Answering NOM's FAQs
NOM stands for National Organization for Marriage. It is a movement that seeks to overturn/prevent from occurring law changes that allow for same sex marriage. It is a movement for which Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has become a spokesperson. NOM defines marriage as one man/one woman. It's a traditional definition, but the question being raised today concerns whether it is the only possible definition.
My friend, Steve Kindle, a Disciple pastor and Executive Director of Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals, is beginning a series of blog articles that will answer NOMA's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Steve is straight, married, and an advocate for the rights of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgendered persons.
His first post, appearing today at his blog Open Hearts -- Affirming Pages, addresses the issue of whether NOMA is bigotted.
Here is how his answer begins:
My friend, Steve Kindle, a Disciple pastor and Executive Director of Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals, is beginning a series of blog articles that will answer NOMA's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Steve is straight, married, and an advocate for the rights of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgendered persons.
His first post, appearing today at his blog Open Hearts -- Affirming Pages, addresses the issue of whether NOMA is bigotted.
Here is how his answer begins:
Even though you introduced “bigot” into your first question, I will not be drawn into a name calling spat. We’ll let the reader decide. What your message boldly declares, however, is extreme intolerance at the very least.
Comments
According to the Bible, marriage requires a husband and a wife. If you don't have both a husband and a wife, you don't have a real marriage. A husband must be a man. A woman will not qualify. A wife must be a woman. A man cannot be a wife. According to Scripture.
Now, some people, who claim to be Christians, want to change the definition of marriage from that given by Almighty God. God's definition seems to them unfair, restrictive, and bigoted.
My question is: what right do you, and your friends, have to alter God's definition of marriage?
It's not that God's definition seems unfair, restrictive, and bigoted- It's his creations that seem that way sometimes.
I think you're ready to compromise though. You said the marriages wouldn't be "real". That's pretty tame for you Gary. So, in terms of your faith, it's unreal- but ok legal? Any sort of commitment blessing otherwise named appropriate for you?
I think I make mistakes on purpose sometimes too.
David Mc
No compromise. No to same-sex marriage, civil unions, and anything else the sodomites want.
How nice to hear from you again. I always look forward to the challenge of responding to you.
You said: "If God invented sodomites, then He also invented murderers, thieves, adulterers, blasphemers, etc.."
You would agree I hope that God did create those people. And I agree with you that they are all sinners, as are you and I and everyone else.
The question we have to ask is what are we as a human society going to do about each of these class of sinners? Does the fact that a majority of us in the United States are Christians make a difference in our response as a nation? What about those among us who disavow Christianity? Do they have a different set of civil rules?
Shall we identify each crime and design an appropriate punishment, (i.e., stoning, cut off their hands or other appendages, etc.,) as is done under Sharia law?
If were a completely Christian society, would we be compelled to legislate social conduct according to the requirements of the Bible, as Sharia influenced Muslims use the Quran? If so, do we legislate according to the Old Testament or the New? If under the Old, you and I will be paying a heavy price.
If we are going to legislate personal conduct under the New Testament, what are the prescribed penalties for the various ways we sin?
The only humanly exacted penalty I see in the New Testament is that those who cannot be reconciled to the community of believers are to be thrown out of the community.
I know Jesus said that an individual who sins should cut off the offending appendage, cut out the offending eye etc., but that is self imposed and thus up to the sinner, not the community. (This could be a metaphor?)
while I could be wrong, I am not aware of any other punishments listed in the New Testament.
As for those who cannot be reconciled to the community, there is no description of offending behaviors which might give rise to such a determination - it appears hat the offending individual could just be disagreeable, or could just be sowing seeds of discord, or could just be unable to show mercy to other sinners.
This last sin is where those who wave an accusing finger engage in very dangerous conduct, spiritually speaking. According to Jesus these people are cast by God into hell to be tortured into eternity. Jesus makes no such pronouncements for homosexuals, adulterers or even murders. It is the unforgiving who are unforgiven. But even that sin carries with it no earthly punishment.
Our response to the sin of others, as Christians, whatever it is, has to be guided at all points by forgiveness and mercy.
John
I'm not going to waste much time with you, but I will say this:
The "Jesus" you believe in is not the Biblical Jesus, but a figment of your evil, perverted imagination. You are a blasphemer. You're a liar. You falsely claim that God accepts homosexuals, when the truth is, God condemns them. God also condemns you for calling good what God has called evil.
Gosh, I hope so. Did you see that Twilight Zone episode?
David Mc
David McK, At least 2 of the women who are prominently named in several lists of probable nominees for an Obama SCOTUS pick are our lesbians: Kathleen Sullivan, former Dean and current Professor of Law at Stanford and Pamela Karlan, also a Standord Law Prof. Another, Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General and former Harvard Law School Dean is known to be a strong pro-GLBT advocate and some have rumored her to be gay, but I could find nothing definite.
I think all 3 of them would be excellent choices, but all 3 would involve huge confirmation fights. The question is, "How much political capital is Obama willing to spend on this first SCOTUS appointment."
Our Michina gov Jennifer Granholm is on the list. Although I'm not sure how we'd cope without. She's Canadian-American (not gay). A first?
Davd Mc