Grey Matters: Homosexuality
Posted by Chris L on Jun 6th, 2008
2008
Jun 6
Seems that the bi-monthly topic of homosexuality has come up again. Interestingly, last week’s sermon topic at my own church was specifically on this topic, with an approach likely to tick off both extremes of the spectrum on the issue.
You can listen here (sorry for the streaming link - I don’t have a downloadable one, though you can get it through iTunes here).
June 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I agree with him entirely..Specifically when he said that homosexuality is exactly the same as any other sexual sin,thats an important distinction…
I don’t think anyone on the other thread was arguing against the idea of people being a work in progress ,we ALL are…
Totally agree that Christ walks alongside us and lifts you when you trip up !
Haha he was funny when he asked people to raise their hands, he seems a great pastor!
June 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Thanks, andy - we greatly appreciate him, as well…
June 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Repentance:
Making a complete 180 degree turn from sin.
Repenting positively: Placing trust in Christ to complete it.
There is no argument from me; all liars will have their place in the lake of fire (literally) sin is transgression of God’s perfect standard, therefore homosexuality will land you in the same place lying will unless you are justified, through a payment made on your behalf by Christ.
But you must repent. You must admit it is a sin. You must forsake your lifestyle of sin and place your trust entirely in Christ. He will give you a new heart with new desires.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:10 am
“But you must repent. You must admit it is a sin. You must forsake your lifestyle of sin and place your trust entirely in Christ.”
I didn’t. I still smoked and drank and did drugs. Repent is to change your mind/heart and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sanctification is a post salvation process, which by the way, doesn’t seem to ever be finished in any believer.
Why are there different “rules” for gays?
June 7th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Rick,
I think you’ve hit on something important. James writes, “Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.”
There has to be room in the body of Christ for growth in practice and theology.
Also, we slip quickly into a works based salvation if you have to repent of every sin before you can enter the kingdom of heaven. It was this issue exactly that caused Martin Luther to begin his journey to the reformation. Now, it seems those who take most pride in the identity of being linked to the reformation have undone the reformation. At least on this issue.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:41 am
I think this is all a little unfair,the orginal thread wasn’t about an individual gay person coming to Church…If that was the case, of course they should be welcomed and we SHOULD allow God to do a work in that person over time..
But the orginal thread was about an organisation that are constant in their beliefs that their lifestyle is not only correct,but that scripture can reinforce it.. thats an entirely different situation..
To imply that people who are against what they stand for, are also ruthlessly against an indivual that walks into their Church seems slightly unfair..
June 7th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Rick: great point.
Andy: I still think we should be welcoming. All I can do is live my life as a witness to the one who changed my life and changes lives. I can proclaim the good news of what Christ has done. I can trust that God, who began this good work will complete it and see it through to the end.
I was wondering if there are any parallels to be drawn with the “sin” of drinking here? There are many churches that believe drinking is an outright sin and that this couldn’t be more clear in scripture. There are others (like myself) who disagree with that viewpoint and can prove so using scripture. I and they are at an impasse on the issue.
What if Rick Warren, someone who is known to not drink and who teaches abstinance from drinking (just go with me on this) were hosting a group of people that spent every Saturday at a vineyard? Would we care?
I’m willing to hear what holes are in this by anyone. I don’t care either way.
peace,
Chad
June 7th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Who cares about undoing the reformation? I care about undoing scripture!
Rick, are you telling me (honestly, or is this satire) that a person can come to Christ…lets say, a promiscuous adulterer) and think to herself ‘well, I know the scripture says that adultery is wrong, and fornication is wrong, and sex out of marriage is wrong, but I like this idea of Jesus, and after all, Paul was a meanie, who really didn’t like women. He didn’t understand the pressures of living a monogomous married life. So I am going to keep on doing what I am doing, because I like the idea of having Jesus and a free ticket out of Hell!
Give me a friggin break.
I am not saying sinless perfection either- I am saying repentance of known sin, clear sin. Placing faith in Christ. As he grows you and shows you the scripture, you continue allowing yourself to be molded into His image. A real Christian, one who is born again, does not argue over greek tenses and parse words in the NIV to prove his or her particular sin is okay in God’s eyes.
And Rick, Nowhere in scripture does God say smoking is a sin. Neither is drinking. Getting drunk is a sin, allowing anything to control you but the Holy Spirit is a sin… but not smoking and drinking. So go toast Spurgeon with a Guinness and a Stogie..
June 7th, 2008 at 7:25 am
PB-
What I hear you advocating (still) is perfection from day one. The adulterous woman you describe is a fairy tale. The rub is this: You describe her as one who “knows it is wrong” and yet continues anyways. We can praise God that he is working, despite her outward signs that might make us think otherwise.
PB, as we come closer to Christ we become more aware of just how much we need him. The new Christian doesn’t know this.
Lastly, “having Jesus” is FAR more than just a “free ticket out of hell.” Jesus didn’t die for you, me, heteros and gays, just so that he could then weigh in on the moral majority and use that as a carrot entice us out of hell into heaven. Salvation is far more than that.
peace,
Chad
June 7th, 2008 at 7:36 am
I agree Chad, salvation is far more than that.
What we have meeting with Rick Warren is the adulterous woman who reads in scripture it is a sin, but is in Denial, and we have Rick warren who knows the sin she is advocating, and yet approving in a sense meeting with her anyway. Its a patern with him, after all. Rupert Murdoch has lots of money, so peddling smut is okay.
Whoops…wrong thread!
Dude, this is what I am saying. Number one, homosexuality is NOT a gray area. It is VERY clear in scripture that it is an area of sin. (not THE area of sin) Of course we should welcome homosexuals to church. Of course we should eat with and have conversations with them. However, I would not baptize a practicing homosexual (or adulterer, or liar, or….etc.) Nor would they be welcomed as members of our church; for their lifestyle of unrepentant sin disqualifies them!
June 7th, 2008 at 7:40 am
PB-
I know many who say that drinking has no grey area in scripture either. Are they right?
I find what you say about baptism and church membership disturbing on a number of levels. Are you now the gatekeeper of God’s grace? Again, you make the standard for even coming to the table and being part of Christ’s fellowship one that no one but Jesus could keep.
Don’t forget Jesus had communion with one he knew would betray him, one he knew would deny him 3 times, and the rest who would desert him for dead.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Chad,
No, but I am the gatekeeper/undershepherd of this local fellowship. What we are talking about here is a brazen, obvious lifestyle of sin.
This can be discovered through the extensive interview process. Of course people can lie, but with the heavy accountability that membership in this local church buys, it would not be long before people living a lifestyle contrary to Christianity would be found out.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Your correct its as no grey area its ok haha (i’m english we live to drink jokeeee)
Chad i have a question for you…We both agree that a person should be welcomed into a church we should allow God to work in them,BUT whens enough,enough? What are you exactly advocating no change ever and they can still come?
Oh and all my post are made while smoking thought i bet fess up
June 7th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Andy
smoke em if you got em
June 7th, 2008 at 7:57 am
PB - I am saying, as does the Scripture believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, that you do not have to give up ANY sins to get saved (JN.3:16). Otherwise, it is patially law.
Grace is license to sin, but it is a free gift for eternal life. When a couple adopts a child they take him as he is and begin a process of raising him. The same with God. How can we expect a gay person who is unsaved to have a clear perspective of his sin AND give it up when it takes many of us years to give up some sins, and even then we practice others less indentifiable.
Read the New Testament lists if you must and tell me if you or anyone has given them all up. Present me with a list of sins that you do not have to give up before salvation. BTW - I also did drugs and did not totally give them up until over a year, but within that year I was a monster witnesser and entered Bible College - I was saved.
Thank goodness I wasn’t gay!
June 7th, 2008 at 7:57 am
And Andy, yeah. I would have a problem with them.
But if they want to abstain, Paul says that is cool as well.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:59 am
PB-
I am a pastor. I tremble at the thought of being the one who decides who gets to receive grace from God and who does not. Pastors are not gatekeepers, we are heralds and inviters to the feast of which Jesus (not us) is the host. And Jesus sits with everyone.
Andy-
I joyfully confess that Jesus takes me “Just as I am” but does not leave us just as we are. I trust God to sanctify as God continues to save those whom God has already saved.
To ask “when is enough, enough?” is not my question to ask, only God’s. We either believe God is sovereign and still in the business of rescuing, redeeming and restoring or we don’t, thereby taking the work into our own hands and putting time limits and restrictions on who gets to sit at the table or not. This goes against everything I see in the gospels.
peace,
Chad
June 7th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Chad whats your view on Church displine?
…………………………………..
Its rather odd the position i find myself here,i seem to be seen as the fundie, where as at church (when i go) as rebellious…I like to see myself as a sheep in wolves clothing rofl
June 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I do agree with you Rick i’m as harsh as i may come across…
I remember Nicky Cruz saying when he got saved he prayed to be saved along the lines of ” oh God *&*^ help me im such a &^&” mess” etc … Of course we don’t become perfect in seconds its a work in progress…
But what Chad seems not able to see (i suspect due to his extreame sweetness), is were dealing with people who don’t see the need to change something which is doctinally wrong…
June 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am
of course that should of been not as harsh (freudian slip anyone ??)
June 7th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Anyhow this could go round and round in circles….
I believe we should treat people with kindness and love..
I believe all sexual sins are the same and there is no league of sins
I believe that a person takes time to progress,and slips along the way and God is there to help
But i refuse to accept that we should just turn a blind eye to people, that change the bible to condone their sin, and insist the church should accept them under those terms,and more come into agreement with them..
and with that are leave it..
June 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Yes homosexuality is just one of many sexual sins and the church has failed to acknowledge that.
However is there an adulterers activist group, or one for thieves or…. pushing a political agenda. We are all “born that way”.
The spirit of wisdom and revelation, LORD!!
Paul was accused of preaching licentiousness, when he most certainly did not. What we have here are those who actually preach it. Cheap grace.
What results from this are churches where you can fellowship and just keep doing what you already do, as this “process” may be lifelong.
IOW, show me the church where I can live in adultery, steal, lie, party, etc and sign me up. I can keep doing these things, but hey, I’m saved.
Yes, you may struggle with the temptations all your life, as the spirit and flesh are at war, but you will stop doing it if you are truly His. God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can endure
We work out, what GOD works in.
The question would be; is God truly at work in you ?
What is preached here is a form of election and /or predestination (which is what universalism is btw), except that in this soteriology man does his own electing and his own working out.
The “process” for some is merely a counterfeit and excuse.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
What about Polygamy? I think it’s fairly clear that scripture teaches that one man and one woman is the requirement of marriage, and that polygamy is not an acceptable ‘alternative lifestyle’.
(Real Example)
If you have a man with three wives (and children with at least two of them), will you require that he divorce at least two of them before he can receive the grace of Jesus?
June 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Wow, Chris.
I pray God keeps me safely in North Carolina as a pastor.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I believe Chris is referring to the mission field?
I believe that salvation grace is frighteningly more expansive than we ever imagined. A truly saved person will enter a struggle for sure about his own walk, but a sinner can receive the grace of God freely and with no strings attached, just as I did.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am
My example comes from the mission field - but it could be applicable here, as well - case in point:
If one of the men in the FLDS compound came to believe in Jesus, which of his 6 wives would he keep and which ones would the ‘gatekeepers of Christ ‘ require that he dump before being allowed into the church?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Draw lots?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
At some point will those in the church stop being scandalized by grace?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Probably not, for it always sounds like “foolishness to [us] Gentiles.”
June 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Sometimes when I post, I’m smoking, too!
Must quit. Anyway.
Allow me to throw a bone into this discussion. Jesus said that when a person lusts in their heart, they’ve committed adultery. Since this discussion right now is primarily men, I would suggest that this makes us all guilty of that. I would also suggest that this also, by its nature, makes all gay people “practicing homosexuals,” regardless of whether or not we’re currently having teh sex. So. That being said, how dare anyone refuse to baptize somebody who professes Christ?
Kind of like at the country club when they searched our background to make sure there weren’t any rogue Jew elements in our family tree!
“Extensive Interview.”
My God, by which I mean, My God.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“If one of the men in the FLDS compound came to believe in Jesus, which of his 6 wives would he keep”
The pretty one.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Would you baptize a practicing sinner?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Rick’s cynicism is sometimes staggeringly massive.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Rick, I’m starting to wonder if PB would have baptized Jesus, with his disregard for rules and the way he focused on people as people rather than abstract concepts.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Catch ya all later…gonna go watch Clinton admit what the rest of the world had known for months.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
OH, is it on?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
BTT - before I go, don’t you remember Golgotha? Don’t you recall the rigid interview process Jesus had with the theif next to him before saying, “today you will be with me in paradise”?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
at high noon
June 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
To what degree are we responsible, or even capable, to authenticate someone’s profession of faith? We accept the words of a coached 5 year old but we require what proof from an adult?
We baptize professing sinners and leave what cannot be seen except by God. I have baptized many who I am sure were not actually saved, thank God they were heterosexuals!
June 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Also, since when did baptism become the end of the journey? It is only the beginning. The infants I baptize are not by any means professing the Nicene Creed but by God’s grace we as a church community welcome them to join the story of redemption God was writing long before they were born.
Ok, I really am going now.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Well there’s your first problem “infant baptism”…I kid; I kid.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Apparently Hillz is late.
In bed or something in a fetal position.
“nnnnnnnnnO! NO SPEECH! No speech no speech no speech don’t wanna!”
i’m live-blogging it, btw.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Great speech, I have to say. She done good.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I have never seen her more sincere and heartfelt.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
She almost persuaded me to vote, but I regained my composure!
June 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Rick, voting is fun.
It’s okay to care about the future of the nation where you live. I promise.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I am such a political existentialist!
I happen to care deeply about the coming football season for Notre Dame. I am shallow as well…
June 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Well, look at this way: You pay taxes, riiiight?
Well, those taxes can be used for lots of things. Currently a large portion is being used to slaughter people. I’d rather be involved in electing somebody who might do something different with my money.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Does that guarantee a winning season at South Bend??
June 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Ok, I’ll bite: You mean like slaughter thousands upon millions through state sponsored abortion?
June 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Rick: The gov’t. can’t make miracles happen. That stretches even the audacity of hope
Joe: I am pro life, but recognize that the government cannot legislate morality. Should the gov.t continue to uphold R vs. Wade does not mean everyone will run out and have an abortion.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Chad, you are right, it doesn’t. It also doesn’t mean that making murder (me killing my 45 yo neighbor) legal is going to stop me but we still have that law on the books.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I’ll bite right back.
Abortion exists. It just does. It will exist regardless of whether laws are on the books or not. Roe is never going to be overturned. I really don’t care what your Republican politicians tell you. The Supreme Court already has a conservative majority. Overturn Roe and the Religious Right wing of the Republican party loses its favorite talking point.
Now.
When, occasionally, Republican politicians do something from a legislative perspective pertaining to abortion, it usually has to do with a very, very tiny number of abortions, and it has very little impact on the number of abortions performed in this country. Usually, it’s used as a political weapon against Democrats. Republican politicians craft bills on things such as dilation and extraction (for those who don’t know, that’s the actual medical term for what ONLY the pro-life political movement calls “partial-birth abortion”.)
Dilation and Extraction, as any medical doctor with experience with womens’ reproductive issues, is almost NEVER performed. The only times it ever is performed are when a medical situation is so dire that a physician has to take that step. So, follow the timeline here: 1. Take an obscure and yes, grotesque, medical procedure that is hardly ever done, 2. rebrand it with a horrible new name, 3. use it as a political weapon to inflame the sentiments of completely well-meaning people, 4. write a bill to ban it outright, (4.5 - be roundly condemned by every medical association in existence), 5. make sure to write that bill with no exclusions for the health or life of the mother, even though the procedure is only performed in those very circumstances, 6. Reasonable politicians (usually Democrats) who study the issue (beyond the pamphlet they got from the American Family Association) vote against the bill, realizing it’s not the role of legislators to insert themselves into the doctor-patient relationship, 7. ta-da! “Demoncrats is baby-killers!”
Meanwhile, back on Earth…
Studies have proven time and time again that pro-choice legislative policies, which include real sex education, measures to address the economic issues that lead to abortion, and include leaving the law intact which provides safe and legal access to abortion, are, indeed, much more effective in reducing the numbers of abortions performed in this country. So the question to pro-lifers is: Would you like to be morally righteous about the issue or actually address the issue?
I hate to say it, but ALL pro-lifers who support politicians who rail against the “eeeeeeevils of abortion” and who support political organizations (like CWA and AFA), which cherry-pick and manipulate studies to “prove” to their followers that “abstinence education works!”…ALL pro-lifers need to spend some time, apart from any literature that has either a “Christian” or a “pro-life” stamp on it, actually researching the issues for themselves.
Now, having said that, I’d also suggest you look up just how much of your tax money goes to fund abortions vis a vis the amount that goes to blow up the already-born in Iraq, the amount that could be used to stop the massacre of the already-born in Darfur, and the amount that could possibly be used to blow up the already born in Iran before the end of the year if the genocidal president of the United States gets his way.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Evan,
Murder exists too. So does robbery and extortion. Evan, I’m not saying that all those other things aren’t bad and shouldn’t be stopped. They should. But abortion is killing people too. It also should be stopped.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Furthermore, we could have just said, “Racism exists” but somewhere somebody had to take a stand. I’m not saying that abortion should be the only issue we look at, I just wanted to make sure that we’re being honest that all the candidates of the major parties support taking some of our tax money to kill somebody.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
So Evan, where do I fit in. I believe abortion is wrong but I believe politics is useless and legislation will continue toward moral entropy.
Only Christ is the answer.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Joe.
Did you read a word I said, or should I ask, did you read a word I said without filtering it through Right to Life talking points?
Abortion has existed since Old Testament times, THAT WE KNOW OF. There is reference to it in the Bible!
We agree, Joe, that abortion is a terrible thing.
The ENTIRE point I was making was that the people who are involved politically in this conversation who claim the mantle of “pro-life” actually are doing nothing more than exacerbating the problem and are, in fact, doing much less to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country than those under the mantle of “pro-choice.”
One need only look at the statistics for nations with very “pro-life” policies compared to those with very “pro-choice” policies already in place to see where the fewest abortions are actually performed, but I’ll save you the research (I mean, please, do it for yourself, by all means, don’t take my word for it): Abortion rates are lowest in nations with the most lenient abortion policies.
That’s why the debate in this country over this issue is so completely screwed up. Strangely enough, addressing the issue of 47 million Americans without healthcare and lack of education about reproductive issues and contraception actually, yes, addressing the issues of the already-born, actually does SO much more to reduce abortion in this nation than running around passing bans on medical procedures that don’t stand up to constitutional scrutiny, and, strangely enough, are among the instances of abortion where it truly IS a medical issue, rather than an issue of choice.
I’m sorry, but you need to research this for yourself, and yes, like I said before, you need to do it 100% away from any website/organization that calls itself “pro-life” or “Christian,” but rather do so in the fields of medicine, law, and economics.
I hate to say it, but this is part of why Republican party is such poison right now…they’ve been absolutely lying to their base about these issues for years, with their handy cohorts in the politicized Christian arena, all the while pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with the mostly good intentions of the people who have been voting for them, an agenda that, I might add, is absolutely counterproductive to every word that ever came out of Jesus’s mouth.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Ok, Evan… well since I’m not a Republican, you just assumed that I am. I guess you missed everything I read too. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
We can agree to disagree on opinions, but not facts, Joe.
And if you’re not a Republican, that’s great, good for you, but I made reference in another thread to being able to tell certain things about someone’s perspective based on certain talking points…when a person makes reference to the actual slaughter of human beings in war and genocide all over the world, and the immediate response is some version of the copyrighted and trademarked “what about the rights of the unborn? aren’t they the MOST marginalized in this society?,” then it’s immediately apparent that there are a lot of facts missing from the discussion, and in its place, a lot of political posturing which originates from people (not you, personally, I’m talking about the national political anti-abortion movement) whose only exposure to science or medical knowledge is the frog they vaguely remember dissecting in 9th grade.
It is absolutely stunning to me (no it’s not) that this nation is able to get so obsessed with political issues such as this, but yet the actual facts of the debate are as lonely as tumbleweeds in the middle of nowhere, drowned out by the emotional moralizing of legislators who willfully refuse to learn about that of which they speak.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Unfortunately, Evan, very little of what you presented is “factual”, either. Coming from a medical family, working for a company in the life sciences, with a degree in applied sciences, I can tell you that your “facts” have just as much (if not more) political spin to them than Joe’s.
Lives are lives, period. Whether they are on the other side of the world being bombed, or 5 miles away being ripped out of a womb, they are both the taking of life…
June 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The issue of the overuse of indescriminate force with many casualties is a legitimate issue.
Abortion is one also. Ronald Reagan in his book “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation” made a great statement. He said when there is disagreement on such an important issue - err on the side of life.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
But yet neither of you responded to what I actually had to say.
Um, Bill Frist is a cardiologist. He also pretty much negated his previous commitment to the Hippocratic oath while he was a Senator (specifically points 3,5,6.)
Which is a good and pure sentiment. What’s funny is that, specifically with the so-called “partial-birth abortion” ban I was speaking of above, the legislative efforts of the so-called “pro-life” movement actually address issues where, in many cases, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, and/or the mother’s life is truly in danger, and so these “moral” politicians thought it best to criminalize the actions of doctors who have to be the ones to tell their patients that their “healthy baby” is actually conjoined twins who share one heart, with no chance for survival after birth, and all of the heartwrenching devastation that that entails.
Sorry, Mom and Dad, you’re a political talking point now, just like Terri Schiavo!
Right to life, indeed.
*eyerolls*
June 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Evan,
You’re talking about a very small percentile - taking the 0.5% exception to justify the rule. I’ve seen the stats, and I know what I’m talking about. The exceptions “for the life of the mother”, when written with specific safeguards (to prevent ‘for the life of the mother’ from becoming a joke for the 85+% of abortions which are purely for convenience sake) deal with the minuscule exception you’re referring to.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Chris - exactly. Offer to eliminate the .05% exceptions and you will expose the real agenda.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Evan,
I’m gonna type as slowly as I can. I think both genocide in Darfur and abortion are wrong. You don’t do a good job of presenting your case because you present opinions as fact. You are guilty of the very thing you accuse everyone that disagrees with you of being guilty of…namely an agenda that is blinding. Your “facts” are not facts. It’s propaganda. As I said before, you made a statement that implied the only people who want to take our tax money and use it to slaughter people are the Republicans–those oppressors of the poor, rapers of women, slaughters of mom’s apple pie and tax cheats. I pointed out that both of the main political parties want to take some of our tax dollars and kill someone with them. McCain wants to build weapons and kill adults. Obama wants to build medical centers and kill the unborn. They both want to kill people. Because I disagree with you doesn’t mean that I am uneducated or that I haven’t done my own homework. Your comments often have more assumptions in them than an ODM “missive” and frankly I get tired of reading it. I appreciate your perspective and I believe we can all benefit from your thoughts. There has to be a way you can share them without insulting those who disagree with you three comments in.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Not with late-term abortions, Chris, which is what I was talking about.
Niiiiice bait and switch though.
The specific prodecure I was referring to accounts for 0.17% of all abortions performed in the United States, and the great majority happen in extreme medical circumstances.
I do enjoy the flippancy and dehumanizing way you refer to getting abortions out of “convenience,” though, as if the women who do so are somehow less than human. This is why many women, when a man gives an opinion on the issue, politely tell the man to shut up.
(Or impolitely!)
Let’s deal in facts for a moment, though, on the greater question of abortion rates vis a vis the legality of abortion around the world:
(Guttmacher Institute)
Contraception, eh?
Then one would assume that the organizations that fight most vehemently under the mantle of “pro-life” would also fight just as vehemently for the widespread and inexpensive availability of contraception, since this is about unborn life, right? RIGHT?
Oh dear God:
(Cristina Page, author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, and the War on Sex)
I repeat, Oh dear God.
When one looks at the full policy statements of supposed “pro-life” organizations, one finds that the War on Abortion is actually just one of the prongs of the Religious Right’s War On Sex, which is why, ding ding ding, the busybody activists who support banning abortion rather than actually doing something about the problem (because, as we just learned above, banning abortion does nothing to stop abortion), are the same exact busybodies who fight for abstinence-only sex education (which also has been shown, repeatedly, to Not Work, except in the “studies” put out by organizations like CWA rather than grown-ups who are actually trying to address the issues), and those busybody activists are the same ones fighting against All Things Gay. The three prongs of the pitchfork in the “Moral” “Majority’s” War On Sex.
Recently, for giggles, Cristina Page also decided to find out who was doing a better job in lowering teen pregnancy rates/teen sexual activity: “Pro-life” states, or “Pro-choice” states?
Wow! Pesky little things called statistics. Lower teen pregnancy rates, of course, also lead to, ta-da, fewer abortions.
By the way, I have all the links to all of this information readily available, but i didn’t include it b/c I know how the moderation queue grabs posts with more than one link (or occasionally with just one).
June 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
That is phenomenal BS and you know it.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
But it’s part of the way this entire debate has been bastardized.
A great majority of Americans support the upholding of Roe.
So are you telling me that a great majority of Americans want to take tax dollars and kill people?
No.
Surely, you’re not.
Because that wouldn’t even pass the giggle test.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
No, Evan but your response does show why I avoid discussions that you’re in. I had a friend that you used to think that the only thing wrong with the world was that liberals were allowed to live. Then, he had an epiphany and now he thinks the only thing wrong with the world is that conservatives are allowed to live. The problem is he still acts the same way, he’s just switched teams. Calling something phenomenal BS isn’t discussing, it’s play acting at being grown up. It’s pretending that you want to have a discussion but all you really want to do is lambast the other person, not discuss what they have to say. As a tax paying American I have the right to say that I don’t want $1 of my taxes going to kill an unborn person or a fully grown person in some foreign country. You can support abortion, you can support the candidate who is for abortion. You can support late term abortion if you want to do so. That is your option. But please don’t act like the only people who have an agenda that leads to tax dollars being used to kill people is the conservatives because that doesn’t even pass the giggle test.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Oh my goodness, you pick the offhand “BS” comment and yet again refuse to discuss the merits of the argument.
Joe, I deal in facts, if you haven’t noticed that. Rather than…
Talking point.
Talking point.
Talking point.
That’s a trifecta.
The question is not about “supporting abortion” or “supporting late-term abortion.” That’s the most phenomenal strawman ever constructed by the Religous Right, and in the sidebar over there, there’s a link that claims that the writers of this site don’t like strawman defenses.
What I find to be a childish attempt at being grown-up, Joe, is a willful refusal to look at statistics with eyes wide open and consider the possibility that maybe the opposing side in the so-called “culture war” is, in fact, achieving your side’s goals more effectively.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
No, Evan, I didn’t bait and switch - I was talking about the actual percentage of D&E’s done truly to save the life of the mother.
Also, my apologies for ‘demeaning’ women by suggesting that their convenience (which includes - as more prevalent in the countries you mentioned - selecting the sex of their child) is not more important than the ‘convenience’ of the child within them to live…
June 7th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Evan,
Joe’s dead on correct in EVERYTHING, and your BS has grown utterly deep and boring.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Let’s take this to the Cracker Barrell.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I would also note and agree that a vast majority of Republicans who have run as pro-life candidates have done little, if anything, about it once they’ve arrived in Washington…
June 7th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Good idea, Rick
June 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
All right, fine, just keep on ignoring the root causes, keep on supporting policies that lead to more unwanted pregnancies, which lead to abortions and unwanted babies, and those on the pro-choice will keep tearing our hair out on this end trying to keep up with the debilitating effects of continued cycles of poverty, the rapidly growing orphan crisis, etc.
(Which country did I mention where abortion is primarily used in sex-selection abortions, please?)
I would like to see those statistics, please, since, in the year 2000, we are talking about a grand total of 2,232 out of the total 1,313,000 abortions performed that year. I’d also like to see your statistics on how many were for the health of the mother (such as, say, mother diagnosed with cancer and needs immediate chemotherapy), and also those that related specifically to the viability of the fetus, as I pointed out above.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Yes, I pointed that out above.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
To call bull*hit utterly deep and boring seems kind of hateful.
Also, it also strikes me as untrue to say “Obama wants to kill people.” (In light of what I’m about to write.)
Indeed, Evan has a claim that hasn’t been addressed (unless I’m mistaken):
“Pro-choice countries have fewer abortions than pro-life countries.”
Until I see that statement refuted in a peaceful manner, it seems like the Christians on this site are being less gracious than the non-Christians. (Or whatever Evan considers himself to be.)
June 7th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
That is phenomenal BS and you know it.
Not in england
June 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
MG, not a single one of my arguments was addressed.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Technically agnostic follower of Christ, in that I’m a believer, yet I don’t claim to know absolute truth, but am more of a seeker. (To clarify what Evan considers himself to be)
June 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
But to clarify, these are two huge facts that have gone unaddressed:
1. In the US, states with pro-life policies have much higher rates of unwanted pregnancy, teen sex, teen pregnancy, abortion, etc., than states with pro-choice policies.
2. Abroad, the rate of abortion doesn’t seem to be affected at all by the leniency or stringency of the abortion laws, but rather other factors, primarily access to contraception (which also involves correct sex education and economic issues) seem to correlate most directly with the abortion rates in these nations.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Evan,
I responded to your initail comment that supposed that the only people who wanted to take my tax money and use it to kill people are the conservatives.
My assertion that you can support what you want is not a talking point and your accusation that it is shows your true colors. Show me your stats, Evan. When you’ve been called on your stats before they haven’t been all that accurate or all that unbiased. So show me. I’m listening.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
M.G.
I’m curious, why do we have to disprove his stats? Why isn’t the burden of proof on him? This discussion isn’t about statistics, it is about whether or not I believe my tax dollars should be used to support any abortion. Even one. It is about whether or not I believe my tax dollars should be used to fund a war. Even one against the “axis of evil” or whatever they’re calling it today.
This discussion took a turn when assumptions where made. I’m sorry you feel I’m being ungracious to Evan.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Politics - It’s the tie that binds.
Like chocolate.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
well, to start with, play around this website, Joe.
http://www.guttmacher.org/
your turn.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
How does England fair Evan? It doesn’t have a particular strong pro life stances ,i think i read % wise it as the highest abortion rate in Europe, if not the world,also the highest teen pregancy in the 12-14 range
I don’t think the rates have much to do with which Goverment is in power either left or right
Contraception is readly available in the UK, Sex education is very progressive too..
June 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“How does England fair Evan?”
They are barbarians.
(I’m half Irish!)
June 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Of course, I’m the one who has the burden of proof.
Note to anyone watching which commenter has been leaving long detailed responses, which go to refute the original point made by Joe Martino that a certain political party “wants your tax dollars” to kill babies, and show that the members of that political party actually support policies that reduce the rate of abortion.
Also note which commenters have replied flippantly with brief “I’m right, you’re wrong, you can support abortion all you want” responses that do nothing to address the facts as I’ve presented them, and do nothing to affirm their desire to support policies and politicians who will actually use their tax dollars to DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.
I haven’t veered off-topic at all, Joe.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Andy:
Dunno, let’s find out!
June 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
1. In the US, states with pro-life policies have much higher rates of unwanted pregnancy, teen sex, teen pregnancy, abortion, etc., than states with pro-choice policies.
2. Abroad, the rate of abortion doesn’t seem to be affected at all by the leniency or stringency of the abortion laws, but rather other factors, primarily access to contraception (which also involves correct sex education and economic issues) seem to correlate most directly with the abortion rates in these nations.
I’d like to see the stats to back this assertions up, but it isn’t the point for me. The point is whether or not abortion is right. Just like I think it is wrong for me to be able to appropriate my neighbors car for my own use (incidentally, robbery is also found in the Bible) , I also think it is wrong for my wife to kill an unborn baby. For any reason. Arguments about the law being a detriment are a side issue. The effectiveness of the law doesn’t determine if it should be in place. The rightness of the law does. My right to convenience ends at your nose. Every time. Are people being murdered as we debate this? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Are babies being killed? Yes. And that is just as wrong.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“How does England fair Evan?”
They are barbarians.
(I’m half Irish!)
Its true!!! Englands a mess at the moment,it doesn’t matter whos running the country right or left its a MESS
June 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
So far, looks like:
I’m zeroing in on info for the UK.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Evan,
Let’s start at the most basic assumption in this discussion; is abortion killing humans? Please answer this question.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
No it’s not, because the great majority of people agree that abortion is wrong.
This is about whether we use our religious beliefs to influence our voting, or rather do we learn ALL the facts about an issue, and then take them back to the lens of our religious beliefs to determine the best course to ameliorate the problem.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Please, Andy, we are much more barbaric than you guys. Don’t insult us or we’ll use our massive stockpile of personal firearms to teach you gunless pansies a lesson.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Nonononononononono, take your religious beliefs out of my secular society, please.
This is the problem! We AGREE that abortion is wrong! Yet one of us is sitting here going through non-biased research and boring statistics to show that one way of addressing this problem works FAR better than the other.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
MG - ‘Boring’ = all sorts of data for BOTH sides of the argument (since both sides either ignore or forget that correlation is not causation), with no likelihood of swaying opinion either way. It has been so long since I’ve even gotten into an abortion debate, because they are (per my definition) repetitious and boring.
There are enough socioeconomic factors at play to muddle the whole thing, as well… For instance, as Evan points out, contraception CAN correlate to abortion rate - but it can also be irrelevant if there are other social factors involved (social stigma, etc.). Additionally, you can fiddle with the statistics by deciding whether to report the abortion rates per capita or per live birth. Both reveal specific truths while masking others.
The method of any particular study will also shade the results, depending on the thesis and funding of the parties going in. For instance “the life of the mother” can be defined pretty narrowly or pretty broadly. If, for instance, you consider “the life of the mother” to be a factor in choosing D&E over D&C because of the dangers of D&C in late-term abortions (which a number of Planned Parenthood studies have done), then you’re gaming the percentage.
In the end, it leads to a fruitless and (often) heated discussion, in which all sorts of stats and figures get tossed around and nothing gets solved (back to my ‘boring’ comment).
Should there be (reasonable) policies which limit the number of unwanted pregnancies - certainly, if the parents are involved in these ‘policies’. Should there be limits on abortion. Yep. I don’t care if you hit both sides of the equation, but - as Joe pointed out - suggesting that only one side of the political spectrum supports using tax dollars for enterprises that end lives is utterly specious.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“non-biased research”
Oxi-moron.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Thank you Evan, this clears up for me my frustration with you on this topic. This isn’t about religion for me. It’s about humans rights. I think prostitution should be legal, even though I think it is morally repugnant and wrong. My “religion” as you call it also reminds that it is wrong, but I believe it should be legal? How can this be? I mean I’m nothing more than a blithering right winger who is out to force his religion on other people.
I think once again, that we will just have to agree to disagree on how best to handle this problem. It’s Saturday night and I’m off to play scrabble.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Also, for you to suggest that it’s wrong to kill your baby for any reason means, naturally, that you’d rather her die were something to happen that would endanger her life, and also reveals that you might benefit from talking to/reading the stories of people who have gone through these absolutely heartwrenching terrible situations that you’d never wish on your worst enemy.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Joe,
I think there is a disconnect in the conversation, and you and Evan are talking past each other.
You are correct that governments, if they choose to regulate a vice they find, perhaps not contrary to public policy but something very near it, may indeed use tax dollars to “support” the vice.
That, however, has to be weighed against the public policy implications of outlawing or otherwise refraining from regulating the vice. If the vice actually *increases* in the absence of regulation, you have a strong argument for government regulation, even if tax dollars are used to support, in some way, that vice.
What we have is a question of “clean hands.” Is it better for a government to ban a vice, knowing that it will increase the vice, rather than regulate the vice, even though it involves the state in an unlean business?
For example, assume for the sake of argument that drugs were legal. What if it were proven in a satisfactory way that clean needle facilities combined with counseling was helping to actually eradicate the drug problem?
Would it be fair to declare that a politician in favor of this policy, say Obama, *wants* people to shoot up?
I would consider such an argument juvenile and demeaning. And I instead be interested in precisely the things that Evan is talking about (except in reference to drug use and not abortion rates).
June 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Joe, you just totally contradicted yourself.
Then
So, which is it?
June 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Discussing morality without Christ and His Word is like a dozen quadraplegics attempting to swim and instruct others as well.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
My case in point (which you entered while I was typing - so I didn’t see it first) - IF you do it per-capita, then you’re already skewing the statistics, because the birth rate in the US is significantly higher than Northern Europe…
Maybe we should just legalize murdering whoever we want, theft, etc., as well - talk about straw-man arguments, Evan - every law is a legislation of morality, and the same way we get on ODM’s for trying to separate ‘moral’ belief from ’secular’ belief, the two are completely intertwined and unable to be compartmentalized.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
M.G.
I’m for drugs being legal. No problem there. If someone wants to “shoot up” and they stay in their house to do it and don’t endanger anyone else. OK. I don’t think I should have to share my money to help them get clean but O.K.
Now, Obama is going to use money to provide better access to abortion. I don’t know how else to describe that than to say he wants to take my money and provide people the opportunity to kill another human being. I realize that this side of this argument has been hijacked by people with strong religious beliefs and used to fund an entire political party. I don’t care about the politics. I believe that baby is a life and as such should be protected. In my opinion, one abortion is one too many.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
No, it’s not, Rick, especially when it’s abundantly obvious that people who are “unsaved” are many times more moral human beings than the most “Christian” among us.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Evan,
It’s simple. Two people engaging in sex for money are choosing to engage in it. The baby being killed has no choice. No contradiction there.