.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Sounds like some churches take homosexuality as a sin, and some don't. I wonder if those beliefs lie in the infamous Leviticus? And if so, doesn't Leviticus also tell us eating shellfish is an abomination? Same wording. Also, the bible tells us slavery is ok, and selling our duaghters into slavery is ok, and burning a bull at the alter gives a pleasing aroma to god. There are many facets of the bible that no church takes seriously. So why the homosexuality part?

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus,

    You're making a judgment call about a church, which you know nothing about and that's wrong. I have not made a judgment call about you? Nor has anyone else, I would hope.

    In addition, do you know what God's specific view of divorce is and do you know what is permissible regarding divorce, from the Bible? Note also that divorce in the Bible has always been between a man and a woman, OT and NT, therefore concluding that from the Bible marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

    The Bible is authentic in its content and is not a buffet to choose what is acceptable and what isn't. That premise alone, if you view God as a loving and forgiving God, which the Bible says He is, then one would have to understand why He loves us, why He has forgiven us and from what He has forgiven us for doing. One would also begin to see even more of the Scripture unveiled to them, as they begin to understand even more God's hatred of sin, His love for people and His desire to not see people perish in their sin.

    I find it interesting that you have so flatly rejected the information contained in the video link, rather considering it inconsequential, when it was only a very small portion of the overall book of information that one can read and gain so much more information from. I highly recommend the book, especially for someone who is a skeptic regarding the authenticity of the Bible.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ktm -

    1. The church you attend has definitely compromised itself already and will do so further. All churches have. If not currently as regards homosexuality, definitely as regards other things. Divorce?

    2. That's nice that people are out of gangs and into church. That doesn't make religion true, it just makes it better than gangs.

    3. Biblical commentaries don't count. If you want a true look, you need critique.

    4. Scripture is not proven to be correct. There is no "proof" of scripture. These are documents, written by people, translated by people, about one of many religions. I realize you have a lot of stock in it but it's just that, one of a buffet of possible religions. As much as proof as the existence of Zeus or any of the other gods which have long since vanished from the public eye.

    5. I watched that video. It's cute. It's completely devoid of any rational critique or interaction. It's two guys patting each other on the back about a collection of documents.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Torus,

    I can assure you that the church I attend, will not submit to compromising itself with regard to acknowledging any sin as acceptable, to change with the times, particularly with regard to homosexuality.

    The pastors of the church I attend have a strong stance against sin in any persons life, but they will not prevent someone from coming to the church to hear the gospel and be saved. There have been many people who were so deep in a sinful lifestyle that they completely abandoned living in that sin because they learned how much God hates it and how much He loves them, that His grace is greater than their sin and would forgive them if they would just repent. The church I attend will avail itself to people who want a deeper walk with Christ in their lives, who never want to go back to what was displeasing to God.

    One book that has been influential in changing a persons life is The Cross and the Switchblade by David Wilkerson. It tells the story of people who were involved in drugs, gangs, prostitution and through the power of the Holy Spirit, their lives were greatly transformed to the glory of God. Now many of them are pastors, evangelists and missionaries all around the world.

    I think you have missed the point of my earlier statement. Not all denominations are compromising themselves with regard to approving homosexuality. Some churches are, but many are not. There are some strong mainline Protestant and Evangelical churches that will never compromise that matter, nor would they be ashamed to call it what it is, sin.

    Torus, I think that if you had read the Bible, in its entirety, you would see many consistencies, particularly the examples of Christ, the Messiah in the OT. Google is my "research assistant" but I prefer the biblical commentaries of Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, John Gill and others.

    I do read the Bible on a daily basis and look forward to an even deeper perspective of it as I begin to attend seminary in the fall. I'm not a novice here when it comes to the Scripture, though I do look forward to learning more Hebrew and Greek in the coming months.

    I'm not quoting religion, but Scripture, which is proven to be correct and without error. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is an excellent book too, regarding the historical authenticity of the Bible. Maybe you might consider watching a short video clip by Lee Strobel titled, "Is the Bible Reliable as a Historical Document? (http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1142).

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    ktm -

    1. As regards "In no uncertain terms...", so what? The point is that religions, ALL religions, have either adapted or folded. Your church will either adapt or it will die. History proves me correct.

    2. Hmm, so now even you're accepting that the "consensus of society" determines right and wrong? So right wrong can vary? What dictates it?

    3. Google is your friend. My assumption is that if you want to enter into a dialogue that you should know the standard arguments first. If you truly believe the bible is consistent then you haven't really read it.

    4. Please don't quote your religion at me unless you can prove all the other ones incorrect.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:51 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Torus,

    In no uncertain terms, should the church acquiesce to the voice of any particular group of people, so that their sinful behavior can be viewed as good and moral. The church should not be compromising its distinctive beliefs, if it truly believes in the divine inspired Word of God.

    My definition is not what I created to feel is more acceptable, but what I have noted is what the consensus of society believes to be correct regarding what wrong means.

    If the Bible is inconsistent, please indicate where.

    I can hardly imagine that Jesus' death on the cross was irrational. In fact, it seems irrational for someone who is completely innocent, to be punished for the blatant wrongs we have committed against God. That alone is utterly illogical, but it is what God has done, for you and for me.

    "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:6-8.

    This verse is what shows us God's enormous grace and love.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    torus - you sure are full of yourself.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:50 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes -

    1. As regards taking the words of scientists, no I do not take their word because they have a position, nor because they have been proven right before, but because they offer data from repeatable experiments. Religion does not offer that.

    2. You can talk all you want about design and irreducible complexity however there are two things you should be aware of. One, I've read all the arguments for design and I've also read the refutations which have been on the books for years. Unless you've got a new one? And two, the concept of irreducible complexity has been largely dismissed as well; every example which gets trotted out to much fanfare by the discovery institute gets thrashed pretty quickly.

    3. You write a lot about god but you never answered my question. Do you believe that women who are not virgins when they marry should be stoned to death as the bible indicates?

    4. The problem with believing what you typed is that you could have typed anything you felt like and asked the same thing. You could have espoused the virtues of the ancient Greek gods and your argument would have been no weaker (or stronger). What this means is that you don't really have an argument, not if contradicting arguments can be made with essentially exactly the same validity.

  • Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:44 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    ktm -

    1. As regards accepting homosexuality, reality indicates you're wrong. Homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted in most modern societies. People are altering their religions to do this, much as religions have altered through the years to accommodate many things.

    Of course living by the Bible is irrational for two reasons. One, it's an arbitrary book and two, it's internally inconsistent.

    3. Ah, flailing? "It has been noted what the correct..." That's funny! How do you know YOUR definition is the "right" one? You don't. Webster is not all-knowing, my friend. Morals and rightness are defined FROM society, not FOR society. Killing is wrong, but it's sometimes right (war).

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    last continued...

    Torus, I hope you're still reading. I have not been avoiding your question; I actually answered it, but perhaps I spoke in religious shorthand. I will try to explain it better.

    God gave the law to which you refer for a particular people in a particular place. That was His old covenant which He made with the Hebrews/Jews He brought out of slavery in Egypt. The Hebrews broke that covenant repeatedly, and finally God said He would make a new covenant unlike the first. Jesus instituted the new covenant through His death on the cross; it is ratified in a person's life when they put their trust in Jesus for salvation. As I said previously, I believe Jesus fulfilled the Law of the Old Testament and Christians today are not under the old covenant/law, but under the new covenant, the law of love.

    Please let me know if you still feel I did not answer your question.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    continued...

    One thing you said struck me: "we can't grow up to discover it ourselves." Actually, you can experience it for yourself, if you believe and follow what I've typed below. Then you will have all the evidence you need. But that would mean admitting the Bible is true, that there is a God who sets the rules for His universe, and that you are a sinner in need of God's mercy and grace. Do some say the words without meaning it? Sure, as people often do. But to those who do mean it, God gives forgiveness and freedom from the guilt and shame of the past.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    torus, thanks for your reply. Let's see if I can answer your question/comments.

    When I wrote about knowing through revelation and knowing by accepting another's knowledge, of course I was thinking about God but also about scientists. You don't have time to replicate all the experiments done, so you have to take their word for it. Why? Because they have a position? Because they have been proven right so many times before? Same with God - I take His word for things because He is an omniscient God and because He's been right so many times; whether He's making prophecies about the future or talking about the human condition, God is right every time.

    As for evidence of God, I won't waste your time talking about design and irreducible complexity unless you want to know more; I get the feeling you would not believe it anyway. Is there evidence that can be replicated? Not in the strictest sense of the laboratory, but there is the change that has occurred millions of times, when one person after another has (1) admitted their own proclivity to wrongdoing, (2) believed that Jesus was God's perfect sacrifice for sin, + that Jesus died to pay the penalty for their sins, and (3) asked Jesus to forgive them and become Lord of their lives. Each time a person does that, that person is changed in ways that cannot be explained by natural means, though the "experiment" has been repeated innumerable times.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Torus,

    It is highly improbable that you, or anyone else, will be able to get one's personal beliefs, albeit moral or spiritual, or what you call irrational morals, to be removed from their way of life, so that homosexuality, or other abnormal behavior, can become welcomed as accepted and normal within society.

    Do you think that living according to the Bible is an irrational moral to possess, which you seem to imply? If so, why?

    You can create your own version of defining right and wrong as you wish, but it has been noted what the correct an appropriate understanding of the word wrong is, which is contrary to yours.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ktm - I think I figured out where you're confused. Let me approach this differently. I'm going to eliminate "wrong" and "right".

    A group of people get together to form a society. They sit down to develop rules. Rules need to be equal for all or else some people won't participate. Rules must be approached rationally because if rationality is dismissed then the discussion can't even take place and moreover anyone could posit any arbitrary rule on a whim and say "because I said so" which is of course not a rational explanation.

    Someone posits whether killing should be permitted. If killing is permitted for all then society will fall apart. Hence killing is banned.

    Rape? No, it hurts someone else. Assault, theft, same thing.

    Someone asks if people can be married, meaning they commit their lives to one another and derive societal benefits and recognition from their bond. Everyone understands that this will not harm anyone and so it is permitted. Same sex, opposite sex, no matter.

    My very definitions of "right" and "wrong" really come from "logically permissible" and "logically detrimental" in this regard in this idea of an rationally constructed society.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Regarding 1& 3: I defined it, albeit loosely. Wrong means detrimental to society and to the individuals within that society. Right means not wrong, at worst neutral and at best beneficial to some and harmful to none.

    Regarding 2: It doesn't directly, I was setting the stage for my definition of right and wrong.

    Regarding 4: Correct. Mostly but not totally. Partly rules just make the system function smoothly.

    Regarding 5: I want people to get their irrational morals out of other people's lives. I don't create arbitrary and irrational morals of my own and then attempt to force them on society.
    There is nothing I can think of that is not harmful that I would tell others not to do.

    Regarding 6: No.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus,

    Regarding 1& 3: What foundation of understanding the difference between right and wrong are you using? There has to be a basis for establishing what defines right and wrong.

    Regarding 2: How is this relevant to the popular objection of homosexual people who desire to have their relationship legally recognized as a marriage?

    Regarding 4: Rules promote balance, mostly civil order, so that rebellion and chaos do not occur.

    Regarding 5: You want others to say that homosexuality is right because you believe it is not wrong, which contradicts the beliefs of many, whether those beliefs are biblical or moral.

    Regarding 6: You do not agree with Websters definition because it does not suit your conception of what wrong means.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ktm -

    1. There are no absolute definitions of right and wrong.

    2. Societies are created by man for the purpose of survival.

    3. In order for societies and the individuals in them to survive we must create definitions of right and wrong which best serve the society and the individuals in it.

    4. The key word is "balance". If the rules benefit one individual too much then society suffers.

    5. My definition is based upon the smallest possible set of obvious rules which serve society while not restricting the individual. My evidence of this is that if my definition were universal the situation would be fair and beneficial. Saying "homosexuality is wrong" helps nobody and hurts many. Consequently it's a bad rule.

    6. Webster's definition is circular and therefore useless.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathetes -

    We know things based on the authority of another only inasmuch as we believe that the other person has greater knowledge than us, but a priori we must appreciate how that person got his knowledge. When we are young we simply trust our parents but this is simply because we do not have the capability of verifying these things ourselves. But the things we are told can be verified, presumably, if they are true. Good science can be replicated by anyone.

    Unfortunately no church leader is privy to more evidence of the existence of any gods than either your or I. There is no evidence to replicate, we can't grow up to discover it ourselves, they are basing their belief on exactly the same amount of evidence (that is, none) as anyone. It's just that they talk a good talk.

    As regard your comment on the bible, you're avoiding the question. If the bible is the source of your morals and definitions of right and wrong, do you think stoning is acceptable for women who are not virgins on their wedding night?

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Torus,

    As I read your definition of wrong, Websters has a very different definition, which says, not in accordance with justice, law, morality, etc.; unlawful, immoral, or improper. Your definition is more self-serving because of your view regarding homosexuality and is inconsistent with the normative understanding and acceptance, and I say this respectfully too.

    When people try to make up their own rules, or definitions, that are more suitable to them and their lifestyle, not exclusively regarding homosexuality, it creates a realm of abnormality that would conflict with society, such as pedophilia, pornography, illegal drugs, immoral sexual behavior, etc.

    Likewise, many people try to create their own god who wouldn't punish people by sending them to hell, yet the moral standard is the same to the God of the Bible. I'd like to see what such a person's heaven and hell looks like, as well as understanding how they were created. To create a god and a standard that is more acceptable to ourselves would not prove to be beneficial in this life, or in the next one.

    I too appreciate the mature dialogue here as well.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    torus,
    First, let me say I have enjoyed our conversation. Even before you mentioned your credentials, I believed you were intelligent and honest. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

    Second, how do we know things. Without going too deep into epistemology, there are a number of ways. Reason is certainly one. Also, there's the knowing that's based on the authority of another. We do this one all the time, with parents, scientists, + other experts in various fields. This is the where most Christians would put the Bible; we consider it authoritative because we consider it to be the written Word of God who is omniscient. A final type of knowing comes from revelation, when God simply reveals things to people that could not be known other ways. Some people experience it as a feeling, as audible words, as something in-between those two, or as a vision. God uses many ways to speak to people.

    Regarding the Bible, I take it to mean what it says, i.e., I read historical narrative as history, poetic sections as poetry, and prophetic sections as preaching/prophecy, using all the tools in the toolbox of hermeneutics. How do I deal with the obscure laws of the Old Testament? I see the OT purity and sacrificial laws as fulfilled in the righteous life and sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. In Matt. 5:13-16, Jesus said He came, not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the Law. The moral laws of the Old and New Testaments are still in place to guide people in how they should live. That's a long explanation, but in short, I don't ignore any of it. God spoke through Paul writing to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:16), "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Each of us ignores the Bible at our own peril.

    I've enjoyed this; you have made me think. I have to eat before class, but I'll check back late tonight. Thanks again, torus.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    2+Also: Let me put it this way. This morning I woke up in my bed. How do I know it's mine? I went to work. How do I know I have a job? How do I know that my motorcycle will still run? How do I know the pot of tea I made just now will brew? How do I know what it will taste like? The reason for all these things is that I have constructed a coherent and rational view of the world. Science is just this same construction.

    If there were some other way to discover (anything), how would I even recognize what I had discovered? It would be impossible to define "truth" or "reality" because these things are defined entirely by the process itself.

    Reason is all we have in the morning when we wake up in order to piece together a coherent day. Reason is all we have for anything. Many scientists may differ in opinion. I believe they are both simply selectively applying reason and falling prey to normal human weaknesses.

    3+4: I have a PhD in Mathematics. I do not know more about genetics but I would venture a guess that I know more about logic.

    5: I didn't suggest how other people are supposed to decide right and wrong, you simply asked how I decide for myself. Assuming you believe in the bible, how do you decide which bits to abide by and which bits to ignore?

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    torus,

    1. I'm glad you came here; I hope you'll keep coming here. I think you've found a number of people willing to rationally think about the issues. They may not agree with you, but they've been mature in their discussions with you. That's why I don't understand why you wrote that comment to biggie.

    2. I was taught to observe with my 5 senses and instruments. How can a scientist observe that which is past? As for recreating the seconds after Big Bang, how does one recreate something when one cannot account for all the variables?

    3+4. I don't know your background in science, but most scientists would disagree with you. (I know other evolutionist posters like ERV + agentorangex would take you to task for that!) Lewontin stated clearly the scientific assumptions he has used for years. Do you know more about science than a Harvard geneticist who has been working for decades?

    Also, what's up with this? "In our daily lives we don't look for nonnatural explanations to things, instead we approach life rationally. Trying to derive some meaning irrationally would basically be equivalent to making stuff up." Again you make a false dichotomy between believing the non- or supernatural affects our lives and an ability to think rationally, yet many highly rational scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers have done both. Do you not see that? Or do you not want to believe that they can do both?

    5. So each of us can define right and wrong for ourselves? What if one person thinks something is hurtful, and another thinks it is okay or even beneficial? How do you decide who is right?

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mathetes -

    1. I just come here once in a blue moon to check on the status of things. Hopefully I can convince some people to think more rationally.

    2. You can observe a past event in the sense that you can dig up more data (thereby completing a picture) or by repeating conditions. One example is science's recreation of the first few seconds after the big bang, for example.

    3. Science does not discard nonnaturalistic phenomena. The point is that science can only touch things which are scientific. This may sound restrictive but in truth it's all we've got. In our daily lives we don't look for nonnatural explanations to things, instead we approach life rationally. Trying to derive some meaning irrationally would basically be equivalent to making stuff up.

    4. What's the relevance of Lewontin's quote? He's being a bit naive. There's no a priori adherence. Science is the use of tools, his quote seems to be saying it's the toolbox. I think he's wrong.

    5. Wrongness (for me) is defined by something which is hurtful to others and/or detrimental to society as a whole. Homosexuality is neither.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    torus, re: points 2 and 3 in your posts -
    2. So? The statistical infrequency of something does not designate the wrongness. Left-handedness is abnormal too.
    3. Biting your brother hurts your brother. Loving another of the same sex hurts nobody. Can't you tell the difference between positive and negative behaviors?

    You were the one who brought up the frequency with which homosexuality occurs (dozens or hundreds of animal species), remember? You were the one who asked, "What is normal?" I simply replied by defining the word "normal" and trying to explain what is abnormal.

    Now you bring up the "wrongness" of behaviors. How do you decide what is "wrong"? What is the basis for your moral judgment, for deciding what behaviors are positive or negative? What is the foundation for your moral judgments AND how can you know that it is correct? What makes your basis for moral judgments the best one? Are there different foundations for moral judgments? If so, who decides which is best, or can we each hold to a different one?

    I look forward to your responses.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    In 1997, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, IN SPITE OF its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, IN SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Emphasis in original)

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    torus,

    RE: "Something else you ought to consider is that religion is an explanation whereas science is a method of achieving an explanation. These are fundamentally different things."

    Science + religion are indeed different, regarding their purposes, etc. However, both are founded on assumptions. Science, as practiced by many, is founded on naturalism, the idea that nothing exists but what can be seen, touched, measured. Beginning with that assumption influences everything built on assumption: theories, experiments, results. If that assumption is wrong, then everything else is biased and possibly incorrect. Science cannot prove its assumption is correct, because to do so, it would have to prove that nothing supernatural exists. This it cannot do, thus we must approach science acknowledging its limitations. You said it earlier, science must be observable, testable, repeatable - three things which cannot be done in historical science (the science of origins, vs operational science of the present).

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:16 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    torus,

    When I get to the office I'll answer the rest, but for now I'll let you think about your #1 + the PS.

    You wrote to biggie about the impossibility of having a mature rational discussion with a person of faith. Yet you came to this site + you engage in rational discussions. Does that not negate your point to biggie?

    You also wrote: "Science alone is observable, testable and refutable, hence it is kept." Please explain how one observes a past event (remains + artifacts are not the same thing), then tests + repeats it. People can theorize about it but that's it.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Mathete - Something else you ought to consider is that religion is an explanation whereas science is a method of achieving an explanation. These are fundamentally different things.

  • Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Mathete:

    1. Since the number of irrational explanations for the origins of the universe is both infinite in number and infinite in type, it makes no sense to pick any specific one. Science alone is observable, testable and refutable, hence it is kept.

    2. So? The statistical infrequency of something does not designate the wrongness. Left-handedness is abnormal too.

    3. Biting your brother hurts your brother. Loving another of the same sex hurts nobody. Can't you tell the difference between positive and negative behaviors?

    PS: I wouldn't trust any of those scientists with a rational discussion about the supernatural origins of the universe either. Simply because a man is very (rationally) bright in one field does not make him an expert in others and it certainly does not make him somehow privy to metaphysical knowledge that the rest of us lack.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Torus, let's take your points 1 by 1.

    1. Mankind is not monolithic in supernatural beliefs + Bible interpretaions, so you say toss it all out. How is that rational? Scientists can't agree or explain how life began on earth, so you think maybe we should not believe in it either?

    2. "normal" = conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical. That which is nonstandard or atypical = not normal. So statistically, homosexual behavior is atypical, among people (<3%) + animals (hundreds of species out of millions). Like many other abnormal behaviors, it was included in the DSM until activists pressured the APA to remove it.

    3. Don't like "intentional purpose"? How about "primary purpose"? Without our ancestors using sex for its primary purpose, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You state the mouth + limbs can be used in other ways + I agree. But because a child CAN bite or hit his brother doesn't make it right to do so.

    PS: As for your earlier comment to biggie: "the problem here is that as soon as someone accepts an explanation of the universe, life and morals which is not based in rational thought, all bets are off in the arena of mature rational dialogue in the face of reality."
    Wow, I bet that would come as a surprise to Blaise Pascal, Pasteur, Newton, Boyle, and many other scientists.

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    The exact same thing could be said of how homosexual activists treat ex-homosexuals! It seems that "tolerance" is a one-way track: moving through the homosexual activists' definition of what they tolerate or don't tolerate. Anything beyond their self-serving definition is "intolerance."


    Biggie said:
    <OK nay-sayers, when are you going to get off your hate-train, and get on board with the love that two same-sex persons can express for each other? Open your hearts! Welcome love into your souls! >

  • Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    The "little Book" will have big consequences on a person's eternal life, for failing to live according to God's Word.

    Jesus said, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

    Regardless of how universally accepted same-sex marriage or civil unions are, it is still contrary to normal human sexual behavior and is in direct opposition to the intentional purpose of the sexual intercourse, which is between two people of the opposite sex.

    Jesus also said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14).

    How many people, not just homosexuals, are on the broad road to destruction, when that is not where they should be headed?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links