Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part IV

On May 28, 2008 the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. My comments are in italics:

This is the fourth in a four part series.

Paul Holmes writes:

And fourth, you are not being harmed by either gays or lesbians. Let others who do not believe as you do live their own lives with equal protection under the law.

If you must crusade, do so against divorce. In the Bible, Jesus actually is quoted regarding marriage, "so they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." You have tens of millions of your fellow Christians whom you can re-convert."

Christians have and do "crusade" against divorce. And they are roundly criticized for doing so.

Further, Holmes only takes part of the passage from Matthew 19. Why did Jesus speak against divorce? Placing the passage in context gives us the answer.

Jesus stated, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

Then we come to the part Holmes quoted: "so they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Jesus stated divorce is bad because the Creator made a man and a woman to come together as one in union. Divorce rips the union apart.

Thus, Christ clearly states the purpose of marriage is to bring together male and female. I have no doubts that Holmes lauds Christians (i.e. those who claim to follow the teachings of Christ) who support same-sex marriage even though it goes against the very reason Christ said marriage was created.

Yet, it is clear that Christians - again, those who claim they are followers of Jesus' teachings - who support same-sex marriage are rejecting Christ's clear teaching on marriage.

In doing so, they are refusing to conform themselves to the image of Christ in order to believe whatever their own hearts fancy.

Lastly, is the claim that we are not being harmed by gays and lesbians. Individually, no. But to the extent that anyone supports same-sex marriage does harm us because it harms society:

• Basing public policy on the lie that homosexuals do not have the right to marry when they have the exact same right to marry as all citizens - does harm society. (see The "Gay's Can't Marry" Myth)


• Redefining the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from applying to citizens to applying to relationships (see Equal Protection Under the Law) then refusing to apply that new definition to ALL relationships (e.g. polygamy, polyamory) - does harm society.


• Claiming there is no difference between the two genders and teaching children that - does harm society.


• Denying children either a father or a mother - does harm society.
  
• Equating the civil rights movement, which showed that race is an inherent and inconsequential part of the design of human beings, with the claim of sexual orientation (a sexual desire for one's own sex that is at odds with their physical sexual genitalia) - does harm society. (See The Foundation for Human Rights)


• Claiming that the federal and state constitutions (e.g. Massachusetts), which were written by men living in a society that believed that homosexual acts were an abomination of the laws of nature, actually allow homosexual relationships - does harm society.


• Refusing to allow citizens of your state (again reference Massachusetts) to vote on a constitutional amendment making marriage between one man and one woman - does harm society.


• Circumventing state constitutions (e.g. Oregon), which states that marriage is between one man and one woman, by granting all the rights of marriage to homosexual relationships by calling it civil unions or domestic partnerships - does harm society.


• Having judges strike down a law passed by 61% of the voters in the country's most populace state (i.e. California) that explicitly defined the understood definition of marriage (one man - one woman) in that state - does harm society.


• Then, having those same California judges refuse to offer a stay of their decision AFTER an marriage amendment (adding the struck down marriage definition to the constitution) was added to the November ballot thereby allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples and creating chaos should the amendment pass - does harm society.
  
• Claiming that defining marriage as one man-one woman is a ban on same-sex marriage while completely ignoring that it would also be a ban on other types of relationships (e.g. polygamy, polyamory) - does harm society. (see California's Top Court Legalizes Polygamy)


• Demonizing and marginalizing those who disagree with same-sex marriage as Holmes did in his letter - does harm society.

Willful violations of constitutions by judges and legislatures. Redefinition of constitutional concepts. Circumventing the will of the people. Hijacking the civil rights movement. Assassinating the character of those who stand in opposition.

This is only a partial list of harm that same-sex marriage advocates have wrought upon our society.

Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part III

On May 28, 2008 the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes that appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. The person named White is a letter writer to which Holmes is responding. My comments are in italics:

This is the third in a four part series.

Paul Holmes writes:
Third, I would expect White, if he is a practicing Christian, to not engage in homosexual activities. That would certainly be against his beliefs. But keep the practice of your beliefs within you own circle of believers.

Holmes' belief that one should "keep the practice of your beliefs within your own circle of believers" is his belief. He is saying that others who do not share his particular beliefs regarding homosexuality should abide by his belief. That is hypocritical.

By the way, since Holmes was worried about adhering only to what the gospels say, Jesus did have something explicit to say about hypocrisy (see Matthew 7:1-6). Namely, don't do it.

And, of course, Jesus commanded his followers to "go and make disciples of all nations ... and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Mt 28:19-20)

If Holmes is really worried about Christians following what Jesus and the Gospels taught, he would be praising Christians for not keeping "the practice of [their] beliefs within [their] own circle of believers." Praise is not forth coming because adherence to Jesus' teachings is not Holmes' goal.

There is something even more troubling than Holmes' self-refuting morality. In his letter, White directed his comments at Christians. White states, "what are you Christians thinking when you vote for a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of Christ." Holmes is condemning White precisely for "practicing his beliefs within his own circle of believers."

It appears that Holmes believes that Christians should not have a voice nor have a vote in matters where they do not agree with Holmes' worldview.

That view is profoundly arrogant in its anti-intellectualism.

Next post: Holmes' claim that If Christians must crusade to do so against divorce which "tens of millions" of Christians have engaged and to leave gays and lesbians have equal protection under the law.

Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part II

On May 28, 2008 the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes that appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. My comments are in italics:

This is the second in a four part series.

Paul Holmes writes:
Second, in reading the four gospels (Christ’s actual words and teachings) it is a long stretch to even find a reference to homosexuality.

Therefore, what? The unstated premise is that whatever is not mentioned in the gospels is okay. By this logic, Holmes would have to say gay-bashing and child molestation are okay since neither is mentioned in the gospels. I doubt Holmes would go there which brings us back to what exactly is Holmes' point.

Second, refer to my point in "Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part I" regarding Jesus being the Hebrew God who did have something to say about homosexual behavior.

Next post: Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves.

Forcing One's Morality on Others - Part I

On May 28, 2008, the following letter to the editor by Paul Holmes appeared in the Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newspaper attacking Christianity's view of homosexual behavior. My comments are in italics.

This is part one in a four part series.

Keep morals to yourself
I must disagree on so many levels with David White’s positions in his May 23 letter, "Agenda is morally wrong," and his question "Do you think His will … is to promote a lifestyle that he calls an abomination?"

First, Christ never called the homosexual lifestyle "an abomination." That was Paul, who never knew Jesus.

This is a sign that the person really doesn't know much about Christianity. First, Christ called himself the Son of God. That is a claim to deity. Not any deity but the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, which very clearly calls homosexual behavior an "abomination".

Further, Jesus stated "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) Clearly, Jesus called the homosexual lifestyle an abomination.

Holmes provides no evidence to support his claim that Paul never knew Jesus. Luke writes of Paul meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). In Acts 26:15-17, Luke recounts the words of Jesus to Paul, "I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you."

This is the same Paul, who repeatedly calls himself an apostle and servant of Christ (see the beginnings of Paul's letters, e.g. Romans, 1 & 2 Timothy, etc). An apostle is one who is commissioned by Christ. How can Paul be commissioned by one he supposedly never knew?

So Holmes' very first claim is false.

Next post: Holmes' claim that there is no reference to homosexuality in the four gospels.