Ask Paul.
World Magazine has a good article about "Born that way" in which the writer spells out "so what" - meaning we are all born with desires we have to resist - but most of us realize that we shouldn't want the law to justify the desires that are harmful to self or others or are just down right perverse.
Patricia Ireland should read the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention homosexuals, either, or abortion, for that matter.
or
What makes a good Christian when it comes to choosing a ruler or can government do the work of God?
What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts. Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of “Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit.”
Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government “aid” to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do “God’s Work.”
If a government takes a portion of a man’s wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman’s property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people’s tax money and does “God Work” with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an “Ungodly” man?
Today, the US government takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person’s paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God’s work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the “right things?”
Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outline in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.
In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the “Great Society” programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to “help families and children” or “buy votes” depending on your political viewpoint.
At the beginning of the 1960’s, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970’s there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).
Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.
Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though “poor” by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.
The “Great Society” programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world result are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.
I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the “Great Society” programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the “Works of God” that the government has done or is trying to do.
I have visited many countries in which the government “guarantees” that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave “government help” for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The “worker’s paradises” of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do “God’s Work.”
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is “Who should help those in need?” I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort.
He wouldn't.
If he were a "conservative" and if the SF Chronicle were active then, what do you suppose they'd have written???
Hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
The hard part is: The woman acknowledged Him as God, and asked forgiveness, she admitted she was a sinner, and Christ told her to "Go and sin no more". How many of our liberal tolerant friends are willing to do that?
The lengths that queers go to justify their unnatural lusts are amazing.
btt
Would Jesus even care?
This is the nub if the issue.
One of the defining attributes of a Christian is that he has the desire to do it God's way.
Marriage is instituted by God as a vehicle to show creation an aspect of His own image. This concept completely escapes those who masquerade as Christians without having been truly converted.
My opinion is that Jesus would love the homosexual as he has commanded that we should love everyone. He would not shun them or condemn them. He would ask to let he that is without sin to cast the first stone. And he would do what he did for a number of people - he would heal them. Just like he healed the lepers, the blind, the woman with the issue of blood, the lame, the sick, the palsied, and even some who had already died - he would heal the homosexual of their sad and lonely affliction. It is a tragedy that today those who are so afflicted find it so difficult, if not impossible, to find appropriate treatment for their sickness.
And very little room for divorce, since Jesus went on to say, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery". In MArk 10, Jesus doesn't even have the fornication clause.
So will the Marriage Amendment include a ban on divorce?
http://www.cccu.org/resourcecenter/resID.2043/rc_detail.asp and,
http://www.dennisprager.com/rightandwrong.html
If you understand that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are One God (the Trinity), than you know that Jesus did speak about homosexuality back in Lev. 20:13.
WWJD? "Those of you who are straight may launch the first stone...!"
Interesting that the Matthew quote was in answer to the previous verse, Matthew 19:3 - And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
Sounds a bit taken out of context to me.
Hate the sin...not the sinner.
The Old Testament was very clear regarding "unnatural affections", Jesus need not clarify:
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
In the vernacular, it's a no brainer.