Thoughts on Prop 8 Pt. 2

Last time I tried to show just how dangerous some of the rhetoric of people who oppose the passing of Proposition 8 can be. I also tried to show that from a legal level, gay marriage is a very complicated and any cry of "Marriage is a Right!" is an overly simplistic argument ignorant of the underlying problems. Now I wish to move into a more religious discussion, knowing full well that not all Americans wish to be Christians. This is more dedicated to people who wish to align themselves with Christianity, which I believe does not allow any sort of affirmation of gay marriage.

First, I wish to acknowledge one important thing. This is not an overall condemnation of homosexuals, as if I could pretend any sort of authority. What I hope is that people will read all the way through to see that I am more concerned with affirming a positive position of marriage rather than condemnation of a people group.

Secondly, I wish to say right up front that I disagree with the position that homosexuals are somehow inferior to heterosexuals or that homosexuals cannot be Christian. We are all under condemnation from God, and our salvation come from Christ. As well I know personally that upon my acceptance of Jesus as Savior I did not totally leave behind my former sinful life, and I believe that something as ingrained as personal attraction is as difficult to deal with than my lies or mocking of parents. This is why, again reading to the end, I wish to argue only against homosexual sex itself, and not the things that lead to the actual attraction. (The only thing I will say about the issue is that no gay gene has been found, and a hefty amount of humility should be kept until such a thing can be found. As well we should be aware of the role of upbringing, media, and culture which leads to tolerance and then to acceptance.)

Thirdly, I wish to admit right up front that this is a deeply personal issue for me as a close relative of mine believed they were homosexual for a time. Stemming only from insults from other students and sexual immaturity, it goes back to how true Christians should not denigrate homosexuals to the extent to use the term as an insult and should speak out against such hate language. At the same time as we condemn hate, we must stand up for truth.

So starting the actual argument, I am absolutely surprised that so many "Christians" make a decision upon the matter of gay marriage without consulting Scripture. Let's just ignore tradition for now, because my main point is just how sad it is when a person makes a public commitment to an ideology but fails to consult the authoritative sources which define that ideology. That's why I put the quotes around Christian in the first sentence of this paragraph. If you do not even consult the authoritative source for Christianity, how can you call yourself a Christian? We can discuss the interpretation of the Bible, but only after we have opened it! So go on... get off your butts. No, I'm serious. Stop reading, get up, and get your Bible. Wipe the dust off and open it (ignore the cracking of the spine). Was that so hard? Now let's talk.

Rom 1,26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

Now these two verses are taken out of context as a paradigmatic condemnation of homosexuality. These views ought to be condemned. But can the opposite side be taken, in that we claim that these verses say nothing about homosexuality. Go here and read.

I would propose that this passage does not speak of gay men and lesbians within our culture but to the Gentile idolaters located in Rome. If anyone uses this passage as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality within our current world, believing that Paul is addressing the universal fall of humanity and homosexuality in particular then they must accept the full argument...

Really? We can't say that this is someone connected to the universal fall? We are all idolaters from the start. We are under condemnation of death because of our sinful nature, and because we cannot keep God's Law we are under condemnation of apostasy and idolatry (Deut. 17:7). Saying that this is only about specific idolaters in Rome misses the point that we are all sinners and under condemnation. And in the larger context, this is precisely just one issue Paul picks up as exemplary of the entire human fall.

So why the article? Let's look at the assumptions. The author says that a person must pick up these assumptions, but does so in such a way that really shows how they do not believe that these options are even viable.

"There was a time when the entire world was monothestistic and one set moment in time when polythesim and idolatry came into the world.
That up until that one moment there was no such thing as homo-erotic attraction or same-sex sexual relations."

Yup, it was the scene in the Garden when Adam and Eve wanted to become like God knowing good and evil. Because the author is against the notion that we are inherently evil and under condemnation (which in historical terms is called Pelagianism or more generally "heresy"), they want to skew the issue by focusing on the semantics. The argument becomes, "Well because no text in the Bible specifically says what happened in the Garden was idolatry, then we don't have to allow it." I respond, "What about Deuteronomy 17:7 which shows that breaking God's commandments is equated to idolatry and apostasy?" "Well that's only for the Jews." "But if God has no standard of perfection, then we cannot break it, and then we cannot talk about any sort of salvation. As well does God not promise to write His law on the hearts of His people in Jeremiah? Does that not show that God's Law is indeed important outside just the Jewish paradigm?" At which point the discussion breaks down because they give an incoherent answer showing that they really haven't read their Bible or that they understand God and salvation at all.

"That there was no homosexual activity or attraction among the Jewish people since the Jews were set outside of those to whom Paul was speaking of in Romans 1."

Paul repeatedly picks up the themes of Isaiah later on Romans 9 where he talks about the remnant being the "true Israel." So we do not talk about ethnic Israel at all, but was there homosexual activity in true Israel which was defined as keeping God's Law? No, because then they would not be true Israel. But notice how the assumption distorts the Biblical reality that God has a standard model of human life, going back to the Garden, which only gets messed up because of humanity's desire to be idolatrous.

"That were there to be no idolatry in the world, all homosexuality would disappear since idolatry is the cause and homosexuality a consequence."

Again notice how there is no connection of the sin nature with idolatry. But I would agree, get rid of our sin nature (impossible outside of Christ), and all sin would then disappear.

"Everyone who is gay or lesbian is that way because God made them to be homosexual because of the sin of idolatry. Homosexuality at this point ceases to be either a sexual orientation OR a choice."

God made them gay because of their idolatry? Really? The text I read was that God gave them over to their passions which they wanted to have. (This goes in hand with their choice to divide the passage up into the "Sin-Penalty" paradigm which I highly disagree with. It shows a total lack of working knowledge of the Greek and exegetical practice.) So it remains a choice, but also an act of God as He allows individuals the desires already in their own heart.

"Everyone who is gay and lesbian is without faith and hates God, including those who proclaim Jesus as their Savior, whether they are practicing homosexuals or living as celibates within the church community."

Again, look at the rhetoric. How does this assumption actually follow from anything said before? Isn't this just trying to persuade people to ignore the actual text and motivate them to any position that is *not* the one portrayed in this statement. Not only is this a fallacy as part of their argument, but it also ignoring the argument in general.

As well the author addresses more assumptions earlier in the text. I want to address those as well.

"Unnatural (para physin) is better understood as that which is out of the ordinary or beyond the ordinary rather than as perversion."

Here I think the Greek is actually a lot more clear. Para here is a strong "against, contrary to" as it is a marker of that which does not correspond to what is expected. But the actual definition of "perversion" is simply that which deviates from the expected (i.e., deviating from the normal). I fail to see how "out of (beyond) the ordinary" does not meet the technical definition of "perversion." I do see why they are trying to refrain from "pervert" which carries many negative connotations, but that is more of a comment on how society associates the term more than the technical definition. What is very obvious is that if Paul has a standard mode of how sex should be carried out, then why not spell this out further? What was Paul's standard, as it is evident that he sees examples of sex that meets his (and we assume, God's) standards and examples that do not.

"Sex was for the purpose of procreation and had to include a dominant partner (male) and a passive partner (female). Anything that didn’t meet that normative form was para physin.
One of the men in a same-sex encounter would dishonor himself by assuming the role of the passive partner and lowering his status to that of a woman. The other man brought dishonor on himself by allowing his kinsman to assume the role of the passive partner."

Whoa... now where does this come from? I mean I agree with the second assumption here (as it was dishonorable in the ancient world), but this comes out of nowhere. Is this Paul's assumptions, or current Greco-Roman attitudes towards sex? Why equate the two when Paul is coming from a totally different paradigm (Jewish) paradigm altogether? The author is totally unconcerned with getting to Paul's view of sex at this point as it is different from common Greco-Roman standards. Paul is no different from his contemporaries evidently.

"Paul, as his contemporaries, saw all passions as uncontrolled and negative. As a result passion was always dishonorable and would obviously result in being consumed by it. The passion that a husband might have for his wife would be seen as equally negative. Paul’s not so much interested in condemning homo-erotic behavior but uncontrolled passions and lack of moderation"

All his contemporaries? No, but way to really just gloss over the real issues. There was a large minority, the Stoics, who denied the passions, but these were learned men and not evident of all teachers. There is even evidence that during this time the Stoic philosophy was going out of fashion during this time, as people were more willing to pick up the freedom that Epicurianism offered. As well nothing in this passage suggests any sort of Stoic reading, and probably only someone who works from a caricature of Stoicism instead of really understanding their nomenclature, would read this into the text. So is Paul only attacking lack of moderation? Where's the rhetoric that shows such a thing? Seems to me that when he talks about sexual intercourse (χρῆσιν) which in the light of the context is homosexual in nature (ironically, against nature). So I won't say there isn't anything in here about attacking passions, but to direct the argument towards that issue is actually a misdirection from the type of behavior that Paul uses as an example of our fallen nature.

"In the ancient world there was no understanding of a homosexual orientation or a heterosexual orientation for that matter. Paul saw idolatry as the cause of same-sex eroticism rather than a person’s sexual orientation or even as a human choice. It was a penalty exacted by God on the idolatrous Gentiles."

I kinda addressed this earlier. "Paul saw (our fallen nature, which is) idolatry as the cause of same-sex eroticism (which also determines) a person's sexual orientation or even as a human choice." I won't even comment on the stupidity of the last statement.

"Unnatural relations for women could refer to any sexual activity where procreation wasn’t a possibility. This could include sex during menstruation, anal sex or homoeroticism. Unnatural relationship for women could also refer to any sexual activity that was beyond the ordinary. Because women were expected in every sexual encounter to be the passive partner it would be against nature for a woman to be the aggressor in a heterosexual encounter or to take the dominant role in sex with another woman."

Well I would have liked a fuller treatment that also addressed men as well, but okay, whatever. At least the author is trying to get to what Paul actually thought about the role of sex and his sexual paradigm. I think we can leave the second part of this alone, as it is so socially orientated and really the author only uses it as an argument which again does not address the issue but only a rhetorical inflammatory device.

So what was Paul's paradigm? Was it that sex was only appropriate for procreation? It is important to note that there are laws against sex during menstruation, anal sex or homoerotic sex in the Torah. And this is really the heart of the matter that I want to emphasize. I wish to argue that Paul's paradigm of sex and marriage is a positive reflection of heterosexual relationships.

Adam and Eve and procreation. The first commandment given to humanity (unfallen at this point) is to multiply and fill the earth. If this is God's purpose for humanity, then it makes sense why creation was seen incomplete until Eve was created. To fulfill God's purpose, we needed to have both male and female. I think Paul sees this clearly, as he invokes nature in Romans 1. What is the natural order of procreation? Man and woman. What is against the natural order of procreation? Man and man, woman and woman, adult with child, adult with beast, etc. What else can be meant by "natural order of things" except the concept of procreation? (Some pastors suggest that Paul only has in mind here adult with child relationships, failing all the context and invoking a specific incident in the ancient world that wasn't actually limited to just adult-child sex but included same sex couple sex acts as well.)

As well the purity laws that speak of menstruation and ejaculation as making one impure show just how we ought to see ourselves. God is the ultimate Creator. We get that from Gen 1. He is Creator. But because He has made us mini-creators in our own right, we ought to recognize who really is in charge. The reproductive fluids are a reminder that we are not creators by fiat (trans. speaking). Only God is Creator by fiat, but we are creators by secondary causes. When you have the true Creator in the midst of us, as mini-inferior-creators, then we ought to be humble enough to recognize that we are the creature and not Creator.

So how important is procreation to sex? I wouldn't say its the clear-cut definition that all sex must be for procreation, but we should remember our purpose (procreation) and our role (mini-creators). Homosexuality demeans both these. I had a long drawn out argument a few months back with an fellow online who insisted that sex is for the purpose of both procreation and pleasure. This fellow (an intelligent chap considering) failed to see the difference in purpose and function. Stimulated sexual organs is a function. The orgasm is a function. Even the post-coital cuddle is a function (okay, its a social function at best). The purpose of these natural functions is for the purpose of reproduction. (To these functions can be added the making of gametes, fertilization, growth and maturation.) To say that the purpose of sex is pleasure is quite an interpretive overlay on the entire situation. It demeans a human to nothing more than an animal who only consciously responds to feelings. We are no longer images of God who are sentient and can follow paths of action that are contrary to feelings of either pleasure and pain that the immediate circumstances provide. There is a reason why Darwinism was denounced early on, as even those believers understood that it offered little explanation to why we are inherently different from every other animal. We are not animals, because we have a purpose given from God. What is distinctive in the Bible is when men fail to even try to live this purpose they are shown to become as beasts of the field, such as Solomon, Nebuchannezzar, etc.

So is Paul saying anything about attraction in individuals? No of course not. So the author is right, Paul is unaware and unconcerned with what we see today as being a socially constructed understanding that homosexuality is when one person is attracted to another member of the same sex. Paul is talking about committing sexual acts with members of the same sex, which by his understanding is unnatural.

So what is the Christian paradigm for sex if we follow Paul's reasoning? People who engage in homosexual activities will not inherent the kingdom of God. The author of the website wishes to argue (elsewhere) that 1 Cor 6:9 does not actually say what it purports to say.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (WEB) Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

She makes the case that the "male prostitutes (and) homosexuals" here are not something different.

The words that have been mistranslated to infer male homosexuality include Arsenokoites and Malakos. There is no reliable historic certainty on the word Arsenkoites as there’s no recorded appearance of the word prior to Paul’s usage and contemporary with and after Paul, appears only in lists of other vices and not within context where a definition can be exacted. Malakos was a common word used to describe one who was soft in character or effeminate. While this could apply to men who were thought to assume the feminine role in a sexual encounter with another man, it also applied to men who bathed too often, enjoy gourmet food, laughed frequently or had a smaller bone structure.

I must affirm that for malakos "male prostitute" is too narrow a definition. But there is ample evidence that the term was well used by Paul's contemporaries as meaning the passive male in a same-sex relationship. It does convey a meaning of effeminate, and no doubt men with feminine qualities would be called this in the ancient world. But it would be strange for Paul to say that men who bathed a lot would not inherent the Kingdom of God. Or those that ate gourmet food would not either (especially considering he tells them later to eat meet without considering where it came from, a luxury only available to the rich). No, the only range of meaning that makes sense in a vice list is not the quality of the person but the action that they take. This is about male homosexuals who do not deny other males the opportunity to lay with them.

As to the discussion to the former word, arsenokoites, I am astonished at the simplicity of the argument. Just because it doesn't show up in this form the concept is absent from history until Paul? Ridiculous. This is the word-concept fallacy, that just because the word is first used in Paul does not mean that the concept cannot be seen elsewhere. And there are many references to men laying in the same bed as another (the literal meaning). So her reasoning is just wrong to this point. As well, we definately do see the concept (and the words!) in the LXX of Lev 20:13, reproduced below.

Lev 20,13 If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Lev 20,13 καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν

Bolded to make a point. In case your forgot, here's the Greek word in 1 Cor 6:9 compared to the words in Lev 20:13.

1 Cor 6:9---------------ἄρσην + κοίτη = ἀρσενοκοῖται
Lev 20:13 (LXX)------ἄρσενος κοίτην

Are you beginning to see why such a person who is not trained in doing exegesis, but has a personal interest in making an argument for homosexuality can not only be misleading, but is dangerous to how we understand our Bible? This is ridiculous, and not even worthy enough to sit on the same shelf with actual Biblical scholarship. To miss such an obvious connection as this is about as useless and pitiful as you can get.

So what does the word actually mean? What is the concept behind it? Well in light of the preceding argument for malakos I would argue that Paul is picking on both sides of the equation. He says that passive males who are indulging in homosexual activities and aggressive males who seek out and commit homosexual activities will not inherit the Kingdom of God. I think the same can be applied to females as well. Both are to be condemned because both are sexually deviant behavior from what Paul and God expect from humans.

To end my argument I only want to mention one more thing. I hopefully have shown why people who try to argue away Scriptures words on homosexuality fall short on all sorts of ways because they trip themselves up by focusing so much on trying to downplay this issue. The final test that to say that the Bible supports homosexual relationships (and therefore consequently we as Christians can support them) would be to find a positive affirmation of one homosexual relationship in the Bible.

*crickets*

For good reason crickets! It's not there. Nowhere does homosexuality present itself as a positive example for others to follow. Sodom and Gomorrah might indeed be about more than sodomy, but to fail to realize that they are after all trying to sodomize is to downplay the story! The same goes for the Levite in Judges. The Bible just doesn't present homosexual sex as something that is positive.

It however does show time and time again examples of how a male-female relationship is beneficial. God created them male and female and told them to procreate. God describes His relationship with Israel as a husband and wife (even if the wife was adulterous). The Church is seen as the Bride of Christ. Repeatedly we see positive statements of male-female relationships. And although sexual immorality occurs in these heterosexual relationships, the normal expectation (the natural scenario) is of a male and female.

This is why Christians cannot affirm gay marriage. The Bible does not affirm it. God does not affirm it. And this is not against the individual, as God commands every individual to turn to Christ, leaving the old self and becoming a new creation where we do not sin. So arguments of "I was born this way" really do not come through, as I was also born to lie, cheat, steal, and commit adultery. I still have those temptations. The difference is that I see God's paradigm for how I should live my life (actions) and so I as the individual, realizing that I am no longer a slave to sin, do not fall into temptation. Thanks be to God.

I don't know how much pain must be experienced by a homosexual who feels that they simply have no choice in the matter. I know that it is my responsibility to affirm them in a Christian walk first and foremost. So that means I cannot sit by and affirm or tolerate the practice any sort of sexual immorality, including homosexual sexual relations. It is up to us in the church to correct our brothers and sisters and to make sure they do not end up in sin (1 Cor 5:12). But it is also our responsibility to say that any person who continues in sin is not a true believer, and we must expell them from our community so that they might be provoked into turning from their sin (5:5). Arguments that we must simple agree to disagree do not hold up in the face of Paul, as he commanded his original audience to risk laying down their lives for these issues (5:11 and the social consequences involved). When we are commanded to be willing to lay down our life, this is an issue that is much larger than just a simple disagreement. We can lovingly say that although we do not understand the homosexuals pain, God does. We can affirm that although this world is terribly wrong and not the place that God wanted it to be, and that homosexuality is a consequence of our fallen nature, that Jesus died to bring the world to rights so that we might be a full individual again. We must condemn the sin, but recognize that we also condemn ourselves in the same breath. And in the next breath we must remember that there is a better way, and it is following Jesus, accepting his salvation, and living out the paradigm for being a true human.

To make a hypothetical example, better exemplified in words than in actions, the struggling homosexual in the pew, single and trying to remain pure in their thoughts and deeds, is trying to follow Christ in the same sense that I am. We can struggle together, and we can press forward to Christ together. But the actively homosexual couple who claim to be Christian, who revel in their relationship are not struggling to give up their old selves which were slaves to sin. They are like the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5, who because of his actions showed himself not to be a true believer in Christ. No doubt it was a regrettable thing for Paul to say that the Corinthians had to purge the evil one from their midst, but corporate purity is a vital issue for us today and we cannot tolerate evil within the midst of God's Temple. I must be like Paul and say that the homosexual couple must be forced from the communion and denounced as not being true believers of Christ.

Why am I for Prop 8 in California, and any petition to keep the traditional definition of marriage while also condemning homosexuality in general? Because I know how things were seen in the Greco-Roman world which homosexuality was the norm. People became enslaved to their passions to the extent that they became nothing more than sex objects. People become enslaved under such a paradigm. Arguments that make sex just a thing of pleasure already enslave us into thinking we are animals who just follow what feels good. Are we slaves to passion? Are we slaves to our sinful nature? Under Christ is freedom. Under Christ is redemption. But under Christ is also transformation. We are all tempted by our vices. Some it is cheating or stealing. Some it is bearing false witness or hatred towards a brother or sister. Some it is adultery or fornication. For others it is being attracted towards members of the same sex. We can condemn the sin, and help each other struggle for perfection in our journeys, but only in that order.

A society that openly affirms gay marriage has made its choice, and I know that I can do little to argue or demand my own beliefs upon society as a whole. But a Christian is obligated to take a stance on this issue. We cannot be permissive of homosexual relationships just because we have homosexual friends or even because we do not think its any of our business. We have been given the picture of what a redeemed humaity looks like, and much of it includes a condemnation of the present order of things. Do we dare not call the world to that picture? How little faith one must have in Christ if they are not willing to stand up for the world that He has in store for His believers.

Thoughts on Prop 8 Pt. 1

I wish to say a couple things about gay marriage, but I want to do so in the attitude of separation of church and state. That is, I intend two different posts about it, the first political and the second theological in nature. I should also say that these posts are dedicated to a friend of mine.

In the cyber age we all now enjoy, people provide much more information on private and public issues than ever before. Although my wife, perhaps rightly, believes that anything done on the internet is in the public sphere and therefore open to public opinion/scrutiny. I personally remember the days long gone when a simple post on Xanga got me in a world of trouble with members of the BSU, and so I do believe that while there she is right that anything posted is open to scrutiny, I go further to advocate for the preparation of defense. Although nobody can imagine all scrutiny, it is advisable to think clearly about what one believes (or ascribes to believe, whether in the public or private sphere) and more importantly why such a belief is held in the first place. Question your assumptions always, and only be doing so can you actually grow as a thinking person.

Some people really hate trying to arguing with me. That's because most people are afraid to confront their assumptions and find out that those assumptions are misplaced, even if the opinion is correct. I wish I could say that I did not enjoy challenging people on one of the most basic of levels, but then I'd be lying and only appealing to symphony. But of course I am only trying to downplay my pathos while placing considerable faith that my ethos in doing so will be enough to persuade you. (Yes, this is how rhetoric actually function.)

Facebook presents an interesting reaction to how Proposition 8 is seen in the public sphere. There is a group 1,000,000 Strong to Overturn Prop 8. No doubt many other similar groups exist in other arenas. Now before you commit to one side of the gay marriage or another, actually think about what this group is all about. Think about it. It wants to overturn a mandate, taken by vote of the people, based on... other people disagreeing with it? Although not clear in the group how such a thing is to be done, one then wonders which system of government is entitled to do such a thing. The courts (judiciary) that did such a thing in May, when they overturned the 2000 decision to define marriage in California? The executive branch, which does nothing but change it to a dictatorship, ignoring the other branches of government?

When was the last time you read your Constitution? Really? I'm serious. Go here and read it, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Read the damn stuff, please, because as of right now many people are showing their absolute ignorance of how government works.

Let me put it to you like this: nothing in government is "overturned." No doubt the word is sometimes used in media, but the actual nomenclature is never used in government? Why? Wait for it... Because it is expressly as anti-American as you can get! A dictator overturns (because they dictate policy). This was one reason why the U.S exists, because England's Parliament and King were dictating to the colonies without representation. (Just goes to show that a dictator can be a group instead of an individual.) So to buy into this "overturn" language is wrong and is anti-American.

How should you approach the subject? No doubt you can disagree personally with the decision of the California voters. But calling to overturn the decision which a majority of them affirmed is wrong. So say just what you belief, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Don't join a group that is anti-American, and if you make public your sentiments be ready to defend them. Don't expect to shut off people on the basis that you can agree-to-disagree, as this issue especially is a hot-button issue. Do not attack people that disagree with you on the basis that they are denying people their rights. People have the right to petition the government for any cause. People also have the right of free speech concerning any issue. Condemning either on the basis that you disagree is wrong.

What will happen? What I hope will not happen is that the recent marches and protests will not inflame the judiciary branch to force the matter. Gay marriage is a complicated issue, and to say that everyone has a certain right shows ignorance on the matter.


*Private rights: most gay couples want the right of death privileges, etc, that are afforded heterosexual couples. That is, they want to be recognized as "next of kin." If you want to have a quick discussion that leads to agreement, start here. I think we all could agree that these are private issues that can be afforded outside of marriage anyways. It is not unknown for siblings to have these rights, or even close friends. These types of rights should be afforded everyone. It should also be noted that this is the historic function of marriage anyways. Marriage isn't primarily a religious act. Yes religions fill it with meaning, but marriage is primarily about money. Think dowries and inheritance.

*Right or Rite? So is marriage a right guaranteed by all? Of course not, as siblings cannot marry and neither can polygamous partners. What is the right actually recognized by the government? Civil unions. The marriage rite (or ceremony) is a religious tradition that is only guaranteed by the religion. Basically anyone can go through the ceremony as long as you have a minister do it. But that does not mean that the US government will recognize it. Basically the actual argument going on is whether homosexual marriage constitutes a type of civil union recognized by the government with all the privileges and responsibilities that comes along with it.

So why all the emphasis on the marriage part? Because people want the ceremony. This has got to stop. The ceremony is not what legally contracts two people together. The government recognized my wife and I as a union not based on the ceremony, but because of the license we signed. So who gets to decide what the actual title of the license is, whether its "marriage" or "civil union"? It can just as easily be called a "License of Civil Union" which makes the argument null and void. Marriage becomes a religious word, and means nothing. As a religious person, this actually appeals to me as then marriage can mean something closer to what I think it is. Of course you run into the problem of every religion meaning something different. But the point was to create a public definition, and allow people their own private definitions. Look past that this would case so much unneeded confusion in the public sphere. Yeah, thanks a lot.

*Tax exemptions: and here we get into trouble. The government is uniquely interested in how gets tax exemptions. The government is not obligated to give exemptions to anyone, but it does so in those partnerships which help the government (e.g., those that produce genetically stable and socially helpful progeny). Studies show that children of parents who consist of one female and one male, of which are the biological parents, do better all around. Some counter that marriage, despite the sexes of the partners, is good and therefore it is better for society to support homosexual couples. But that is really an issue of monogamy and not the way the individuals in the relationship help raise the child. (This is nothing more than ignoring the issue.) It is better for the public welfare for the government to encourage heterosexual, monogamous couples. So to argue for homosexual marriages with tax exemptions means that there is a good chance that all tax exemptions will be taken away. Well this directly contradicts some of the rights and privileges wanted in the first point, such as inheritance privilege. If the government begins looking at each person individually, instead of as profitable couples like they currently are, then nobody will get any (because they are under no obligation to get any). So we all suffer. Yeah, thanks a lot.


So is marriage a right in itself? Here's the actual issue. I answer that no it isn't. It is a liberty though, so its still protected under the Constitution. But it is not something that everyone may enjoy without restriction. (The same can be said for driving.) As of right now, a homosexual couple can live together, petition a minister to conduct a ceremony, and even put on rings. But none of these are rights they are entitled to.

The government might or might not be entitled to afford these couples the same privileges and/or responsibilities given to heterosexual couples (who benefit society). That is the real legal issue. And there's no clear answer to it. On one hand, by taking the word "marriage" out of society you guarantee issues of confusion and intolerance because people will just use their own private definitions. As well if you reduce it down to just the bare "civil unions" that are recognized, and give all equally, then the government is not ensuring social welfare by not stabilizing society. Adoption "rights" (again, a privilege, but who's counting) become an issue (as they already are!), as homosexual couples demand to have adopted children even though scientific studies that it is better to be with heterosexual parents. In vitro fertilization for homosexual couples who want to conceive run the risk of a child never knowing one biological parent, but as well running health care costs up for everyone.

Here's what I think should happen.

1. Congress pushes the issue on a national level. Marriage is defined between a man and woman for all the reasons laid out above and more. It's overall better than same-sex marriage for society.

2. In the same law (because that is ultimately what I'm advocating for) the actual rights are re-affirmed for homosexual couples. Death privileges, etc.

3. It is then explained within the law that no tax privileges are guaranteed to homosexual couples on the basis that it is to society's greater interests to recognize stable heterosexual, monogamous couples. Use money to influence people's behaviors. It works a lot better than prohibition anyways. (Note: if the courts want to take issue with this point, let them. Just change policy not to afford any privileges to anyone. See how that plays with traditionally married couples who depend upon the tax benefits that come with marriage.)

4. Then pass other legislation to protect those institutions which do benefit society. You want stable, monogamous marriages? Make divorce harder. You want a way to raise unwanted children? Reform the adoption process, but with the consideration that most studies show that children do better in with a daddy and a mommy. Same goes for medical procedures such as in vitro fertilization. Only for heterosexual couples. Of course while your at it, go ahead and do the common sense thing of giving back to the father rights of parenthood (i.e., making a woman not solely the one decides on an abortion, and let the man keep the child after delivery).

5. How to actually get all of this done? First, agree with me. I know, it means listening to someone you first disagree with, and then start questioning your own assumptions. Hard stuff. But actually think about what gay marriage does to a society and the ways it affects people in the private and public sector. Second, (and only after the first!) find leaders who support this train of thought. Write to them to broaden their thoughts. Instead of just being anti-gay marriage, they should be willing to cut down on divorce as well. Make sure you educate your representatives with the same knowledge you know so that they make the same choice that you would. Third, start talking to people. Ignore the label of "Flame War" and engage people in thoughtful discussion. Convince them that what you privately believe is actually better for people. And when they argue against you, don't apologize for your beliefs or even try to agree to disagree. If you want change, and if you are going to publicly be supportive of a cause, then get off your ass and confront yourself first and foremost. You know you're right, so fight for it. Fourth, if all else fails, run for office and initiate the changes you want to see happen. Be ready to defend your dictatorship against people who disagree with you and the Army, but I'm sure you'll have a fun time with the authority.

Post-Election Thoughts

This election showed one clear thing: America is still an extremely and deeply racially divided nation. But not so much in the South! States such as Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc, which have a majority of African-American population, go red (over issues one can assume), while the presence of Black Panthers who stand outside a voting place in Penn and the admissions of voting twice. Throw in the statements made within the last year by celebrities like Opera (the "ONE") and the immature comments by personalities such as Powell (yeah, Obama has experience...), and you a volatile mix where people who didn't vote for Obama now seem like racists when in fact it seems like the racism seems to be swinging the other way.

As well we see a very obvious want of change from the Bush administration. What would have been interesting is without the racial division, just how close this election might have been. Obama did not have the outstanding popular vote landslide most expected.

With most U.S. precincts tallied, the popular vote was 51.9% for Obama and 46.8% for McCain, making the Illinois senator the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote since 1976

See also here.

As well I see that this country has a complete misunderstanding of how the economy works and what will benefit them. Obama went against his liberal background and ran on a conservative talking point: tax cuts. (Ignore the fact that he doesn't actually support tax cuts, but oh well.) Yes McCain blew it on speaking clearly on the economy, and it took a plumber to bring it up. But what would have voters have thought if they knew that the overall Bush policies made people richer overall in the last four years? Here's a comprehensive tax plan by some really smart economists. As well we see exactly what I've been saying all along, in that the stock market has fallen in light of Obama. In all fairness, I heard yesterday that the market had already assumed an Obama victory and had absorbed that reality the past few couple weeks. (So the market plunge I predicted back in August became reality the past couple weeks instead of just today.)

Will we be better under an Obama administration? Depends on if he wants to govern on the basis of his extremely liberal record, or if he will govern on the basis of the pseudo-conservative/moderate agenda he presented himself as post-August. As I've ask people all along, just point me to the reasons why you voted for Obama and on what reason you made that choice. As my father-in-law said (as devil's advocate), a vote for Obama is a gamble. I would add that that it is a gamble, but throw in a heavily Democratic Congress and you have some good odds that what we will see a very liberal agenda being pushed. I recommend this post for a good look on how to survive an Obama presidency, for Republicans and Democrats. See also here, here, here, and here.

Update: A very good article on the next four years under Obama.

Second Update: Complete and utter justification on my stock market predictions!

Daniel 2

The infamous untold dream! The Babylonians unknowingly make an ironic statement in v. 11: "No one can reveal it to the king except the gods, and they do not live among men." In the great ideological battle between Israel's God and the nation's false gods, this chapter shows how Israel's God is the only true God, and just what type of God he actually is. He does dwell among men, because he Tabernacled within their midst in the Wilderness. He dwelled in the Temple. And now he follows his people into captivity. Here we the Lord's guidance for his people while in Exile.

Another resemblance to David here is the actual dream sequence. The statue that consists of gold, etc, is eventually smashed in the feet of baked clay. Most have taken this to be just a prophetic utterance about the downfall of Babylon, et al., but the fact that the stone smashed the feet is a throwback to David. David, while facing Goliath, most likely slew him by hitting him in the lower shins/ankle region with his sling stone. Most translations are wrong at this point, as they say he was hit in the forehead. The Hebrew word for greaves (which cover the shin) is the same for the forehead, and comes previously in the story (the forehead is never mentioned). As well Goliath is said to have fallen forward, something that any physicist will tell you is impossible if he was hit in the head. However, a debilitating blow to the shin/ankle would explain his falling forward in order for David to cut off his head.

In essence, the dream sequence is then a promise to Israel that God will act like he always acts. He will raise up one like David (=son of David) to reign over a kingdom that will never end (=the promise given to David).

At the end of the scene we see just what happens when Israel (=David) remains faithful to God's promises. They receive wisdom and recognize the Deuteronomic promise that people of the world will recognize the one, true God through true wisdom. The King of Babylon bows down to Daniel in humility, as all will do in the face of God's greatness and glory.

Civilian National Security Force

Click the title. Watch the movie. Think about the questions following.

Why is this man allowed to run for president? Is he really suggesting that we can't trust the military, of which he's the commander-in-chief? Can we not trust him? (I'm reminded of Biden's comments all of the sudden.) Say what you will about Palin seeing Russia from Alaska (I still contend that proximity is a primary basis of knowledge, seeing as we see it as a fundamental epistolary fountain of trust), but what does this say about Obama's foreign and domestic policy knowledge? How is this not being picked up by anyone? Oh wait... because the MSM looks like an aquarium instead of journalists.

Daniel Study

Chapter 1

The first chapter sets up the scene for the book of Daniel. Jehoiakim was king, and had been taken over by the Babylonians. 1 Kings 23:38 tells us that this is partly due to the fact that Jehoiakim had done evil in the eyes of the Lord. All of Israel was now in subjection to other nations. They were now squarely in Exile. This is spelled out further in verse 2, as it says that articles from the Temple are carried off to the Babylonian temples. The very things of God are in the midsts of foreign idols. More so than just articles, this is about the people. They are God's people, and to be in Exile is a horrible turn in events for the nation of Israel.

So it is important to note that this is the exact opposite of what God intended. Deuteronomy 4 tells us that God wants Israel to keep the covenant so that all the nations of the world will come to them to seek true wisdom. Under Solomon's reign we see this partly happening, as the kings of the world go to him (as corporate representative) for wisdom. By being such an adulterous nation, Israel is now under condemnation and ironically now being controlled by another nation.

Daniel and his compatriots are the exceptions which provide a representation of what Israel should have been and how they should act in Exile. They are to be faithful to the covenant. In their specific case, this meant keeping kosher laws. By passing the "test" they actually prove that God's law makes other individuals better overall. As well this shows that they are the most wise of all the king's advisers. So again, they keep Torah and are exemplary of God's true wisdom. By being faithful in Exile, God allows Israel's representative(s) to bring wisdom to the nations. How great is God that he can use Israel's unfaithfulness to fulfill His plans even more.

This brings me into a huge discussion which most people will not like. Is Daniel an actual historical figure? I don't believe so. First note of evidence, the book of Daniel is not considered one of the prophet books in the Jewish canon. It is one of the collection of Writings. Second piece of evidence, and perhaps the most condemning, is the pure corporate representativeness that Daniel acts as. He represents Israel as it should have been and as it should act during the Exile. This means he does not need to be a historical figure to fulfill this role. Combined this with the fact that he is not a prophet, and one sees why the Jews correctly do not consider this a prophetic book. Thirdly, and perhaps more shakily, we do know that David had a son named Daniel, who must have died early on. But the Jews were looking for the son of David to fulfill the promises that were not really fulfilled under Solomon. Daniel then fulfills another representative role, in that he is the son of David which will receive the blessings promised to David.

During this discussion of the book of Daniel, I will continue with the assumption that Daniel is not an historical figure and that the book of Daniel is mainly on about how Israel is supposed to act while in Exile.