Is Being Gay A Civil Right?

Let’s draw the distinction between homosexuality and the black cause. Homosexuality is a behavior (like pedophilia), whereas being black, is *not* a behavior. While homosexuality is an ethical issue, being black is an ontological issue in which blacks are endowed by their Creator with more melanin in their skin than non-blacks. They are still human. (Just as a homosexual, by the way, is a full human being.) But it’s important that we affirm what it means to be human without mistakenly bringing behavior into the mix.

I mention pedophilia to show that behavior, even if shown be in-born, does not mean that that behavior should be tolerated or condoned by society. The question is what kind of behavior ought a society deem to be beneficial to that society, and what behaviors should be deemed not tolerable. That’s what a government needs to address – that is, a just government.

It gets more interesting when you bring in an evolutionary worldview into the mix, and then contrast it to a Christian worldview. True Christianity teaches that blacks are children of God just like whites. Adam and Eve had the genetic diversity that made whites and blacks and every other racial difference that natural selection brought out. Evolution, on the other hand, believes that blacks are not as advanced as whites in the evolutionary continuum. Racism is at the heart of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, whether that side wants to admit it or not.

Moreover, Christianity better explains homosexuality – even the “gay-gene.” It’s called the Fall. We are all broken and guilty for our messed up family business – whether we are homosexual perverts or heterosexual perverts. Gay activists who say they believe in evolution, in contrast, assert that homosexuality is an evolved trait that should have the right to exist and be celebrated along with those who hold to heterosexual traits. Notice that word “ought” implied in their claim. “Ought” connotes morality. What is the supreme morality at the foundation of an evolutionary worldview? – getting one’s genes into the next generation. Yet a basic understanding of science tells us that two human beings (or human-oids in the past) practicing in homosexuality would NOT pass their genes to the next generation. In essence, according to their own presuppositions, one who holds to macro-evolution, if they are going to be consistent to their own moral standards, would deem homosexuality as immoral (that is, unable to pass their genes to the next generation). Again, a Christian worldview has a better grounding in claiming homosexuality is wrong, than a homosexual activists has in claiming that homosexuality is right.

Prop 8 Protest Links

Not only is California on fire literally, but its figuratively on fire with protests.
Things are getting ugly, folks. Here I’m providing links from around the web and blogosphere so you can keep track of the happenings. Yes, some are links to points of view I don’t agree with.

*Michelle Malkin has video and testimony of Christians’ rough night in San Francisco.

*Kevin McCullough adds his two cents over at Townhall.

*Speaking about Townhall, here are two more moderately decent posts: 1 / 2

*Apologetics.com fellas (and gals) have the granny video

*Robin at evangelicaloutpost gives her thoughts here (check out the comments…some good discussion going on there.)

*Hotair predicts the ending.

*Good ‘ol Keith Olberman...gotta love that guy (end sarcasm)

(ht on Olberman: Stand to Reason)

That should be enough…what say you? rdb268@hotmail.com

Go Home!

Michelle Malkin is keeping track of the anti-Proposition 8 protests this weekend.

Of course, boycotts are no big deal. Even the fact that they are protesting is not controversial per se. Human kind has been protesting, for better or worse, ever since we could say “ug!”

But this just goes way, way overboard.

I’m not going to go as far as some people and call it “terrorism,” but it’s just flat out extreme. I really, really, really hope the public at large is paying attention and that they see this collective temper-tantrum for what it is.
I’m not holding my breath, though. We are far too easily bullied and placated with empty rhetoric.

BWAAHAHA!

BWAAHAHA!

Lol...Dude, seriously.

Many gays and lesbians are decent folk who don't resort to this kind of tomfoolery.

But, just like the Christians have to deal with Fred Phelps (who, arguably, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, not a true member of the flock), so these guys need to be dealt with firmly.

I try to avoid ridicule and name calling, but I don't think I actually need to make a case to convince people that these guys are idiots. Their actions do that by themselves.

They need to be laughed at.

There's a Cost

The Mormon church, after a firestorm of protests at its gate, face a boycott.

Restaraunts and businesses face financial repercussions.

Some have lost their jobs. There is even an 'anti-gay 'blacklist'' floating around out there.

Death threats? Yep.

Some of my friends now have strained relationships due to their support of Proposition 8.

Should we now play the victim and develop a martyr complex? No. We aren't victims, and any cost we face pales in comparison to the cost demanded of true martyrs. We've chosen our path; no one forced us to vote that way, afterall.

SSM proponents, of course, have every right to boycott. That's the way this country works, and it can be a good way to let your voice be heard.

But hey folks, guess what: your convictions might actually cost you something now.

And you know what? That's allright. Seriously. Anything that wakes us up out of our comfort-induced stupor ain't all that bad.

This is something my generation is not used to. We are used to believing whatever we wish, virtually cost-free. Not so much this time around.

So what should be our reaction?

Three things.

First, should you just back down? Should you apologize? No. 'Love' does not mean that you must acquiesce to a destructive lifestyle. If you voted yes on Proposition 8, have the backbone to stand by your convictions, come hell or high water. The times demand men and women who will count the cost and refuse to be bullied.

Like I quoted a few blogs ago: 'screw your courage to the sticking place.'

I don't know what I'd do if I were in that place. I hope that, should I face such a cost, I would follow my own advice.

Second, in addition to some guts, what we will need in the coming months and years is a large number of people who not only stand for conservative, pro-life, traditional marriage, and biblical principles, but folks who can defend and articulate them well. On this issue of traditional marriage, if you are not in that place, you can start educating yourself here.

Third, Christians especially need to continue to reach out in love and care to those who identify as GLBT. My church's outreach to the Padua House in Long Beach is an excellent example.

All three are necessary if we desire to make a difference. We cannot risk being out of balance. The stakes are too high.

See also: Michelle Malkin's post.

Why I'm Voting Yes on Proposition 8

I realize that the post on Prop 8 might leave some of you wondering: so, Rich, why are you for Prop 8?

(For all you non-Californians, earlier this year the Sup. Court of CA overturned an earlier vote of the people to define marriage between a man and a woman. Prop 8 seeks to overturn the court's ruling and set the traditional definition in law.)

Briefly:

The primary reason is that modern Western culture is the first tore-define marriage. Of course, this doesn't mean we stay with the 'status quo,' but it does tell us who has to do the arguing. Since its been defined as between a man and a woman since pretty much the beginning (even the ancient Romans, though they were tolerant of the practice of homosexuality, viewed marriage as between a man and a woman), the burden of proof lies with the ones who want to change the definition. The arguments advanced for homosexual marriage aren't even close to convincing.

Here's one of the principal reasons I hear being used: marriage is about love, so you should be able to marry anyone you love. We shouldn't be denied the freedom to love who we want.

Aside from the obvious rejoinder that no one is preventing anyone from loving (sexual love included) anyone else (in other words, you can already love who you want w.o restriction), if I love my sister like that, should I be able to marry her? What about a 15 year old? If not, why not?

If two men should be able to get married, why not three? What's so scary about that number?

The bottom line with the questions is that few want to go that far, yet any reasons used to 'deny rights (this phrase is a bit of a misnomer)'to those partnerships turns out to be discriminatory according to the definition of those who use the 'love' argument.

Love is a great thing, but its neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for a definition of marriage.

Secondly, the 'no' campaign puts this in terms of rights. The 'yes' campaign is supposedly 'denying rights' to homosexuals. This argument is specious. For the details, go here.

Really, this debate is about two things: the definition of marriage,and approval. Making gay marriage legal would be tantamount to saying that the term 'marriage' is a social construction and can be changed if society says so. In addition to this opening a pandora's box of slippery slopes (polygamy, anyone?), I see no reason to agree to this view.

Even though the outer rim of marriage has changed through history(interracial marriage, etc) doesn't mean the core has changed: marriage has always been between a man and woman, and it has always been about raising children. The article I linked to above gets more into this.

Proponents of gay marriage are seeking approval of their relationships,and making gay marriage legal will essentially grant that approval. The government (and, by extension, taxpayers) would be giving a tacit nod towards those relationships. I see no reason whatsoever to think that such approval is a right. A desire, maybe. Right? No.

Saying something is a 'right' means that the person/group possessing the right has a just claim to something. Does it make sense to say that homosexuals have a just claim to society's approval of their relationships?

Even if you think homosexuality is ok, this is a bit of a stretch.

The Koukl article in the link fills in the needed philosophical details...go read it.

California Teachers Say "no" on 8?

Evidently, since I'm a teacher, this ad says I'm against Proposition 8:



Well, no one consulted me! No one consulted countless other CA teachers too.

Here is a letter to the editor that I wrote in to the LA Times and OC Register on the "no on Proposition 8" campaign:

As a high school teacher, I don't appreciate that the "No on 8" campaign uses my name to advance their cause. In radio and television ads, they state, "teachers say 'no' on proposition 8." Who determined that this supposedly monolithic group is against proposition 8? A great many teachers are for it. CTA and the "no" campaign didn't consult me before lending my name to their cause!

I am also incensed that CTA is using my money to support highly controversial political campaigns. Rather than focusing on the many school funding issues on the ballot, they have contributed over 1 million dollars to the "no on 8" campaign. Can't my hard earned money be used more wisely?

In addition to all this, CTA and "no on 8" are not being wholly honest. Certain groups claim that teaching about gay marriage won't be mandated in CA public schools. When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, these same groups fought to make it mandated there. For instance, in an amicus curiae brief in Parker v. Hurley, The Anti-Defamation League stated: "Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." And later: "In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.”

Both I and many other public school teachers don't appreciate our money and name being used in this way. We will vote yes on Proposition 8.

**I'll tackle this ad in greater depth in the next few days.

We're Not all the Same...no, Really Part II

By Rich Bordner

(continued from the previous post)

Why is it when the pulpiteers in education utter certain broad-brush aphorisms, that hardly anyone sees the humor in it? Why is it that few people in education think to speak truth to THAT power?

Here's another silly moment I witnessed at the staff development conference I attended recently. The presenters were waxing eloquent about the necessity of having ambiguity in your classroom discussions and lessons. That is, in your discussions, you should stress that there is no one right answer that you are looking for. There is "more than one way to skin a cat." When the students see that their thoughts will be validated and not "put down," they will buy into the discussion more.

The problem isn't so much that ambiguity is always a vice. The problem is that the presenters lacked balance. Though it was never said, the unqualified aphorisms the presenters made it seem like ambiguity was almost an unmitigated good. In fact, the video they showed for this segment was of a MATH teacher teaching the kids that "there is more than one way to skin a cat." She said in the lesson, "gee, I see a whole lotta different answers here. Which one is wrong? (students pause, then answer "none of them!") "That's correct!" (To her credit, the problem was not a straightforward algebra equation. The problem did lend itself to more than one answer. The issue I take with her was the unqualified application she had.) One presenter even went so far as to say, "When discussing morals and ethics, you as the teacher should not try to steer the discussion towards your own view. You should not impose your view on them. That is the job of their parents and churches and communities. Your job is to lead them in thinking about their OWN viewpoints."

GAH! Where do I start?

Sometimes teachers need to stress that there are, indeed, a range of interpretations that are valid for a certain work of literature (not that anything goes, though). When the issue really IS grey, ambiguity is a virtue. But when the issue is black and white, ambiguity is a vice.

As I said to my fellow colleagues, if I hire an engineer to build me a house, and he comes to me and says, "Gee, um, well, this is such a sticky issue, you see. There's no one right way to build the foundation. We're gonna get creative and wing it," I would promptly fire him. If someone walks into my classroom and doubts whether rape is ok, we aren't going to ponder that viewpoint tolerantly and let him "clarify" his values. We will refer him to the school psychiatrist.

That thought had not occured to ANY of my colleagues. When I said that, they muttered, "hmm...I wasn't looking at it like that. I guess you're right....that's a very ambiguous point, Bordner!" (laughter)

The trick is having the wisdom to discern when ambiguity is a virtue and when it is a vice.

While I'm at it: I'm fairly sure that the educator presenters would quickly drop their "ambiguity" and "values clarification" stance if a student voiced a point of view that threatened the pillars of a relativisitic, secular worldview. In a discussion on homosexuality, if a student stood up and said, "I used to be homosexual, and I was miserable. With the help of Exodus International, I have left the gay lifestyle and have experienced much healing and repentance from that sin," I'm pretty sure the teacher would not allow that value to be clarified. The teacher would probably step in and announce concern that the student wasn't being "tolerant" of gays.

They are only interested in ambiguity when it suits them. Start threatening the cherished worldview of the establishment, speak truth to THEIR power, and its game o-v-e-r.

Enter At Your Own Risk

As of last Friday, it is now legal in the state of Colorado for men to enter women’s locker rooms. This radical law was the product of gay activists as they continue their campaign to normalize homosexuality in our culture.

Worldnetdaily.com article

The Denver Post makes it seem like this new law is no big deal.

High School Students Counter Pro-Gay Day

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that The Day of Truth (April 28th, 2008) will be designed to counter the pro-gay event known as “The Day of Silence” (April 25th, 2008).

Watch a short video about it here.

To learn more, go to: www.dayoftruth.org.

Could The Golden State Go Red in 2008?

Christianexaminer.com reports that “Christian leaders in California were given ‘a real jolt and a wake-up call’ Oct. 12 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stunned conservatives by signing into law several bills—similar to those he vetoed last year—that expand homosexual teaching in public schools.” Pastors across California are responding by organizing a major petition drive aimed at getting a marriage protection amendment on the November 2008 ballot. If the churches in the Golden State (see article) respond like churches in Ohio did in 2004, is it possible that the state could go red?

Mayor Not Intimidated By Homosexual Activists

Mayor Jim Naugle (D) continues to show bold leadership and persaverence as he tries to save lives in his community of Fort Lauderdale despite opposition and efforts at intimidation by local gay activists.

Watch related videos by clicking here.

The Intolerance of Today’s Tolerance Movement

There is a modern myth that true tolerance consists of neutrality. Nothing could be further from the truth. One can not tolerate something unless one disagrees with that thing. This important point has been lost in the modern perversion of the word tolerance. Now, if you think something is wrong, one is considered intolerant. In his Townhall.com article entitled "Gen. Pace & the Myth of Moral Neutrality,” Greg Koukl writes that the buzz surrounding Gen. Pace's moral comments "reflects one of the most entrenched assumptions of moral relativism in our society today: that there is such a thing as morally neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where no judgments nor any forcing of personal views are allowed. Each of us takes a neutral posture towards the moral convictions of others. This is the essence of tolerance, or so the argument goes."