Amendment One

This post is all about Amendment One. I've debated writing on Amendment One for a while now. But I haven't done it because I have friends who are bi or gay, and by no means to I wish to hurt them, or cause an argument with them... or even between my friends who are straight, but supportive of gays.... or even between straight friends who are utterly opposed to gay marriages.
So before I write anything, you should know (and probably have already guessed) I believe that the Bible is the word of God. I believe that Jesus is the son of one God, who exists in three persons. (Confused? We can talk about it later.) My point is, is that by societies standards I'm one of those "freaky cultish Christian folks", which if you read my blog for any length of time, you could figure out pretty quickly.

Now realize that as I write this, I generally don't state my beliefs right off the bat, I want to question others about what they think and acknowledge as truth, and generally just want to make people think. But because this is such a hot button issue, I decided it's important that you know where I stand.

Secondly, I want to put in another thing before I write any further, I do not wish to shove my beliefs down someone's throat...in fact, the Bible discourages it. As a Christian, my duty is to share with you and everyone else I meet or write to, that Jesus died to save your soul. If you think it's ridiculous and that I'm crazy, so be it... but you may not wish to be around me, because what Jesus did for me affected me so much that I can't help talking about it. (THAT is biblical, but 'shoving religion down throats' is nowhere in the Bible...) If you consider me talking all the time about someone I love "shoving religion" then I suggest you don't read any further.

 

So what about gay marriage? Because I have stated before that I am a believer in Christ, then you can assume that my standard are from the scriptures, regardless of what the constitution says. 

So does the Bible actually prohibit being gay? 

Many Christians say it does not, they will say that is only an "Old Testament" belief, and that Jesus would have supported gay marriage because he demands we should; "love your neighbors as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) 

But I would disagree... because earlier in the same book of the Bible, Jesus talks about divorce. In the passage he says:

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh'?" (Matthew 19:4-5)

Granted, this passage could be said to be 'ripping out of context' so let's take the idea even further. In Romans Paul talks about people who do not accept Jesus as the Son of God. He talks about the different things that God considers sin... well, I'll just let you read it: (and if you are not sure about what I'm writing I encourage you to read the whole passage and make sure I'm not warping God's Word)

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. .... Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them, but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:26-27&32)

If you are a still reading this, then I can safely assume you're either very angry or heartily applauding... but I'm not done yet.

You can see now, why so many Christian's are saying that this is a bad thing... if you even "give approval" by this passage, then you're in huge trouble. But Paul wasn't finished writing:

"Therefore you have no excuses, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.(Romans 2:1-3)

Now my fellow Christian's are saying "Woah, woah, woah my dear friend, I am in no way homosexual!!" and my gay friends are shouting "You know *that's* right!!!" but hold the fort.....

I think Amendment One is good. (because I have the assumption that there are moral absolutes, if you don't... then you're claiming that I'm absolutely wrong... and that would be an absolute, but that's a different debate altogether.) Marriage is defined in the scriptures as between one man and one woman, and I would say that it needs to stay that way....but am I judging? Here's where things get a little interesting... (and I'll get back to this, I promise!!)

Amendment One should be passed, in my opinion. But this is based on a religious belief and according to America, we should have the freedom to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. (As well as a generally held belief that wasn't in the original constitution that we should have a separation of church and state.) This is a huge can of worms, and I'm not eloquent enough to deal with all the issues at once. I realize that when you are finished reading this I will probably have a lot of nasty comments to dig through... and that's okay.

We in America are allowed to have freedom, but we believe that some things are inherently wrong. Murder would be one of those things as well as child abuse. Casey Anthony is a huge proof of that. But we aren't all 100% agreed on where we get those things we call values. But in America today, we are not built upon a church-government.
So yes, if the only basis for Amendment One is religion, then *technically* the government can't pass it. But here's the wrench that's thrown into the mix: We're ruled by the people, not the government...

And technically we have the right to amend the constitution if we believe it has put too much power into the governments hands (instead of the peoples) or if we feel that it doesn't control us enough. So the reality is that when it comes to Amendment One, the people have the right to decide whether it goes into practice or not. Where the beliefs are that factor into one's opinion has nothing to do with whether it can be counted as a valid vote.

So now that we have that out of the way, I want to go back to my previous question:

Is this a judgmental attitude towards bisexual and homosexual people? 

Yes, because in the Scriptures it states that if I approve of these things, then it's basically the same as doing them and God doesn't approve of those things. But God also says we shouldn't judge... so where in the world should we stand on this one?? Let's re-read that passage again: 

"Therefore you have no excuses, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.(Romans 2:1-3)

Practice the very same things. Well then we're in the clear right? As long as I'm not gay, then I don't need to fear. God doesn't say, "Thou shalt not judge". He does say we need to be careful about condemning people, that's his job. But the real truth is, God holds every sin equal. In fact, in James it says:  

"For whoever keeps the whole law, but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. " (James 2:10)

 So me, not respecting food the way I should, or me, not respecting my parents, telling crude jokes, or using inappropriate language... is just as bad as homosexuality, and in the presence before a Holy God, I fall completely short. If I fail in even just one of the commandments, then I'm going to hell. Homosexuality is a serious sin, but so is ignoring any of God's other demands on our lives. So why are we so quick to point out a brother's sin, when we won't deal with our own.

Homosexuality is wrong. Amendment One should be passed, but I also think it should be "illegal" to talk back to one's parents. But the truth is that we aren't in a Christian nation, and God didn't ask us to make one. He told us to make disciples, and watch and wait for Jesus to come back and make the perfect world. So while we're here, we do what we can. Amendment One should be passed.

But if you're still reading after all of this, and you disagree (or even do agree) with me, I want to point out a much larger truth here: (Because Paul also talks about not getting into frivolous arguments "Have nothing to do with foolish ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels" (2 Timothy 2:23)

If all religions are the same, and we're all just trying to earn our way to God, then why would someone pick this religion.  How in the world would we ever "get" to God? Why would we want to? This God considers gossiping the same thing as homosexuality, which to him is the same thing as murder.

With such a terrible demand on ourselves, how could we ever desire or even achieve a relationship with this God??? He's so untouchable. If I even use the Lord's name in vain, I'm going to hell. If I talk back to my parents even once. I'm kicked out of heaven. With such a high demand, I can never balance out all the good things I do with all my bad things. In fact, no one can make it.

What an unloving God. What a wrathful, unloving God. So why even try?

But here's the thing:
We don't have to earn our way to heaven!!!!!

God not only is a Holy, "untouchable" God, but he also loves us to no end. He'd do whatever it would take to be with us. But because God is perfect, he can't be around imperfect people...that would make him imperfect and he would then cease to be God (which is why there's such a huge demand on us through 'laws'). But he also knew we were incapable of being perfect because we're human.Someone needed to pay the penalty of our imperfectness, and somehow make us righteous. So he actually lived and died for us. He came to earth as a man, fully God, and fully human. He lived the perfect life that he knew we couldn't. Then he died so that the penalty of sin (sin is just our imperfectness) would be paid off. Now through Jesus' death are we made perfect, but through his resurrection we can be with this God (who loves us!!!!!) for forever.

He did all the work for us. Gay people, Bi people, Straight people. He did it all for us.

So what does it all mean??

We're perfect! Once you accept it and believe it as truth--- yeah, God *actually* did that. It should change every part of you!!
Repent. Believe. It's not that hard. Begin to be changed by this God. Begin to see your gossip as it is. Begin to see sin in it's reality--- and amazingly, you'll realize you're just as bad off as the next guy. Fight your sins together as a body of believers. Love the people who don't know this truth, and are acting the only way they know how. Show them what Jesus has done, and together fight your sin because of the amazing sacrifice God gave you.
"So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." (2 Timothy 2:22)

Avioms are....

I was trying to explain to my mother how an Aviom worked. Our conversation went like this:
Me: "So you have the sound board in the back of the room, and the band on stage. They have monitors so that they can hear themselves. Well, sometimes it gets really annoying to have to keep tweaking the sound they want. So you give them an Aviom."
Mom: "Well can you still control how loud it is? So that they don't decide they'd sound awesome at full power?"
Me: "Yes. From the board you can set a limit---say "10" ... so what the Aviom does, is it allows them to mix the piano at say, "4" themselves at "6"... but they still can't go any higher then 10."
and then she says.....

Mom: "So basically what you're saying is that it's like a volume limit on a piano. The kid still gets to have fun, and thinks he's got the rule, but you're actually still in control."
 

Me: "AHAHAHAHA! Yes. I've never heard it explained that way, but yes...."

Abortion, Are We Protecting Life?

I recently wrote a paper for an Argumentative Research class I am taking, my topic was on Abortion. I decided to post it here. --- without any edits made to it. I got a B on the paper, unfortunately comma's hate me, and I would have received an A if I had paid more close attention, However, I decided to post it here for your viewing!

         The word “human” is a commonly used word, but what is a human? If you were to ask random strangers on the street to describe the term “human” the answers would vary greatly from person to person. No one seems to be able to define concretely a word that we throw around mindlessly. The common dictionary describes life as; “of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty” (“human.")
            The argument against most pro-lifers is the argument that the fetus is not human, thus not “…pertaining to…or having the nature of people” (“human.”). This premise would beg the conclusion that a mother has a right to protect her own body from what havoc pregnancy wreaks. Pregnancy is very dangerous and has many complications. There are the risks of a special-needs child, and there are lots of restrictions when it comes to being pregnant. The mother cannot do drugs, smoke, or drink wine. The mother is now restricted to taking care of two people, rather than just herself. There are stretch marks, aches and pains in the joints, and of course, the pain of actual birthing. The question then is: does the mother have the right to take control of her own body? Is the growing human in her body, somehow un-human---less worthy, of basic human rights? These questions begin a long debate. There is much emotional language and frustration emitted when the argument comes up. There is judging and hostility in both parties. However, when it comes down to the core of the issue, there seems to be a problem defining the terms that are argued. A pro-choice activist, and a pro-life activist will argue back and forth, often saying things that they assume the other defines the same way, but no one is truly saying the same thing. So what is human, what is life, and who or what should have the right to decide?
            A woman is granted by the Declaration of Independence to have her life, her liberty, and her own individual pursuit of happiness. But currently in America, a fetus is not granted these basic rights. A fetus should be granted the right to life. Abortion is a legal form of murder and should be banned from the American society. Abortion is morally wrong. The fetus should be given the right to purse its life, liberty, and its happiness.
            Because life is considered a basic human right, it is not farfetched to concede that America values life, and sees it as something worth preserving. However, life is a little hard to define. In the article “It’s Time We Had a Definition of Life” Steve Davis, the author of State of Nature Online Journal of Radical Ideas attempts to define it:

            If we take the three specifics highlighted by Adams and Dyson, homeostasis,  reproduction and metabolism (homeostasis is the ability to maintain a constant chemical balance in a changing environment, metabolism is the chemical processes that occur in    cells in particular the consumption of energy, reproduction can be as simple as cell      division, but can involve a cell dividing in accordance with a strict code of instructions),   we see that all of the characteristics of life are founded on cooperation, either within a     single cell between its parts, or between combinations of cells. (n.p.)

Basically what this article is saying is that the three essential ingredients for life are: homeostasis, reproduction, and metabolism. An organism must have these three things in order to be considered “alive”--thus, we consider plants alive, and not rocks. Rocks do not have the ability to reproduce, an essential ingredient to maintain life. If the gender of a small fetus is determined directly at conception, (no one would argue that gender is key for reproduction) than one can reach the conclusion that a fetus is very much alive. If the conclusion seems a tad weak take into consideration also that not only does a fetus have its gender determined, but also it is able to maintain a metabolism as defined above, “the consumption of energy” (Davis). The fetus is alive. Though this may seem a mundane conclusion, it is vital for making a crucial point, and begs a question to be asked; Is life worth preserving, or are there certain objects we deem “alive” that are worth maintaining vitality than others? Since we have already concluded that America deems life worth preserving, what then deserves the “right to life”?

            Thus, we get into the argument of a fetus’ humanity. For the sake of this argument, human will be based on the dictionary definition quoted before “of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty” (“human.”). According to an article written on pregnancy.org gender is determined immediately after conception, and at one to four weeks the heart and the circulatory system are formed. This is the same heart and circulatory system that will support the child throughout its entire life (np). Now although these things are evident in animals, these specific details of the fetus “pertain to” and “have the nature of” people. To this end, it’s also important to realize that in the first few weeks of pregnancy, one can terminate the heartbeat through an abortion. Thus, the fetus now has “human frailty”.  In an article by Joyce Arthur, the humanity of the fetus is argued against. She says:
            If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers         triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from     my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. Anti-    choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg         consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with             cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it        would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because                  human beings are much more than our genes (I'll expand on this point later). Also, both a          fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for             breakfast isn’t a chicken.” (n.p.)

This article has multiple fallacies, one of which is a red herring by describing “the egg you had for breakfast” --one knows that an egg is not a chicken because most of the eggs are not fertilized. If it was, (like a woman’s egg at conception) it would become a chicken, but chickens are eaten anyway, so what relevance does this argument have? This article also fights for the idea that we should not protect a “potential” life. So discard for a moment the arguments previously made. Introduce the idea of Animal Rights. During a construction project in East Palo Alto, construction was halted because of an endangered animal; a Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse appeared on the site (Hicks). The general idea of saving an endangered species is in hopes of it no longer becoming endangered—in other words, protecting the “potential life” that is hoped to one day exist.  Thus, the argument that America does not attempt to protect a ‘potential life’ is not true. Not only this, but in order for a flake of dandruff to become a human, it must be altered. A fetus has already been ‘altered’ by the sperm, thus it is much different than dandruff on a human’s head. If you wait for nine months, a flake of dandruff will still be a flake of dandruff. Wait on a fetus for nine months, and it becomes a “baby”.
            So now a fetus has been defined as at the very least, a potential human. It is in the species of homo-sapiens (thus making it human), it has a heartbeat and a gender. So the argument then turns to the object of “personhood”. The second strongest argument against the humanity of a fetus comes in the form of abortions being legal only during certain trimesters of the pregnancy. This is a little scary. The government gets to decide then, who or what is a human, and whether or not that “human” is worthy of living. If we decide it is legal to kill while inside the womb, who decides when it’s wrong to kill outside of the womb? Though this next point may seem as a fallacy; indeed a very “slippery slope” to tread, it is not at all unthought of. In the UK an article was recently written arguing for “after birth abortions”. In the article both Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that:

            Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals   and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in   the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are  not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal. (N.P.)

Note that in this article, a fetus and a newborn are refered to as human beings, but not as a person. A “person” should be described to mean exactly what the dictionary defines it to be;  “1. A human being, whether a man, woman, or child: the table seats four persons. 2. A human being as distinguished from an animal or thing” (“person.”). Just because a person is not conscious of his or her existence does not make him or her less of a person, nor is a different person outside of the individual capable of deciding whether or not he or she is conscious of his or her existence. Although this sounds confusing, it’s really quite simple. For example, one may acknowledge that the sky is blue. However, this person has a colleague whom they converse with on a regular basis. This colleague, a young woman, decides that the other, a young man, does not believe the sky is blue. How can she make this assertion about her friend? She is not in his mind. She does not know the persons thoughts. It may come up in conversation, and he may not be able to describe to her that he believes the sky to be blue, but it does not make his belief any less valid, just inarticulate. The same is true with personhood. One cannot judge a being that is incapable of conversing in the ‘common’ language we refer to as ‘human’. For all that is known, a fetus may be perfectly capable of understanding its existence, but incapable of articulating its belief to its mother and society. This belief that abortion and afterbirth abortion is morally acceptable is dangerous ground to tread. If one gets to decide on a whim what a human or person is, and who or what should get rights, then one can change their mind on a whim. If reason would come into play, who would get to decide when killing an adult would be legal? If one were to claim to a judge that the adult he just shot was incapable of understanding  ‘basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her’  (Arthur), the judge would still sentence the man for murder. Why is this not the same for fetuses?
            In conclusion, a fetus is a human. It belongs to the species of homo-sapiens. It has the same heart and circulatory system that it will have for the rest of its adult life. A fetus is alive, and America claims that humans should be given the basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A fetus is also a person. It is distinguishable from an animal or a thing, thus the killing of it would --under current American laws, be considered murder. Therefore, based on these premises, abortion should be outlawed. Women should not be able to decide for another young women, whether she gets to live or not.