Tag Archives: proposition 8

Three of a kind: Jack Black, Newsweek and theologically liberal Christians

three-of-a-kindThe pro-“same-sex marriage” crowd is pretty angry about Proposition 8 passing in California.  They are doing everything possible to sway public opinion.  They may win, but the question is whether authentic Christians will hold fast to the truth. 

It is sad yet amusing to see such theoretically different sets of people in agreement about the “flaws” of the Bible:

  • Jack Black and other Hollywood stars create a video mocking Christians and the Bible(Side note: If you can watch the whole video, notice how the sodomy simulations all had woman in back instead of men.  That was obviously scripted for a reason.  Did they think using a guy would be too graphic?  It seemed kinda homophobic to me.)
  • Newsweek – “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”  It was deeply biased logical fallacy-fest of pure advocacy that didn’t even pretend to offer a counterpoint. Among other things, it trots out the false comparison to black Civil Rights.  But of course, skin color is morally neutral and sexual behavior is not.  It also used the “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” line, which only has about seven serious logical errors
  • Theologically liberal / pro-gay theology Christians  — they’ve been doing this the longest, but it is most irritating with them because they claim the name of Christ.  At least Jack Black doesn’t pretend to be a Christian.

In short, we’ve got Bible lessons from non-believers.  So what will we do? 

Here’s my advice: Don’t get angry, get educated.  Or get angry and educated.  Are these people irritating and blasphemous?  Yep.  But we should use these current events to point people to the truth.  Just do like they did in the Book of Acts: Share the truth with those who are interested. 

For starters, respond to the shrimp / shellfish argument.  It is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in Flaws of the Shellfish Argument.  Here’s the short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts. The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.  So the Jack Black / theologically liberal types are simply wrong.

From the Jack Black video:

The “Christian” characters: “Doesn’t the Bible say these people are an abomination?”

Jack Black as Jesus: “It says the exact same thing about this shrimp cocktail . . . The Bible says a lot of things . . .”

The “Christian” characters: “We ignore those verses.”

Non-Christian characters: ” . . . you pick and choose.”

The irony is that we accept all the verses as the word of God.  The ones who “pick and choose” are the Dalmatian Theologians who think the Bible is inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, or that God is changing spots or adding spots (and, oddly enough, only telling them).  They quote what they like then dismiss what they don’t by saying thinks like, “the Bible doesn’t say which books belong in the Bible, so we just don’t know what parts belong.”

The literalists are the ones like Jack Black & Co. who don’t read in context. 

A summary of what the Bible really says about this topic:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Again, don’t get angry, get educated.  Or get angry and educated.  These people are throwing all sorts of nonsense like this at the real church.  How will we respond?  With “dignified” surrenders, where we just opt out of the conversations?  Or with the truth?

Here’s a thorough analysis by James White.

Also see: Problems with pro-gay theology and Responding to pro-gay theology 

Al Mohler had a good response to the Newsweek article.

The real haters and responding to their inconsistency

hate.jpgMs. Green has some videos of truly hateful behavior by the anti-Proposition 8 folks.  Yet it is the Christians who are continually referred to as haters.  Sure, Fred Phelps and his ilk are haters and they call themselves Christian, but their behavior displays about as much fruit as their counterparts on the Left.  And the demonstrators on the Left far outnumber the Phelps-types. 

The Left uses the “hate” accusation reflexively to try to demonize and silence the opposition.  It is amazing that the hate label sticks to us when we actually take a live and let live approach to gays. We just don’t like it when they shove their agenda down our throats.

I’ve known for a long time that their theme of “tolerance” was an upside down use of the word.  You can only tolerate those you disagree with, and these people show no tolerance at all.

Here is one line of thinking to use in responding to the spurious “hate” personal attacks. 

If you want to disarm the liberals, just point out that if homosexuality could be detected in utero that you would be against those abortions, and ask them if they would agree to make those abortions illegal.  If heterosexual parents abort for Down Syndrome, gender, inconvenience, etc. I guarantee you that most parents would abort rather than have a potentially gay child (I wouldn’t).

I’ve asked this question many times and I have yet to find a heterosexual liberal who doesn’t love abortion rights more than gays. So this argument is a great way to make them squirm and to point out how ridiculous it is for them to label you as a homophobe. After all, they think it should be legal to destroy gays in the womb (even hypothetically) while you think they should be protected.

The most I’ve ever seen them say in response is that I’m against all abortions, so specific protections for gays isn’t meaningful. But I point out that if this was the only restriction made that I’d favor it.  You shouldn’t kill an innocent human being because he is gay or even might be gay.

It also forces them to reconsider their pro-abortion views, because it points out how the unborn are real human beings. That is one reason they fight any exceptions, even for gender selection abortions. They know that once you concede the humanity of the unborn for any reason then other abortions wouldn’t be justified.

If you do Venn diagrams of pro-legalized abortionists and pro-gay agenda folks, you’ll see virtually concentric circles. 

Authentic Christians do not hate these people.  Watch the videos and see.  But the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  And those that are pro-legalized abortion and pro-gay marriage are in deep rebellion to God.

I explored this more in a hypothetical dilemma.

I know that the “rights” talk makes for a good sound bite, but what rights are we talking about? The right to relationships? They have them. The right to be married? Uh, sorry, but they already have the right to marry a living being of the opposite sex of the same species under certain conditions (i.e., no incest, bestiality, polygamy or necrophilia). And who are they to pull up the drawbridge after gays get these “rights” and leave the other groups hanging?  Do they hate them?  Why else would they oppose their rights?

I thought this was a great summary by Invictus, who previously had been inclined to try and support gay civil marriage:

You know, I’m not really inclined to support the creation of a new “right”–one that has never existed in all of human history–on behalf of a people who so easily take up the mantle of thuggish oppression as soon as they are given space to do so.  Does anyone (idiots and liars excluded) really think that teams of police would be required to escort gay couples safely out of neighborhoods full of violent Mormons screaming death threats?

Oh the humanity! UPDATED

Update: Be sure to read Playing the Race Card on Gay Marriage.  Carlotta highlights some of the absurdities of the pro-LGBTQ movement.  They have a lot of nerve trying to co-opt the Civil Rights movement.  From the article she analyzed:

Well, let’s see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

Then there’s this from Verum Serum:

Oddly enough, I haven’t been able to find one gay activist/gay rights spokesperson who has been able to articulate HOW these two are the same.

Let me give it a shot…

The history of blacks in the United States begins with slavery and continues on to various forms of societal discrimination that has included:  denial of voting rights, denial of property ownership rights, denial of equity in education, denial of access to public facilities, denial of access to businesses, denial of equal access to public transportation, etc.

Homosexuals in the United States have had to endure…society’s refusal to allow them to change the definition of marriage.

You know what?  The homosexuals are RIGHT.  They are EXACTLY the same as blacks!  Viva la Revolucion!

At times I’m tempted to say, go ahead and give them “gay marriage.” The sooner they get all they think they want the sooner they’ll realize that they are still miserable and separated from God.

The problem is that one of the things on their laundry list is to silence the church, because the Bible will always be a constant reminder that they aren’t fooling God.  And I’m not keen on giving up the church just yet.

hindenbergA post titled When MY Generation Speaks by a 30-ish liberal friend railed against people in favor of Proposition 8 in California. 

This entry is not to argue the inherent rights of gays to marry – not because there aren’t plenty of people who would love to debate this but because the debate would change nothing. Exit polling clearly indicates people make this decision based on dogma, not on logic – and if I have learned one thing in life, it is that reasoning with dogma is like talking to a wall. 

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too, with dogma such as, “Haters!  Irrational!  Uneducated!  You want to send gays to internment camps!  You’re forcing your religion on us!  Of course we wouldn’t teach kindergarteners about this!  Etc.!”

Here is some logic for those who are interested:

  • Same sex unions can never provide a mother and a father to a child, so the State has no interest in promoting or regulating them.
  • Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
  • Gay couples already get benefits from the State of California.  This was all about affirmation.
  • The judges ignored the will of the people, so the amendment made perfect sense.
  • Sexual preferences are not Civil Rights.  Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not. 
  • Oxymoronic “same sex marriage” doesn’t mean that marriage is redefined as man/woman, woman/woman or man/man, it redefines it to say that it is not just between a man and a woman — it is whatever anyone wants to define it to be.  The same “anti-discrimination” rationale is immediately available for polygamists, incestuous couples, etc.

Note that I didn’t even refer to the Bible.  If people want to know what God has to say — and they should, since He created the universe and us — here’s a summary:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
  • In short, to advance “same sex marriage” is to be perpetually shaking your fist at God in rebellion.

Here’s more from the other blogger:

That the proposition passed is an injustice and is unjustifiable – but look to the horizon. People, especially the dogmatized, fear that which is different – that which they do not understand. Just as the elderly and the dogmatized were the most fervent opponents of desegregation and of women’s suffrage, they are holding back progress on this issue – the civil rights issue of my generation. But my generation will have the last word, and years from now, when gay rights are considered as inalienable as the rights of blacks and women, we will look back with shame and confusion at those who stood against the tide of equality.

Actually, we do understand it.  We don’t fear what is different, we fear what it will do to innocent people and the structure of the foundation of society.

And as usual this guy and his bigoted, shameful generation pull up the drawbridge on people with different sexual preferences.  They pat themselves on the back for supporting gay rights but ignore preferences of others.

What about the “Civil Rights” of  those who want polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and who knows what else?  If marriage is not just for a man and a woman, then who says it has to be just for humans, or just for two people,  or just for non-siblings, or just for living people, etc.?  The reasoning for same sex unions would apply to them as well.  And don’t tell me that judges wouldn’t rationalize those.  Any group that can see unlimited abortion rights in the Constitution has a remarkable — albeit perverted — creative streak.

I realize how tempting it is for people to insist that those who disagree with them are irrational bigots, but the facts do not support their arguments.

I am glad that his generation has the right to speak and I concede that they may get their way at the ballot box someday.  I just hope that more of his generation exercise their right to think critically as well.

You can really feel the love and tolerance

I wouldn’t judge the pro-gay lobby groups on just a few comments of their followers.  But I would judge them for how they react to these comments.  See ‘Gay’ threats target Christians over same-sex ‘marriage’ ban.  Where are the proponents of hate speech laws now?  What could be more hateful and likely to incite violence against someone for their beliefs?

Of course if the opposite of this happened then the mainstream media would be all over it.  I’ll be watching to see how they cover – or don’t cover – these threats.

Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.

“Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” wrote “World O Jeff” on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.

On a blog website, “Tread” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”

Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, “While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve.”

A contributor identifying himself as “Joe” said, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

“This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they’re not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity,” he said. “The homosexual lobby is always calling for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and ‘hate.’ Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians.”

On the “Queerty” website, “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”

“I’m going to give them something to be f—ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done,” wrote “Jonathan.”

Liberty Counsel’s Barber said, “This is not free speech; these are ‘hate crimes’ under the existing definition. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There’d be outrage, and rightfully so. It’d be national front-page news. Federal authorities should immediately investigate these threats and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.”

On yet another site, “Americablog,” “scottinsf” wrote, “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.”

“I hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil! BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM,” wrote Angelo.

One contributor went so far as to threaten to take out his frustrations on his own family.

“You want me to come back to Idaho for Christmas? Oh wait, my partner and I can’t share the same bed? We can’t show any affection or any outward sign of our love for each other? Well sorry family … no Uncle Adam and all his expensive gifts and delicious cooking for you. Your childrens’ presents will now be donations in their name to the equal rights organization of my choosing. As will their and your birthday presents, wedding presents, graduation presents, and everything else I give going forward.”

The writer continued, “Remember, I’m angry. And I’m strong from my years at the gym and really am ready to take my frustration out on someone or something.”

Barber said the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and “other leaders within the homosexual lobby” should call immediately for an end to such threats.

There were suggestions of a different type of violence, too.

“Hope the gay waiters at their hotel p—ed in all the drinks they served these cretins,” “Jake” wrote about protectors of traditional marriage.

“If you’re planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You’re going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny,” stated another threat. “Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere.”

Another even listed addresses of Mormon facilities. Mormon, Catholic and other religious groups were active in supporting the marriage definition.

“I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice,” wrote Jeremy.

Who was the biggest funder of the anti-prop 8 movement?

Unions.  The most damning and frustrating thing about this is that the liars on the anti-prop 8 movement insist that it won’t impact education (even though that has been easily disproven).  So why would these educational “leaders” put so much money into this?  They spent more than Ellen.

Here’s a pop quiz: Who’s donated the most money to an effort in California to defeat Proposition 8, an initiative on the November 4 ballot that would define marriage as between a man and a woman in the state?

A) Gay-advocacy organizations

B) Civil-rights groups

C) The California Teachers Association

If you guessed “C,” you understand the nature of modern liberal politics. And if you didn’t, perhaps you’re wondering what exactly gay marriage has to do with K-12 public education. The high school dropout rate is 1-in-4 in California and 1-in-3 in the Los Angeles public school system, odds that worsen considerably among black and Hispanic children. So you might think the CTA, the state’s largest teachers’ union, would have other priorities.

Yet last week the union donated $1 million to the “No on Proposition 8” campaign. Of the roughly $3 million raised by opponents of the measure so far, $1.25 million has come from the teachers’ union. “What does this cause have to do with education?” said Randy Peart, a public school teacher in San Juan who was contacted by a local television station. “Why not put that money into classrooms, into making a better place for these kids?”

It will get worse under an Obama administration.  There are falsely named initiatives to prevent secret ballots and force union membership.

Random thoughts – updated

Election burnout – Some good thoughts on that here.  For Christians, nothing should steal our joy in Christ except our own sins, and then only until we confess and remind ourselves of God’s forgiveness.

If McCain loses, God is still in control and Jesus is still the unchanging rock.  We’ll be sad for all the people who will be hurt by Obama’s awful policies, but we know that God can work through anything sinful man does and accomplish what He desires.

If Obama loses, his followers will have lost their man-made messiah, but we’ll still have our real Messiah.

Having said that, I actually wish the campaign could go on longer, because it would improve McCain’s chances.  I wish he could make another trip through Pennsylvania and other coal-producing states after Obama repeatedly said they would bankrupt the coal industry.

Palin has more experience than Obama, but even if she didn’t it shouldn’t be an issue for liberals.  After all, aren’t they pro-affirmative action?  Why raise the drawbridge just for her? 

Voter fraud – Once again, we see real, live voter fraud (a la ACORN) from the Democrats – including people from Obama’s campaign – but the MSM focuses almost exclusively on hypothetical Republican fraud.  The games from team Obama are well documented, but the media ignores them.

I view the whole thing as a toss-up at this point, given that polls are almost always too favorable for Democrats.  But the MSM is 180 degrees off on the voter fraud issue, and that will set up the Democrats for major disappointment and rioting should McCain win.  After all, they all “know” Obama already won, so the only way McCain could win is by cheating, right?

Bad arguments for same-sex unions.

I just heard a typical and bad retort to opponents of same-sex marriage:  I’m not telling them what to do, why should they tell me what to do? 

Uh, because that’s what the government is – us.  (Does “We the people…” sound familiar?)  So in making same-sex legal you ARE telling us what to do:  Accept, support, protect, and subsidize something we have rational and moral objection to, isn’t good for children or society, is a public contract and covenant as marriage not just a bedroom arrangement, and has no historical or moral precedent in human history.  And you’ll use the force of government and law to tell me what to do.  Now that doesn’t sound very tolerant.

Gay pledge cards given to kindergarteners

As I mentioned in We told you so, even while the GLBT lobby is on their best behavior pending the vote on Proposition 8, we see more and more examples of their supporters doing the opposite of what they claimed would happen: Aggressive indoctrination of youth as young as kindergarten.

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

The cards asked signers to be “an ally” and to pledge to “not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts.”

More here.

Do 5 year olds really need to be thinking about homosexuals? About bi-sexuals? About transgenders?   Kindergarteners can’t even understand those concepts. Their innocence should not be stolen with such filth.

It will only get worse. They’ve been holding back until after the vote on Proposition 8 is done.  If it doesn’t pass, they’ll be much more aggressive.  If you don’t believe me, ask yourself if you ever would have imagined kindergarteners being given such things?  Did you expect to see first graders taken to a lesbian wedding on a field trip?  Did you expect kindergarteners to have a “gay day” at school without parental notification?

If you are in California, vote Yes on 8!

Hat tip: Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee

More weekly roundup

Twenty reasons to vote yes on Proposition 8 in California and to preserve traditional marriage.  The main reason: Only traditional marriages have the possibility of providing one mother and one father to a child, which has always been the ideal.  Oxymoronic “same sex marriages” can never, never do that.

And for those who question such an obvious argument, ask them why the sex of one’s partner is non-negotiable and all important (i.e., a gay guy must have a guy for a partner – never a butch woman or a woman who thinks she’s a guy), but that the sex of one’s parents is completely irrelevant.  I’ve asked that countless times and have yet to have someone even try to answer.

Rick Warren is supporting Prop 8.  Good for him.

More from Zo – another must watch.  He correctly skewers those who want to destroy the unborn with Down Syndrome or who are “unwanted.”  You call Bush a fascist yet Obama tries to destroy people like Joe the Plumber just for asking a question?  Too bad more leaders don’t call out sell-outs like this guy does.

Obama vs. free speech – you’ve been warned

Deregulation – the big lie

  • The current crisis was not caused by a deregulated “anything goes” market, but by liberal intervention in the market, i.e. forcing banks to make high-risk loans or face costly lawsuits.
  • Starting his first year in office, President Bush raised alarms about what was going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He made a serious attempt at reform in 2003 which was rebuffed by Democrats who were angry that “safety and soundness” was being raised as an issue.
  • Barney Frank promised that, even if they were to fail, the government would not bail our Fannie and Freddie.
  • Democrats continued to fight any attempt at regulation out of concern that it might dry up the flood of subprime mortgage money. (Hey, that was the idea, dummies!)
  • John McCain co-sponsored legislation on 2006 designed to provide additional regulation and oversight of Fannie and Freddie.
  • Obama has been a non-entity on this entire looming crisis, yet now claims he can fix it?
  • Deregulation wasn’t the problem. Democrats were the problem.
  • We told you so. VOTE YES ON 8!

    Hi – welcome to newcomers from the latest link(s) from other blogs.  Feel free to take a look around and comment if you like.

    Here’s another example of what you’ll get lots more of if Prop 8 fails: School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartnersRight out of the gay agenda playbook.

    It is interesting that some people criticize those who have the audacity to take exception to the things being pushed on children.  The same rationale people use to criticize me for criticizing the gay lobby could also be used to justify showing pornography to kindergarteners.  After all, you don’t want moral busybodies trying to prevent the victimization of children, do you?  You’ll just hurt them all the more, right?  I mean, anyone who wants to protect the innocence of children must have a series of psychological problems, don’t you think? 

    But I probably shouldn’t use that pornography example with one of the guys pointing people to my site, considering what he considers normal in their parades and how he enjoys blogging about gay camping –  what with its fluid sleeping arrangements, tubes of lube on the picnic tables and dozens of naked guys in the pool.  And he claims to be a “Christian,” no less!  Of course, that guy thought that reading illustrated gay fiction to 2nd graders was a good thing and had no issues with kissing his “husband” in front of little kids. 

    This is what we are dealing with, people.  Sick.  Of course, this is also the guy who said I was “worse than an abortionist’ and had “blood on my hands” because I think that pushing condoms on kids gives implicitly and explicitly wrong messages. 

    And of course, he offers his favorite line of attack: If you criticize schools for teaching the normality of sodomy to 5 year olds then it must be because you are a closeted homosexual.  Uh, yeah, good logic there, folks.  I must also be a closet abortionist, pagan, tax-and-spend liberal as well.  (P.S. to my good buddy: It ain’t gossip if you quote someone off their blog on another blog, though it is a sin to make things up about someone and accuse them of things they have never said or done.  But I sincerely forgive you.)

    But he does offer one insurmountable argument.  Maybe one day I’ll be clever enough to rebut it, but so far I’ve failed.  You see, he always refers to people like me as “wacky fundies” multiple times in each post.  So he must be correct in his views, eh?  And here I am, just stuck with facts and logic (Oh, and for authentic Christians, the Bible).

    Such desperation.  It is a strong delusion.

    P.S. I was amused that those who defended the field trip did so on the grounds that the parents signed permission slips.  Aside from the obvious peer-pressure issue, it misses the larger point: Even without field trips, just imagine the garbage they are pouring into these kids without parental awareness! 

    Be sure to read the comments of Joanne below, who proudly says that she pushes the gay agenda whether oxymornic “same-sex marriage” is legal or not.  Reason #13 to home school if you are in California.

    Also see What Same Sex Marriage Does to Kindergarteners.

    I hope Californians vote “yes” on proposition 8 before it is too late.  Read Field Trip Takes First-Graders to San Francisco City Hall for Lesbian ‘Wedding’

    This is so disturbing. It is exactly what many of us have identified already and predicted would spread further wherever oxymoronic “same sex marriage” is made legal.  First graders are being fed the lie that this behavior is somehow normal and positive.

    Some people try to deny the slippery slope argument, which is sometimes, but not always, a logical fallacy.  But things like this are exactly what one should expect when a few rogue judges override the will of the people and invent civil rights for sexual preferences.   

    Once this is legal then the state becomes an enemy of the church, because the church “discriminates.”  The state must give equal, or at least proportional time and space to these relationships in classes and textbooks.  Sadly, this whole process is aided and abetted by many fake and/or seriously confused Christians.

    The San Francisco Chronicle ran this photo Oct. 11 by photographer Mike Kepka showing first-grade students from a local public grade school cheering their teacher’s lesbian “wedding.” This homosexual “marriage” “field trip” occurred just eight days after the Chronicle editorialized against the “fear tactics” used by pro-Proposition 8 forces in defending their proposed amendment preserving marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The newspaper had mocked a Prop 8 TV ad on the adverse effects of legal “gay marriage,” stating: “People would be sued on the basis of their personal beliefs! Churches would lose their tax-exempt status! Gay marriage would be taught in public schools!” The troubling photo above certainly contradicts the Chronicle editorial’s assertion that, “Public schools certainly would teach that same-sex marriage is legal, and the history behind it. But the value judgments surrounding matters of marriage and family would remain in the domain of home and church as they are today.” The school’s principal justified allowing the lesbian-wedding excursion to be considered a “field trip” on the basis that it would be a “teachable moment” for the young students.

    Yes, it is teachable.  Another teachable moment is to show how God used behavior like this as exhibit A in the teaching that the sinfulness and rebellion in the world has turned the created order upside down.

    Romans 1:18-33 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

    Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Not surprisingly, you also get public nudity, sex and indescribable perversions out in the streets in San Francisco – Nancy Pelosi’s district, no less – and nothing is done by the police!  Will this be the next field trip for the 1st graders?  After all, it appears to be legal since nothing was done to stop it. 

    Or will the next field trip be to a Creationist Museum?  Probably so, if that is what the parents agree to, right?  Or would the “wacky liberals” complain about that, or would they be as creative in justifying the trip as they were this time?

    If you are in California, please vote “yes” on proposition 8!

    The good news buried in this atrocity is that it will show people what they will have – and more! – if proposition 8 fails.

    P.S. I’m amused and encouraged that some EONs (self-described Enemies Of Neil) are linking to this post and using all their intellectual power to refute my arguments, mainly by using the phrase “wacky fundies” over and over and getting simple facts wrong, such as insisting that this public school was private.  Hard to argue with that, right?

    Favorite dish of liberal theologians & skeptics: Shellfish

    shellfish.jpgAs always, this is about careful thinking and proper analysis of the Bible and not about picking on homosexuals.  We are all sinners in need of a Savior.

    Many liberal theologians, skeptics and pro-gay lobbyists use the “shellfish” argument to undermine and/or dismiss parts of the Bible they disagree with, often mocking about how they love shrimp and such.  They use the same reasoning with other Old Testament restrictions such as not eating pork or mixing fibers in garments.  This video by Jack Black is a recent example.

    Their argument goes like this:

    • Yes, Leviticus 18:22 says Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    • But Leviticus 11:10 says, And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you
    • Therefore, the Bible cannot be the word of God and homosexual behavior must be moral because the Bible is an undependable, contradictory book that equates shrimp eating with sexual immorality.  And people who teach that homosexual behavior is a sin are bigoted hypocrites who only follow the parts of the Bible they like.

    Search for Leviticus shellfish or see sites like God Hates Shrimp for more examples.

    The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

    After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don’t hesitate to say it about gay people, do they? What does that tell you?

    Actually, I find those questions to be ironic, because I think the facts will show which side is most likely to pre-judge, selectively quote the Bible and take it too literally.  I hope they take this analysis seriously and reconsider whether their premises and conclusions were sound.

    On the one hand, their argument is effective because it is catchy and very few people know how to respond to it.  Many people claiming the name of Christ can’t even articulate the simple Gospel.  When was the last time anyone read Leviticus?

    On the other hand, their argument is ineffective because the facts do not support it.  Also, it deliberately and unnecessarily undermines confidence in the word of God.  I expect that from skeptics and non-believers, but I am always disappointed that those claiming to be Christians use it to attack the word of God.

    The argument appeals to those who take passages literally when it suits them.  Both passages say abomination (or detestable, depending on what translation you read), don’t they?  And if eating shellfish is obviously a morally neutral act, then homosexual behavior must be as well, right?

    However, if you follow the basic principle of reading things in context and you attempt to understand the original languages better on difficult or controversial passages, then you’ll realize that the shellfish argument is not supported by the facts.

    The short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination.  They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts.  The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.  And the claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they couldn’t complain about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, etc.  

    The longer version

    1. The words translated abomination in the original Hebrew are different.  In Lev. 11:10, it means detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation.  This word is typically used in the Bible to describe unclean animals.

    In Lev. 18:22 the Hebrew term תּוֹעֵבָה (toevah, rendered “detestable act”) refers to the repugnant practices of foreigners.  As noted below, the word is also used used to describe bestiality, child sacrifice and incest.

    Therefore, the “same word!” argument self-destructs immediately.

    2. Even a plain reading of the passages shows that the homosexual behavior is considered detestable to God, whereas the shellfish are to be detestable to the Israelites because it made them ceremonially unclean.  Those are key differences.  Being detestable to God is different than being detestable to a person.

    3. The broader contexts show completely different types of regulations.  Read Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 18 yourself and note the contexts.  I’ll wait here.

    The beginning and end of chapter 11 make it clear that this passage is about dietary rules just for the Israelites:

    Leviticus 11:1-2 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:

    Leviticus 11:46-47 These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.

    Now consider the beginning and end of chapter 18, where the Israelites are told not to be like the pagan Canaanites.  God expected the Canaanites to follow these moral laws and was about to vomit them out of the land for failing to do so.  Therefore, they obviously weren’t Jewish ceremonial laws.

    Leviticus 18:1-3 The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.

    Leviticus 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.”

    4. The punishments for eating shellfish and homosexual behavior were radically different.  There were about 15 things in the Israelite theocracy that could result in capital punishment, and homosexual behavior was one of them (And no, I’m not suggesting that should be the punishment today.  The punishments were for the Israelite theocracy, which is clear when you read the context of those passages.)  But eating shellfish just made one ceremonially unclean for a period of time.

    Again, note how the moral laws with their steep punishments are tied to offenses God held the pagans responsible for, yet the unclean animal passages were for the Israelites only and were brief (It could have been for health reasons and/or symbolic reasons.  Animals on the ground were like the serpent and thus symbolized sin and pagan religions often sacrificed pigs).

     Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Leviticus 20:22-26 Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

    ‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

    5. The ceremonial dietary laws were clearly and emphatically overturned in the New Testament, whereas the commands against homosexual behavior (and other sexual sins) were not.   Also see Acts 15:28-29 (It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.)

    6. The claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they couldn’t complain about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, etc.  After all, those things are also considered to be wrong in Leviticus 18 and elsewhere.  That is a transparently false argument.

    And if someone tries to play the “Leviticus is outdated” card, remind them of this verse and ask if it still counts: Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

    Remember, anyone calling themselves a Christian should be seeking to hold the same views as Jesus.  And Jesus fully supported the Old Testament — every last letter and mark.

    Here’s another answer from Tektonics, a terrific apologetics website:

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Aren’t there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

    The point of this question – aside from the matter of not knowing what ritual purity is all about – is lost; if there is a sincere interest in knowing if there are “degrees” of abomination, just ask this simple question: Are there degrees to which things may be found “abominable”? Are the works of a robber baron not less abominable than those of a murderous dictator? In any event, if shellfish is a matter of ritual purity only, and homosexuality is a matter of higher morals as argued, then indeed, eating shellfish would have been a lesser abomination. (Indeed, the fact that the words used for “abomination” in both passages are different suggests that by itself.The word used for the shellfish is used only a few times in the OT, always of unclean animals, whereas the word used for homosexuality is used for things like bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice!)

    So if anyone uses the shellfish argument with you, ask a few questions to see if they have really thought it through.  Everyone I have ever seen use it was either unaware of these responses or deliberately ignoring them. 

    And as always, remember that the Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

    – 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
    – 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
    – 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
    – 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
    – 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.

    * The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

    1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians
    2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
    3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

    Also see Problems with Pro-Gay Theology and Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.