Heinz Ad Pushes Gay Marriage and Family – Features Homosexuals Kissing
If you think the culture war is fought in courtrooms and political arenas you should think again. This commercial for Heinz leaves no doubt where the company stands on the homosexual marriage issue.
The ad features a “homosexual family,” referring to one of the men as “Mum” or “Mom.”
This ad is currently running in England (where homosexual marriage is currently illegal), but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it on US television before long. Now that Californians are getting ready to vote on the issue of homosexual marriage this is exactly the sort of thing you’ll see from companies that support that agenda.
If you support this then do nothing. It’s already happening.
If you do not support the decision by Heinz to get involved in this issue then there are a couple of things you can do:
- Make a phone call to Heinz. Their corporate headquarters’ phone number is 412-456-5700 and their toll-free number is 800-255-5750.
- Send an email letter to Heinz. AFA has made it easy to send an email by filling out a simple form right here.
I personally love Heinz ketchup, but I will now be switching to a different brand. Hunts maybe?
Hunts is definitely better now.
I don't understand the animosity for a commercial that is clearly a "spoof" and in no way "pushing" homosexuality. Even if it did assume a homosexual family. I personally don't see anything wrong with it. Any time people of the same sex kiss it is automatically homosexuality? Many homosexual relationships raise wonderful happy children and a good deal of them are better parents than many heterosexual parents I've seen. The idea that children should not be exposed to a relationship that shows affection and love is hard for me to swallow. Not too long ago, it sickened people to see a black and white couple kissing. It was considered inappropriate for children to see a black man with a white woman, or white man with a black woman. To think that someone would tell people to look the other way if they saw my parents kissing, or write letters protesting their relationship. It saddens me. I'm lucky the world has changed, or I may not have been born…we'll continue to change…I look forward to the day when any couple who is in love and wants to raise a family can do so without ridicule–me, I'll stick with Heinz.
I think you are mistaken to consider this commercial a spoof. It is hardly satirical.
I’m not sure what you mean when you ask whether any time people of the same sex kiss it is automatically homosexual. The answer is, of course, no, but that isn’t the case in this commercial. The couple is clearly intended to portray a homosexual couple as there is clearly a “mom” and a “dad.” One is even referred to as “mum” or “mom.”
Just because a relationship shows affection and love doesn’t mean it is a healthy or the healthiest relationship possible for a child to witness. It is a matter of moral and religious principals.
Comparing the Christian opposition to homosexuality to racism is not a fair comparison. Racism is an expression of hate based on the color of ones skin. There is no basis in scripture for the support of racism. In fact, the Bible teaches us that racism is inherently wrong.
Homosexuality, however, is specifically mentioned in both the old and new testaments of the Bible as being something that God is completely against. As a Christian I am opposed to it for this reason.
I disagree, and still believe it is a spoof. The concept being that a NY deli man could "effectively" replace good old "mom" in the kitchen. The concept that the product is sooo good, the family would not recognize that mom had been "replaced". The humor is there by having the man instead of the woman and it does not "condone" a gay marriage, or a gay relationship rather pokes fun and makes use of a classic mode of irony — situational irony in which the audience laughs because we see something "wrong" with the picture that the apparent family members cannot see. Just because the NY deli man is a MAN does not automatically assume a homosexual relationship.
As far as using the Bible for moral basis–the bible has been used to condone racism, it has been used to condone slavery. Passages have been adapted and changed to fit the general moral code of specific group or groups. Translations of the bible come in many forms. I am not a Christian, but I do believe in God. You are free to believe what you want to believe, but I hope you also love as God has asked you to love all those whom are his creation.
I like your idea for a spoof, but I do not feel the evidence in the advertisement supports your conclusion that this is what they were trying to do. There is no dialog or tagline or any form of communication that suggests the message that the product is so good the family wouldn't notice the mom had been replaced.
The ad suggests the mayo tastes like something you'd get from a New York Deli – the "mum" represents the Deli Man, obviously. At best, the fact that he has replaced the mother would insinuate that the mayo is as good as your mother would make, but such a message would seem unlikely as few mothers would bother to make homemade mayo in today's world.
At any rate, the average viewer would be unlikely to discuss the points of the ad as we are doing now and would be more likely to take it at face value. There can be little doubt that the ad "appears" to show a homosexual family participating in a normal, everyday activity. It seems likely the average viewer would view this as Heinz reaching out to the Gay community regardless of what their actual intentions were or are.
If Heinz, in fact, intended for this ad to be a spoof, the kiss between the men at the end of the commercial was wholly unnecessary to get their point across. Surely the ad executives would be smart enough to realize what kind of controversy such an action would cause. I simply cannot believe that they intended it as a spoof and then sat around saying, "oh the viewing audience will get it and no one will be upset." It is a purposeful endorsement aimed at a wider acceptance of the gay lifestyle.
I have no hatred for homosexuals. Saying that you do not condone something is not the same as saying you do not love the person who is doing it. I do not condone homosexuality because the Bible does not condone it. However, as you point out, the Christian faith does require us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
In fact, the Bible is probably the single greatest reason we have what we call "civilized society." In order to form a society such as the one we live in now we must have a basic set of moral values. Like it or not, but the basic moral values of our society are the values that come from the Bible. Our nation was founded on those morals and principals and they have guided us well.
Of course, there will always be people who will use the Bible or religion to try to condone their beliefs, but that doesn't make it right…or make the religion wrong. If someone twists the words that are in the Bible to justify racism is that the fault of the Bible or the person who twisted the words? Anyone can pick up a Bible (or Bibles if you don't trust a translation) and read for themselves what it says.
Although the Bible may have been used at one time to condone racism and slavery, it is the morals found in the Bible that eventually forced the end to slavery. In fact, many of our Founding Fathers pointed out early on in the forming of our nation that slavery was in direct opposition to the beliefs upon which the nation was founded and to the teachings of the Bible. Just because some people got it wrong, doesn't mean that everyone is getting it wrong.
You can say you believe in God, but what God would you believe in? I choose to believe in the God of the Bible and I base my beliefs on the teachings I find in the Bible.
Jason A Clarks last blog post..Supreme Court Outlaws Death Penalty For Child Rape
This is an interesting debate. I'm going to take a different spin on things here, and keep in mind, this is for the sake of the discussion, not to antagonize or cause discord.
As Tamara pointed out previously before, Biblical interpretations were often tweaked to the convenience of individuals who wanted to use the Bible as their "sword," so to speak. Committing different kinds of atrocities and condoning a specific type of behavior in the name of God has always been happening, heck, we have wars that have started in the name of religion.
To the topic of discussion, I think the main idea that makes many conservatives and Christians nervous about the idea of gay/lesbian marriages/partnerships is the obvious religious tenet that marriage itself implies. The interesting thing is, marriage licenses are issued by the state, but the marriage can be made binding by both an official of the clergy or a state licensed Justice of the Peace. Both are legal, both are binding, but one is religious in nature, and the other is.. well.. just legal.
Why is that interesting? For one thing, each state has different laws pertaining to homosexual marriages. Some more conservative states (really, most of them) have made attempts to prevent gays and lesbians from legally entering into a marriage. Other states like Massachusetts and California are allowing such unions to occur, and in some ways, encourage it, much to the dismay of the opponents of the gay/lesbian community. And this is where it gets better: the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that a state recognize a law created by another state, and enforce it to full faith. So – if a gay/lesbian couple decide to tie the knot in California, and move to Texas, will the Texas government recognize the marriage as a legal entity? Only time will tell.
Additionally, opponents of homosexual marriages (and I'm not just speaking about Christians, I'm also speaking about politicians), decry the very idea of such unions, saying it will weaken the "sanctity of marriage." If anything, I would say that heterosexuals did a fine job of that all on their own – just take a look at Britney Spears and Kevin Federline (the man left a woman with 3 kids!), Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (come on, Angie, stealing a married man!), Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra… need I go on? The marriage is only as strong as the couple who marry each other make it be – some people simply do not take marriage seriously, and as such, I believe those people are doing far more harm to the "sanctity of marriage,' as it were.
Hardest part is, I believe in God. I honestly do no not think He would want us to be the judge and jury of the gay and lesbian communities, and deny them the basic rights which we all have.
I've met individuals of the gay/lesbian community who I think will be just fine in a marriage if they so choose to get married, and even better parents to their children if they ever decide to have any. Definitely better than Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra.
You bring up some interesting and valid points, but I must disagree with you on a couple of things.
I agree that heterosexual people are doing almost irreparable harm to the sanctity of marriage. However, to use that as the basis for an argument in support of homosexual marriage you must assume that Christians, who I now purport to represent in this debate, are in some way in favor of this behavior by the heterosexuals. They are not.
Just as a Bible believing Christian, in my opinion, cannot support homosexual marriage, they cannot support the denigration of marriage between a man and a woman through hasty marriages and easy divorces. So to say that we may as well support homosexual marriage because the whole sanctity of marriage has already been compromised is a faulty argument from the start. I think you would find many Christians who would support laws that would make it harder for people to get these “fly by night†types of weddings and would support laws making it more difficult to get in to marriage and more difficult to get out of them.
Christian opponents of homosexual marriage do not just oppose it because of the “sanctity of marriage†issue, but also because of the moral issue involved. Homosexuality is a behavior that many Christians feel is morally wrong because of what the Bible says about it. For them to allow homosexual marriage they would basically be allowing a continuous public display and acceptance of a behavior that they find morally wrong. Obviously such acceptance would have a lasting effect on society. How much harder would it be for Christian parents to teach their children what the Bible says is wrong when so many in their lives, society even, says it’s okay?
For the same reason, Christians obviously would oppose gay and lesbian adoption. No one would argue that children are innocent and naïve and learn much of their beliefs from their parents. How then could a Christian support handing over a child to a homosexual couple knowing that the child will be brought up believing homosexuality is not only okay, but perfectly natural when the Christian believes it is a sin? It has nothing to do with whether or not the homosexual couple is capable of showing or expressing love to the child or providing for the child. It’s a matter of core philosophical and moral beliefs.
Furthermore, the Bible teaches that God turns away from sin – and removes His hand of protection from a nation that endorses the things He opposes. That is one of the main reasons Christians believe they have a right, a duty even, to oppose the public endorsement of things they believe to be unacceptable to God. It is the Christian belief that God will reward and bless a nation that attempts to follow His commandments. You can disagree with the things that Christians believe but it is only by understanding why they believe what they do that you will understand why they are opposed to certain things such as homosexual marriage. It goes far beyond the preservation of the sanctity of marriage.
Michael, you say you believe in, but you give no definition as to what that means. People constantly confuse Christian opposition to things such as homosexuality as being judgmental and even use the Bible to back it up – “Judge not lest ye be judged.â€
However, there is a huge difference between judging someone and opposing something that the Bible says is wrong. It is not judging the gay and lesbian community when we say that homosexuality is wrong according to scripture. To say that God loves everyone equally no matter what they do, sinner or not, is true, but to say that God condones all behavior equally is a gross misinterpretation of the Bible. If a Christian saw another Christian steal something he would go to that person and tell him that what he did was wrong. The Bible tells us to do this. That is not judging. The person did something that was wrong according to the Bible – indeed, something that was morally wrong. In the same manner, Christians do (or should) oppose the public acceptance of the behaviors that are condemned by the ten commandments. Again, this is not judging – it is being true to our religious beliefs.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians should put aside their rights or beliefs in order to honor the rights and beliefs of those who are not Christian and those who are living with sin.
What kind of God do you believe in?
I believe in a just and loving God, who loves each and every one of us regardless of our faults, whatever they may be. I believe he would not wish for us to hate our fellow man because of whatever choices he/she has made in life, if indeed they are "choices" as we think of them. As you said, love your neighbor, as you love yourself. I'm not affiliated with any specific denomination, simply because I find things I disagree with among pretty much all faiths. I simply believe.
That being said, I can understand where you're coming from as a Christian.
One thing I would like to point out, is that the Bible was written for the time period it was in, and I doubt the author (whomever it may have been) could have foreseen the modern world we're currently living in.
Christians say the Bible is the end all, be all, the last Word, the big enchilada. I find some parts of the Bible contradictory to what we do today.
For example, let's tear a page out of the Ten Commandments, shall we? "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Yet, here we are, in a war in another country, fighting for who knows what, to what end? Lives are being lost, people are being killed, for little to no gain – not that I expected anything fruitful to occur from this particular debacle. We allow our policemen to exercise deadly force, and that's OK? We apply the death penalty – and sometimes, mistakenly. We, as human beings, break this commandment on a daily basis.
Number two – "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Hmm. I wonder if in this part, God is saying that it's OK for us to have slaves? But yet, in other parts of the Bible, the Book decries slavery. Which is it? :/
I could go on with that one, but I'll move on to another point.
What about membership to churches? All of them claim to use the Bible as a basis for judging their flock's worthiness to be included in their congregation. The Bible says we shouldn't accumulate and pile up the Treasures of the Earth, but today, we're earning our millions and driving our fancy SUV's and listening to our IPODS and watching TV on our fancy LCD screens.
The Bible says we shouldn't mix wool with linen, but we're buying clothes that are polyblends – very much the same way we're told not to pile up treasures, and yet, it's OK to accept the birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, and mounds of other material things that people exchange every year.
The Bible also says it's inappropriate for a woman to show her head while praying, and that she must cover it while doing so, but this practice is no longer required in churches or homes.
I know you'll think that these are merely petty and trivial parts of the Bible that have no bearing on the topic at hand. I beg to differ, they do. The point I'm trying to emphasize here, is that while the Bible is indeed a nice rule book, it's not made for today's times, and as such, must be open for interpretation by those who read it. Ideally, God would fly down and visit us and hand us a new version revised for today's times, but alas, it has yet to happen.
This is why I think religion has no business being a part of the states' decisions regarding gay/lesbian *UNIONS*. What's wrong with allowing them to enter into a civil union (not a marriage as defined by the Bible) and giving them all rights afforded them by the state? The State can just say, "ok, you guys are partners, you're committed to working together to create a better life for one another, and I give you the same rights as afforded to married couples."
They don't have to CALL it a marriage. Just call it a partnership, and give them the rights they want, and whatever they do behind closed doors is their own business. I don't think God will judge me for the actions of someone else, because I can't control those actions. If He sees it as a affront, let Him judge when the time comes.
I hope you don't feel as if I'm trying to attack your beliefs, Jason – I enjoy our discussions, and respect your opinions and right to believe how you see fit.
The Bible, to me, is essentially like this. "Some guy said that God told him to tell you…"
How do I know that "story" that the person wrote isn't a personal belief or spin on what God told him to write? How do I know, that the people who have rewritten the bible thus far (apparently 40 individuals, all told) to fit the standards they deem sufficient at the time? If they were merely translating from previous texts, who's to say that their interpretation is correct? I realize what I'm saying is somewhat blasphemous, but I take the word of the Bible with a grain of salt – it's authors were human, and humans aren't perfect. I'd feel a lot more confident in its content if this was God's own written text. Surely a omnipotent deity is capable of putting things down on paper, and in such a way that it will last for eternity. It's a huge leap of faith, and all the discrepancies I find in the new/old testaments doesn't always help my confidence. Regardless, I DO believe in God, I just don't believe in the establishments that say that their religion is the TRUE one.
Like you said before, we certainly are capable of opening up a Bible, and reading it ourselves, and drawing our own conclusions from said readings. We are intelligent human beings, and God did give us free will and the ability to reason and think accordingly.
Here's my trepidation in regards to intermixing religion and politics. Both arenas are supremely charged with varying emotions and thought processes – and there are so many denominations of Christianity. Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, the list goes on. The way that people feel about such things are often swayed by their own personal convictions, of which religion plays a part.
This is where I feel it could potentially be misleading – everyone has a different background, and thus, may feel different about a certain issue, not just gays/lesbians. It's hard to remain neutral and unbiased, but the fact is, if we let religion take a part in how we decide our political beliefs, we're imposing that religious belief on others. Who's to say one religion is better than another? That's always a subject of discussion for anyone, and wars have been fought over the simple matter of religion. It is not always a simple thing to remove one's religious beliefs from their thought processes, and some would argue that it's impossible. Fair enough. I try not to let my personal beliefs sway how I vote, and I try to vote in such a manner that I feel will benefit myself and my fellow man in the best way possible.
All the rhetoric aside, let's put religion on the back burner for a moment. Let's look at this from a political point of view. Now, the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution (politically and legally speaking). Under this Constitution, we all are accorded rights that our founding fathers deemed non-negotiable, basic rights and liberties.
First, is the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is a basic right – we have the freedom to life and work and do as we please, insofar as we do not infringe on other's abilities to do so. I'm sure you know where I'm headed, but please bear with me for a moment.
That basic right above this sentence, is accorded to EVERY U.S. citizen. It's a freedom we often take for granted. We pursue our everyday life, tasks, and doings in such a way that makes us happy, and we have that freedom to do so.
Now, the homosexual community – last I checked – are also citizens of the U.S. They too, have those rights. They too, deserve the freedom to pursue their happiness, and live their lives as they see fit. Marriage happens to be one of the things they wish to do, and that's something they have a right to do. Who am I to deny them that right? Why would I want to deny someone's right to pursue their own happiness? I surely wouldn't want someone else squelching my right to pursue my happiness, at the cost of their own religious beliefs.
To me, all the religious debate aside, I feel that denying them this liberty, is to give them a second class citizenship. I think it's a slap in the face for them. They too, are taxpaying citizens, who support our government, and our government is telling them that they can't enter a legally binding civil union or marriage? That, to me, is a hard pill to swallow, and I'm not even a member of the gay/lesbian community.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's suppose, for a moment, that they heterosexual community was the minority and that the homosexual people are the dudes/dudettes in charge. They say we can't get married, because our "sexual orientation" is immoral, that it's wrong, and that we shouldn't be thinking in such a way. I don't know about you, but I'd fight for my right to get married too, if such a situation was presented to me.
The people who do not follow its (the Bible's) commandments would also include yourself–Leviticus is filled with various nuances that very few people hold to the letter of the law (including the wool linen mixing). Humans are by nature "sinners". "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", was Jesus's rebuttal to people who pointed fingers at others who were sinners without first cleansing themselves of their own sins.
So how is it one goes about cleansing their own sins? Must one go to church every Sunday? Must it consist of reading the Bible frequently? From what I have read in the Bible, God says simply this, "ask and you shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened onto you" He will not turn away anyone who looks to Him for guidance. If a gay or lesbian person opens themselves up to God and welcomes the Lord into their hearts then that is their communion with God. Likewise, whatever communion Michael and I have with God is personal and private.
I do not believe that "your" God is any different than the Yahweh that Jewish pray to, or Jehovah of the jehovah's witnesses, or Allah that Muslims seek. Each has their own "word of god" that they follow in order to please "Him" these scriptures hold the same value as your Bible and all "scripture" belongs to Him. I think the way is like a mountain, the peak being God. The mountain has many sides and many paths leading up to "Him" whichever path we choose, they ultimately lead to the same direction. Those who do not venture the climb will never know his grace. God has poured himself into many vessels in order that we may know Him. To me, religion is an institute by which we separate ourselves in order to prove that our chosen path is the correct one, however God has made the mountain and every path on it. His WORD is in everything. He has ultimately shown us the way in many different forms. I do not call myself religious but adhere to the spiritual principal that my life is a continuous path that shall eventually lead me to Him–and that if I see Him in all things, my path will unfold effortlessly.
As far as Michael's separation of church and state–on Jason's part, it is true the this separation has historically been hard to come by. Religions do have Moral basis, but these morals can still be applied to the general people without catering to a specific religion and that proves to be difficult in politics because people hold fast to the idea that theirs is the One true religion and therefore the correct "moral"–finding politicians who were not raised on some religious principle or other is difficult–personal beliefs do influence the laws as they are written through the ages. Thou shall not Kill–is a moral found in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and even tribal communities in Africa and Native America–your religious translation of it being "thou shalt not murder" is also a moral but it does not REPLACE the first moral–it just defines it in a way that fits your chosen path. However, what is your definition of "murder"? Regardless of which word makes for a better "translation" you still have to come up with the definition of murder.
I would like to reiterate something you stated a while back. How do I teach my children that it (gay and lesbian union) is wrong when the rest of the world shows it as right? (I too am paraphrasing) If you truly believe in the Word as it is written in the Bible then you should have no troubles passing this on to your children. What your children choose to believe as they grow is their path and their communion with God.
I’m enjoying our discussion, but there are a couple of things that I think you have a misunderstanding of or have been misinformed about.
You say that you doubt the author of the Bible “(whomever it may have been) could have foreseen the modern world we’re currently living in.†The problem with your statement here is twofold. First of all, it is historically documented that the Bible was physically written over a period of about 1600 years by 40+ authors. Secondly, Christians believe that the Bible is the wholly inspired word of God himself. We believe the words in the Bible are the words of God – from God directly through human authors. Jesus himself quoted Old Testament scripture in the New Testament.
If God is the actual author of the Bible then it stands to reason that He is certainly capable of looking past the time period in which the words were put to paper and is able to provide us scripture that is relevant in all time periods. In fact, a God who provided guidance that was only useful in a certain time period wouldn’t be much of a god at all.
The scriptures themselves back this up:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.†2 Timothy 3:16-17
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.†Isaiah 40:8
“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.†Luke 21:33
This leads into a popular argument against the Bible that says that the Bible can’t be perfect because it is translated and copied by man. However, this argument supposes that the God who wrote the Bible isn’t big enough to preserve the words He himself provided. The argument would have us believe that God wasn’t smart to preserve His words for us. It’s a flawed argument.
You say that you find the Bible contradictory to what we do today… Well, it is. The Bible says we shouldn’t do things that a lot of people are doing.
However, what I think you really mean is that you think the Bible contradicts itself. You also say that it’s a nice rule book but isn’t really relevant today because of the world we live in (I’m sort of paraphrasing what you said). I disagree.
First of all, you can’t use as an argument against the Bible the fact that people aren’t following the rules as they are laid out in the Bible. For example, if the Bible says “thou shalt now steal,†but people are stealing you can’t say the Bible is irrelevant in a world where people steal. It’s not the fault of the Bible that people aren’t obeying the rules it lays out. That doesn’t make the Bible irrelevant, it makes the people sinners.
Secondly, although I know you probably just pulled examples out of the air, the ones you used simply do not stand up under scrutiny. For example, you used the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill†as an example and said that we, as humans, break this commandment on a daily basis because of war, use of deadly force, executions of criminals, etc. However, if you study the language that passage of the Bible was originally written in you will find that the word used for “kill†is actually better translated as “murder†(and appears as murder in many newer translations). If you change the commandment to “Thou Shalt Not Murder†the whole thing takes on a different context and meaning. Killing someone during the course of a military campaign in defense of freedom or your country would not be defined as murder by very many theologians or scholars, nor would the use of deadly force used correctly by a police officer as you described. Capital punishment is an argument bigger than this comment, but I would proffer that it falls under the same category.
The passage you spoke of concerning slaves is not advocating the act of slavery. It was simply a matter of fact at that time that people owned slaves and the author included the admonishment to not covet your neighbor’s slave likely because a slave was a valuable commodity and something that was likely to be coveted at the time. If you read the Bible, and especially the New Testament when Jesus comes, there’s no way you can believe that God supports slavery.
What the Bible teaches us just as much as keeping the commandments (the law) is keeping the essence of the law in our hearts. One of the reasons there are so many denominations in Christianity is because they attempt to define and live by the letter of the law and fail to understand the essence of the law. What this means is that they look for specifically spelled out passages of scripture that either back up what they believe or make a sin of that which they do not. Your slavery scripture is a good example. Someone could read that and say that it supports slavery because God mentioned it and didn’t say anything about it being wrong. That is trying to live by the letter of the law (sort of, in this case). However, the essence of the law is much different if we continue to read the Bible as we discover that God does not support slavery at all.
We should also remember that saying something is not sin just because it isn’t found word for word in the scriptures isn’t a good guideline either. A great example of this would be abortion. The word ‘abortion’ obviously never shows up in scripture nor does its exact definition. However, Christians can feel secure in calling it a sin because of the essence of the command not to murder. Furthermore, God makes known repeatedly the immeasurable value he places on life, both born and unborn. The essence of His words clearly indicate an opposition to the taking of an unborn life.
As for your other examples, I believe I have covered them when I said that the Bible cannot be blamed for the people who do not follow it’s commandments. However, I will note that I know nothing about the mixing of wool and linen you spoke of so I’ll have to look into that. However, I’m certain it’s probably covered elsewhere in scripture.
I do not think your examples are trivial and irrelevant at all. And I do agree that there is some interpretation necessary when reading the Bible. However, anyone is free to read the Bible and interpret for themselves. We are not forced to listen to a minister or priest and we are not forced to believe everything we are told. We can easily pick up a Bible and find out for ourselves.
I believe you are completely wrong when you say that religion has no part in deciding whether or not the state should allow gay/lesbian “unions†or marriages. You simply cannot divorce the subject of gay/lesbian union from the subject of morals and religion because they are intimately and intricately tied to one another. It IS a moral issue. It IS a religious issue. How can a government of the people, by the people, for the people, not take into account the strongly held religious beliefs of so many of the people on such a matter? It can’t. People can say that they want a separation between politics and religion all they want, but in a government such as we have where the people have such a loud voice, there can be no such separation because once that separation occurs the government is no longer speaking for the majority of the people.
The problem with a civil union type of “partnership†is exactly the same as the problem I described for a homosexual marriage. Just because the state doesn’t officially call it a marriage doesn’t mean that those who are getting the civil union aren’t calling it that and acting like they’re married in public and in for all intents and purposes being married. We have civil unions now for heterosexual couples and I’ve known some couples who have had a civil union. Not a single one of those couples ever referred to themselves as a civil union partnership – they always referred to themselves as a married couple, husband and wife. That is exactly what would happen and why Christians cannot support that sort of “compromise.â€
Man, you guys are killing me here with these long comments.
I love hearing your perspectives! Even if I don't agree!
I'm going to respond to both of you, but I'm tied up for a bit so it might be a little later before I can get to it.
Jason A Clarks last blog post..Supreme Court Outlaws Death Penalty For Child Rape
LOL, we love to put you to work and it actually helps me prepare for teaching. I have to be able to teach how to be persuasive and how to put together a sound argument…it's good practice, even though I'm a bit rusty!