Thinking Out Loud - Ms. Green

Commentaries from a female, conservative Christian worldview. Intermittent observations on human behavior and current events. Occasional bursts of personal tirades,confessions, and discoveries. Frequent discussions about my "Narrow-Minded Faith".

<< Back to Main Page

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Quote of the Week

Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an Obama supporter, was upset about Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to lead the invocation at his inauguration.

Gene was quoted by the Times as saying, “we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”

You are right, Gene. You don’t know the God that Rick will be praying to, because, as much as I disagree with Rick Warren on a lot of issues, the God he prays to says that homosexuality is an abomination, as well as is fornication – both of which you are guilty. Your God is not the God of Christianity.

Thanks for admitting it publicly.

Labels: ,

Continue reading..

9 Comments:

At 11:27 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Good post, Ms. Green. This dude is pathetic, but not as pathetic as those who still look to him for Christian leadership and teaching. He's even pro-abortion. Why do these people insist on wearing the vestments of a minister of God? Must be to avoid heavy lifting.

 
At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys both tickle me. Twisting the words of God into a Mobius loop for your own ends.

Teh gheys are just no different than the people they hate if they want to exclude any Americans from participating in the union simply because they don't agree with them.

 
At 7:24 PM, Blogger Ms.Green said...

if they want to exclude any Americans from participating in the union simply because they don't agree with them.

Ok, Anon. I have a few questions for you.

Are you an anarchist? If you answer yes, then there is no reason to answer the following questions, because I already know your answer. If you answer no, then I'm interested in your answers below.

Since you condone homosexual marriage, do you think marriage should only be between two people, or should individuals be allowed to have multiple spouses? How many? What would be too many?

Do you think adults should be able to marry children?

Do you think adults should be able to marry non-humans (as in farm animals)?

Thanks ahead of time for your straight answers to straight questions.

 
At 4:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Since you condone homosexual marriage, do you think marriage should only be between two people, or should individuals be allowed to have multiple spouses? How many? What would be too many?”

Actually, I said “the union”, not a union. I was talking about how narrow-minded and bigoted it is for anyone to think they should be able to exclude someone from participating in the inauguration just because they don’t agree with them. The president is the president of everyone, not just the people who voted for him. For gay people to attempt to dictate who Obama should have at the inauguration just because they voted for him strikes me as ridiculous.

But since you ask, I don’t think it’s my business to decide who someone else marries. Neither same-sex marriage or polygamy is my cup of tea, but if two gay people want to be able to share their lives legally, or Christians or Jews want to practice plural marriage like in the Old Testament, why would I care? It’s none of my business. I also think that if some church wants to refuse to perform ceremonies that’s their right. Whether it’s because two people are the same sex, or mixed race, or of different faiths. Religious matters should be free from government interference. But as far as civil contract law goes, any two competent people should be able to enter into whatever contract they want without government discrimination.

As to whether children and animals should be able to get married, neither is considered competent to enter into any legal contracts, marriage included. Since the law considers them unable to make decisions, the law protects them. But as far as I know, no one is asking for them to be able to. You might as well ask if I thought someone should be able to marry a chair. This is just an imaginary scenario dreamed up to cloud the issue.

 
At 6:50 AM, Blogger Ms.Green said...

Your third paragraph (starting with "But since you ask...") is a totally rational line of thought and is a legitimate libertarian thought process. I accept that.

Where we differ is in your assessment that the idea of an adult marrying a child or animal is an imaginary scenario dreamed up to cloud the issue. There are already states that allow young children to make decisions to abort their pregnancy without their parents' consent, therefore, the law in those states considers them competent to make those decisions. Would you be in favor of adults marrying children? That was the question. You didn't answer, saying the law protects against that. So are you saying that whatever the law says, you will go along with?

Laws can be changed.

There are those who would say that marrying a farm animal is nobody's business. If the law said it was ok, would you condone it?

The point I'm trying to make is that although people claim one can't legislate morality, they are wrong. Our laws against murder, adultery, theft, assault, etc. all legislate morality. Homosexuality has been illegal for centuries and now the radicals are trying to change that to legitimize their immorality. I don't want them forcing me to accept them as legitimate. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business, but when they try to legalize and legitimize it, it is my business, because it affects me personally, in my business, in my worship, and in my child-rearing.

 
At 12:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Where we differ is in your assessment that the idea of an adult marrying a child or animal is an imaginary scenario dreamed up to cloud the issue. There are already states that allow young children to make decisions to abort their pregnancy without their parents' consent, therefore, the law in those states considers them competent to make those decisions.

In which state can a minor get an abortion without parental consent? I’m not familiar. But no, I think parents should be informed before a parent gets birth control, let alone an abortion. Parents are legally and morally responsible for their children. What does this have to do with gay adults being able to share insurance?

>Would you be in favor of adults marrying children? That was the question. You didn't answer, saying the law protects against that. So are you saying that whatever the law says, you will go along with?

No, but if I decide not to obey the law I’ll be subject to the penalty. Civil disobedience has its price. There are lots of unjust, intrusive laws. Personally I think speed limits are set unnaturally low to increase revenue. But if I speed I’m going to get a ticket.

Again, what any of this has to do with two adults deciding to get married escapes me. Let me ask you a question: Why should you tell two adult people you don’t know who they should marry? Forget what sex they are. Why should you tell two people you don’t know who they should marry? That’s the question. Not children, animals, furniture, or any other unlikely premise you can dream up. What business is it of yours or mine? I may not agree, but the essence of freedom is that people are going to make decisions I don’t agree with and wouldn’t make for myself. If I want the freedom to decide who I will marry I have to grant the same freedom to other people, even when I don’t agree with the choices they make. Personally, I think my sister made a grave mistake in who she married. He’s a man, but he’s scum. But it isn’t my place to decide for her.

>Laws can be changed.

I think that’s the point.

>There are those who would say that marrying a farm animal is nobody's business. If the law said it was ok, would you condone it?

Again, who is asking for farm animals to have the same rights as humans? You seem to be avoiding the issue. We aren’t talking about farm animals or five-year-olds. We are talking about grown people who earn a living, pay taxes, and make decisions for their own lives every day. They are going to live together whether you like it or not. The only question is- Why is it our business? Why should my ideas of morality trump their own? The essence of freedom is that each person is allowed to make their own decisions. God told me I would be judged according to MY sins, not everybody else’s.

>The point I'm trying to make is that although people claim [that] one can't legislate morality, they are wrong. Our laws against murder, adultery, theft, assault, etc. all legislate morality. Homosexuality has been illegal for centuries and now the radicals are trying to change that to legitimize their immorality. I don't want them forcing me to accept them as legitimate. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business, but when they try to legalize and legitimize it, it is my business, because it affects me personally, in my business, in my worship, and in my child-rearing.

I’m sorry. Homosexuality always existed and that we may have persecuted those people for a long time is a poor argument. Christians were persecuted until Constantine took control of the Roman Empire. Is that justification for feeding Christians to lions in sports stadiums now? There are arguments to be made against Gay Marriage but a history of persecution is a poor one.

Murder, theft, assault all affect you directly. I am at a loss how private homosexuality doesn’t affect you but those same people being able to share health benefits does. What it really boils down to is should you be able to enforce your morality on other people. Personally, I think that I should be able to decide what is moral to me, and other people should have the same freedom. I would fight passionately against any law that kept me from choosing my own mate. Or God. Or morality. That’s all they are doing. I don’t have to agree with their choice to see that they are just trying to do what I would. Personally, I would never marry someone from another religion. But to make interfaith marriage illegal is a whole other thing.

How would that affect your ability to worship or raise your children however you want? You are asking people to abstain from entering into a partnership you participate in just because you don’t like the idea. Yet I’m pretty sure you would be outraged if they tried to have the same control over you. I know I would be. I’m not “for” homosexuality, but I think that it’s not up to me to make people subscribe to my own morality. True morality has to come from within. You can legislate action, but you really can’t legislate morality.

 
At 10:29 PM, Blogger Ms.Green said...

In which state can a minor get an abortion without parental consent? I’m not familiar. But no, I think parents should be informed before a parent gets birth control, let alone an abortion. Parents are legally and morally responsible for their children. What does this have to do with gay adults being able to share insurance?

Many states do not require parental consent or even notification. Alaska, New York, Connecticut - many others. So in those states, minors are seen as responsible enough to make their own decision about abortion. You say parents are morally responsible for their children - and you say that Adults marrying children is an unlikely premise.

I agree that what two consenting adults do in privacy is none of my business. But that's not what homosexuals want. They want legitimacy. They want acceptance. They want forced acceptance of their actions. THEY are the ones wanting to change things. Marriage has always been recognized by the overwhelming majority of civilization as between a man and a woman. All major cultures and religions have recognized such for most of history. As morality is twisted and destroyed in the homosexual venue, it opens the door for further twisting of morality (i.e.: multiple spouses, adult/child unions, adult/animal unions, etc.). And yes, there has actually been at least one case that I know of where an adult married an animal. And a book was just recently published by Judith Levine entitled "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex", in which it advocates and defends sex between adults and children.

The deterioration of our society is connected with our steady decline into immorality. There was a time when being divorced was seen as what it was - a terrible and selfish act. Now it's no big deal. There was a time when being an unwed mother was seen as a sad and immoral situation. Now it's no big deal. There was a time when adultery was seen as what it is - a terrible sin against spouse and family. Now it's no big deal. There was a time when homosexuality was seen as what it is - a perversion and a sinful lifestyle. Now it's no big deal.

If you can't see where all this is headed, I'm quite suprised. You are an intelligent individual and a thinker. Do you not see the great harm in legitimizing homosexuality as normal, healthy, and even celebrated?

 
At 12:02 AM, Anonymous Herm said...

Ms.Green, I really don't understand their criticism of Rick Warren in the first place. I believe Rick Warren has stated that he likes homosexuals. Warren, to my knowledge has not been an outspoken critic of homosexuality as such. Warren has been very vocal in his support for Aids research and help. I don't know, but I suspect that was one of the reasons Obama might have selected Warren, but it appears it may have back-fired. Strange bed fellows. God Bless, Herm

 
At 10:36 AM, OpenID 4simpsons said...

Great point in the post, Ms. Green. I'm glad we all agree that Robinson is worshiping a different God.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home