Apple Undercuts Proposition 8

Christians, it might be time to reconsider purchasing a Mac or any other Apple product.

Apple Inc. is trying to defeat California’s Proposition 8, which would protect one of society’s core traditional institutions — heterosexual marriage.

Google was one of the first, announcing publicly last month its opposition to Prop. 8. Now Apple has donated $100,000 to kill the measure that is designed to overturn the California Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual “marriage.”

In a statement posted on its website, the company notes it was among the first companies in the Golden State to offer same-sex partner benefits to its employees. “[W]e strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation,” says Apple.

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com is not surprised by the computer maker’s decision.

“Apple Computer’s [co-founder] Steve Jobs was on the vanguard of promoting homosexuality voluntarily within his company years ago,” says Thomasson. “He really sees his spirituality out of India where he traveled. He sold his first computer with Steve Wozniak in 1976 for the price of $666.66.”

Since Apple is promoting the idea of homosexual marriage by trying to defeat Prop. 8, Thomasson believes people ought to react in what he considers to be a perfectly normal way.

Original Link

50 Responses to “Apple Undercuts Proposition 8”

  1. Bill says:

    The loud call for opponents of Prop. 8 to “get over it and accept the will of the people” is embarrassing for teachers of social studies and American government in California public and private schools. Clearly, at least 52% of California voters missed the lesson where we learned about how our system of government was designed with a network of political checks and balances to prevent what is called the “tyranny of the majority,” to ensure that our system of government ultimately protects the rights of minorities against what any given majority (religious in the case of Prop. 8 ) might care to legislate into law.

    Perhaps you also missed the news that a consortium of civil rights groups have filed suit against Prop. 8 (story at: http://equaljusticesociety.org/prop8/). They know that any legislation that curtails civil rights for one group that is allowed to stand, regardless of how they may personally feel about that minority, opens the door as precedent to legislate against the rights of another. Perhaps there’s another group out there who doesn’t like having Native American tribes own all those casinos, or business signs in only Spanish, Korean or Farsi, and perhaps we should do something about those obnoxiously ornate Mormon temples all over the place. And what about those Knights of Columbus? Does anyone doubt their intimate connection to the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps a majority of us should pass a law so that the entire American Roman Catholic church is taxed as a private corporation consequent to the political activity of their Blessed Knights. Perhaps those of you who hate one minority and would deprive them of civil rights might reconsider your political stand (not your religious beliefs) if you consider the precedent being set by Proposition 8. It may be your very beliefs that become the next target for oppression despite your personal belief in their universality.

    Whether you believe the Earth is flat, that Adam walked with dinosaurs, that Shiva had six arms, that crystals cure cancer, that fairies live in willows, that Jesus saves you from your sins, or that people choose their sexual identity, your freedom is protected by that Constitution you are trying to change. God save you from yourself.

  2. Steve says:

    Bill,
    What you and the homosexuals fail to understand, and what we have mentioned on this blog again and again, is that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else. One man to one woman. It is only in their attempt to redefine the ageless old definition of marriage that they have hit the wall of opposition from voters.
    You are comparing apples to oranges. Something the liberal left loves to do.

  3. [H]omosexuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else. One man to one woman.

    Let me ask you something. Do you really not see why that’s not the most convincing argument? If gays are saying they don’t have the right to marry who they love, telling them they can marry somebody else that they don’t love doesn’t really address the issue.

    So enlighten me here. What, specifically, are gays supposed to do? And why should I, as an atheist, oppose their pursuit to redefine marriage?

    See also http://is.gd/7TNB .

  4. Greg P says:

    “So enlighten me here. What specifically, are gays supposed to do? And why should I, as an atheist, oppose their pursuit to redefine marriage”?

    Kim:

    As an atheist, you should nothing to oppose their pursuit to redefine marriage. Because to you it’s just an equality issue. But, most of us that read this blog are Christians. As Christians we believe what God’s Word says in the bible. It speaks out against homosexuality very specifically. Homosexuality is an ABOMINATION in the eyes of God. Homosexuality is the main reason the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. I could quote book, chapter and verse here, but, being an atheist, I’m sure you’re not interested in what the bible has to say.

    But, we are! We believe what it says in a literal sense and we do our best to live by it. When we fall short we know we are already forgiven by trusting in the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

    I don’t know what you think happens to a person after death, but, we know they will be judged, whether that person is a believer or not. If you’re a believer, you will be judged to determine rewards in heaven, but, you will not lose your salvation. If you’re not a believer you will be declared guilty of your sins and will be condemned to eternal hell. Whether you believe in God or not, He believes in you. He created you and He will judge you accordingly. You don’t have to believe me. You can take your chances and hear it straight from the mouth of God … post mortem!

    I pray you take the easy way someday and come to Jesus Christ for forgiveness. God does not want even one soul to be lost and neither do I, yours included.

  5. Well, fine, but I hope you agree that we atheists have a say in the laws as well. If you want to ban gay marriage in your churches, then that’s none of my business. But you want to prevent us from changing civil laws. You’re going to need a better reason than “because my religion says so” for laws that affect all of us, religious and secular alike.

  6. Greg P says:

    Yes, atheists have a say in laws enacted in this country and there is nothing wrong with trying to get things changed. But, when the change involves an abomination to God regarding the institution of marriage, then it offends me and other Christians like me. And we WILL take a stand against it and we will fight it, because we will defend our sovereign God.

    You and I will never agree on this issue because you are a firm atheist and I stand for Christ. Right there we are already light years apart.

    I guess I wonder why you read this blog so often when you know you disagree with almost everything that’s on here. I’m not complaining because I’m glad you read it. I hope someday it will change your life for the better.

  7. Jaysus says:

    “because we will defend our sovereign God.”

    lord knows he can’t do it himself. The nonexistent, invisible ones never can…

  8. Greg P: So basically it sounds like you’ve given up on the power of persuasion. You’re certain about the justness of your cause but not enough to argue in favor of it. If all you can say is “because God said so”, then I guess all the lefties saying that you just want to impose your religion on the rest of us are correct.

  9. Greg P says:

    Kim:

    My power of persuasion would be the bible. But, to you the bible is just a book of fairy tales and my arguements would fall on deaf ears. If you don’t believe the bible to be the unerring Word of God, like I do, we’d just be going in circles.

    As far as imposing my “religion” on you, I would only try to tell you about Jesus Christ because I wouldn’t want to see anyone lose their soul. I don’t know you personally, but, I care enough about people, in general, that I want all people to know about the saving grace of Jesus Christ so they can gain salvation.

    The bible says in Matt. 7:13, “… for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

    In other words, MOST people that go through this life will turn their backs on Jesus Christ and will end up in hell for eternity. It’s really sad because they all could have gained salvation by a sincere act of asking Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and save their souls.

    By now you’re probably holding your sides and laughing as you read this because of your lack of belief. That would be the general reaction from a scoffer and that’s OK. Christ said that “they’ll hate you (Christians) because they hated Me (Christ) first”. My job is to try to show people that they need Christ, but, not all will believe.

    I’ll pray for you Kim. I’m not worried about being laughed at. The end result is more important than the minor discomfort of being laughed at.

  10. Beth says:

    The power of persuasion does not lie with the Christian, but within the power of the Holy Spirit……it is not our job to persuade….a Christian’s job is to share Jesus, the rest of the work is up to Him.

    As far as imposing our religion on others….I suppose you could say that statement is true in some aspects. Religion is really not the point, matter of fact, a true Christian will tell you that their relationship with Jesus Christ has nothing to do with religion…….religion is for the Pharisees….relationship with Jesus is all that matters to the TRUE believer. So, no we do not want to impose our “religion” on everyone else, but we do want to share our relationship. Why? Because we know the fate of non-believers. We know that hell is real, hell is hot, and hell is eternal. I wouldnt wish hell on my worst enemy, so yes, I do want others to come to know Jesus as their Savior.

    I am sure you are getting ready to reply and ask how I know hell is real. Let me save you the time. I know hell is real, because I know God is real. How do I know that? Because I have been miraculously saved and miraculously changed. When you accept Jesus, there is something supernatural that happens in your life….you will not be the same again…..your ideas will change and you are given a whole new perspective. It isnt something that an unbeliever will understand until they become a believer…I know I didnt understand it before.

    I know you wont take my word for it, but it’s very true.

  11. We’re getting a little off the subject here. You can try to convert me later, but for now I’d just like answers to my original questions.

  12. Greg P says:

    Kim:

    That’s what you’ve been getting, but, your eyes and your heart haven’t been opened yet.

  13. Stephen M. says:

    Kim:
    You may be an atheist but that doesn’t mean that there is no God. You can be walking down the interstate and say that you don’t believe in 18-wheelers, but soon you’ll be hit by an 18-wheeler.

    The Bible states that “a fool says there is no God” Where did you come from? If there is a creation, there is a creator.

    You know, my dad was just like you, he didn’t believe in God. He made fun of us. (his wife and sons) Until one night when he was lying in bed dying from the vomit in his mouth that he could get up. He had something wrong with his food tube (esophegus). It would constrict for no reason. He was lying there dying. My mom got up and ran in the kitchen to call 911. When see returned to my dad, he was sitting up in the bed crying. He said that while he was choking, he managed to say: “if you save me from dying Jesus, I’ll serve you until I die.” He said as soon as he said that a white light in the form of a man walked into his room and touched him. He said immediately after he was touched the vomit was gone. He has served him everyday since that night. There is a God!

    Just try Him.

  14. So basically you all concede that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is Christian belief. So how is this not an attempt to impose theocracy?

  15. Greg P says:

    Kim:

    We are not trying to impose Christian belief. No one can force someone to believe. You have to want to believe. We are just trying to get non-believers to realize that they need Jesus Christ in their life. If God says homosexuality is an abomination to Him, then that’s all the proof I need. I believe in God’s Word.

    It’s that simple.

  16. But you are trying to impose Christian belief! By legally defining civil marriage to match what your church holds to be the correct rules of marriage, you’re forcing all of us to obey your rules. Nobody’s going to your church and mandating what kind of weddings your minister can and cannot perform, but you are going into the civic arena and telling the rest of us exactly that.

    And note well that “us” doesn’t just mean atheists like me: there are Christian denominations that perform homosexual marriage ceremonies. They believe they are valid, just as you believe they are not. By passing Prop 8, you’ve essentially gotten the state to take a stand in an interdoctrinal dispute—a government ruling on which Christian denomination is interpreting scripture correctly. Even if this particular ruling went your way, doesn’t that bother you, even a little bit?

  17. Steve says:

    We (the Christians) are trying to define marriage? Excuse me, who is trying to define marriage? It’s certainly NOT the Christians who are trying to define marriage.
    Marriage has been defined for thousands of years. It’s the homosexuals and their ilk who are trying to redefine marriage.
    Let’s get that point straight right now.

  18. Greg P says:

    “By passing Prop 8, you’ve essentially gotten the state to take a stand in an interdoctrinal dispute–a government ruling on which Christian denomination is interpreting scripture correctly. Even if this particular ruling went your way, doesn’t that bother you , even a little bit?”

    Kim:

    No, it doesn’t bother me. God’s Word is more important to me than any man made law. It supercedes any law a government can pass. No one has the right to redefine the Word of God. God set down specific principles in the bible that are to be obeyed by all creation. Whether you are a believer, or not, you are still part of God’s creation and will be held accountable for how you obeyed God and His Word.

    As far as a Christian denomination that performs homosexual marriages, they are simply wrong. Calling yourself a Christian and being a Christian are not the same thing. Christianity is not a “religion” or a building with the words “Christian church”. Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Acknowledging, loving, trusting and following Jesus Christ as the Savior makes you a Christian.

  19. Fine, whatever. You’re nitpicking. You’re attempting to legally define marriage by keeping at its previous definition, I’m trying to redefine it to include gays. My point still stands. How come my main arguments always get ignored here?

  20. (My previous comment was directed at Steve, not Greg–I started writing it before Greg’s was posted. Sorry for the confusion.)

    Greg: Well, I guess there’s not much more for us to discuss. You’re a theocrat, I’m a democrat. You don’t have a problem with the government imposing your particular Christian beliefs by law, and you don’t seem to recognize any difference between civil and religious law. I’m sorry that you reject core American values, but that’s your right. I imagine you’d be pretty unhappy if the Mormons or Muslims felt the same way you do and managed to take over the government. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Here’s C.S. Lewis:

    The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammendans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.

    My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, and the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought be to quite sharp, so that a man know which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

    Now then. Anybody here who actually recognizes, like Lewis, that the government isn’t, and shouldn’t be an extension of the church?

  21. Steve says:

    Kim,
    You keep talking about Christians trying to impose our core values while completely ignoring the fact that it’s the homosexual who are tying to stuff their values down our throats. The homosexual movement is relatively new (less than fifty years, and that’s being generous) versus traditional marriage which is thousands of years old.
    Whom is imposing their values on whom?
    Then when the voice of the people is heard (Proposition 8), this is suddenly “imposing religious ideology” on people?
    It’s the homosexuals who are trying to impose on the traditionalist. It’s the social engineering left that is trying to undo thousands of years of progress (yes, progress) that defines the family.
    It’s the left that wants to throw away this societal building block in the name of “love”. I’m glad that the majority of people have a clear head and sound mind and refuse to give in to raw emotion in order to make their life changing decisions.

  22. But there’s a crucial asymmetry here which I think you’re ignoring. If gay marriage is legalized, you don’t have to recognize it. Your church doesn’t have to perform gay marriages, you don’t have to associate with married gay people, you can continue putting those contemptuous quotes around “marriage” when you refer to homosexual marriage… really the only way it would affect you personally is that it will really, really bother you to know that somewhere gay people are actually trying to live a normal life. On the other hand, the social handicaps suffered by homosexuals by being forbidden to marry are many, direct, and devastating.

    As for marriage being thousands of years old and the gay rights movement only being a few decades old, that’s true, and so what? I encourage you to read that link I posted earlier, about how “appeal to tradition” is a logical fallacy. Somebody could have said the same thing about slavery in 1850, after all: “Slavery is thousands of years old! The abolition movement has only been around fifty years, if that!” That didn’t make slavery right. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying opposition to gay marriage is as bad as being pro-slavery, just that saying somethig has been around thousands of years is not in itself a good argument that it’s correct. You need to explain why that means it’s a good thing.

    FWIW, it’s not just “the left” and “the homosexuals” that are trying to make this change. I am neither.

  23. Steve says:

    The homosexual marriage versus slavery thing is apples to oranges and is getting quite tiresome. There’s a huge difference between keeping someone in physical bondage with no rights whatsoever versus keeping a well defined social norm (marriage between a man and a woman) that is in opposition to a small minority’s (homosexual’s) wishes for special recognition (homosexual marriage).
    If homosexual marriage is made normal by the government, then it is expected to be respected by everyone, as all laws are, including by the church. It is also a small step before government then interferes with the church by demanding that they cater to this select group, despite the fact that this goes against the church’s tenants. This has already happened in countries that have legalized homosexual marriage, so don’t give me the “that can’t happen in a free country” argument, since it is already null and void before you even start typing.
    These so called “devastating social handicaps” you mention have already been negated by civic unions and the rights afforded there. Your use of the verbiage “handicaps” is objectionable as it cast homosexual in a class that should and will be reserved for people truly facing real handicaps, not made up ones.

  24. The homosexual marriage versus slavery thing is apples to oranges and is getting quite tiresome. There’s a huge difference between keeping someone in physical bondage with no rights whatsoever versus keeping a well defined social norm (marriage between a man and a woman) that is in opposition to a small minority’s (homosexual’s) wishes for special recognition (homosexual marriage).

    Gah, I knew you’d say that. That’s why I said “I’m not saying opposition to gay marriage is as bad as being pro-slavery”. Did you miss that? My point was just that because something is old it doesn’t mean it’s good. Is this really such a difficult point to understand? I have to wonder about you guys sometimes. Does accepting Christ mean giving up reading comprehension?

    If homosexual marriage is made normal by the government, then it is expected to be respected by everyone, as all laws are, including by the church. It is also a small step before government then interferes with the church by demanding that they cater to this select group, despite the fact that this goes against the church’s tenants.

    This is a legitimate argument, and I’m more sympathetic to it than other arguments you’ve made. I would stand with you, for what that’s worth, in any government attempt to force your church to perform marriages against its doctrines. Despite the fact that I’m against everything he preaches, I’m disgusted by how Stephen Boissoin has been punished by the Canadian government; I strongly opposed the lawsuits against the Boy Scouts and eHarmony. But yes, I do think at the end of the day this is not a real danger here, as it is in Canada and Europe, because of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been pretty good over the years at protecting religious freedoms overall. I can certainly imagine a law forcing churches to perform gay marriages, but I can’t imagine it standing up in court. And, after all, the Boy Scouts won their case, and eHarmony would have won if they hadn’t caved and settled out of court. Think of it this way: despite all the civil rights laws passed, churches are still free to refuse to perform interracial marriages (and yes, I know that’s different than gay marriage—I’m just making a point about government interference with religion in this country). So I don’t think this very unlikely hypothetical danger justifies depriving people of the ability to marry whom they choose.

    These so called “devastating social handicaps” you mention have already been negated by civic unions and the rights afforded there. Your use of the verbiage “handicaps” is objectionable as it cast homosexual in a class that should and will be reserved for people truly facing real handicaps, not made up ones.

    Oh, so you’re in favor of civil unions? Were you ten years ago? Just wondering. Anyway, I don’t think “separate but equal” is acceptable in this situation. And you think homosexuality is “made up”? Why would anyone make that up? Just to annoy you?

  25. Steve says:

    Me in favor of civil unions? When did I say that? Now who’s having trouble comprehending the written word? Read my comment again.
    You poo-poo marriage because it is old, yet I maintain that if it didn’t work, it would have disappeared long ago. Yet there isn’t a society on earth that doesn’t practice it. Even the most isolated, yesteryear tribes in Africa and the Pacific practice it. They do so because it works! That is not a hard concept to understand.
    Yet for the liberal, the homosexual and the godless, it is an impossible concept to understand. Poor blind people.
    Kim, I’ve said this before on this blog, so I’ll say it again. The homosexuals are going to win one day. All forms of evil are going to win one day. But their victory will be very short lived.
    The Bible tells us all about this and I believe the Bible.
    Nothing that is happening today is a surprise to me. But I’ve read the Book and I know ending. A surprise ending for many.

  26. Beth says:

    I wonder why it is that atheists argue against Christians on every issue (even ones that do not apply to or affect them personally)? Arguing for the sake of arguing or because they do not agree with our views kind of makes their arguments less effective in my opinion.
    The Bible tells us that people will hate us because of our relationship with Jesus Christ……conversations like this prove that to be true.
    I wonder how a person with even the most miniscule knowledge of Bible prophecy can look at the events happening in the world and not see the correlation. It is amazing to me that people are so blinded by their love for this world that they REFUSE to see the Truth.

    Kim, I have said this before………but you seem to be a very intelligent person. I know you truly believe there is no God, but your unproven belief does not make God nonexistent. I am scared for you. I do not know you personally….dont even know what you look like, but I am sincerely afraid of what is going to happen to you (and the other atheists who comment here frequently). I picture the time when you realize you were wrong and it is too late for you. I picture you crying out for mercy when there will be no mercy on those who denied Jesus. I hope you hear my heart when I say that I truly HATE the thought of you dying and going to hell…..it isnt necessary…..but it will happen unless your heart changes (and soon).

  27. I wonder why it is that atheists argue against Christians on every issue (even ones that do not apply to or affect them personally)? Arguing for the sake of arguing or because they do not agree with our views kind of makes their arguments less effective in my opinion.

    Well, I don’t argue with you on every issue. In fact, there have been a few times I’ve agreed with you, and said so in the comments. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about there. But I feel strongly about gay marriage, and will argue with you about it simply on principle, not because it affects me personally. Come to think of it, isn’t that just as true for you? (It affects you even less, I’ll bet, because I doubt you have very many gay friends.) You’re arguing because you feel strongly about it on principle. So what’s wrong with that? And it’s weird to say somebody is arguing “because they do not agree with our views”. Well, yeah. Isn’t that sort of a prerequisite to argue with somebody? How often do you argue with people about things you agree?

    The Bible tells us that people will hate us because of our relationship with Jesus Christ……conversations like this prove that to be true.

    I’m sorry you’ve gotten that impression. I certainly don’t hate you, and I’m sorry to have come across that I have. I certainly do disagree with your positions on many (not all) issues, but that’s not the same as hate, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

    I wonder how a person with even the most miniscule knowledge of Bible prophecy can look at the events happening in the world and not see the correlation. It is amazing to me that people are so blinded by their love for this world that they REFUSE to see the Truth.

    You may want to look up the term “confirmation bias” sometime.

    Kim, I have said this before………but you seem to be a very intelligent person. I know you truly believe there is no God, but your unproven belief does not make God nonexistent. I am scared for you. I do not know you personally….dont even know what you look like, but I am sincerely afraid of what is going to happen to you (and the other atheists who comment here frequently). I picture the time when you realize you were wrong and it is too late for you. I picture you crying out for mercy when there will be no mercy on those who denied Jesus. I hope you hear my heart when I say that I truly HATE the thought of you dying and going to hell…..it isnt necessary…..but it will happen unless your heart changes (and soon).

    Cheer up! Tertullian and Thomas Aquinas said that one of the joys of heaven was watching the torment of the damned. See also Psalms 58:10, etc. You may be sad about it now, but once you get to heaven you’ll enjoy watching me fry.

  28. Greg P says:

    Kim:

    No Christian wants to see the suffering of someone in hell. I’m certain God will spare us that anguish because many of us, if not most, will have some family members that never came to Christ. I’m sure I will because they don’t all listen to me. I pray for those people now, while there is still time, and I pray for you also. But, time IS running short. My God still works miracles and I think your conversion would fit into that category. But, I also believe it is worth the effort for me to ask God to work in your life.

    You seem to think about every aspect of a situation before you make a decision. Have you ever really thought deeply about belief in God? God says in Matt. 7:7, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be open to you”. I KNOW you have a bible because I don’t think you pulled that Psalms verse out of your head. If you TRULY are a deep thinker you will give some thought as to whether God does exist. Just ask God to make Himself known to you. But, ask it in sincerity and reverence, with an open mind and open heart. Do not ask in a confrontational manner because He will remain silent.

    I have also tried to understand atheism in the past. I’ve read atheist websites and read about famous atheists in history and I always came away feeling nauseous after reading it. Believe me, I’m no sheltered shrinking violet, by any means. I’m 58 years old and I’ve been around the block a few times, but, trying to study atheism affected me in a bad way. I just would want you to TRULY converse with God, with no “attitude”, just openness, and ask Him to make Himself known to you.

    Just some thoughts on this Thanksgiving Day. I have much for which I am thankful ….. and I’m not talking about material wealth. I have very little of that.

  29. Beth says:

    Kim,
    Gay marriage affects Christians because it is one more victory for satan AND it opens the door for more of the liberal agenda to become commonplace. I know you dont see it that way, but gay marriage is simply a stepping stone to a society that is completely devoid of moral boundaries.
    I could never enjoy watching ANYONE “fry” (as you call it). There is nothing comical about even the thought of seeing someone burn in hell because they refused to believe in Jesus……..absolutely nothing. I am not naive enough to believe that something I could type here would make you change your mind about God, but if there WAS something I could do to change your heart I would (in a minute). There is only One who can change your heart and I am praying that He will do just that and you will be a mighty witness to the power of prayer and the power of God. I know you could care less if I am praying, but I hope that one day you will become a believer and look back over these words remembering that someone (several someones) prayed for you.
    Happy Thanksgiving,
    Beth

  30. Just out of curiosity, what’s your reaction to this?

  31. Beth says:

    Well, Kim, I think it’s great that this guy’s brother was willing to take him in. They are family and that is what families should do. If you are asking if this changes my mind about gay marriage, I would have to say no. While these circumstances are horrific, the Bible still says that homosexuality is wrong. I am glad these men are caring for this boy (someone other than his mother definitely needed to), but I still do not agree with their lifestyle choice and I dont think that we should change the institution of marriage because there are crazy people in the world who beat their kids.
    Dont get me wrong, I am not unsympathetic to the people in this story. I dont have all the answers, but God does and if He says that homosexuality is wrong, then it is.

  32. Jake says:

    Beth,

    The Bible clearly states — on a scale way more enormous and unambiguous than its few comments about homosexuality — that divorce and adultery are wrong.

    Divorce and adultery are inarguably THE most destructive threats to the institution of marriage. So why do you think that truly marriage-protection-minded Christians have yet to enact one single ballot measure or one single campaign for a constitutional amendment to ban divorce or adultery?

    And don’t you find the staggering disparities between the enormous Christian efforts to “protect” marriage by denying it to gay people and the meager Christian efforts to “protect” marriage by banning divorce and discouraging adultery to be grotesquely un-Christian?

    Jake

  33. Beth says:

    Jake,

    I wonder how you have determined that there are degrees of sin. The bible plainly states that sin is sin. The issue is not with the act of homosexuality itself so much as it is with the idea that it is okay to remain in unrepentant sin. You are right that divorce is sin, but like homosexuality, divorce is a sin that can be forgiven.

    The Bible tells us that divorce is sin (unless it is caused by adultery in which case the spouse who did not commit adultery could be justified in some cases). The Bible tells us that homosexuality is sin. Someone who gets a divorce and is repentant can be forgiven (and they should try to reconcile with their spouse if possible). Someone who practices homosexuality and is repentant can be forgiven as well. But, along with that repentance comes change. One cannot live a blatantly homosexual life and claim repentance. With true repentance comes change…..EVERY time.

    Am I saying that a person who repents of homosexuality will never give in to temptation? Of course not, but they will be active in trying to resist the temptation and they will not endorse that lifestyle.

    Since sin is sin and there are no degrees of sin, there is no need to enact a ballot measure to ban divorce…….if that were the case, we would have propse measures to ban each and every sin that exists because sin is sin is sin. As far as denying marriage to gay people, Christians didnt do that…..God did. Banning gay marriage is not a matter of banishing sin (there is no way to ever do that on this earth), but it is a matter of upholding the institution of marriage that God created and discouraging the acceptance of what God calls an abomination.

  34. Steve says:

    Most of you detractors continue to miss the overall point.
    Jake, you try to equate divorce with the homosexual lifestyle.
    I think that almost all rational people will agree that divorce is a bad thing. It may be “necessary” (I will never advocate that someone stay in an abusive situation, so in some situations divorce seems to be the most humane recourse), but none the less, it is still considered a bad thing.
    The Christians hang up with homosexuality is the attempt to legitimize and make it normal and good.
    Adultery, divorce, murder, theft, lying, and cheating are all sins. Almost all rational people will agree that they are also bad things.
    Homosexuality is also a sin and, according to the Bible, is also a bad thing.
    And then there are health issues…
    What really gets me is most people’s inability to see beyond their own little sphere of influence. They live for the “feel-good” moment.
    Why are you willing to play societal “Russian Roulette” with the future of our society by disregarding the basic building block that has formed societies throughout all of history?
    You want to call us selfish for wanting to maintain a tried and true method of societal advancement (the traditional family), yet who is that is only interested in the touchy-feely, feel-good here and now of homosexual marriage? It isn’t the typical Christian. It is the majority of voters.
    I want to give my kids and their kids a future, one that homosexual “marriage” can never guarantee.
    Society depends on the traditional family for it’s continued existence.
    Back to the original question…what about divorce?
    Divorce is bad and the only way to even slow it down is to bring God back into society. Not the watered down “feel-good” version, but what the Bible really says about how to live life.

  35. Patrick says:

    Hey I thought I would just lay my two cents in on this debate. Beware, as this will be a long post. To begin with I agree with Kim, the proposition of churches recognizing their own marriage, as well as the public sector being able to recognize theirs is a very good solution to the problem. Here are my contentions as to why.

    First off, we have to have a good background as to what we are dealing with in American culture. Our nation, by many wants to be seen by others as a predominantly Christian nation. This is 100% fine, however we have to comprehend and recognize the difference between the two separate anthropological terms of ideal culture, and real culture. According to Conrad Phillip Kottak Ph.D. in his book “Mirror for Humanity” he states that, “ideal culture consists of what people say they should do and what they say they do. Real culture refers to their actual behavior as observed by the anthropologist.” (Kottak pg. 48) I think it goes without saying that we can all agree that homosexuality exists in some fashion. Therefore homosexuality fits into the category of ‘real culture.’ I will refer back to this point later.

    However, I will now address a comment that Steve posted earlier on this very same topic.

    “You poo-poo marriage because it is old, yet I maintain that if it didn’t work, it would have disappeared long ago. Yet there isn’t a society on earth that doesn’t practice it. Even the most isolated, yesteryear tribes in Africa and the Pacific practice it. They do so because it works! That is not a hard concept to understand.”

    Let us take a closer look at the consistency, or lack there of, in this statement. Since he stated Africa first in his statement we can analyze that first.

    “Sometimes sexual relations between people of the same sex involved transvestism on the part of one of the partners (see Kulick 1998). Transvestism did not characterize male-male sex among the Sudanese Azande, who valued the warrior role (Evans-Pritchard 1970). Prospective warriors – young men aged 12 – 20 – left their families and shared quarters with adult fighting men, who paid a bridewealth for, and had sex with, them… Upon reaching warrior status, these young men took their own younger male brides… Flexible in their sexual expression, Azande males had no difficulty shifting from sex with older men (as male brides), to sex with younger men (as warriors), to sex with women (as husbands) (see Murray and Roscoe, eds. 1998).” (Kottak pg. 174)

    People, (whether we believe in evolution, or deny it and believe creationism), have been living in Sudan longer than Caucasian people have been living in North America. African culture is the oldest in the world. Therefore, their culture is ‘older’ than ours. Because of this, it has existed and survived longer than ours. Am I saying they made it this far because of homosexuality, NO! Am I saying they did what works for them, and all their culture as a whole got them this far in their environment, YES. God never struck these people down or burned their cities. In other words, such as Steve’s “They do so because it works! That is not a hard concept to understand.”

    Africa aside, let us now focus on the Pacific, Papua New Guinea to be exact. We will now examine the cultural practices of the Etoro people. “Heterosexual intercourse, required only for reproduction, was discouraged… Etoro culture allowed heterosexual intercourse only about 100 days a year. The rest of the time it was tabooed. Seasonal birth clustering shows the taboo was respected… Although coitus was discouraged, sex acts between men were seen as essential. Etoro believed that boys could not produce semen on their own. To grow into men and eventually give life force into their children, boys had to acquire semen orally from older men. From the age of 10 until adulthood, boys were inseminated by older men. No taboos were attached to this… The Etoro shared a cultural pattern, which Gilbert Herdt (1984) calls “ritualized homosexuality,” with some 50 other tribes in Papua New Guinea, especially in that country’s Trans-Fly region.” (Kottak pg. 175)

    As with Africa, people have been thriving in the Melanesian pacific islands much longer than we have been, pointing to the fact that this culture is older. Same thing about God not completely and utterly striking these people. (it never happened) Once again, to clarify, this is not advocacy of homosexuality, just the recognition of it’s existence. It would be pointless, if myself, an atheist, were to say that there were no Christians. All I’m doing is agreeing with Steve that, “You poo-poo marriage because it is old, yet I maintain that if it didn’t work, it would have disappeared long ago. Yet there isn’t a society on earth that doesn’t practice it. Even the most isolated, yesteryear tribes in Africa and the Pacific practice it. They do so because it works! That is not a hard concept to understand.”

    With all this being said, we must be careful to not become ethnocentric. “Ethnocentrism is the tendency to view one’s own culture as superior and to apply one’s own cultural values in judging the behavior and beliefs of people raised in other cultures.” (Kottak pg. 50) However, the argument could now be made that because there are gay/lesbian people within our own culture we can view restrict them as we wish. Nevertheless, we cannot be so trigger happy. “Subcultures are different symbol-based patterns and traditions associated with particular groups in the same complex society… Subcultures thus may be perceived as “less than” or somehow inferior to a dominant, elite, or national culture.” (Kottak pg. 49 – 50) Therefore, we must accept that homosexual culture is a subculture within American culture, as well as many others around the globe.

    Back to my original concept, letting the church recognize who they wish within their own ‘society’ and then letting the public sector recognize who they wish in their own ‘society’ only works for both parties involved. I myself am not religious in any way, however I recently conversed with some Latter Day Saint missionaries. Written down in their Articles of Faith is: “11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the bdictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them dworship how, where, or what they may.” (www.mormon.org) Essentially, they are happy to worship God, but let whoever else worship/think how they please. Please do not tell me that the Mormon’s are ahead of you guys in realizing that different people think differently. I am not suggesting there are many ways to heaven, or to hell. Just that different people here on earth, do things differently.

    So, thank you to Kim for bringing up the idea originally. Allowing each ‘culture’ their own space to practice as they wish, would not be inflicting on the others. We won’t be struck down. The Azande, and Etoro weren’t; why would we? We have better missile defense systems. This seems fair though, doesn’t it? Well, no. Kottak only has a Ph.D. and textbooks to his name, not sacred texts. God has sold more copies of his stuff too. He must be vastly more popular. However, as Steve once said, “Just because “everyone” does it, doesn’t make it right.”

    Thanks, Patrick.

  36. Steve says:

    Interesting comment, Patrick.
    Maybe you’ll find this information by Bruce M Knauft, interesting too.
    Just some background; Mr. Knauft studied sexual change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea. These people practiced what we would call homosexuality. They also practiced shamanism or spirit mediumship, sorcery beliefs and inquisitions, a high level of violence, ornate ritual dances and costuming.
    Now what makes this interesting to me is that on Mr. Knauft’s return visit several years later, the Gebusi had been introduced to Christianity. Check this out:

    “Gebusi whom I had known and their descendants had become willing participants in Christian churches, the Nomad sports leagues, the Nomad market, and government activities. Their children regularly attended the multiethnic Nomad Community School, where they received instruction by national teachers in the Papuan New Guinean dialect of English for 6 1/2 hours a day, 5 days a week. Eighty-four percent of adults in the new Gebusi community were baptized members in one of the three local Christian churches-Catholic, Evangelical, or Seventh Day Adventist. All of these denominations were highly fundamentalist in orientation. Amid these changes, Gebusi spirit mediumship was defunct and male spirit stances, which had previously taken place an average of once every 11 days, were no longer held.”
    “With the decline of traditional spirit mediumship and seances, there was little way Gebusi could communicate with their indigenous spirits. With startling rapidity, Gebusi cosmology had been supplanted by a Christian cosmos of good and evil, sanctity and sin, and heaven and hell (see Knauft, 2002b, chaps. 6-7; 2002c; in press). Teenagers and young Gebusi men in the community were no longer initiated. However, the Christian pastors, who came from outside the area, knew little of Gebusi traditional practices and had little if any knowledge of their indigenous spiritual beliefs or sexual customs. Despite extensive investigation, I never heard homosexuality mentioned or even alluded to in Christian descriptions of so-called heathen practices, which otherwise included singing to false gods, holding sorcery divinations, fighting, or drinking native intoxicants, all of which were subject to disparagement. MSM [male homosexuality] among Gebusi does not seem to have been on anyone’s chart of a moral crusade; changes in male sexuality seem to have occurred to a significant extent as part of larger desires to become locally modern in an out-of-the-way place.

    So when given the choice, these people, who you contend were given over to homosexuality as a societal norm, gave up the practice almost overnight (on a societal scale) and did so willingly.
    There were no protest to the changes. There was no “I was born this way” argument. There was no “it’s natural and normal” argument. They just walked away from it, because they learned a better way to live.

    I see this as not only debunking your argument, but debunking the resistance to change that we hear from homosexuals all the time.
    If these Pacific natives can walk away from homosexuality, why can’t Americans?

    See the Original Article Here.

  37. Patrick says:

    I’m not saying that homosexuality can or can’t be changed. I do state that it exists in our culture and others. These particular people of New Guinea may have given up these cultural practices as a response to colonization, but to say that they gave up some of their practices for a ‘better’ culture is ethnocentric. This is because from the time they started doing such acts, until the time they stopped, (which is because they became emersed in a DIFFERENT culture) it was the societal norm. Every society that comes in contact with a different society will lose some of its traditions, and take on new ones. Also just because person A walks away from something, it doesn’t mean person B just has to as well. Who says its wrong? The Christians, (and other religions as well), ok. Then the Christians won’t recognize it or partake in it. So all the other people in the world can go ahead and do as they wish…

    Either way the rest of my argument still stands.

  38. Steve says:

    Patrick, you said “who says its wrong?”
    This is moral relativism at it’s best…which, in my opinion, is pretty much the root of what is wrong with this country.

  39. Beth says:

    Steve,
    I’m afraid that our friend Patrick has completely missed your point….it’s unfortunate that moral relativism has taken over the hearts of so many. satan loves moral relativism, because it will help send so many to hell. I had never read the article about the Gebusi people…. very interesting.

  40. Jaysus says:

    It’s a shame Beth and Steve think that ruining an indigenous culture for the sake of their imaginary friend is a “good” thing. How many lives must religion ruin before you all see just how very much like the Pharisees you are?

  41. Steve says:

    “Ruining”?? OK…
    I guess you missed the part where it said that they accepted the new lifestyle (complete with Christianity) freely.

  42. Patrick says:

    I actually agree with Jaysus now hahaha, I guess our agreement was short lived. What a ”good” culture is is all relative. And once you change a culture you cannot really get it back. The Arabic culture is just as responsible as the Western European culture for the whole ‘manifest destiny’ mindset; and I think it’s really sad that so many languages, and practices – however bizzare they may appear to us are gone. I would use this analogy. Many people fear spiders immensly. However, what one usually forgets is that spiders fear man way more. (In the analogy man being ‘our culture’ and the spiders being ‘other cultures.’) I am not to say that every culture is ‘afraid’ of our’s, just that they may appear weird to us; as we appear weird to them. Refer to my point on ethnocentrism for further explanation. This to me is way more than an issue about a few cultures that had homosexuality, but just all cultures that have been lost/completely changed in general. Thanks, Patrick

  43. Sorry, but some cultures are superior to others. A culture that allows women to vote is superior to one that forbids them to drive. A culture that performs female genital mutilation is inferior to ones that forbid it. A culture that allows freedom of speech is superior to one that enforces censorship, and one that allows freedom of worship is to be preferred to a theocracy. I agree that in some respects it’s wrong to say one culture is superior to another (I’d have a hard time saying that American food or music is superior to Arabian; it’s just different), but in the most important ways, like I’ve outlined here, there absolutely is a hierarchy. “Western” democracies (something of a misnomer, as I would include Japan and South Korea in the list) are better than Middle Eastern and African dictatorships, period.

  44. Steve says:

    The sky is certain to fall now, because I’m going to agree with Kim.

  45. Beth says:

    Patrick…..I knew it was too good to be true! 😉

    Steve…..I dont think the sky will fall, but it is a little strange to have this much atheist/Christian agreement in one day on the Jesus Is Lord blog! hahahaha 😉

  46. Steve says:

    Maybe we aren’t as far apart as the detractors would have people believe.

  47. Patrick says:

    Well, I disagree with Kim now… hahaha. Please do not take this as me being for Female genital mutilation, or not allowing women to drive/vote etc. I just feel that every culture is in the eye of the beholder. That is the anthropological viewpoint anyways. Personally – I am 100% for women to be given exactly the same rights as men. I also wish women would not be given all the stereyotypes that they are, while men get off free. (Such as if a man sleeps with many women, he is a player… a women sleeps with many men she is a slut.) But that is my (Patrick Molohon’s) ideal culture. Others, although I may personally disagree have their own viewpoints. Because we disagree I would not say that either culture is better or worse.

  48. Starbix says:

    I agree with Kim and Steve(!?!?). Not only is the sky falling, the sun is now going supernova!

    Starbix
    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

  49. God Hand says:

    Its not my intension to engage in a long winded debate, or to prove who is right or who is wrong, but to try to reach your heart. I think you all know deep down that while you may not like or agree with homosexuality that it isn’t really hurting anyone, and that all groups within our culture no matter how big or how small should be granted the same rights and privileges that the others are privy to. They don’t have to be married in your church or be at your gatherings, they just want the same equal rights that you have as heterosexuals. It is freedom that our great nation was founded on, that all men are created equal.

  50. Greg P says:

    God Hand:

    I comment TOO much on this website and I’m trying to comment less, but, I HAD to rebut your comment above.

    It’s not about judging the homosexual person, it’s about hating the sin of homosexuality.

    You say, it’s not hurting anyone? Read Leviticus 18:22. ‘ Do not lie with a man, as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’ Also read Romans 1:26-27.

    It is offensive to God because it is a sin. Even if you are not a believer you are still bound by God’s laws. ALL creation is bound by God’s laws. You sound like a rational person and you respect all people. As a Christian, I cannot just ignore behavior that I know goes against the Word of God. It’s the BEHAVIOR that I speak out against. And it’s the PERSON that I want to lead to Christ for salvation. I speak with many homosexual people and like them as well as I like anyone else. And, I have no problem telling them that their lifestyle goes against the Word of God, because they are worth the effort.

Leave a Reply

*