A Response to the Response to Proposition 8 Part 2

Perhaps the best example of the more "intelligent" responses to California's voters passing proposition 8 is given in the video "Prop 8 The Musical" (see yesterday's post). There seem to be two levels of response: (1) violence and (2) thoughtful interaction. Both of these responses are filled with enough hate to contradict their own statements that those who do not support homosexual "marriage" are simply revealing old fashioned, ignorant hatred. I can't speak for everyone who supports Prop 8 and other amendments like it but I can speak for myself and hatred is far from my reason for being against homosexual "marriage."

The funny thing is that the makers of "Prop 8 The Musical" really think they have refuted any argument from the Bible against homosexuality and/or homosexual "marriage." So I just want to make some quick points in the form of what I hope is received as a thoughtful loving response to those with whom I disagree.

(1) Four years ago it seemed that the main arguments I heard were based on certain rights that homosexuals wanted (hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc). I'm not sure that most of these things should even be exclusive to marriage. Most of the rights I have heard homosexuals say they want I am more than willing to give to anyone.

(2) Please stop the hate. When you feel like you are hated by a group (or in this case the majority of Californians) it doesn't help your cause to act in kind. I am a Christian. We are historically the most hated people that has ever existed (Though I might be inclined to give that award to Israel. Either way we are at least in the top 2). Yet we are told throughout Scripture that it is better to suffer when doing good than to give people a reason to hate us (see the book of 1 Peter). So please stop the language, blasphemy, and violence. It isn't helping you.

(3) If you are going to try and use the Bible against us, learn how to read it. Part of the problem with this is that so many Christians want to find a quick verse and throw it at you (Leviticus 18:22) and hope that it sticks. Then the opposition goes to the book and sees all of these other things in the same book and makes the claim that we "pick and choose." So let me help you out. The reason certain laws are not carried over after Christ and some are carried over is because Christ fulfilled the law. Therefore any law that is not re-instituted in the New Testament is no longer sinful. For this reason, 9 of the 10 commandments carry over. So the question is, "does the New Testament teach the same thing as Leviticus 18:22. The answer is yes. See Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and my previous post on the subject.

(4) I don't know about everyone else but for me this is about 2 things (the second will be addressed in both #5 and 6). I am a supporter of the recent act, namely, Act 1, in Arkansas to ban cohabiting couples from being able to adopt or foster care. This is because of my firm belief that a child should be raised by a mom and a dad. I realize that there are a lot of professing Christians who are forced to bring up a child alone and that there are a lot of non-ideal situations even among Christians. I think we can all agree that there are always exceptions and I hope that God will use me in part to change some of those statistics. However, the Bible uses the natural order of things (which were created by God for a reason) to illustrate why we should do things one way over another. I think it is fair to say that there is a natural principle that says you can't have a child without a dad and a mom. I know...I know there are exceptions and you can kindly write them to me in the comment section.

(5) Marriage is biblically defined as one man and one woman. Don't worry, I won't rave about Adam and Steve as some do. It's just as annoying to me as it is to you. But here's the definition of marriage affirmed by both the Old and New Testaments, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). This does not mean man+man or woman+woman. Though disobeyed by several people in the Old Testament it does not mean man+ several women either.

(6) Most important is that this whole thing isn't just about a word, certain rights or even children; it's about the gospel. Ephesians 5:22-33 reveals the true meaning of marriage. In 5:32 Paul explains Genesis 2:24 (see #5 for quote) and explains, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." It is for this reason that I feel it is right to protect marriage. That means protecting it against divorce, abuse, unfaithfulness, and yes homosexual misuse. It is for this reason that I consider what you want to be homosexual "marriage." What you want is a biblical oxymoron. I am not asking you to simply stop practicing homosexuality. I know that you can't do that apart from God saving you. But if you are unwilling to repent (as every person homosexual or heterosexual has to) and believe the gospel the very least I ask of you is that you realize that you are not being attacked by proposition 8; the gospel is under attack by all of those who want to redefine its parable of permanence.

This is one of the longest posts I have ever written but I felt it necessary to respond to what I have been seeing unfold over the last few months and even years.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen