Sunday, March 15, 2009

And Then They Came For Me

On January 8, 2009, unidentified gunmen on motorcycles shot and killed Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickramatunga. Mr. Lasantha was editor and columnist for the Sunday Leader, a controversial newspaper that outspokenly attacked the Sri Lankan government for their human rights abuses during their campaign against the Tamil Liberation Fighters. On January 11, the Sunday Leader published a letter Mr. Lasantha had written and requested to be published after his death. In it the journalist, who for some time had been aware that he was going to be assasinated, explained the reasons behind his highly dangerous campaign for justice and issued a final plea for change. Here's the link to the letter:

I'd encourage everyone to take some time and read this. It's rather lengthy, but it is a touching and moving last testament to a man who refused to be cowed by injustice and sacrificed his life for a cause he believed in.

"There is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre, and security" Mr. Lasantha writes. "It is the call of conscience"

Saturday, March 7, 2009


As a break from this heated debate...check this band Liam and Me. I just found them and love their music but aint so sure about their lyrics. I put one song on the blog but please check out their myspace site for their better songs. Tell me what you think!
Here's Ashley's take:

Okay, here's what I think the problem is here.We are operating from different bases. You are arguing from a view that is filtered through purely religious views. Not everyone believes in a God and therefore, not everyone is going to be motivated by the whole "God will smite us if we allow homosexual marriage" thing.
Okay here's a source for you to check out:
Here are some of the main important points:"The primary argument against gay marriage is that it's seen as an abomination under Christian doctrine. Indeed, there are several passages in the Bible that make this point, the most prominent being Leviticus 18:22 which states:"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."It's kind of hard to avoid the clarity of such a statement. Reinforcing this view are passages from Genesis, Romans and Deuteronomy, but can these passages establish a legal precedent in the United States? The answer is no. Homosexuals have a constitutional right to marriage"The author goes on to explain Jefferson, the 1st amendment and the separation of church and state."in justifying the legality of gay marriage, one must first define marriage as a state function and not a religious one. It can be argued that marriage is a state function because it has the power to modify other state functions such as Social Security and tax filing status. Because marriage affects state functions, constitutionally, it too must be a state function for it to legally do so. If not, the government is violating Article Six and is actively discriminating against unmarried citizens. If marriage is a state function, then it's protected under various civil rights laws."The church doesn't have to recognize the legality of it, much less endorse it, but it will exist nevertheless.According to Matthew 22:21 [Jesus] said:"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."Jesus himself advocated keeping religion out of the law."Romans 13:1, says:'Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. If the law of the land is that everyone must pay war taxes then that is what we must do. It is the law!'The legality of gay marriage is incontrovertible when these passages and precedents are taken into account. Romans 13:1 goes on to say that those who believe a law is wrong should work within the system to change it. Simply denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of religion is illegal. According to Christ, it is also against Christian pathology."So there you go...this is a much more eloquent and better reinforced rendition of what I meant.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Alright. Here it is.

Ok. I'm not trying to show you that homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. For the straight up answer to your question: I think that if you just look to our governing documents, homosexual marriages could fit in just fine.

Now with that said, this is my problem: I dont think that because it may fit into the Constitution that we should allow it. Whether we should allow gay marriages in the United States is not the same as whether outlawing gay marriage is unconstitutional. There is more to the first question than to the second. So I agree that if you just look only to the Constitution, gay marriage fits. But I want to point the other question to you: Should we, as Christian Americans, allow gay marriage to be legal?
These are two opinions of people who emailed me their opinions:  (I kept them anonymous to prevent bias)

"I thought you would find this link helpful.  BTW, homosexuality is very harmful to a society- just look at Sodom and Gomorrah.  And it might be good to go back and read Romans 1:18-32.  God's judgement  is that people are given over to the degredation of their bodies.  It's a scary place to sit back and do nothing to stand for righteousness when others are under such a serious judgement from a loving Lord.  It's harmful to all of us when we are worshipping created things rather than our Creator.  Some people would want to worship freedom or happiness as the ultimate cause but again, that would be a created thing that becomes perverted when it becomes our goal."


"Just an FYI
No where in the constitution does it state "separation of church and state"  this statement was made in a private letter sent from T. Jefferson and has been widely used out of context thanks to our liberal media.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

The argument that being in a homosexual relationship is not hurting anyone but the people involved is a farce.  If they  truly understood the homosexual community, their roots and their agenda they would understand that there is much more to this than homosexuals being allowed to join in marriage.  I do not recommend researching this yourself as it is a very dark and disgusting world."

I hope you find this helpful.


In case anyone else missed my point....

All right, I'm beginning to lose my temper a wee bit. Here is the position we have been taking (I've even put it in capitals!) AN ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS, IN ESSENCE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Really, dude, you should have seen that before now. I won't elaborate here because I have already done so extensively in my comments to your post. What are you talking about when you say you've heard "confusing" statements? I have been quite clear (if a bit lengthy). And you continue to confuse issues. I am not, as you say, "pro-gay". I simply believe that, UNDER THE CONSTITUION, gays should be allowed equal rights in this nation of ours

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Stop. Listen. Clarify.

Ok. I'm gonna stop shouting my position over and over again. I want to hear your argument in clear, simple terms. Try to be clear on your arguments and your position and where your allegence lies and what is your priority in taking your view. Aaron: feel free; Connor and Ashley or whoever else wants to answer: write it as a comment to this post and I will post it.

So far I have heard many confusing positions from near pro-gay to near my own I'd like to hear clear, concise, and simple, and perhaps honest opinions. thanks.


Sunday, March 1, 2009

Come on now.

I'm sorry. But I must speak to this issue that Aaron brought up of government's involvement in gay marriage. I'm very close to disgusted by these views not only of Aaron's, but of those who have commented on it.

Since when was the government's business not the Christian's business?! Since when was the seperation of church and state something that we as God's ambassadors approve of?! Just because we're talking about politics does not mean we drop our crosses! We may have the job as citizens to obey the government, but in a democracy we also have the job of making our views represented in the government. If you wish to argue that the Christian morals in this case intrude on other's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", then I want to ask you to define these, especially pursuit of happiness. When the Thomas Jefferson penned this, do you really think that he was including sensual pleasure (moreover in a sinful form) in this happiness that the government should protect? And if you say that the culture now should redefine it to mean the "happiness" that today has so prevaded our society, then aren't you and I called to be in the world but not of the world? Since when do we give in to the culture and how it defines our lives? I do not presume your spiritual condition, but if you have a desire to see Christ glorified, then I would define Jefferson's diction differently: I believe that yes, the government does have the duty of protecting our pursuit of happiness, but not happiness defined as pleasure. Happiness defined as Joy. And our Bibles can competently show us where that is to be found. and its decidedly not in homosexuality. I believe that no matter how much pleasureful happiness can be found in homosexuality, it is not the joyful happiness which we as Christian should pursue or encourage others to pursue, namely by allowing gay marriage.