Porn Tax and Gay Marriage

good post. I hope people actually get it. We ought to get some "love" from this one. I'm ready for it.

who care if fags n lezzies get married... if two people want to be with each other. than leave them alone.. my only request is that two guy homos dont make out in public in front of the normal cristians and more importantlly me.. a normal straight guy in vegas... and go blow off your porn tax crap, get real.. like the fags, they know there time is cumming (no pun intended, but get real) porn has been here since the apple and the snake.. and what about the church owned whore houses back in the day.. adam and eve .. not adam and steve.. but thats not in your book of trust.. hey but im in.. just dont turn your peeps into waco cool-aid follower people and mix them with my peeps...

I see potential for abuse of the porn tax. The first amendment makes actually banning porn difficult (as it should), but I can imagine a future do-gooder legislator trying to work his way around the free speech protection by either setting the tax rate extremally high or by over-complicating the paperwork to such an extent that no producer can handle it.

On marriage, I agree. There is no mechanism I can see by which legalising gay marriage will in any way harm non-gay marriage - it cannot attack it, dilute it, degrade it or otherwise lessen it. However, those who oppose the ruling already know this - all their talk of 'marriage under attack' and the need to 'defend traditional marriage' seems - at least to me - to be nothing more than empty rhetoric that they use because their real reason is less respectable. At root they simply believe that homosexuality is either immoral or just disgusting, but they need to hide this behind an excuse to remain publicly acceptable. This is why many of their apparent reasons are so pathetic - everything from 'if we have gay marriage we will have to legalise pedophilia!' to 'But they have the right to marry someone of the other gender, so there is no inequality issue!' to such insults as 'Gay couples adopt children and rape them!' Pathetic arguments, because they are no more than a cover.

This is a tough subject you touched on, Craig. On the one hand, I can understand how as Christians we should be against porn production and against homosexual marriage, yet, on the other hand very few Christians are fighting for the prohibition of no fault divorces, which are against the laws of God as well.

So, it seems that many of us a hypocritical on this. We want the right to have a divorce for whatever reason we want, but fight tooth and nail against gay marriage.

It's a tough one for sure.

Though I'm voting against gay marriage and am grateful that I live in a country where my personal opinion still matters.

Same with porn tax. I'm for making porn more difficult to produce, though I understand that state of California tax on porn will just move porn producers elsewhere. A federal ban would be better.

But I can certainly understand your position and we can agree to disagree on this one brother.

In Christ.

I agree with not doing the porn tax.

Government has a habit of getting themselves into trouble recently, and the expecting us to dig them out of their decisions by raising taxes somewhere.

And with gay marriage. Well... while I'm opposed to it from my beliefs, I can see the point where our rights are their rights as well. We live in a country where everyone is heard, including us.

Good post Craig. Good food for thought.

The biggest concern I have about legalizing gay marriage is that, as a minister, it would make it easier for me to be sued for discrimination if I refuse to perform a ceremony for a gay couple since I don't agree with homosexuality. I'm afraid this is going to open up all kinds of lawsuits against churches who refuse to do so. As big a fan as I am of xxxchurch.com, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. God bless and keep up the good work!

Dear Craig, Suricou Raven and all:

I appreciate the posts here, and am a first time commenter myself. Craig, I like your balanced approach, but I feel there are some missing considerations. As Christians, I think the only moral consideration to the porn tax debate would be that it may cause the state to be dependent on an immoral industry for revenue, thus causing the state to perhaps promote thAat industry progressivly. This will not necessarily happen, but creating such a tax would creative a financial incentive/motive for promotion of the product by the State. There is no moral responsibility for Christians to impose the tax on basis of "fainess;" as Christians we are to obey the laws of government as far as they do not violate are moral commandments, and the State is free to raise revenue and impose taxes as it deems necessary (render unto Ceasar...). In fact, as Christians it could be argued that we should be in favor of such a tax do to the toll on the community (from a Christian perspective) that such an industry takes in terms of finances, spiritual degradation, and disease.

Suricou Raven, I will focus on your post on the homosexual marriage topic since you seemed to have the most to say on it. I have seen you post on other websites such as the Family Research Council and news blogs, and I will admit that while you have your right to voice your opinion, my patience for your arguments has faltered. I find your posts to be offensive to the intelligence of those who do not see the marriage issue as you do and you also cast the Christian arguments against homosexual marriage in "matchstick" form. Simply put, by pluralising the meaning of marriage through legalisation, you inherently create an "attack" and "dilute" the biological, socio-economical and (for Christians) spiritural facts that marriage represents. I agree with you that specific heterosexual marriages are not going to be attacked by a homosexual couple, or that homosexual couples getting married will lessen the bond of active heterosexual marriages. But that was never really the point being made: the point is that legalisation alters what marriage represents to the society at large, and more specifically to the developing minds of adolescents specifically. As Christians, and I am not sure that you are from some of your posts I have read elsewhere, we are commanded by the Holy Spirite to take all such considerations into account when deciding to support a legislation or act of government. Furthermore, your desciption of some of the arguments you referenced as "pathetic" truly makes me wonder if you find them pathetic because you do not understand them fully, or if you are intentionally representing them in an intellectually dishonest way in an attempt to silence their very compelling points. First, your mocking of the precedent of progressive legislation is comical. Look at the history of the Civil Rights movements and you will find that laws (in this case for the good) with time become progressively lenient. This often is a very good thing, as unjust laws are done away with, from denying voting rights to woman and minorities to laws protecting poor working conditions. I have no doubt that in your perspective laws banning homosexual marriage are such unjust. However the fact is that no person born in the United States is denied the right to marry; society has simply set up regulations of marriage that mirror obvious realities of biology, mental development, and social history. We as Americans, are simply limited to marry someone of consenting age and mental faculties of the opposite sex. Previous majorities of this society have stood by these guidelines, and there is still a large (likely majority) of our society who still upholds them. You have no grounds to call such guidelines immoral or unjust, because you are labeling them as that from a different value system than those that uphold them. Basically, homosexuals have no right to impose their desires in partner selection on society; they are free to marry within those guidelines as anyone else is. Due to this fact, there is no discrimination on the basis of a person's homosexuality, just legislation against the type of legal relationship they want others to be forced to recognize. If you do not think that this call for "rights" in marital selection is not legally faulty, then consider the arguments that polygamist groups and NAMBLA have already released hoping to ride the coatails of a homosexual marriage victory to a victory of their own legalizing marriages between adults and minors and multiple persons. Their logic is consistent with yours, and by legalizing homosexual marriage we provide the judicial precedent for them to challenge (and while they would not win now, they would win as time and society "progresses"). Quite simply, your denial of such legal consequences and your defense of a self-perceived "right" to homosexual marriage are intellectually dishonest and filled with attacks against those who make them. I have made a point not to attack you personally, though from other posts I have seen of yours, you seem not to always uphold that principle of Christian love. I ask that you prayerfully consider my comments, as I have yours several times. I am 23 years old, and I am prepared to serve Christ and his Church in advancement of social morality and defense of arguments and "logic" similar to yours throughout my life.

Porn tax should be classified as entertainment tax. The figure of entertainment tax should be the same with porn tax.

Homosexuals have rights and one of them is marriage, i agree. But the law should not be enforced on Christian churches or any churches that doesn't allow homosexual marriage because it is one of the tenets of their beliefs. The law should respect an organization's beliefs.

"Porn tax should be classified as entertainment tax. The figure of entertainment tax should be the same with porn tax."

This sounds like a more reasonable proposal. Or does the enterainment tax already apply?

Every gay marriage or civil union enabling bill I have seen included a protection for churches to make it clear they couldn't be compelled to perform a ceremony. How well this would hold up when interacting with non-dicrimination legislation I have no idea. I am not a lawyer.

Allan, I am considering your arguments now. You are reaching a level of depth that, while most impressive, isn't suited to this forum and is perhaps better discussed elsewhere - not least because after a few more exchanges we would be writing multible pages each time.

"I find your posts to be offensive to the intelligence of those who do not see the marriage issue as you do and you also cast the Christian arguments against homosexual marriage in "matchstick" form."

Not all of them. You criticised my use of the term 'pathetic,' and I defend this on similar grounds. Not all arguments I have seen used against gay marriage are pathetic. Some of them are actually quite concerning - the fear that gay marriage might be used as a precident by polygamists, for example, is well-founded. The concern over loss of religious freedom is also well-founded. The economic argument that employers would face an additional expense in providing medical coverage is true. Exagerated and heartless, but true. No, the 'pathetic' arguments that I see are such things as 'If you legalise gay marriage, you have to legalise pedophilia,' or 'If everyone was gay humanity would go extinct, so gays want to destroy us all,' or 'Gays will use this to adopt and rape children,' or 'Gays gay marry someone of the opposite gender, so they are equal.' The debate is plagued by these arguments - terrible, laughable excuses for arguments which just refuse to die no matter how easy they are to destroy. I think that much of the reason for this is the confirmation bias: People who already believe gay marriage is morally wrong for personal or religious reasons will repeat uncritically any argument that backs up that position, even if the argument is so weak it only serves to damage the reputation of their side.

Many of these arguments are repeats of those once used by those fighting the legalisation of interracial marriage, and used for exactly the same reason.

I am not sure how to class the dilution of marriage argument, because I simply cannot understand it. I have debated it many times with many people, and it is very rare that I can even get someone to admit as you did that gay marriage does not threaten straight marriages somehow - I think even those who use the argument often don't understand it, though I can see that you do. So, I shall make another attempt, based on how you presented it:

"Simply put, by pluralising the meaning of marriage through legalisation, you inherently create an "attack" and "dilute" the biological, socio-economical and (for Christians) spiritural facts that marriage represents. I agree with you that specific heterosexual marriages are not going to be attacked by a homosexual couple, or that homosexual couples getting married will lessen the bond of active heterosexual marriages. But that was never really the point being made: the point is that legalisation alters what marriage represents to the society at large, and more specifically to the developing minds of adolescents specifically."

This seems to be well-put. For a start it means that we can agree that no individual heterosexual marriage is going to be harmed by allowing gay marriage, which gets a whole field of the debate immediately out of the way. As I understand it, your concern is that the cultural importance of marriage will be diminished, because it is somehow less 'special' when gay marriage is allowed? Or because it's status is turning into something created and regulated by the secular state through the law, rather then being seen as a divinely ordained institution? If I am wrong in my understanding, please attempt to clarify.

I don't think these concerns are well-grounded though. For one, there are far greater threats to the cultural idealisation of marriage - just look at divorce rates and changing attitudes, and it becomes clear that people are no longer thinking of marriage as a life-long partnership. In the same way, cohabitation is on the rise - and, though I have no statistics to prove it, I suspect many of those who do marry probably wouldn't bother if not for the financial benefits.

Still, the presence of far greater threats does not eliminate a smaller one. So the question now becomes, 'Would legalising gay marriage reduce the percieved value of marriage in general?' I think it might, but only by a tiny extent - really, people just wouldn't care that much once the fuss died down - only the most dedicated social conservative would be so upset by gay marriage that they would reject what they still consider a sacred (if now slightly impure) union.

I again see some simularity with an argument against interracial marriage once used. I mean no personal insult here, and certinly do not intend to accuse you of racism, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the differences. The argument against interracial marriage was, in condensed form, that if black and white people could marry then: a) the public outcry would be so great that all respect for marriage would be lost, and b) that if either courts or legislature were to redefine marriage, they would reduce it's authority to that of a state-created partnership rather than a natural institution. This argument does seem to bear a great simularity to your own, even though neither of it's two concerns are related in any way to concerns of civil rights.

It is good to find at last a worthy partner to debate. Unfortunatly it would be unweildy to address the rest of your post, so if you accept this I would like to concentrate all my attention for now on a just the narrower sub-section defined above.

This is brilliant and refreshing. Thank you for these comments. I feel that we should all focus more on living the life God calls us to live rather than focusing on restricting non-believers. Let's check out our own planks. Thanks!

Craig, you don't understand why this ruling does effect us as believers. I agree with you that we as believers should not be conformed to this world, but do you realize what is going to happen next? Gays are going to start going into churches and demand to be married by our pastor's and when they are refused the lawsuits are going to come in and their will be an attack on our churches. If you think that there are not gays out here that do not wish the end of our churches you are mistaken. Even if they are a small minority, it only takes a few groups that are on a mission to start visiting churches requesting same sex marriages. We are in danger and this is an attack on the church. It's so much bigger than just same sex marriage rights.

Tanya, for that to happen there would need to be a non-discrimination law that applies to sexual orientation. The proposed ENDA does, but it has exceptions for churches and other religious organisations, and only covers employment anyway. There are some state equivilents already passed, but again with religious exceptions. Without a law like that, while a gay couple could sue a church they would have no chance of winning. Even if said law existed, the courts would more likely than not throw it out if it lacked a religious exception.

Besides which, the numbers dont work - considering the sheer number of churches in the US, and the cost of legal action, there is no way that enough funding could be obtained to make even a small dent in their numbers.

There are some gays who would wish to end churches - a tiny number, but I do not deny their existance. They wouldn't be so anti-religion if they didn't have to put up with some churches constantly calling them immoral and sinful, excluding them from the community, occasionally accusing them of being demonically posessed or secret pedophiles, and claiming gay people want to destroy Christianity. Talk like that is going to provoke a hostile response from anyone - espicially when those it is targeted at can see some of the accusations are obviously false.

I also note that the court ruling, like all court rulings on marriage, applies to civil marriage - it certinly does not have any bearing on what churches can or cannot do. Churches in the US are already free to marry homosexuals if they wish, or for that matter to marry anyone to anyone or anything or any number of anyone-or-anythings. Civil marriage just defines what relationships may or may not be legally recognised - it has no bearing on which religious ceremonies are required.

So, essentially, your fear is unfounded.

Raven, first of all I want to let you know that I am not one of those who judge or condemn the gays. They are welcome into my church without judgement. I love them and accept them and I only would want to plant seeds and be a light in their lives. I know that it is the Lord's job to lead them to Him and change their lives. I do not hate gays, I do not agree with what they do, but hate does not win souls for Jesus, love and acceptance does. So let me tell you why my fears are completely founded. In Massachusetts the state passed a law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children. Catholic Charities which had been doing adoptions for over 100 years was forced to closed down their business rather than to be required to allow gays to adopt from them or be sued for refusing. Also in Massachusetts a father of a 6 year old boy was arrested because he had found out that his son's class was being read a book called King and King. In King and King, there is a prince who is looking for love and he is brought all of these princesses and he does not love any of them. The price sees one of the princesses brothers and falls in love with him. In the end they kiss. Now this is a required class in that state for kindegarten. The father asked that he be told when they would teach that class so he could pull his son out. The school said that they would not and that they were not required to notify him. (Do you remember taking sex ed in school? When I went to school our parents had to sign a concent form for us to even be in the classroom!) The father then said he would not leave until they promised him that they would notify him when they would teach that class. The school then called the police and was arrested. He then filed a civil suit requesting that parents be notified of the ciriculum taught to their children. In Feb. 2007 U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf has dismissed the civil rights suit of Lexington, Mass., parent David Parker, who objected to his grade-schooler being indoctrinated in the homosexual lifestyle. Wolf ordered the homosexual agenda taught to students, including Christians, in schools because the children need the teaching to become “engaged and productive citizens.” There is an obligation to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality. You can follow this link to read the rest of the story http://www.cfacr.org/pages/article.php?aid=715 So you see Raven, my fears are founded. I don't hate gays, but we should not lose our rights to practice our religious freedoms as well. This is what is happening right now in America, so this is an assault on Christians and it is bigger than you think and if you think that the gays out there who are opposed to religion don't have enough money to see this through a long court process, again sadly mistaken. As I said I don't promote hate, but we can't just sit back and say oh I'm not worried about the world because I'm a Christian. We too have to stand up for our rights and for our children. And you are incoorect about their being religious exceptions to the law in California legalizing gay marraiges, there are none.

Starting with the easiest response, the king and king incident, it is important to see that the father's arrest had nothing at too to do with homosexuality or religion in any way. He was arrested because he was occupying a school and refused to leave - I would guess the charge is trespass. This reduces the case to an equivilent of Parker's.

Covering both and K&K and Parker incidents, the problem here is that those parents expected the public schools to teach in compliance with their own religious preferences. As far as I am aware, there is no recognised right to maintain ignorance - if schools could not teach anything that some parents didn't object do, they wouldn't be able to teach much at all. Requiring someone to read a book is not an assault on religious freedom.

Regarding the catholic adoption agencies, this time you actually have a case - this is the only one I would recognise as a genuine infringement on religious preferences. It actually happened here in the UK too, under identical circumstances - we passed a law (Unrelated to our civil union law) requiring gay couples to be considered as adoptive parents with the same criteria as heterosexual couples, there was some campaigning for a religious exception that failed, and the Catholic adoption agencies shut down. I doubt the non-discrimination law would have stood up in court in the US, due to the first ammendment protection, but as the agencies shut down that will not be tested.

However, adoption is not an inherently religious practice, as a marriage ceremony is - if you allow an exception here, you are effectively saying that anyone with a religious exception is 'beyond the law' - a very untidy approach, allowing Catholics an exception that non-christians do not get, in a legal system in which all are intended to be equal under the law. Forcing a church to perform gay marriage is unacceptable, and legally next to impossible - but so is allowing any organisation to just ignore a secular law if they have a religious objection.

I agree that there is some restriction placed on religious freedom regarding homosexuality, and that the freedom is going to be restricted a bit more - but this is not oppressive, or even a serious restriction. No church is or will be required to perform a ceremony it objects to, to endorse a point to which it objects, be be restricted from either. Freedom of religion is simply a freedom to believe and practice religion - not a blanket exception from all laws to which someone objects. Religious freedom is also restricted when churches are kicked out of land they do not own but claim is God's property, or when a for-profit business with church ownership is required to pay taxes, or when church members are arrested for using mind-altering drugs in their rituals, or when a Christian daycare center is closed down because it hired carers without performing the legally required criminal records checks because it goes against their teachings to doubt the word of a Christian. All of these are actual examples. Religious freedom *cannot* be absolute, or it would be literally possible to get away with murder by claiming the holy book required it. Non-discrimination law applied to secular purposes (Not religious rituals) is a perfectly acceptable situation.

I remember sex ed. It has always seemed odd to me that this is the one class in school where parents are permitted to deny the education of their children - it's as if ignorance has somehow become a virtue, which must be protected from education.

Regarding the funding of gay campaigns, if they were as well-funded as you believe then they would have been able to defeat most of the state no-gay-marriage ammendments.

The law in california is not a bill, it's a court ruling, do it doesn't come with precise boundries. The legislature is free to add those in and include an exception for churches if they wish, though I suspect that would be difficult due to the political conflict between those who want the exception and those who believe that granting it would only legitimise gay marriage. Without that though, I still think that a court would rule that with marriage cermonies, the first ammendment protection of religious freedom takes priority.

Interestingly, I live in the UK - we have had civil unions for years, identical to marriage in all but name. We also have strong non-discrimination legislation, and a very politically active gay community. Perfect condictions - and yet no church has been forced to endorse gay marriage against it's own teachings. Nor, so far as I am aware, has this happened in any of the european countries in which gay marriage is allowed.

Probably your best post, Craig.

This is plain and simple, people. Since when is more taxes the answer to our problems? Craig said so in his post, California has a SPENDING PROBLEM.

Sorry, the thing cut my post off...

Anyhow, since California's government is having a tough time managing within their own budget, why should the porn industry have to suffer? There's not a lot of logic within that thought pattern. When other governments are driving the country into debt (say $9 trillion dollars worth), why should other job industries have to suffer for this? Prohibition has never worked, not now not ever. Trying to make it more difficult to produce porn on a legal level only creates a black market, since there is a demand. In any market, where there is a demand someone will meet that with a supply. Basic economics...

As far as gay marriage, marriage is a religious institution. It shouldn't really have anything to do with the government in the first place. Perhaps that could be seen as a states rights issue, but certainly has nothing to do with the Federal government (since it is found no where in our Constitution). I'm not a fan of this fear mongering that gay people are going to bring forth law suits against churches and preachers that won't marry them. Why wouldn't they just go to another church?

It's time to use logic instead of fear to run our lives. Our Creator gave us a brain for a reason. People can manipulate that fear by the way and can get us and this country into a lot of trouble (in case you haven't been paying attention lately). Jesus lived amongst a group that had lots of laws and practices he didn't agree with. But he accepted them and still ministered to them. No reason we can't do the same in our time...

I don't know what everyone is debating about. It doesn't exist. It's like fighting over who would win in a fight between Batman and Godzilla. It doesn't happen. There is no such thing as a gay marriage. A marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman which God bears witness to. This is a blood covenant, which two members of the same sex cannot experience. There isn't anything to debate about because there is no gay marriage. If they want to get married, then they need to do it right. Gay "love" isn't love at all. It's lust.
As for the porn tax, I think it should absolutely pass. Why should those of us with legitimate, wholesome jobs get taxed while people that promote immoral, unbiblical sex get off scot-free? I don't think I should get taxed for working at Pizza Hut or a government position while others get to enjoy a tax-free income.
I don't want to sound condemnational because I sin, too. I need God's grace and love as much as anyone else. I love gays and those in the porn industry but we can't lose our standards and drop our morals. We do need to live godly lives and follow the Bible, or else we're all hypocrites.
Jesus bless.

"Gay "love" isn't love at all. It's lust."

If this is the case, then why do they care about having their relationships legally recognised? If it was just lust, then homosexuals wouldn't care any more about marriage than would a heterosexual looking for casual sex. As well as that, I suspect you have never actually asked a gay person about it.

A more fundamental error is your confusion of religious and civil marriage - two things that are related by name and history, but completly seperate. Churches can do what they want with marriage - they can marry or refuse to marry anyone/thing on whatever grounds they wish. If they say marriage is man-woman only, that's fine. It is their religious freedom to decide that. Civil marriage though is a legal association - it is a relationship recognised officially under the law and is important for such things as benefits, taxation, inheritence, insurance, hospital visitation rights, child custody in the event of a breakup, and so on. Churches have no authority over this. And, as it is defined by the law, gay civil marriage exists or doesn't exist depending entirely on what the law says on the matter.

"As for the porn tax, I think it should absolutely pass. Why should those of us with legitimate, wholesome jobs get taxed while people that promote immoral, unbiblical sex get off scot-free? I don't think I should get taxed for working at Pizza Hut or a government position while others get to enjoy a tax-free income."

I do wish people would stop throwing 'unbiblical' round like its a bad thing. Unbiblical just means non-biblical, and it includes just about every aspect of the universe, good or bad.

The problems with the porn tax are practical difficulties of implimentation, and the potential for it's abuse to circumvent the first ammendment protections on free speech. Both of these, in my view at least, could be best solved by simply making sure porn is taxed as entertainment, just like any other form of entertainment.

I note also that the porn-producers do not get a tax-free income: They are required to pay income tax just like veryone else.

---

"Prohibition has never worked, not now not ever. Trying to make it more difficult to produce porn on a legal level only creates a black market, since there is a demand."

Prohibion does not work. This does not prevent people from trying, even if their failing attempt demands huge sums of money, throws people in jail for crimes widely percieved as insignificent and requires practices that may be unconstitutional.

"As far as gay marriage, marriage is a religious institution. It shouldn't really have anything to do with the government in the first place."

Agreed, absolutly and in every way. It's only due to an inconvenience of history that the government absorbed the religious side. The ideal, but completly politically impossible, solution would be to scrap government marriage entirely and replace it with 'civil unions' - a government recognised relationship that has all of the practical benefits of civil marriage, but none of the religious connotations.

Of course that won't happen - if you look at the huge outcry that is being made over gay marriage, imagine the response to someone who actually tried to abolish marriage in name. Couldn't be done.

Raven you obivously did not read the article that I sent you. Yes the father was arrested for trespassing, because he refused to leave the school without them assuring him that he would be informed of that particular teaching before hand. He sued in civil court for his right to be informed and not for the scool to teach based on his beliefs. The Supreme Court in California passed gay marriage in direct opposition to what we had alreday voted on and made into law in 2002 banning gay marriage. You say that Forcing a church to perform gay marriage is unacceptable, and legally next to impossible, but In Europe and Canada, pastors have already been charged and even threatened with imprisonment for preaching against homosexuality under these countries’ hate crimes laws. That's what is going on right now. And there is even a newly proposed law (in England) that could allow homosexuals to sue the church if they felt discriminated against by religious authorities. Under the proposal, a gay individual could sue the church if he heard a sermon that condemned homosexuality. The law is meant to protect homosexuals from hostile or humiliating “environments” as part of a revision of discrimination legislations. Do be in this bubble where you think that these things are not happening and can not happen, they are and they will. Don't be one of those people who are scratching their heads wondering why the heck you were arrested for writing that "gay love" isn't love at all, it is lust. I'm not trying to be a doomsday person, but these are real issues and these times are the times that the bible teaches us of. You can't just say I will leave the world to it's on devices because I'm in this Christian bubble and I won't be affected. We must stand up and do something and stand up for our rights as well. Gays are not the only ones with rights.

I read the article. I just pointed out that the arrest was not directly related to homosexuality - he was arrested for trespass. I do respect protestors, even those who perform minor violations of the law such as trespass to make their point - but not on school grounds. If someone isn't authorised to be there, they shouldn't be, and it doesn't matter what they are trying to protest.

The following lawsuit was entirely unrelated to the arrest - he could have still launched it even if he had left the property peacefully. So to claim that "In Massachusetts a father of a 6 year old boy was arrested because he had found out that his son's class was being read a book called King and King" is completly misleading. The lawsuit was a result of him finding that out, but the arrest was only a result of him refusing to leave the school grounds when ordered.

Back on topic, I understand your concerns - they are quite real concerns. Religious freedom is going to be limited in some ways if all goes as I hope, yes. But not to the extent that you believe, and this is nothing new. Religious freedom is not a 'get out of jail free' card - it can't be just used to override any secular law.

As far as I know, one pastor in Europe was arrested - Aake Green, Sweden - and he won in court. The ruling was that the hate-crimes law used could not criminalise speech, even hate speech, because that would conflict with whatever sweden uses to protect a right to free speech.

I am having trouble finding exactly which UK law you refer to. I have foudn three possibilities, here given in order of propability:

The newest one I can find is the Equality Act 2006. This is the most recent blanket non-discrimination act refering to homosexuality. It does though contain religious exceptions - section 57. I think this must be the one, because it is the only law I can find for which the exception is not a blanket 'all religious organisations, all purposes' exception. This is the one that the catholic church is upset about. Why I do not consider this a problem I will explain shortly.


Also, the Equality Act does not in any way protect homosexuals from 'hostile or humiliating environments.' I believe you may be confusing it with the 'Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation)' regulations - these doesn't actually prohibit discrimination of all types, only employment. Also, section 7(3) provides an exception for religions - they are considered excempt from the law if either the religious doctrine requires discrimination or if a majority of the followers would consider it so. You can read them at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031661.htm#7

The only other law to which I think you c ould refer is the "Criminal Justice Act 2003" - but that didn't create any new crimes, merely increased the penalty for ones already defined.

If there is a specific law you wish to discuss, then I request you refer to it by name rather than as just "a newly proposed law (in England)" - I cannot discuss it if I cannot find it. Also, I happen to live in England and follow the news here, and I do not know of any laws at all relating to homosexuality that have been proposed but not yet passed.

Anyway, leaving behind the detour into british law, none of that matters because religion should not be an instant escape from the law. It is perfectly within the power of government - mine or yours - to rule that services or employment must be provided without regard to sexual orientation. It's hardly new - they did the same t hing to race a long time ago, and than as now many people were scared that religious freedom would be lost because those who believed blacks were cursed by God (A popular view at the time) would be forced to go against their religion and treat them almost as equals.

It is very important to note something here: The Equality Act is the most comprehensive non-discrimination law passed for sexual orientation, ever, under any jurisdiction. Yet even this does not criminalise speech. Under this law I could, if I so wished, preech that homosexuals are sinful and corrupt and a threat to society - and this would be perfectly legal. There are still churches here that do just that. What I *cannot* do is refuse to do business with someone because they are gay, any more than I could refuse to do business with someone because of their race or gender. Nothing in the Equality Act criminalises speech. See for yourself, if you do not mind an extremally long and boring document: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060003_en.pdf - you want part three.

If you think religion should provide exception from all laws, then what laws could still apply? There are religions that consider it a sin to pay taxes - should those followers be allowed to avoid payment? There are religions that try to get closer to God by getting high, so should they be allowed to traffic in illegal drugs? Religious freedom does not mean freedom to be above the law.

Again Raven you twist things to fit your own point or understanding. The father was in a meeting called by his child's school that they invited him personally to to discuss the matter. He asked repeatedly to please just inform him when the class would be taught. He then said he would not leave the meeting until they gave their word that they would inform of when the class would take place. I as a parent would have done the same thing. I as a parent have the right to explain something like that to my child. If you think it's fine for your child by all means let your child take that class, but if should not be forced upon those who do not want their children learning about sexual orientation that way. You fail to note that Ake Green was sentenced and served one month in jail for his sermon's on homosexuality and then two years later won an acquittal. There are too many to name who have been arrested in Canada for this same type of preaching. It is pointless to go further into this with you. I am sorry that you think it's okay to have these types of laws and that they shouldn't effect us good Christians in our good Christian bubbles. You want your six year old child learning about homosexuality in school, go right ahead, mine will be going to a Christian School. It's not my job to convince you of what is morally right. I'm not your judge and we will all answer to God when this is all said and done. I will go to my grave defending the bible and it's Word. I'm not going to embrace the world and it's new teachings, but the Word I will always embrace. Acceptance and just saying oh well that's the world and we shouldn't care because we are Christian's is exactly why we are where we are at today. No love lost here Raven, you are my Christian brother and we have differences of opinion. I believe yours is dangerous because it can cause others to stumble but if you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior then you'll still go to heaven. Take care and God Bless.

Just look up this on google "newly proposed law (in England) that could allow homosexuals to sue the church" and you will find tons of articles about it.

Ah, found it! The law you are thinking of is the Equality act - it would have saved a lot of time if you could have named it earlier. The 'gays will sue the churchs' claim is pure scaremongering though.

The law: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060003_en.pdf
Skip all the boring bits and go straight to section 57. That's the religious exception. You should find it quite comprehensive - it even says that churches are free to ban gays from membership if they wish! (57(3)(a))

I think the concern that gays could sue the church is hugely exagerated by opponents of homosexuality because they want to scare people into fighting the equality act. A homosexual could sue, of course - they could sue already, if they wanted. But they wouldn't have a case.

The exceptions also cover faith schools and religious charities - so long as they are not for-profit organisations.

And for your other pose, regarding the rather case, I think you make it quite clear what happened yourself: "He then said he would not leave the meeting until they gave their word that they would inform of when the class would take place." He was not arrested for his position on homosexuality, he was arrested because he was remaining on school grounds without permission. You could argue that he was taking place in a form of peaceful protest, but not that he was arrested for supporting homosexuality. If I were to walk into a school and refuse to leave when asked I would expect to be arrested too.

He wasn't even complaining about sex-ed or non-discrimination classes - he was upset because the school had made use of a book with an obviously homosexual theme. I used to work at a school, and the staff are quite busy enough without having to contact all the parents with their reading material lists to check for approval - not to mention the problem of giving parents a veto power over what may be taught. There wouldn't be anything left to teach that someone didn't object to.

"I will go to my grave defending the bible and it's Word. "

On this point, if nothing else, I think we can agree.

Suricou Raven:

I apologize that it took me so long to respond to your response of my first post. It is not often that I stop by all of these and just thought to check back today. First, I wanted to say thank you for your kind spirited and respectful response. I really enjoyed what you said, even if I didn't agree with it all, and also really felt like you were interested in my response. Though you did not agree with all my arguments, you noted what truth you saw in them and I did not feel attacked at all. I say thank you that you did not "write me off" as a whacko, "bigoted," social neanderthal. It also helps repair my previous impression that you intended offense in your posts.

I will admit I do not have the time to read through all these long posts. Tanya, thank you for your input and additions to this topic including some of the articles you referenced.

Suricou, in response to your questions about how homosexual message differs from interracial marriage, please let me explain that I did not take time to expand on that in my first post because it was long. I agree that the restriction on interracial marriage was indefensible legally AND biblically. I have found no verse in the Bible to represent any kind of moral question to interracial marriage (IM.) I believe we would agree that restrictions against IM were racist in nature, and that while some of those in favor of those restrictions really held concerns like what you described below, they held them due to racist resoning. This reasoning, in my study and understanding, was and is unBiblical.

However, the same can not be said for homosexual unions. The new testament affirms that Christians would set an example even with the New Covenant in which they "did not eat food sacrificed to idols, do not commit sexual immorality etc." (I am sure you are familiar with the verse, I believe it is in the book of Acts just following God's Revelation to Peter that the gentiles could be saved) The meaning is simple: in the New Covenant, Christians (and society at large) need not follow all the laws of Lev. and Deut., but simply the few guidelines in the verse above. This concretes homosexual behavior and all other sexual immoralities (baseless divorce, adultery, beastiality, incest, rape, lust in general etc.) as being unBiblical even in the New Testament. Given this fact, for a Chrisitan there is a difference between allowing IM in which no moral question was involved, and homosexual unions in which a moral question exists. While I agree with you that the obvious majority of heterosexual couples have done substantial damage to the social/cultural view of marriage themselves with divorce and marriage for monetary gain, you made the point yourself when you said: "Still, the presence of far greater threats does not eliminate a smaller one. So the question now becomes, 'Would legalising gay marriage reduce the percieved value of marriage in general?"

I would argue with your assesment that divorce and other marital ills are somehow "far greater" threats to the image of marriage than a society which affirms that gender is of no concern in marriage. By what standard is this a "lesser" threat? Not by the Christian standard. I stand by you that divorce, adultery etc. in the church and society must be adressed just as vehemently, and as a Pastor or church leader I would, and I can say my church leadership does. However, I think you made my point when you recognized that the legalizing of homosexual marriage would affect the social/cultural view of marriage (especially in the view of developing adolescents he already are asking questions of sexuality) at least to some extent. You and I just disagree on the extent. I feel you are possibly right on its affect being minimal in the immediate future, but think history shows that the affect would be greater as society "progresses." As Christians, and peoples of many other faiths believe, homosexual behavior is not entirely biological/genetic, it is not spiritually or physically healthy, and should not be a "normative" alternative to heterosexual marriage. I think sexual biology, history, and common sense affirm that "religious" view. As such, Chrisitans must draw a "line in the sand" between IM and homosexual unions and be articulate in noting the differences, as I hope I have done to some extent here. I also cannot support government policies, rulings, legislation that will lead to a future culture in a society in which it is even more difficult for our sons and daughters to find Truth in sexuality and marriage that is healthy for them spiritually, mentally, and physically. I understand that others do not see things with my worldview, but since this issue undoubtedly does affect society at large, I hope I have presented a convincing defense of my right to at least speak out, and if the opportunity arises as it will this year in FL and CA, to vote on the issue. Since I have a habit of running off at the typewriter and since I feel I have said enough towards my position, I will not post again, but am looking forward to see anything else anyone has to add. Thank you for giving me the chance to join the respectful debate and not feel attacked. God bless you all.

I apologize, Suricou and others, for breaking my pledge of silence below, but there was one other item that I could not quite put my finger on to include in my second and most recent post.

Thinking about your point that marriage has already been damaged to a far greater extent than homo marital normalization (HMN) could inflict more thouroughly, I am convinced that this argument qualifies as at least a minor "red herring." Basically, by pointing out that major is already damaged and has flaws, you do not show that HMN would not also inflict social damage on the institution. I understand your point in referring to divorce, financial, abusive and loveless marriages etc. to demonstrate that our society's view and upheld image of marriage is already nothing perfect. However, in terms of debatable points, this somewhat amounts to little more than a distraction; an attempt to validate one ill due to the presence of others. In medicine, you do not introduce another full fledged virus/disease to help a body already suffering from many others. Likewise, I do not see the logic that because the social view of heterosexual marriage is already damaged, allowing homosexuality will do anything but increase harm. Which leaves simple legal considerations to be considered. Simply put, there was no biological or moral principle by which IM should be banned by the government of the people. However, since at least a large segment of our population historically, and currently, (which includes folks from all different educational, religious, social, economic, and scientific backgrounds) holds that marriage is to be defined in criteria of gender (man and woman,) singular unity (one and one,) and consenting age, it is within legality for it to be regulated as such if such a majority view is present. The Constitution says little about marriage, and it certainly does not grant individuals legal precedent to marry who they wish (without consideration of the above.) Therefore it should be left to the society empowering the govt. to decide what criterion morally and biologically best suits the institutions (namely marriage) that the govt. recognizes and sanctions. My simple point is to let the people vote so that we have a precedent to work with in the future, since one has never been established in our founding document. If your position is the morally correct one in the view of most our peers then it will win the day. However, if such votes are silenced, and through courts it is established that HMN is the legal and moral course (with no accepted documentary precedent) then they will further undermine the credibility of the Judicial Branch. If you respond that the "biological and moral" justification has been used before with IM restrictions, then I will point out that your thinking once again falls right into the hands of groups like NAMBLA who wish to go even further in redifining what is "marriage." (They would like to substantially lower the age of consent, so they can "marry" teen boys.) My question to you then would be, if the current majority should not be able to define marriage by its view of morality and biological propriety, then whose standard should we use? The mainstream gay-rights movement's? If we do not draw the line somewhere, I see little legal reason for us to stick with the gay-rights advocates' calls for what should be sanctioned as marriage. I know you have heard variations of that argument before, once again it is the "slippery slope", but as of yet, you have not convinced me that it is void of logic and consequential thinking. I thank you for allowing me to give myself hand cramps one final time. I look forward to speaking with you about other things where we may see things more eye to eye.