Tuesday, November 11, 2008

More on Proposition 8

I was watching a news channel yesterday that had call-ins for those either for or against Proposition 8 here in California. By the time I was irked enough to call they were done but it did lead me to put in one place some of the arguments we should be using as all too often those for 8 do not truly express the issues very clearly just as those on the “No” side often express their side using terms that are not applicable. So here are some of the usual “No on 8” objections and the at least some possible answers, I have touched on this some here, here and here:

1) Objection: This is a civil rights issue:
Answer: As much as people want to make this a civil rights issue it is not. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals and that is to marry someone of the opposite sex within the parameters of the law; age limits, number of spouses and one cannot marry a relative. Also see number 9 below.

2) Objection: Why can a law stop one from marrying someone they love
Answer: The law does not deal with love so that becomes a non-issue. If this is pushed then simply, and most homosexuals do not like to go here, use the extreme examples of those that have behavior that even many homosexuals find offensive such as men and young boys, someone marrying their relatives, multiple wives or any number of other examples of what happens when love becomes the arbiter of marriage. What needs to be stressed is this is not about love but about what is defined as marriage, hence the reason for Proposition 8. Marriage has been defined as the union of one man and one woman from the beginning of time and that is also why the specifics would not be in the constitution, because it was assumed.

3) Objection: The vote was close enough to not be a mandate
Answer: If this is so then we should protest the election of Barak Obama because the popular vote, percentage wise, for Obama was virtually the same as it was for Proposition 8.

4) Objection: Homosexuals just want the same rights as others and that is the only agenda
Answer: While an individual homosexual may believe this if one is to look at the national scene the agenda is much bigger. Go to any parade that is used to promote the homosexual agenda and you will see all sorts of debauchery. If you were to look at any of the literature put out you would also see there is a much bigger agenda than simply to “be married.” The destruction of the family, by redefining it, is very important to the leaders of this movement

5) Objection: God is a god of love so he (small letters used here on purpose because they are not speaking of the God of the Bible) would want them to be married
Answer: If they are going to use the bible or use the word “god” hey need to define what they are speaking of. If they desire to use the bible they need to use all of it. So you can simply turn to Genesis 1 and 2 and see God’s design for marriage. You can also turn to many other places to see God’s views on homosexuality (Gen 18:20; Lev 18:22 & 20:13; 1 cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10 to name some of the places this is referenced) . It is also good to stress that while God is love this does not detract from his other attributes such as those of justice, righteousness, wrath are all active at the same time He is the God of wrath.

6) Objection: Homosexual relationships are more loving that heterosexual ones just look at the divorce rate among heterosexuals
Answer: Touche, we as a people of God do need to repent, that the church has a divorce rate that is parallel to the world is an abomination. We need to realize that God hates homosexuality but He also hates divorce (Mal 2:16) so we do need to repent. We also need to repent of other sexual sins such as pornography that pervades the professing church. This said the sin of others does not make sin right. Simply because many who profess, I say profess because I do not know, to be believers sin does not make the sin of others acceptable to God. Key here is to accept the responsibility we have to repent and not avoid the issue but at the same time make it clear that the churches culpability does not make homosexuality acceptable.

7) Objection: Who has the right to legislate morality
Answer: This is one of the big objections when a law is passed that deals with moral issues. But the truth is that any law or even not having a law speaks on morality. To say that homosexual union, I cannot use the word marriage as I see it as defined by God, is OK is a moral declaration just as much as saying is not acceptable is a moral declaration. All too often the claims to “legislating morality” are leveled when ones own moral convictions, or lack of convictions, are put into questions. Always remember that any law or lack of a law speaks to morality in some manner.

(Points #8 and #9 added 11/12/08)

8) Objection: California law does not call for teachers to teach on marriage
Answer: A close reading of the Education Code Section 51933 will show that this is playing with semantics. What the Education code says is the following:

"51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health
education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any
kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the
appropriate courses.
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual
health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by
school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all
of the following criteria:

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and
committed relationships. "

So if a school is to teach on sex education, interesting that they put teaching on marriage under the heading, they have, “shall satisfy all of the following criteria”, to teach all of the other sections such as section 7. Thus is marriage is redefined they will be teaching marriage between homosexuals is fine. (you can read this for yourself here). Also interesting if you read the News10 article of a month ago that the teachers union has given $1 million diretily to “no on 8” and another $250,000 indirectly:

"SACRAMENTO, CA - Teachers are responding to news that California's largest teacher's union has given another $1 million to defeat a ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage.
The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8. "

9) Objection: This is about equal access to the same rights as married couples (this is very much like #1 and I probaly should have combined them but I have heard this claim both ways)
Answer: While I may disagree with this as I see it as the having been the opening of the flood gates homosexual domestic partnerships do have equal rights in California. You can read Family Code Sections 297 - 297.5 for yourself but section 297.5 reads:

"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. "

And there is much more than just point "a" so you need to read this for yourself.

(Update 11/18/08) It would seem that Elton John would agree that this is not a civil rights issue. He says:

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Those are some of the things I hear and answers I see as valid and acceptable responses. If I think of others I may add them later. We need to make sure that we combat the claims of hate with the understanding that true hate would allow others to wallow in their sin. True love is to be used by God to open others eyes to the sin they are in so they can repent from it. This is true of any sin not just homosexuality so we do show love by seeking to make sure mankind understands God’s definitions of such things as marriage.

No comments: