The Myth of Tolerance; or A Nation of Children

When was the last time you heard anyone on TV hollering about “tolerance”?  You do not hear many calls for “tolerance” for this sort of person or that sort of person anymore, do you?  To the contrary, the 1990s and early 2000s are over and there is a new political narrative in this country to talk about.  Let’s go over some events of the past twelve months:

1) December 2013: Duck Dynasty Controversy (with commentary)

2) April 2014: Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire | Reuters

Someone from the SFist blog reported on the matter at http://sfist.com/2014/04/03/mozillas_anti-gay_ceo_brendan_eich.php partly as follows:

Brendan Eich, Mozilla's anti-gay CEO, made the right decision to step down today. He will resign as CEO of the for-profit Mozilla Corporation as well as a board member of the nonprofit Mozilla foundation.

A comment on this last piece: undoubtedly its author, Brock Keeling, has the well-being of Mozilla in mind when he speaks of the “right decision.”  OkCupid’s opposition to Mozilla’s erswhile CEO obviously would have led to job layoffs at Mozilla and in turn led to a condition of hundreds of miserable, starving children of unemployed former employees of Mozilla if Brendan Eich had not stepped down.

3) April 2014: Magic Johnson on Donald Sterling: "He Shouldn't Have a Team Anymore" | Mother Jones:

“There’s no place in our society for it, and there’s no place in our league. We all get along. We all play with different races of people when you're in sports. That's what makes sports so beautiful. He’s put his own team in a tough situation. So I believe that once Commissioner Silver...does all his due diligence, gets all the information gathered, he’s got to come down hard. He shouldn’t own a team anymore. And he should stand up and say, ‘I don’t want to own a team anymore.’ Especially when you have African Americans renting his apartments, coming to the games, playing for him, coaching for him. This is bad for everybody. This is bad for America.

(...)

He's got to give up the team. If he doesn't like African Americans and you're in a league that is over 75% African Americans...When you've got the president of the United States saying that this is bad. You've got fans around the country—different races of people—saying it's bad, it is time for him to exit.”

“No place in our society”?  Even if your White next-door neighbor and his wife have regular, private discussions among themselves about how they think your new Black neighbors down the street have brought down property values in your neighborhood, how is that per se affecting (to say nothing of harming) Magic Johnson or any other Black person?  Meanwhile, Sterling is right about one thing in life: government has no legal right (except in extraordinary circumstances) to force anyone to sell his or her property.  Contrary to Magic Johnson’s assessment of the matter, Sterling does not have to give up anything, unless “got to give up the team” means I want Donald Sterling to give up the team.

4) May 2014: More recently the news broke concerning HGTV’s decision to render the Benham Brothers relatively jobless: CP | Believers Rally After HGTV Cancels Reality Show Starring Christian Twin Brothers Who Oppose Abortion, Homosexuality, Divorce.  This continuation of a trend, as it turns out, was only the first chapter of a larger story: SunTrust Banks recently broke financial ties with the Benham brothers, before quickly reversing their decision in a manner much like that of the Duck Dynasty incident:  CP | SunTrust Banks Reverses Decision to Drop Benham Brothers Following Strong Backlash From Conservative Customers.

5) May 2014: This last one dawned on me after Thursday, May 15 when for various reasons I had to sit and endure the audio of the Katie Couric Show.  “The Week That Was” was a guest-panel segment that ran on Thursday instead of Friday this time around, and one of the life lessons to be learned of the segment is that “sensitivity training” for Don Jones is a good thing: Michael Sam Kiss Cam & Donald Sterling Controversy – Katie Couric.  The background story is here: Miami Dolphins Fine, Suspend Safety Don Jones for Tweet Against Same-Sex Kiss | Christian News Network.

Never forget that training and education are two different things.  Training is what you do to your muscles and muscle groups.  Training is what you do to ensure that your brain recalls certain actions in a proper sequence.  Training is what you do to force certain results of different systems of the human body.  Education, on the other hand, is what you offer to intelligent beings such that they should make an informed decision on what course of action to take, whether right or wrong.  So if anyone thinks that “brainwashing” is a bad thing, then he should know that sensitivity training is no different and know that there are people in the Western World who approve of brainwashing.

---

Even before all this there was the whole matter of the Chick-Fil-A boycott of 2012, not to mention the continued trend of pseudo-obligatory apologies in national American politics.  What all of this suggests is the sum of two possibilities.  On the one hand, it could be that all the people who rhetorically and by propaganda used to beat people over the head to make them “tolerant” of Arabs, or non-Whites, or homosexuals as such were never interested in global tolerance but only particular tolerance--you know, the kind of Tolerance® that they want people to have or, in other words, tolerance for me but not for thee.  On the other hand, it could be that many of today’s liberals are simply hypocrites or children who forget that tolerance in general means exactly that: that people who believe in general tolerance are not exempt from the requirement to put up with people, deeds and beliefs that they do not like.

And let no one attempt to redefine what these people earlier meant in the use of the word “tolerance.”  For it is clear that in yesteryear “tolerance” meant more than simply restraining an urge to beat gay passers-by with baseball bat, but rather precluded various actions such as demands that certain people be punished with a lack of employment.  Despite whatever the word “tolerance” once meant from the mouths of liberals and the Gay Lobby, what it is now is something that should be considered in the light of both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm.  Orwell’s cautionary tales were not written for people who live on a planet other than Earth and they were not written precisely for people who already exist within a societies like communist Cuba or the Soviet Union; they were written because of the innate ability within each of us to morph into that which we used to hate and abhor.

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.”

The Duck Dynasty Suspension, and the Trojan Horse

I agree with the philosophy that it is not always best to completely shy away from that which is ugly, because it behooves one to know what his opponents are thinking and doing.  So I will post a URL for the sfist blog post on Phil Robertson’s being suspended from Duck Dynasty: 'Duck Dynasty' Kingpin Says Homosexuality Is Like Bestiality [Update] (http://sfist.com/2013/12/18/duck_dynasty_kingpin_says_homosexua.php)

This comes from a secular San Francisco blog, and for those who do not mind the profane language, etc. you want to read the post and especially the comments that follow.  Read along and see if any of the liberal criticisms or allegations aimed at those without a seared conscience are actually valid; read and see if you begin to get the sense that some of the rank and file of the opponents of the Creator, regarding this issue, actually are not very well-armed.

Actually, what the heck?  Allow me to go ahead and personally just quote the post in toto and break in with comments along the way:

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

<< Phil Robertson, the daddy duck to the camo-clad Robertson clan featured on A&E's reality blockbuster Duck Dynasty, is quacking up a storm [apparently a semi-clever, derisive choice of words I didn’t catch at first--K] in the latest issue of GQ. In a profile by the magazine's Drew Margary, the 67-year-old Robertson let fly a whole flock of homophobic comments about homosexuals, and what he feels is their sinful lifestyle.

Robertson, who hails from the northwest corner of Louisiana "where Cajun redneck culture and Ozark redneck culture intersect," regularly captivates 14 million viewers on his family's reality show on A&E. But unlike the majority of Americans, he's not down with LGBT. [*Hint, hint.*  By analogy, if the majority of Germans during the time of the Third Reich were down with the NSDAP (aka the Nazi Party), the sheer fact of majority status would be a good reason for the minority to adopt the NSDAP philosophy.  The majority status consequently would also be a good reason for the minority to support the Nazis’ inclusion of homosexuals as targets of the wider Holocaust, in keeping with the said philosophy.  This sort of thing should be obvious, yet this is the lame sort of reasoning that facets of the Gay Lobby are peddling nowadays.  (Compare our previous look at the “wrong side of history” meme.)--K]  As he told GQ:

    "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical."

Then, when asked what, in his mind, was considered sinful, Robertson elaborated:

    "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Robertson, who once had to flee the state of Arkansas because he assaulted a bar owner and his wife, says he never bothered repenting for his own sin, saying, "I didn’t dredge anything back up. I just put it behind me.” His son and reality TV co-star Jep even suggested the family tends to fall in line behind their father. GQ quoted Jep saying, "We’re not quite as outspoken as my dad, but I’m definitely in line. If somebody asks, I tell ’em what the Bible says.”

With the backlash already brewing, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation condemned the reality TV stars [sic] toxic philosophy. [Toxic only inasmuch as proclamations of truths about the Creator’s design of the human body have a way of stirring up people’s intuitive knowledge in a way that hampers the goals of the Gay Agenda,and toxic inasmuch as it causes us to face the harsh theodic realities of the fallen, post-Edenic world in which we live.  I’ll leave it at that, for now.--K] In a statement, GLAAD wrote that the statement is "far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people." [What is GLAAD suggesting here: that Phil Robertson said that all homosexuals engage in bestiality and promiscuity?  Surely GLAAD must know that Robertson merely was either: a) answering the question posed to him of what was considered sinful; or b) likening a man’s lying with another man to other acts which pervert the use or design of the human body; or c) asserting that a moral compromise on the issue of homosexuality would lead to other compromises of sexual ethics whether in the case of many people or a few people; or d) some combination of (a-c).--K] Even in Louisiana, which passed a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, a majority of the population believes there should be some kind of recognition. [Again, by analogy if the majority of Germans during the time of the Third Reich gave special (even privileged) recognition to the Nazi Party, the sheer fact of majority status would would be a good reason for the minority to adopt the philosophy of the NSDAP.  Of course, this philosophy called in part for the Nazis’ inclusion of homosexuals as targets of the wider Holocaust, but apparently some people who want to help gay people as such do not mind offering arguments which are logically counterproductive.--K] GLAAD goes on:

    "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans - and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." [Get real, Cruz.  Again, is GLAAD suggesting that Phil Robertson said that all homosexuals engage in bestiality and promiscuity?  Surely GLAAD must know that Robertson merely was either: a) answering the question posed to him of what was considered sinful; or b) likening a man’s lying with another man to other acts which pervert the use or design of the human body; or c) asserting that a moral compromise on the issue of homosexuality would lead to other compromises of sexual ethics whether in the case of many people or a few people; or d) some combination of (a-c).

And speaking of matters of deceit, Mr. Cruz, why can’t it be that there are “true Christians” out there who hold beliefs which simply happen to be false when it comes to what LGBT folks do and think?  For example, there are Christians who think that Arminianism is true, or that Calvinism is true: not both sides on this issue can be correct, but you don’t want to say that one side’s false beliefs on the matter means that they are not “true Christians,” which surely you must know.--K]

A&E, for their part, fired off another statement from Robertson on Wednesday, which did little in the way of making an apology. Robertson writes: "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

Update: Robertson has been placed on indefinite hiatus by the network.  [And if he backpedals on what he said I will lose respect for him.  There are people on MSNBC or any number of other TV channels who say that which is complete BS, in my view, just as it is also my view that their liberal rubbish creates an equally toxic environment for all the people that they claim to be helping or fighting for with their false statements.  I do not, however, think that their employers should necessarily pull the plug on them.  Is American society already forgetting why we allow and encourage people to express their varied and diverse set of viewpoints in this country?  Or is A&E simply attempting to figuratively cover their backside for financial reasons?--K] >>

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

Incidentally, I am one of those people who have never watched the show and are probably proud of this fact.   My final words are reserved for the commenter J_Temperance: save scholarship for the scholars, or at least begin to offer a good reason to ignore 2 Peter 3.14-16.

Actually, per this last statement allow me to say one last thing, though I do not claim that this is an original thought.  We all know that there are people in this world who will not sit still until every last vestige of opposition to the Gay Agenda is stamped out, whether through political pressure or force of law.  These people go as far as to peddle “liberal Christian theology” on TV shows (e.g. Glee) which otherwise would not give a rip about what is said in the Book of Leviticus or in Pauline Epistles but somehow find a way to mention them in the course of “standing up” for a gay character of the show or gays and lesbians in general.  So these people are willing to meddle in the affairs of dragons or to venture into places where they neither fit nor belong in order to stamp out opposition to their agenda.  In other words, pagans and unbelievers are willing to engage in biblical textual criticism even though Christians themselves, who generally are far better acquainted with biblical texts and their background, sometimes err with regard to biblical texts.

Some of these people are willing to destroy Paul’s “credentials” as an apostle of Christ in order to make their own lives easier.  In the process they destroy the reliability of all Pauline texts of the New Testament.  Not content to stop there, they obfuscate and destroy the words of other prophets or spokesmen sent by God, including Jesus of Nazareth.  Now think about what the results of their actions will be.

But do not think that the results will be entirely theological.  Remember that man’s fallen nature prompts him to pick on and target people on account of their being different; for example, this is why there are various jokes and slurs related to one’s hair color, weight, sex, ethnicity, race and place of residence.  Once you have managed to make various conservative groups disappear into the shadows or to cease to exist entirely, some other group must be scapegoated or targeted for godless, rebellious, bored liberals and moderates to rally, rage and fight against in a way that currently substitutes for various unbelievers’ lack of spiritual and religious life.  One hundred years from now when the droughts come, and the crops fail, and yet another financial bubble bursts, who will the lynch mobs, agitators, thugs and “anarchists” come after?  Will it be the witches this time?  Will it be the Jews?  The Mexicans?  Southerners?  Poor White trash?  The rich?  In the Western World, which will never completely shake its Judeo-Christian past and where in Russia (for example) there is a growing backlash against the Gay Agenda for reasons which almost certainly are irreligious on some levels, gays and lesbians (and other folks) should not feel especially safe.  Christianity will have largely been rendered obsolete by secular moralism and through theological liberalism: it won’t be around in sufficient strength to temper the agitators or to be a target of the people’s anger in the stead of those who are markedly different than the majority of folks.

Those who proffer “liberal Christian theology” to silence the voice of conscience in their own heads: if they are half as wise as they should be then they will cease and desist this nonsense immediately and allow the Bible to be the perfectly “homophobic” book that it is.  Leave well-enough alone and don’t be greedy, especially if half of all Americans already think as you do, as you claim.

Friday Links

The weekend is here, which means you might just have time to catch up some stories or events that you might have missed.  So in the meantime:

-Hays’ interaction with cessationists continues further and further over at Triablogue.

-Open theism apparently ends up where logically it should end up: in liberalism and unbelief.

-And to anyone who heard only the initial half of the story about the NJ waitress who reportedly was denied a tip by mean, cheapskate customers who many people presumed to be Christians: you might need to read the following: http://www.lohud.com/article/20131126/NEWS/311260034/Waitress-tip-tale-former-Stony-Point-resident-lies-about-everything-ex-coworkers-friends-say?nclick_check=1 Note also, as a supplemental datum, that WNBC in New York reported yesterday that Morales was dishonorably discharged from the Marines.

-I for one do not care about the Driscoll matter at present.  Why should anyone care about (possible) plagiarism, literary style, context, or minutiae on a rapidly sinking ship anyhow?

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.

Another reason that we lose

Originally I was wanting to post something entirely different yet related to the Southern Baptist Convention just the same.  Chores and fatigue have prevented this for a long time now, but I will make an effort to say the following, however: Christians and social conservatives are not that bright.

We’re not that bright: first in terms of intellect, but now also in terms of positive cultural influence à la Matthew 5.13-16.  The Southern Baptist Convention in 1997 showed that it had heart when it began to fight the Disney empire and just as other Christians began to come up with every conceivable lame “excuse” for supporting the SBC’s boycott of things Disney.  This time around, on the other hand, the same organization which once was capable of noble action against social evils has shown that whatever wisdom it once had may have gone out the door in the natural flow of organizations’ shedding and gaining parts as members join, step down, die, become senile, etc.

From Southern Baptists condemn Boy Scouts over admission of gays | Fox News (06/12/2013):

HOUSTON –  The nation's largest Protestant denomination stopped short of calling for its member churches to boycott the Boy Scouts, but voiced strong opposition to acceptance of gay scouts - with a top church leader predicting at the annual gathering of Southern Baptists that a "mass exodus" of youths from the program that has been a rite of passage for more than a century.

The move by the Southern Baptist Convention came at its annual, four-day meeting in Houston, and three weeks after the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow gay youth to join.  With more than two-thirds of Boy Scout troops sponsored by religious organizations, and Baptists being the nation's largest protestant denomination, the resolution could have a crippling effect on the Boy Scouts.

"There will be a mass exodus over time," said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. “Churches are finally going to have to come to realize – there is a point when you say, ‘sorry, no more.’"

Let us juxtapose this with the following snippet from Baptist Press - Page, Land send letters opposing Scout proposal - News with a Christian Perspective posted on 05/17/2013:

"For over a century," Page wrote, "Scouting has helped our youth develop character and leadership skills forever impacting their lives. I am distressed by the recent proposed resolution which would introduce the subject of sex and sexual orientation into the program of the Boy Scouts. For one hundred and three years Scouting has been a safe haven from such topics rightfully reserved for parents. Such an introduction is inconsistent with the principles found in Scouting's sacred Oath and Law."

For starters, if you decimate the Boy Scouts by keeping your children out of it, you have now taken away the said means of developing character and leadership skills in the youth.

Secondly, a person who is openly gay need only be someone who is being honest about what feelings or attractions he has; it is hardly as if everyone who is a homosexual is someone who wears his “identity” on his sleeve or goes about broadcasting his sexual orientation to everyone around him.  Someone who is merely being honest their particular mental disorder--and yes, I will call it that--is not someone who categorically should be denied the opportunity to have character and leadership skills instilled within him.

Thirdly, the “safe haven” objection seems perfectly naive in considering what amount of the U.S. population is homosexual, how many members of that subpopulation would be interested in joining the Boy Scouts, and how many youngers already know that homosexuality exists.  Homosexuality is mentioned time and again in your copy of the Bible, you know.

Fourthly, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Attempts at Christian isolation from the culture tend to create cultural ghettoes, something well-exemplified by CCM, where the only reason untalented people are getting record contracts is to fill a void in a niche market, or Christian cinema where half the movies of that genre would probably end up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 if that show were still on the air.  Sorry, but Christians do not in every instance have all the talent, money and resources necessary to put together a grade A organization or product; attempt a Boy Scouts of America alternative if you must, but please do not bother if only a few people will invest in such a project.

But again, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Do the Scriptures not have something to say about believers’ being “salt and light”?  And do the Scriptures not have something to say about winning people with actions as opposed to mere words?  If there are kids in the BSA who are believers and if there are kids there who are not, then by isolating the believers from the unbelievers an opportunity is missed to show unregenerate people exactly how gracious and selfless a person should be toward his fellow man and how this behavior is borne of an understanding of the teachings of Christ.

Finally, some problems will naturally blow over or fade away if no further fuel is added to the fire.  The sort of attention that some social conservatives don’t want homosexuality and homosexuals to receive is something what would not exist if people would not create news stories by doing exactly the sort of thing for which the Southern Baptist Convention is currently in the news.  In fact, any further legal gains that the Gay Lobby makes could conceivably, over the course of time, come to be as forgotten and ignored as laws of various states which in our own day still outlawed sodomy or adultery.  And despite how debased Western culture has become in its ethically minimalist attitude toward homosexuality, guess what: there are still hate crimes (which I do not condone in any way) being committed against homosexuals, including the recent Madison Square Garden attacks in liberal, home-of-the-Stonewall-Inn New York City.  The point is that people such as members of the SBC need to stop the knee-jerk reactions to cultural occurrences around them and instead calm their nerves so they can think clearly.

Then again, if the reader thinks it is I who am in error here, then my first point is still proven; the fact that people can be disagreeing over the issues means that something has gone wrong somewhere down the line.

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

Addendum: It is amazing what a little bit of further reading and research can reveal; lo, there may still be hope for Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-boyscouts-baptists-idUSBRE95B0NO20130612.  The reaction of the Mormon hierarchy on this issue, meanwhile, is interesting.

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.)

In the news: Mars Hill Church vandalized

Via RNS: http://www.religionnews.com/culture/gender-and-sexuality/angry-queers-damage-mark-driscolls-church-in-portland

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….

FOXNews.com - Bisexual men claim discrimination in Gay World Series

The bisexual men were not allowed to play because, according to them, they were not gay enough.

FOXNews.com - Bisexual men claim discrimination in Gay World Series

Posted using ShareThis

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