OkCupid: Save the Date

On 3 April 2014 Reuters ran the story that, well, «"Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message said. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."»

So let’s all check back with the staff of OkCupid in five years, after the movement for equal rights of those wanting group marriages or marriages with siblings or with inhuman entities has gained ground and become as strident as the Gay Lobby is.  Should it be discovered that OkCupid is equally old-fashioned and hateful in their dealings with the hyper-celebrated social groups of the next zeitgeist, some of us will remember OkCupid’s hypocrisy and what they did to Mozilla back in 2014.

And now that you are done reading this blog post, go out and find yet another Web browser--besides either IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or any other popular one--to use because one thing is certain: there are one or two employees who developed those browsers yet are sexist in their use of insults and slurs; the same people are also unwittingly prejudicial and/or needlessly insulting in their thoughts and dealings with conservatives, Republicans, Southerners, country folk, gun owners, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and really practically any other social group.  (I could pull contemporary anecdotes to support what I am saying here.)  Go ahead and think about drawing up a new Constitution for the United States while you’re at it; freedom of speech per the First Amendment derives from a document written by racist slave owners anyhow.

Philosophy, Shroud of Turin, and Arizona

Having increasingly become detached from matters of primary importance due to matters of primary importance, so to speak, personally I’ve nothing new to report here.  However, for those who are looking for a quick primer or summary of philosophical matters that are pertinent to apologetics, read here: Triablogue: Parsing perspectivalism.

(Notice that in the section on externalism, knowledge is not defined as mere justified true belief: that classical account of knowledge has since been disproven by Gettier-types of counterexamples, but it serves as a basis for a JTB+ where knowledge is a justified true proposition believed via a reliable process.)

Then again, that the Shroud of Turin is increasingly looking like the real deal--Triablogue: More From Giulio Fanti On Dating The Shroud Of Turin--or that Kirsten Powers (the same one from Fox News?) is a Christian is news to me.  On a parenthetical note, I think that Christians should be very careful, both in word and in deed, regarding the Arizona bill that is currently in the news.  Bear in mind that many of us have jobs and spending habits which already and in effect support evil actions of others, whether it’s management of a chain of drug stores that sell cigarettes, or money sent to cable providers who air MTV and thus help to dumb-down an entire generation of people who already aren’t that bright to begin with, etc.

Re: The Grammys and the Myth of Marriage Equality

HT: to whom you ought to know, by now:

The Grammys and the Myth of Marriage Equality

One comment: it is amazing how the pro-“marriage equality” crowd tends to have no concept of reductio ad absurdum when it comes to this pet issue of theirs.  For we have already seen both that sexual deviants are now calling for marriage equality of their own and that if the logic behind the gay variety of “marriage equality” is merely taken to its logical conclusion--what propositions are implied or entailed by it--then these other sexual deviants really should be allowed to marry as they will: marriages of thruples, siblings, first cousins, etc.  Bear in mind that the people who scoff at the slippery slope arguments are probably some of the same people who refer to “homophobic” beliefs or ideas as “toxic,” with the idea being that one’s merely having certain beliefs or teachings will surely lead to anti-gay violence, slurs, or denial of “rights.”

Monday Two-fer

Re: AOMIN | Christians: You Must Deny the Lordship of Christ. It is the Price of Citizenship in this Secular Nation.

As a photographer (no, my best work is not posted on this website =) ), I personally would have welcomed the opportunity to be paid to shoot the “wedding” in question after first asking that these women selflessly go elsewhere to find a photographer for the sake of my conscience and sense of moral duty.  Because I can think of one hundred ways to do poorly done photography and I would have had plenty of fun in the process of putting it all together.  It’s like the fun you had as a child when you would draw mustaches and funny eyebrows over photos of people: good stuff.

---

Over at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/bible-verse-of-the-day/ this was the verse of the day:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50.20, ESV)

I wonder how many Arminians, post-Arminians, Pelagians and semi-Pelagians would deny that the events of 9/11 or the death of Trayvon Martin, for two instances, are events that God meant for good, to bring about that many people be blessed.  After all, people were saying right after those events that the events were not of God, yet what good reason would Joseph have for saying that his ordeal was meant for good if his statement here--which Christians accept as being true--is not believed to be a prophetic utterance?  In Joseph’s mind was it a given fact that all events are things which God means for good, to bring about that many people be blessed?

Is The Bible Really So "Bigoted" and "Phobic"?

The Bible does not condemn those who merely are sexually attracted to their neighbor’s spouse.  However, what one does with that attraction is what will be the death of him if he makes the evil choice.  Yet the Scriptures are never condemned as being adulterophobic.

The Bible does not condemn those singles who merely are sexually attracted to single members of the opposite sex.  However, what one does with that attraction is what will be the death of him if he makes the wrong choice.  Yet the Scriptures are never condemned as being extramaritalsexphobic.

In fact, the Bible does not condemn those who merely are uninterested in meeting the physical needs or desires of their spouse.  However, if this lack of interest persists as a product of repeated decisions borne of laziness, selfishness or foolishness, then these decisions will be his undoing.  This is one thing that the apostle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians, chapter seven; yet no one would ever think to condemn the Scriptures as being abstinencephobic.

So may the reader consider this refresher course in biblically-based sexual ethics and the way in which it is worded.  We all need to get back to basics sometimes, as does Desmond Tutu and any number of persons today who in all undue glibness throw certain labels at Christianity or the Scriptures regarding certain social issues.

************

Meanwhile, do not think that what liberal Christianity, as it were, has to say about the issues of the day are unimportant.  Liberals in general tend to think alike, coalesce, move in the same direction of thinking though they be a diverse group.  The Christian theology, again as it were, that attempts to paint a rosy picture of homosexuality is well likened to a viral infection, fifth column or Trojan horse.  First it attacks the Law and the apostles of Christ, because it must.  In the meantime, there remains the problem that recorded in the Gospel accounts is Christ’s acceptance of the authority of the Law even during his own time; accordingly, this becomes the next target as attempts are made to defeat it by glossing over it, lying about it, or writing it off as a matter of interpolation.  And the defeat of the Law, the apostles of Christ, and of the words and teachings of Christ comes at a great price: the destruction of sound practices of exegesis and hermeneutics.

Once the basics and common sense behind normal exegesis and hermeneutics are destroyed, the groundwork is laid for a groundswell of theology or teaching which fits with liberal thought patterns and emotional patterns: Sola Scriptura is effectively lost to false intuition and wishful thinking, the teaching of the everlasting punishment of the damned is lost, hell is reimagined as a condition that exists on this earth, universalism becomes a given, and the idea of divine omnipotence probably isn’t far behind.  Read this post again in fifteen years to see if and how it mirrors events of the day.

Re: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online

For anyone who missed this clever post from Joe Dallas: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online.

Citation corrections are provided over at Triablogue: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesuss-teachings-on-marriage-in-light.html.

The Wrong Side of History

(Note: I don’t necessarily endorse any the websites behind the hyperlinks that follow.  The last source at the close of this post also is not for the squeamish, but it is also a poignant reminder of exactly what it is that we are talking about here and how the Scriptures could treat homosexuality as being something less than perfect.  Caveat emptor, and all apologies if two hundred other bloggers have already made the same point that I make below.)

---

“The Wrong Side of History” is a phrase that was used repeatedly in 2012: one of those phrases that people suddenly pick up on and end up using ad nauseum.  In the broadcast and information media it was used most often in favor of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, as it were.  For example, in the month of May the phrase was in vogue after Amendment One was passed in the Tar Heel State.  It was followed by Shepard Smith’s infamous usage of the same phrase during one of Smith’s many broadcasts on Fox News Channel where the man cannot keep his opinion to himself.

So there it is: people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage (as if such a phrase were not oxymoronic) are on the wrong side of history.  Translation: Everybody else has already run and jumped off the cliff, so why don’t you conservatives get with the program already and do the same?  Alternate translation: Humanity only grows wiser and wiser with the passing of time and with every new era; so you will be proven in the future to be unwise or to be barbarians.

Okay, I’ll play Shepard Smith’s game.  I would really hate to be on the wrong side of history; I really would.  And because I do not want to be on the wrong side of history, I hereby announce that I will not do anything to esteem or dignify homosexuality; in fact, this means that I may also find myself actively opposing so-called same-sex marriage on the grounds of benevolence vis-à-vis biblical teaching about sexuality.  After all, people talk so much about history, but have they already forgotten the history of the Western world when it comes to homosexuality?  To quote Wikipedia:

It was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role.

However, we later read in the same entry:

Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.^[192] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.^[193]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.^[194] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.^[195] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:^[196] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.^[197] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.^[198]

Oh, but it’s Wikipedia.  Can’t trust anything they say, right?  To the contrary; the pendulum of history swings in both directions.

The Triumph of Sentiment Over Intellect

“Queer Christianity,” “liberal Christianity,” and heterodoxy are born of fallen humanity’s love and worship of positive sentiment.  Of course, it is impossible to feel good every day, at every moment, and all the time; nevertheless this does not stop people from pursuing extremes in order to avoid their having to acknowledge and deal with cold, harsh realities of the world in which we live.

Why are there Christians who, frankly, have gone about violating divine commandments against adultery and sexual immorality?  Because “something that feels so right can’t be so wrong”: that’s why.

How did universalism ever come into being though there was always no shortage of Scriptures which showed universalism to be questionable at best?  Because human beings, including Christians, are sympathetic creatures and some people simply are too weak-willed to deal with the reality of a world in which most people will end up condemned in the End: that’s why.

Why do some erstwhile Protestants and/or post-Protestants swim the Tiber and start singing the praises of sola ecclesia?  Almost certainly because some are too weak-willed to confront and handle the theodical reality that in a sense God is a god of risk, allowing people to deliberate truth claims (that contradict one another) with their own brains and with whatever finite amount of wisdom they may contain.

When the love of feeling good inside morphs into what is nearly or exactly idolization of positive feelings or sentiments reason is often compromised.  Evil deeds are committed with the delusional justifications “I’ll apologize later” or “I’m covered by the Blood.”  Voices of both moral and logical intuition are suppressed by ideas of falsely privileged or axiomatic status: hence the outright ignoring of many Scriptures which any reasonable person without an agenda would acknowledge of fighting heterodoxy to a draw at least.  Again, common sense goes out the window when people refuse to come to terms with the tough requirements of righteous living: they even end up making “excuses” like that of Proverbs 22:13.

The love and service of pleasure and upbeat sentiments often suppress the truth and frustrate attempts at valid reasoning.  That is why it is with extreme ease that this Rachel Held Evans person’s argument has been refuted time and time again in blogosphere of late.  In fact, I dedicate this blog post to her, because she brought all of this to mind after all.

(And finally, yes, much of political liberalism in general exists for the same reasons mentioned above.)

Oh, the Profound Wisdom of Yahoo! Answers

This recent question posted in the Travel > US > NYC section of Y!A was interesting: How do I help stop same sex marriage in New York?!?

**************

If people lack the intelligence to recognize poor attempts at trolling or satire for what they are, should we be surprised when people are duped by anything else?

If someone wants to start calling someone else a “bible thumper” when no one has even quoted or cited chapter and verse, should anyone be surprised the next time someone starts falsely attributing things to you or anyone else?

And if moral views are not to be imposed upon others--whether legally or otherwise--then do some of the respondents in question believe that White business owners have the right to refuse service to Black people? Were civil rights laws of yesteryear wrong to put an end to having Black patrons of White-owned restaurants eat outside on the street?

Finally, do those who reflexively start hollering “Judge not...” know which part of the Bible they think they’re quoting, much less know the meaning and context of that passage?

All of this is indicative of the secular climate in which Western Christianity now finds itself. That climate is also one which shows that the modern, progressive mind has as much good sense as people four thousand years ago who still lived in mud huts and worshipped graven images.

**************

As for the “gay agenda” that was mentioned in one of the answers, I’m looking forward to the days when technology catches up with sci-fi and can finally produce an android like Data from Star Trek: TNG. When Data and Tasha Yar fall head over heels for each other and decide to marry, will people not finally figure out the meaning of words such as “simulation,” “emulation,” and “analogy”?

Natural Epistemology and Gay Rights

Appeals to Intuition

Let’s talk about something virtually uncontroversial to demonstrate how and why it is that we all believe what we believe. You, the reader, believe that Blacks and Whites should be treated “equally,” right?* Okay, now why do you believe that? At this point you’ve probably silently answered that question in your head with some reason or another; okay, now why do you believe the reason that you’ve just given? ...And why do you believe this second reason? ...And why do you believe this third reason? Oh, you “just know it”? What, you “just know” that they should be treated equally? So what you’re telling me is that you ultimately don’t have proof for the proposition in question here; instead, you’re claiming that you just know it or that it’s just obvious. So if we assume that the rest of your reasoning is valid and sound, this can only mean one of two things: ultimately, either you’re just assuming that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally, or you’re intuiting that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally.

And what does it mean to intuit a proposition? It means that the proposition that you claim to know in this case is known directly and without medial causes which are evidence. I grant that intuition exists, for if one were to try to prove the Laws of Logic (i.e., the Law of Identity and the Principle of Noncontradiction) he could not do so: he would end up begging the question to do so since proofs and arguments presuppose and depend on the supposed validity or trueness of the Laws of Logic. So again, if we assume that the rest of your reasoning is valid and sound then ultimately either you’re just assuming that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally, or you’re intuiting that Blacks and Whites should be treated equally.

Meanwhile, some of the correct answers to life’s tough questions may come by incorrect means, precisely because apparently some truths are difficult to prove and are likewise difficult (where not impossible) to intuit; examples can be found in doctrines of Original Sin, corporate guilt, moral responsibility à la Frankfurt counterexamples, and the Trinity. The common man, instead of relying ultimately on a solid foundation of rigorous application of logic, likely will often just assume certain things in order to fit in with his social group with its beliefs. After all, how many of us truly know or have ever stopped to reason through the idea that Blacks, Whites, and other racial and ethnic groups should be treated “equally”? Do we really know and are we really so certain that one particular group really is not cursed, as in the case of Israel immediately following Achan’s sin in Joshua, chapter seven? Is the “brotherhood of all mankind” idea really something that can account for the morality of laws against illegal immigrants and illegal immigration where not every conceivable type of group of people has the same moral right to certain types of legal protection and privileges?

Ah, but we are so certain and we really do know that one group in particular should in virtually every meaningful sense of the term “equal” be treated as “equals” of another group, right? In other words, it really is clear that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally,” right? Intuition suggests equality, one might claim. The Bible fails to disprove the idea of equality because the book is not truthful, and even if it were truthful there really is no anti-homosexuality theology in the New Testament, one might claim. So we can all be certain that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally,” right?

It would be funny to hear any rank-and-file secular Western individual claim that he knows intuitionally that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally,” because there are many of us in this world who do not intuit this proposition. Again, there is no small number of human beings on this plant who fail to intuit that the two groups should be treated “equally,” and if both groups are groups of human beings then one group should be as capable as intuiting this supposed equality as the other group, unless perhaps one group is simply too blinded by hate (as it were) to see the light. But I dare say that I for one am one individual who is perfectly accustomed to keeping an open mind to follow the evidence where it leads, even when the path it leads is a painful and inconvenient one: I still do not intuit the supposed equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, just as many other people do not intuit this idea. Therefore, any claim that there are people who intuit that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally” can be matched with the equally plausible claim that there are people of sound mind and ability who fail to intuit the same. Therefore, none of us knows that intuition constitutes a proof that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally”: the outcome is a stalemate at best.

In the meantime, if there is no pro-equality datum and no pro-equality proposition out there that exists such that it could be intuited, then apparently people are just assuming that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally.” And it is often an irresponsible, dangerous and reckless thing to just assume things, isn’t it? What if all the world’s mechanics just assumed the proper working order of different parts to airplanes and automobiles? What if a patrol police officer, seeing that you are a Black motorist in an expensive Mercedes, just assumed you’re an auto thief and pulls you over in your own car? People who just assume that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally” have nothing to be proud of.

---------------------

Appeals to Analogy

The Gay Rights movement rides on the coat tails of the Civil Rights movement, and perhaps people believe in the supposed equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals by analogy of their analysis of racial politics. “If two people differ only in skin color and maybe a few other traits, why should one have fewer legal privileges than the other?” one will think to himself. However, the analogy is flawed because counterexamples are too easy to come by: one of those two people could be a criminal, or a five-year-old child who lacks wisdom, a trained and certified anesthesiologist, or some other individual who obviously differs from other individuals in a way that causes us to remember the general rule that not everyone deserves the same legal privileges or proscriptions as another person.

---------------------

Appeals to Ethics

Sadly, some people will just assume certain things until they encounter a perceived violation of the minimalist ethic: the rule which suggest that unless a certain act does readily apparent physical harm to someone else, that act is acceptable. Western secularism and liberal Christianity, as it were, are champions of the Gay Rights movement: as such, we should not expect their adherents on the basis of biblical doctrine to reject the idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated “equally.” Nevertheless, that does nothing to change the fact that this brand of ethics is perfectly questionable, which would explain the existence of laws against Peeping Toms and people who steal things that will not be missed.

---------------------

The Tally

Add it all up, and the Gay Rights lobby with their supporters aren’t any smarter, any wiser, any more sophisticated than the so-called homophobes over which they think they can take the intellectual or moral high ground. No, the supporters of queer politics have neither the intellectual high ground nor moral high ground. If one should take a look under the hood of the Gay Rights lobby to see what kind of engine powers it, he would find a philosophical paradigm and set of arguments and premises that are no more cogent than those of some of their opponents.

Happy Independence Day all, but remember that God’s law binds everyone.
Remember also that Canada and Sweden are not free.

_______
* Let the phrase “be treated equally” mean treated equally according to every relevant sense or meaning of the word “equal” in this case throughout this article. Men and women are said to be “equal to one another,” but this clearly is not true in absolute terms as there are undeniable psychological and physiological differences between the two; therefore, it becomes necessary to use quotation marks because no one truly believes in the absolute and unqualified equality of all groups of human beings.

Divide and Conquer

On August 17, 2010, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily wrote:

GOProud is about infiltration of the conservative movement and dividing it from within with twisted and dangerous ideas way out of the mainstream of American public opinion.

The reasons for his saying this, and the context and forum in which he said this, are here: WND drops Ann Coulter from Miami event over Homoconflict.

Apparently, Farah’s judgment was sound, because a process of division began to kick in pretty soon afterward:

August 21: Ann Coulter on WND: 'They're a bunch of fake Christians';
August 24: Why Ann Coulter indicts me.

The act or process of division was made more evident on the following day, August 25, when news outlets began to run with the story of Liz Hasselbeck’s views on Barack Obama and so-called gay marriage: Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "I Actually Support Gay Marriage" - Today's News: Our Take TVGuide.com.

Farah may be grossly lacking in wisdom and good sense on other issues, but he is also no spring chicken. He knows the proverb of 1 Corinthians 15.33 and he knows the tactics of his opponents. It is an easy thing to use Hegelian synthesis to gradually whittle away either conservative or godly beliefs held by various people and people-groups; again, the process is gradual, but the results are those of division and compromise just the same, something which Joseph Farah clearly recognizes. Bear in mind, as an example, that just twenty years ago secular society did not generally approve of homosexuality, and that three years later (as memory serves) “coming out of the closet” was already undergoing a process of semantic specialization referring only to erstwhile closet-homosexuals….

Miss USA 2009 Controversy: A Compendium

I assume that the reader has some knowledge of the controversy, which started Sunday night, so I will not bother to give the complete background right now.

---------------------------------------------

The deciding question: Pageant judge Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage; do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

The response: Miss California, Carrie Prejan: “...In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”

The aftermath: Hilton voted the front-runner Miss California to defeat, Hilton apparently later goes on to curse Miss California on his blog, controversy emerges, sides are chosen, and death threats are made.

---------------------------------------------

After thinking about the matter on Tuesday as the hoopla over the pageant continued, personally, here's how I would have answered if I were Miss California.

Hilton: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage; do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

My response: “Given that I accept neither the assumptions nor central premises of ethical minimalism, and given that I intuit that homosexual relations are of no moral equivalence with benign things such as one's being Black or one's consummating an existing marriage to the end of the fulfillment of the designs of chemistry and plumbing associated with such things, and given the controversiality of homosexual relations as reflected in relevant writings from erudite persons in the fields of Darwinism, philosophy, and the time-tested, battle-worn, ages-old traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, if I must err then let me err on the side of caution to say that no one has yet produced conclusive proof that the legal sanctioning of same-sex marriage, if such a thing can exist, is justified by either natural or moral law. Therefore, I do not think that same-sex marriage, as it were, should be allowed.”

And that seems like a fair, well-rounded response to me. ;) It answers the question; it does so in a diplomatic way; and it drags both the Mosaic Law and Islam down into the mud right along with Christianity in a way that challenges people either to gainsay a politically-correct religion such as Islam and show their inconsistency in matters of offense and PCism or to rethink whether biblical ethics is really such an absurd thing.

---------------------------------------------

The next day, Wednesday, we found the following posted at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1609756/20090422/spears_britney.jhtml:

Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Heidi Montag Tweet About Same-Sex Marriage

Cyrus, Montag mention religion in support of same-sex nuptials.

By Jocelyn Vena

Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears have taken to Twitter to support gay marriage, just days after Miss California Carrie Prejean sparked controversy during Sunday night's Miss USA competition when asked by celeb blogger Perez Hilton if morestates should legalize same-sex marriage.

Prejean stated her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman --and in the process has made an enemy of Hilton -- but has also started a conversation among many notable celebrities on Twitter.

"Love is love!" Britney Tweeted to Perez. "People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!"

Miley Cyrus Tweeted similar thoughts, telling Hilton, "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad! Like I said everyone deserves to be happy. I am a Christian and I love you -- gay or not. Because you are no different that anyone else! We are all God's children!"

Apparently her comments are right in line with those of "Hills" star Heidi Montag, who is expected to marry the show's Spencer Pratt this weekend.

"God says in the bible that we should love our neighbor and he created us all as equals. I know in my heart that gays and lesbians should have the same government rights that Spencer and I will when we get married. So, yes, this blonde Christian believes in gay marriage and I hope to one day go to your wedding, Perez!!!"

Heidi's and Miley's Tweets have apparently led to a Twittermance. On Tuesday, Montag told Miley, "Let's [meet] up!!!! we should have a bible study!! I love Miley!!!! Jesus loves Miley!"

This is a remarkable article if all the quotations therein are accurate and true to the spirit of the contexts from which they were lifted. It's remarkable because it jibes with a pattern in recent polling and observations which together suggest that the word "Christian" is becoming either meaningless or uninformative. (For example, see http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/260-most-american-christians-do-not-believe-that-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exists.) Yet I leave this matter for another day or another discussion.

On the other hand, it might be fun or informative to interact with some of the opinions offered by the celebrities mentioned above.

1) If I could sit down over lunch and have a word with Britney Spears about the matter I would like to say this: One obvious question that arises from your Twitter comments to Hilton is What if a man and his daughter love each other in an unspeakable way? Should such a would-be marriage be sanctioned by the state? Could it be that there are limits to the idea that people in love should be able to do whatever makes them happy? Come to think of it, is the existence of same-sex marriage, as it were, even logically/analytically possible to start with?

2) Meanwhile, if I could sit down over lunch and have a word with Miley Cyrus, first I'd congratulate her on the being the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus, then I'd try to find a polite way of asking when she's going to get a real job (since, you know, child stars have a way of falling apart once they age). But then I'd ask her: Where does the Bible say that Jesus loves either you or unrepentant, lifestyle-homosexuals? Okay, even if you can cite chapter and verse and show that Jesus loves you, where again does it say in the Bible that Jesus loves those who shake their fist at God? Come to think of it, suppose there's a person out there who loves to pass out poisoned candy at Halloween to kill children; even if Jesus loves him, should the state allow such a person to go on poisoning children? Why not? Wouldn't it make this child-killer happy?

3) @Heidi Montag: a) Even if God says that we should love our neighbors, does this mean that paedophilia and incest should be sanctioned by the state, even if this were to involve people who really like each other?

b) Even if God says that all of us were created "as equals," does this again mean that pedophilia and incest should be sanctioned by the state, even if this were to involve people who really like each other?

c) I know in my heart that gays and lesbians already have the same government rights that you and Spencer have. You and Spencer can marry whomever you like, though only up to a point. Both of you are allowed to marry the person he or she loves, but this would not be the case if either of you wanted to marry his brother or sister. This would also not be the case with any gay or lesbian who would want to marry his brother or sister. So at the end of the day both heterosexuals and homosexuals are neither necessarily nor absolutely allowed to marry whomever they might want to marry. That means we're all on legally equal grounds, all of us constrained by strict, old-fashioned, narrow paramters of the law. So rest well tonight, Heidi; rest well, knowing that from the majestic forests of Maine to the burning embers of the once-Golden State both gays and straights are already practically equal in the eyes of the law.

---------------------------------------------

And since that time on Sunday night we've all heard of death threats to one of the Miss USA judges (Alicia Jacobs, former Miss Nevada USA) and we've all read the back-and-forth discussions on whether Miss California actually answered the questions she was given, or whether Miss California was set up to receive one particular question, or whether Miss California's answer was inoffensive enough even for a non-affirmatory answer concerning same-sex marriage. (Hmm, difficult to see how such an answer could fail to offend someone though.)

Miss California is on record as having stated that she anticipated receiving a question pertaining to same-sex marriage before the pageant began Sunday night. For the record, judging from transcripts Miss California also really didn't answer the entire set of questions posed to her. Sure, she doesn't think that same-sex marraige (as it were) should be sanctioned by the state, but she never really says why she believes this, unless the way she was raised is a stated reason. Of course, if her upbringing was in fact given as a reason, so be it. However, if her objections to the sanctioning of same-sex marriages ultimately are based on a biblical belief that such things are bad, then one would hope that in the future her answer to a Perez-like question will sound a lot more like something the apostle Paul, or Greg Koukl, or Derrick Bright might say. Biblical ethics deserves a good defense, for this set of ethics is correct.

---------------------------------------------

Next post: Other subjects, and also any needed clarification of what I wrote in my joke response to Hilton's question above. After all, I've already had at least one person so far label it as a bunch of meaningless babble and as a convoluted answer. :D