Yes on Prop 8
I’ll first start of with the religious/Christian reason. This is generic but true - the criterion whether to vote Yes or No on prop 8 should ultimately be “What Would Jesus Do?” To answer this question, there are first a series of other questions we must first answer.
Did Jesus get himself into politics? Politics as defined by dictionary.com is the science or art of political government. Using this definition, we can rephrase the question to “did Jesus get himself into government affairs?” During Jesus’ time, the Romans gave the Jews the right to govern themselves, thus the creation of the Jewish counsel, which essentially became their form of government. The Bible describes that Jesus confronted this Jewish government many times (ex: broke the law when He stopped the Pharisees from stoning the adulteress). He challenged the Pharisees so much that they eventually killed Him on the cross. Other biblical figures were also very involved in government, including Joseph (he governed Egypt), Esther (broke the law when she directly spoke to the King), and Daniel (broke the law when he continued to pray to God). So from these examples there is clear indication that Christians should get into political affairs.
Now, the second question we must ask ourselves is whether homosexuality is a sin? The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. Accepting this fact, would Jesus ever promote or condone sin? No. Would he ever promote or condone a sinful law? No, Jesus would not. As followers of Christ, we should also follow in His footsteps and never promote or condone sin or sinful laws.
So “What Would Jesus Do?” Jesus was involved in politics and never promoted or condoned sin (ex: homosexuality). Prop 8 is something that will create a precedent that will affect our political and societal structure for decades, maybe even generations; it is also a prop that directly promotes the acceptance of the sin of homosexuality into our society. I firmly believe with all my heart that Jesus would vote Yes on Prop 8. If Jesus was willing to break the law and die on the cross to stop sin, why are so-called Christians scared to promote God’s laws the LEGAL and SAFE way. Do we fear God or do we fear man?
Please note that Pastor Rick Warren, one of the world’s more famous and influential pastors, recently announced his support to vote yes on 8. This man has the counsel of the world’s top biblical scholars, and must have used this resource before he concluded that all Bible-believing Christians (which should be all Christians) should vote yes on 8. I highly doubt so-called Christians who are voting no on 8 found scripture in the Bible to justify their vote that Pastor Rick Warren’s team did not find.
Rebuttals to popular No on 8 arguments:
So-called Christians are bringing up the argument that Jesus preached a message of love, and using this to justify a no vote. Unfortunately, these individuals and organization are cookie-cutting the Bible to fit their own reasoning and are clearly misinterpreting scripture. God said the GREATEST command is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and the SECOND is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” It is biblical to love God more than people. As I stated earlier, God would never promote or condone sin and if we loved God we should never promote or condone sin as well. Also, we would never want ourselves to fall into sin, thus, if we truly loved others as ourselves, we would never want to lead our brothers and sisters into sin, which includes homosexuality.
Another argument I have heard is that Christians should obey the authority placed under us, which in this case is the US government. This is true as long as it doesn’t directly contradict the Word. Case in point, Jesus had no problem paying taxes to Caesar because paying taxes to Rome did not contradict the Word. In the same way, we should obey the laws of the US as long as it doesn’t contradict the Word. Ironically, voting against gay marriage is not disobeying the authority of the US government but actually promoting it because in this democratic country of ours, it is the upmost important that all individuals have a voice to express their opinions, which we are doing. It is our right to vote based on our opinions and religions - do not let ourselves be bullied by individuals and groups that are trying to equate voting yes to hate and bigotry.
Now I will go into my non-religious reasons. First, we have to establish a common criterion to debate around because unlike a religious reason, these individuals or groups do not believe in God and the Bible. So the only common criterion that is appropriate is “what is marriage?” Using the CA Constitution’s definition of marriage is inappropriate as this point because this is what prop 8 is trying to decide. The best way to find the meaning of marriage at this point is based on the historical definition. If individuals cannot agree to this point, it is going to be really hard to argue with non-religious people about the issue because in the end, it will be just one set of personal beliefs vs. another. While modern society likes us to believe that marriage is all about two individuals expressing their undying love for one another, the historical definition is far from it. Since the dawn of human civilization, marriage has been a contractual institution created by society for one purpose, and one purpose only: to start and raise a family (i.e. to have kids). Proof that this is the historical definition in many (maybe even all) cultures is the fact that wives who could not bear children were frowned upon, and another wife was brought in her place to bear children. Inherent in this definition of marriage, gay couples must be excluded because they cannot start and raise a family. Gay relationship should not be called marriage, but something else, which society has already done. This new name is “domestic partnership.” An article that elaborates my point is http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story
Since the start of this campaign, the opposition has placed the burden of proof to ban gay marriage on the supporters of 8; however, with the reasoning stated above, it is the opposition that should have the burden of proof to justify why society needs to change the historical and traditional definition of marriage at this particular time in history.
Also, it is good to point out that we are not the first society in history to condone homosexuality. Ancient Greece was arguably more liberal than we are today - gay relationships, including older men and little boys, were rampant. However, even the Greeks did not call these gay relationships a “marriage” because they knew that marriage was meant to start a family - something that a gay relationship could never fulfill.
My second argument is: ‘No on 8’ claims that it is all about gay rights, but I argue that it has nothing to do with it, but everything to do with gay recognition. In the end, the rights that will be violated are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion of those that oppose gay marriage.
Under CA domestic partnerships, gay couples have all the same legal rights as married couples, including tax benefits. If you don’t believe me, go to the opposition’s own website, noonprop8.com, and tell me one specific legal right that passing this prop will affect. The opposition claims that domestic partnership and marriage are not the same, and elaborate this point with ambiguous language. However, the big paragraphs are hiding the main point - passing prop 8 will have no effect on the legal rights of gay couples not already given to them in domestic partnerships. The only right in question here is not the legal rights, but the Constitutional right to marry. The definition of marriage should be defined by the historical context, which I explained earlier would exclude gay couples from marrying.
If this prop fails to pass, the gay agenda is to force society to recognize their relationship as the same as marriage and hence a fundamental right. The government will set a precedent that it is normal for human beings to be gay. Now if any individual or religion speaks out against homosexuality and/or gay marriage it will be considered attacking a normal variation of life and a gay’s fundamental right. This will be called ‘hate speech’ and all religions and individuals who oppose homosexuality will have their freedom of speech and religion limited to speak out against this lifestyle. Churches that do speak out against this lifestyle will most-likely lose their tax-exempt status.
Now as a fundamental right, this will be taught in schools. Children will be indoctrinated that homosexuality is okay, normal, and accepted. You might have seen ads lately by Superintendent Jack O’ Connell stating that prop 8 has nothing to do with schools - actually it has everything to do with schools! In his ad, he only tells the public the half-truth. There are two arguments to refute his claims.
First refutation: Name the largest contributor ($1.3 million) to the ‘No on 8’ campaign? If you didn’t know, it is the California Teacher Association, the state’s largest teacher union. We all know our public school system is broke, yet why did they donate all that money if this has nothing to do with education as Mr. O’Connell states in his commercials. Another example to illustrate this point is the Sierra Club, an environment agency that has not donated any money to the yes or no campaigns because they know this issue has nothing to do with the environment. Like Massachusetts - the only other state to legalize gay marriage - children will be taught the homosexual agenda in our schools. Don’t believe me? Just google it for yourself.
Second refutation: Mr. O’Connell is right when he says that CA does not require students to learn about gay marriages. However, he also conveniently leaves out the truth that 96% of CA schools already do teach about marriage and will soon end up teaching about gay marriage as well. Let me explain: CA is not required to teach about sexual education; however if a school chooses to teach about sexual education, they are required to teach about marriage. The fact of the matter is that 96% of schools have already chosen to teach about sexual education, thus they are also required by state law to teach about marriage. If the prop fails to pass, the definition of marriage will now also encompass gay marriages, thus meaning that 96% of schools with teach about gay marriage. An article that elaborates my point is http://protectmarriage.com/article/yes-on-8-campaign-slams-new-no-ad-with-jack-oconnell
Opponents of 8 also like to bring up that this is the same as the racially-driven civil rights movement a few decades ago. This argument is also fallacious because unlike homosexuality, there is no question whatsoever that we are born a certain race. For example, if two genetically identical twins are born, there is an absolute 100% guarantee that the twins will be of the same race. However, actual scientific studies have shown that if even in genetically identical twins, if one is homosexual, there is only a 50% chance that the other twin is homosexual. This leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is based as much on upbringing and choice as it is on genes.
.
Feel free to speak your thoughts. But seriously, vote Yes on 8 tomorrow.
Did Jesus get himself into politics? Politics as defined by dictionary.com is the science or art of political government. Using this definition, we can rephrase the question to “did Jesus get himself into government affairs?” During Jesus’ time, the Romans gave the Jews the right to govern themselves, thus the creation of the Jewish counsel, which essentially became their form of government. The Bible describes that Jesus confronted this Jewish government many times (ex: broke the law when He stopped the Pharisees from stoning the adulteress). He challenged the Pharisees so much that they eventually killed Him on the cross. Other biblical figures were also very involved in government, including Joseph (he governed Egypt), Esther (broke the law when she directly spoke to the King), and Daniel (broke the law when he continued to pray to God). So from these examples there is clear indication that Christians should get into political affairs.
Now, the second question we must ask ourselves is whether homosexuality is a sin? The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. Accepting this fact, would Jesus ever promote or condone sin? No. Would he ever promote or condone a sinful law? No, Jesus would not. As followers of Christ, we should also follow in His footsteps and never promote or condone sin or sinful laws.
So “What Would Jesus Do?” Jesus was involved in politics and never promoted or condoned sin (ex: homosexuality). Prop 8 is something that will create a precedent that will affect our political and societal structure for decades, maybe even generations; it is also a prop that directly promotes the acceptance of the sin of homosexuality into our society. I firmly believe with all my heart that Jesus would vote Yes on Prop 8. If Jesus was willing to break the law and die on the cross to stop sin, why are so-called Christians scared to promote God’s laws the LEGAL and SAFE way. Do we fear God or do we fear man?
Please note that Pastor Rick Warren, one of the world’s more famous and influential pastors, recently announced his support to vote yes on 8. This man has the counsel of the world’s top biblical scholars, and must have used this resource before he concluded that all Bible-believing Christians (which should be all Christians) should vote yes on 8. I highly doubt so-called Christians who are voting no on 8 found scripture in the Bible to justify their vote that Pastor Rick Warren’s team did not find.
Rebuttals to popular No on 8 arguments:
So-called Christians are bringing up the argument that Jesus preached a message of love, and using this to justify a no vote. Unfortunately, these individuals and organization are cookie-cutting the Bible to fit their own reasoning and are clearly misinterpreting scripture. God said the GREATEST command is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and the SECOND is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” It is biblical to love God more than people. As I stated earlier, God would never promote or condone sin and if we loved God we should never promote or condone sin as well. Also, we would never want ourselves to fall into sin, thus, if we truly loved others as ourselves, we would never want to lead our brothers and sisters into sin, which includes homosexuality.
Another argument I have heard is that Christians should obey the authority placed under us, which in this case is the US government. This is true as long as it doesn’t directly contradict the Word. Case in point, Jesus had no problem paying taxes to Caesar because paying taxes to Rome did not contradict the Word. In the same way, we should obey the laws of the US as long as it doesn’t contradict the Word. Ironically, voting against gay marriage is not disobeying the authority of the US government but actually promoting it because in this democratic country of ours, it is the upmost important that all individuals have a voice to express their opinions, which we are doing. It is our right to vote based on our opinions and religions - do not let ourselves be bullied by individuals and groups that are trying to equate voting yes to hate and bigotry.
Now I will go into my non-religious reasons. First, we have to establish a common criterion to debate around because unlike a religious reason, these individuals or groups do not believe in God and the Bible. So the only common criterion that is appropriate is “what is marriage?” Using the CA Constitution’s definition of marriage is inappropriate as this point because this is what prop 8 is trying to decide. The best way to find the meaning of marriage at this point is based on the historical definition. If individuals cannot agree to this point, it is going to be really hard to argue with non-religious people about the issue because in the end, it will be just one set of personal beliefs vs. another. While modern society likes us to believe that marriage is all about two individuals expressing their undying love for one another, the historical definition is far from it. Since the dawn of human civilization, marriage has been a contractual institution created by society for one purpose, and one purpose only: to start and raise a family (i.e. to have kids). Proof that this is the historical definition in many (maybe even all) cultures is the fact that wives who could not bear children were frowned upon, and another wife was brought in her place to bear children. Inherent in this definition of marriage, gay couples must be excluded because they cannot start and raise a family. Gay relationship should not be called marriage, but something else, which society has already done. This new name is “domestic partnership.” An article that elaborates my point is http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story
Since the start of this campaign, the opposition has placed the burden of proof to ban gay marriage on the supporters of 8; however, with the reasoning stated above, it is the opposition that should have the burden of proof to justify why society needs to change the historical and traditional definition of marriage at this particular time in history.
Also, it is good to point out that we are not the first society in history to condone homosexuality. Ancient Greece was arguably more liberal than we are today - gay relationships, including older men and little boys, were rampant. However, even the Greeks did not call these gay relationships a “marriage” because they knew that marriage was meant to start a family - something that a gay relationship could never fulfill.
My second argument is: ‘No on 8’ claims that it is all about gay rights, but I argue that it has nothing to do with it, but everything to do with gay recognition. In the end, the rights that will be violated are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion of those that oppose gay marriage.
Under CA domestic partnerships, gay couples have all the same legal rights as married couples, including tax benefits. If you don’t believe me, go to the opposition’s own website, noonprop8.com, and tell me one specific legal right that passing this prop will affect. The opposition claims that domestic partnership and marriage are not the same, and elaborate this point with ambiguous language. However, the big paragraphs are hiding the main point - passing prop 8 will have no effect on the legal rights of gay couples not already given to them in domestic partnerships. The only right in question here is not the legal rights, but the Constitutional right to marry. The definition of marriage should be defined by the historical context, which I explained earlier would exclude gay couples from marrying.
If this prop fails to pass, the gay agenda is to force society to recognize their relationship as the same as marriage and hence a fundamental right. The government will set a precedent that it is normal for human beings to be gay. Now if any individual or religion speaks out against homosexuality and/or gay marriage it will be considered attacking a normal variation of life and a gay’s fundamental right. This will be called ‘hate speech’ and all religions and individuals who oppose homosexuality will have their freedom of speech and religion limited to speak out against this lifestyle. Churches that do speak out against this lifestyle will most-likely lose their tax-exempt status.
Now as a fundamental right, this will be taught in schools. Children will be indoctrinated that homosexuality is okay, normal, and accepted. You might have seen ads lately by Superintendent Jack O’ Connell stating that prop 8 has nothing to do with schools - actually it has everything to do with schools! In his ad, he only tells the public the half-truth. There are two arguments to refute his claims.
First refutation: Name the largest contributor ($1.3 million) to the ‘No on 8’ campaign? If you didn’t know, it is the California Teacher Association, the state’s largest teacher union. We all know our public school system is broke, yet why did they donate all that money if this has nothing to do with education as Mr. O’Connell states in his commercials. Another example to illustrate this point is the Sierra Club, an environment agency that has not donated any money to the yes or no campaigns because they know this issue has nothing to do with the environment. Like Massachusetts - the only other state to legalize gay marriage - children will be taught the homosexual agenda in our schools. Don’t believe me? Just google it for yourself.
Second refutation: Mr. O’Connell is right when he says that CA does not require students to learn about gay marriages. However, he also conveniently leaves out the truth that 96% of CA schools already do teach about marriage and will soon end up teaching about gay marriage as well. Let me explain: CA is not required to teach about sexual education; however if a school chooses to teach about sexual education, they are required to teach about marriage. The fact of the matter is that 96% of schools have already chosen to teach about sexual education, thus they are also required by state law to teach about marriage. If the prop fails to pass, the definition of marriage will now also encompass gay marriages, thus meaning that 96% of schools with teach about gay marriage. An article that elaborates my point is http://protectmarriage.com/article/yes-on-8-campaign-slams-new-no-ad-with-jack-oconnell
Opponents of 8 also like to bring up that this is the same as the racially-driven civil rights movement a few decades ago. This argument is also fallacious because unlike homosexuality, there is no question whatsoever that we are born a certain race. For example, if two genetically identical twins are born, there is an absolute 100% guarantee that the twins will be of the same race. However, actual scientific studies have shown that if even in genetically identical twins, if one is homosexual, there is only a 50% chance that the other twin is homosexual. This leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is based as much on upbringing and choice as it is on genes.
.
Feel free to speak your thoughts. But seriously, vote Yes on 8 tomorrow.