Monday, June 19, 2006

Daily Show - Jon Stewart vs. Bill Bennett Jon Stewart has seemed to have forgotten that many homosexuals have indeed married members of the opposite sex, and no homosexual has ever charged any state or federal government with barring him or her from marrying because of their own sexual preference. It has never happened until now. The state is blind to such matters of personal orientations.

There are some very basic legal parameters as to who any of us can marry, and they apply equally to ALL of us. This satisfies the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Traditionally, when any of us seeks a marriage license, we
1. can’t already be married 2. must be an adult and must marry an adult 3. can’t marry a close family member 4. MUST marry someone of the opposite sex
Now if two people meeting all these criteria go to city hall to get a marriage license, and the clerk asks whether either are homosexual and denies them a marriage license based on an affirmative answer, that would be discriminatory. Current law does not keep homosexual individuals from marrying. It just keeps them – as well as heterosexuals – from redefining marriage by marrying a person of the same sex. Our current marriage laws treat everyone equally.
This debate is not about equality or access to marriage; it’s about redefining marriage, making it something it has never been before in any human society.
If others can marry someone of the opposite sex what will stop others from not trying to legalize (1) marrying many people at once - (2) marrying a person who is not an ‘adult’ or (3) marrying a close family member?
What will stop others from NOT doing this? Can anyone give me a legitimate answer? The destruction of marriage and family is beginning from the bottom up, literally in terms of the above list.
Do not give me answers of how tribes or other ethnicities have done this in the past, blah, blah, blah. That is all irrelevant to what I am asking.


Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Good stuff...and good arguments to go with it.

8:54 AM, June 20, 2006  
Blogger Ryan Charisma said...

it's a load of crap.

9:07 AM, June 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a bad arguement. Sounds like you don't want same sex marriage because you FEAR what MAY happen. Surely you can come up with something more substantial than fear.

For one thing, Massachusettes law already precludes polygamy, marrying certain close relations, and marrying minors. There is nothing that specifically says people cannot marry others of the same sex, which is how the court justified their decision I believe. If there was anything in the marriage laws which would have prevented SSM, I'm sure it would have been found. Legally, your slippery slope argument falls apart. Since there was nothing in the law that says someone must marry someone of the opposite sex, there really isn't a legal basis for you assertions.

Anyone trying to use SSM as a reason for marrying more than one person, marrying a minor, or marrying a close relative, will have a real problem. There isn't a legal standing for it.

All SSM does is broaden the definition of marriage. It does not change it. It become more inclusive.

Before you try shooting holes in my arguement, please remember to cite your sources. I took the time to look up the marriage laws of Massachusettes before posting. If I missed something, please be specific in pointing it out.

11:02 AM, June 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a question, see if you can answer this with a simple yes or no...

Suppose this does come to a vote, and SSM stands. Will you give up your fight?

11:05 AM, June 20, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I can answer that for you. They will never give up, they will always fight against gay marriage and gay rights because they don't like gays and don't want them to be a part of their community, their world. Homosexuality is part of the human condition and has existed throughout time in every nation, in every society, no matter how difficult that society has made their lives. At what point to we as Americans come to our senses and agree that gays should be treated fairly and equally? When does this bigotry end?

5:26 PM, June 20, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


You said:
" There is nothing that specifically says people cannot marry others of the same sex, which is how the court justified their decision I believe."

your beliefs are wrong.

Same Sex Marriages: Yes, as of May 17, 2004. However, with legal challenges to the Massachusetts state law, some local jurisdictions may have residency requirements and/or not issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Check with your local authorities to see how they are handling this issue.

Federal Level: Check out Title 1, Chapter 1 § 7:

Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”:In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

You said:

"Since there was nothing in the law that says someone must marry someone of the opposite sex, there really isn't a legal basis for you(r) assertions."

There is nothing in the MA law that says you CAN marry someone of the same sex. It is not law until it is in the books and it is not CHALLENGED.

You said:

"Anyone trying to use SSM as a reason for marrying more than one person, marrying a minor, or marrying a close relative, will have a real problem. There isn't a legal standing for it."

Not until it is legally challenged like traditional marriage is.

You said:

"All SSM does is broaden the definition of marriage. It does not change it. It become more inclusive."

It does not broaden, it changes the legal definition of marriage as I have discussed above. How can you argu against that? Marriage, by federal and MA state law is the union between one man and one women.

8:38 PM, June 20, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


Do you have anything other than immature one-liners?

WHY is it a load of crap? Explain with some sort of logic.

8:41 PM, June 20, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


You asked:

"Suppose this does come to a vote, and SSM stands. Will you give up your fight?"

If the people of Massachusetts vote to legalize SSM (Same-Sex Marriage), then what is their to fight. The people have spoken.

8:46 PM, June 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCIA - I was not speaking of Federal Law. I am fully aware of DOMA.

There was nothing in Massachusettes state law that says same sex couples can, or cannot marry. To put it simply, that is why the courts were legally able to do what they did.

I'm sure the laws were scoured to find a way to prevent SSM, but the only thing that was found was a provision to prohibit out of state same sex couple from marrying here.

I don't want to debate the "legality" of what the court did, since that is a matter of opinion. The fact is, SSM is legal at this time, and has not been successfully challenged to this date. The petition and vote may or may not change this.

I believe you are totally wrong in your assertions that SSM will lead to further degrading of the sanctity of marriage. I don't believe for a second people will be lining up to insist on marrying their relative or a 12 year old. These are different situations, and do not deserve comparison. Not to mention is reaks of unwarrented fear.

I believe SSM broadens the defintion of marriage in our country, and does not significantly change it.

Since your belief structure is so against SSM, what do you suggest, if anything, could/should be done to protect the rights of same sex couples? Are you of the camp that thinks gays and lesbians are perverted, and no legal recognition/protection should be given to their relationships? Or do you take the position of allowing some sort or civil union similar to marriage to protect same sex couples property rights, hospital visitation etc?

I'm curious to see if you have a solution/compromise to this issue.

6:33 AM, June 21, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


What I have been advocating for, as mentioned in previous posts on my site, is the Benefits Fairness Act.

The purpose of this legislation is to create a new category of contractual relationships entitled "reciprocal beneficiary contracts." It recognizes that situations exist where people are in interdependent mutually supportive relationships who are ineligible for marriage but who nevertheless would benefit from a status similar to next-of-kin status. The bill defines specific benefits that would accrue to people who enter into a reciprocal beneficiary contract.

This bill establishes a new Chapter 209E, "Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts." It includes definitions and eligibility requirements, and defines the process of creating or terminating a Reciprocal Beneficiary Contract with the Secretary of State.

Other sections of the bill amend existing laws to extend the following rights and benefits to reciprocal beneficiaries:

1. Hospital visitation rights;

2. The right to designate a reciprocal beneficiary to make health care decisions in the event the other reciprocal beneficiary is unable to do so;

3. Automatic revocation of a health care proxy upon the termination of a "Reciprocal Beneficiary Contract";

4. The right of the surviving reciprocal beneficiary to authorize organ and tissue donations unless the deceased reciprocal beneficiary has specifically and previously indicated otherwise;

5. The right to make funeral arrangements for one another;

6. The right of insurers to include reciprocal beneficiaries, like relatives:

a. In a liability insurance contract;
b. As recipients of annuities under a group annuity contract;
c. In a group life insurance contract;
d. As recipients of life insurance proceeds in the event no designated beneficiary is alive;
e. Under any general or blanket accident or health insurance policy;

7. The right to have health coverage extended for a period of 39 weeks, when a policyholder of a group medical insurance becomes ineligible because of involuntary layoff or death;

8. The right to create a tenancy in common or joint tenancy with survivorship for a home;

9. Certain rights under the Homestead Protection Act which protects home ownership in the event of personal bankruptcy;

10. Inheritance rights when there is no will;

11. Next of kin status for the reciprocal beneficiary of a mental health patient;

12. Right to recover damages arising out of injury to the reciprocal beneficiary.

I do believe that the homosexual community deserves more rights, as I have said in previous posts.

I do not think gays and lesbians are perverted and do not think that no legal recognition should be given to their relationships.

We all need to come to some sort of compromise, you’re ABSOLUTELY correct. But that does not mean that the sanctity of marriage needs to suffer because others are screaming for "equal rights."

Great question anonymous, seriously. I wish that all of my conversations would come down to the logistics and the bottom line, which are more benefits without reinventing the wheel.

I know I will get many responses that the Benefits Fairness Act makes those who partake in same-sex marriages as second class citizens, but we ALL need to come to an agreement without redefining institutions and sacred vows.

Good job.


10:10 AM, June 21, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Wow...this lit up over the last day or two. Good to see all the same characters showing up here to attack those of us with a different viewpoint than theirs. Isn't democracy great? I can't wait to be given the opportunity to vote, and you all should feel the same way. Vote to support homomsexual marriage, or vote to defend traditional marriage. Just VOTE!

10:21 AM, June 21, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I find it interesting that you and Tyler have knowthyneighbor directly in your sites, and then wonder why the same crowd shows up. By the way, some of us are here to discuss, not argue, and suggesting such is kind of inflamatory. Tyler, you said you had a change of heart, yet the posts under you pics of the pride parade, and this post here, to be honest it sounds like the same old you that you wanted to get away from.

12:01 PM, June 21, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Are you telling me how I should live my life, John?

12:25 PM, June 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I'm new to posting on this issue, and did not know your stance.

The benefit fairness act sounds a whole lot like many of the rights marriage affords, it's just called something different. If it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then call it a duck.

Truely, I don't care what it's called. The institution of marriage is in trouble without any help from SSM, and I don't believe SSM will erode it any further than it has gone.

Believe it or not, I understand where you are coming from. Do you understand why gays and lesbians want marriage though? We want our relationships to have the same recognition as straight ones. We want to be treated equally. For some, full equality now is the only way forward. For others, baby steps need to be taken. Your solution is a baby step, and probably a good one for much of our country. Had SSM not become legal in Mass, it would also be a good step here. But, now that it is legal, we will fight to keep it. It would be a real smack in the face of gays and lesbians to have it taken away. I do believe the rights of the few should not be elected by the majority.

If/when this does come to a vote, I am confident the citizens of Mass will be in favor of SSM. It will have been around for 4-5 years at that point, and nothing bad will have come from it.

If the vote does go your way, my fear is that further action will be taken to annul the SSMs that will have taken place. I really don't think it will take much for this to be instigated. I'm curious to know what your stance on this would be. If marriage is defined to be only between a man and a woman in Mass, what should become of the SSMs that have already taken place?

8:08 AM, June 22, 2006  
Blogger Ryan Charisma said...

"If others can marry someone of the opposite sex what will stop others from not trying to legalize (1) marrying many people at once -"

First off, didn't you mean "marry someone of the SAME sex"? Secondly, this entire argument is a 'red herring' and a thinly veiled disguise for bigotry. If the polygamists want to be included, who are we to stop them? I'm not policing other people's morals. Not my job, certainly not yours.

"(2) marrying a person who is not an ‘adult’"

If you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to marry.

"or (3) marrying a close family member?"

What about it? Everyone knows that the offspring of such a union are in-breeds which come with a whole checklist of medical issues.

"What will stop others from NOT doing this?"

Why are YOU so hell-bent on 'stopping' people from doing anything period? Shouldn't you be focusing more on YOUR family instead of everyone else's?

"Can anyone give me a legitimate answer? The destruction of marriage and family is beginning from the bottom up, literally in terms of the above list."

So, in conclusion all of your issues are defunct and stupid. That possibly did sound like a judgement, maybe because IT IS! I don't claim to be superior, your actions & words make that so. You (hetrosexuals) have had the exclusive priveledge of destroying marriage to the point where less than 50% of them survive. You hetrosexuals have had the exclusive privledge of cheating on your "legal" spouses, having drunken weddings in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator, winning your "spouse" on a tv game show, and quickie divorces. All hetrosexual doings. Now let me check, yes - that's you. So I think you best take that log from your eye before you slip your lie of a 'splinter' in mine. You had your chance with marriage - you hetrosexuals ruined & desacrated marriage already. There's only the leagal aspects left of it. Which, btw - is what the homosexual community is seeking.

"Do not give me answers of how tribes or other ethnicities have done this in the past, blah, blah, blah."

Why? You can't handle the true history of marriage? Does the truth scare you that much? In that same vein I dare you to defend your bigotted standpoint not using stupd Bible quotes nor the whole "people will want to marry their cat" reasoning that is SO damn LAME. You're issues aren't mine - I rejecte them and all your 'red herring' reasoning. I don't want equal rights - I DEMAND THEM.

Don't make me take them from you. I will... and it won't be pretty, and I'm not nice.

1:17 PM, June 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Thanks for UNDERSTANDING where I am coming from.

I do understand why gays and lesbians want marriage, but why do they have to redefine or broaden the definition of marriage to fit their equality argument? Can't their relationships be recognized with more tolerance from others? Can't we focus on the importance of what these relationships mean to a gay or lesbian couple without re-organizing an institution?

Do you think, anonymous, that gay men and women will be more satisfied with their relationships if they get married? Do you think that society will be more tolerant of the homosexual community if they marry? If anything, same-sex marriages will separate the homosexual community because you will have those who are pro-marriage and those who are for abolishing all family values and have this “suit yourself” approach to what defines a family.

Besides the legal and financial benefits and the public recognition from society what will the purpose of same-sex marriages be except to increase self-esteem and pride in oneself? This is not the purpose of marriage.

Why is it that “full equality” needs to be accomplished through marriage with the homosexual community? People, either homosexual or heterosexual, MAINLY don't get married to get accepted by society, or to feel good about themselves or to receive the legal and financial benefits it gives.

People get married to procreate the next generation of humanity, to protect the sanctity of humanity by recognizing the value of a man and a woman and their respective gender roles (See my post: “How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity” for more explanation). Same-sex couples cannot bring forth the next generation via a sperm and an egg WITHIN the relationship of two men or two women without depending on heterosexual practices. Same-sex marriages break down the importance of what it means to have a male and female relationship not only for our children but for a man and a women.

Marriage is about setting norms for society for how we structure sexual relationships and for creating cooperative and respectful domestic relationships between the sexes. Same-sex marriages, on the most part, cannot do these things. I am not saying that heterosexual marriages do not have promiscuity problems but on average steady homosexual relationships last only 1.5 years. Gay men in steady relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside of their current relationships. (Maria Xiridou et al., “The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-38.)

Contrast that with the fact that 67 percent of first marriages in the U.S. last ten years, and more than 75% of heterosexual married couples report being faithful to their wedding vows. (Advanced Data, National Center for Health Statistics, May 31, 2001.)

You ask:
“If marriage is defined to be only between a man and a woman in Mass, what should become of the SSMs that have already taken place?”

Just as the proposed petition up for legislative approval says it would do. It would allow continued recognition of those same-sex marriages entered into before the adoption of the proposed amendment.

Thanks for stopping by. Once again, great questions with LOGIC.

4:23 PM, June 22, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


Your comments here speak for themselves and also show what you ADVOCATE for and ENABLE.

In regards to your statement:

"You (heterosexuals) have had the exclusive priveledge of destroying marriage to the point where less than 50% of them survive."

Just because there is a high divorce rate does not mean that we need to change the standard by which marriage is measured. It only means that we need to focus more attention on the problem of why such a high percentage of marriages fail and focus on changing behavior.

Some of the reasons behind the high divorce rate have been “no fault” divorce laws, the rise of radical feminism, increasing cohabitation rates, promiscuity, pornography, adultery, and out of wed lock births. Yet to say that because some marriages fail that we should change the definition of marriage is ludicrous. Just because a high percentage of students fail a test is not prima face evidence that the test is flawed. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of civilization for the last 5,000 years. Traditional marriage is an institution in spite of those who advocate the homosexual agenda who claim that it is outdated and has become a dismal failure.

You said:

"In that same vein I dare you to defend your bigotted standpoint not using stupd Bible quotes..."

I have never used the Bible to defend my stance because the issue of same-sex marriages in not about homosexuality, heterosexuality or religion. The issue at hand is about DEMOCRACY and how the Commonwealth was stripped twice of its rights to vote on the issue.

When trying to bring across your point take heed to the practices of Anonymous and provide logic instead of emotional bantering.

4:37 PM, June 22, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

There is no 50% divorce rate in America, it's more like 25-35%. The statistics are skewed.

So let's extrapolate Ryan's argument about "you've already screwed it up" to another arena...public education.

Kids aren't being taught as well as they were 50 years ago. Lots of kids don't even pass high school, let alone get a GED. The democrats have instituted a lot of failed programs in education, and a lot of that is due to underfunding of programs.

So let's just take all the funds away, or give 5th graders high school diplomas. Yeah, that's only need to pass the 5th grade to get a high school diploma. Besides, the average senior has the education of a 9th grader, anyway, so why make them bother with those other grades? They'll be ready for the working world after 8 years of doing nothing. Let's just extend a diploma to all those ten year old kids, let them live at home for 8 years, play video games, eat twinkies, then send them off to work when they're 18.

Does that sound ridiculous? If you think like Ryan, it follows logically to his argument about marriage.

Go ahead, Ryan, and don't be nice about it. I will calmly and pleasantly vote my opinion in the ballot box, to secure the institution of marriage against FURTHER degradation, and I will do all that I can to protect it against CURRENT degradation by setting a good example in my own marriage for my children, and my grandchildren. I wish I could do away with no-fault divorce, too, and there may come a day when that will also end. Why must all these children suffer because their parents are too weak, or immoral, to do what's right for them?

We've forgotten about our most important citizens, and those are the ones that can't vote yet. We mustn't go about insisting on doing what's right for us, or doing what "feels good", we must act now to protect our children from a society where morals do not matter.

That is where America is heading, if it is left to the hands of the...left. When the ACLU cares more about defending terrorists, Castro, and foreigner's rights to break into our country and steal our goods and services from deserving LEGAL citizens of the United States, we have a problem. When 51% of 18-24 year olds think that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, we have a problem. When schools teach their children that homosexuality is A-OK, but Christianity must be silenced, we have a problem.

I am willing to be a part of the solution. Are you, Ryan, or are you going to go about whining like a kid demanding your civil rights, when you already have the right to get married, you just choose to live deviantly and desire to marry someone of the same sex?

Stop badgering us about this issue, Ryan, and let the democratic process take place in this commonwealth.

4:19 AM, June 23, 2006  
Blogger jennifer said...

Tyler said, "We mustn't go about insisting on doing what's right for us, or doing what 'feels good', we must act now to protect our children from a society where morals do not matter."

That reminds me of the post I made a couple of days ago called Spiritual Playpens. It was actually a piece by Elisabeth Elliot that I liked so much that I posted it. It is good reading, short and to the point.

I am sadly constantly reminded as my position as a Divorce Recovery Counselor that a MAJORITY of spouses who leave their marriages leave by saying some version of: "Well, I just wasn't happy anymore. Nevermind how it is going to affect my spouse. Doesn't matter. Sure, I said I would love them and be with them forever, but I really only meant for as long as I was happy. And the kids? Kids are resilient. They'll bounce back eventually...."

Of course, we know those things are not true. Divorce affects the rejected spouse in astronomical ways...and the kids just as worse if not worse.

I will be the first to admit that the state of marriage is in serious jeopardy, and that is why I have chosen a ministry in which I am helping those devastated by divorce to heal and also to prepare them to find love and marriage, the HEALTHY way, again.

Thank you, SCIA, for taking a stand for traditional marriage.


1:56 PM, June 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Same old same old. People hating people. People focused on justifying their hatred so they don't feel the angry eye of God upon them for the actions they take agianst the brethren. I might not be as smart as y'all but I know one thing. If you don't give respect you don't get respect. Some people just plain don't like others and thats not because of anything they did wrong, its just human nature. Could this be one of those times where we could have left it alone, but we just plain don't want to?

'In so much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.' (Matthew 25:40) Isn't this passage saying how we should be treating homosexuals?

11:35 PM, June 25, 2006  
Anonymous Scott said...


You said:

"'In so much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.' (Matthew 25:40) Isn't this passage saying how we should be treating homosexuals? "

Stop trying to be an expert on Biblical translation when you are not sure what this piece of scripture is about.

Jesus was not even talking about homosexuality or how to "treat" a homosexual here. He was talking about how those of rightousness will help him and how those who are wicked will not during his time of greatest need.

READ the WHOLE context of the passage before muttering YOUR own translation on just ONE verse to FIT your argument.

This is what Jesus said about homosexuality:

1Corinthians 6: 9-11

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

"were" is labeled to those whom God sanctified and who repented and reversed their immoral behaviors of homosexuality.

God loves us all, yes, but he does not advocate homosexuality ANYWHERE in the Bible.

For those who are engaging in homosexuality, ask for Gods forgiveness and stop your behavior to follow the word of the Lord. God will forgive you if you ask it of him.

In Him,

Rev. Scott

8:51 PM, June 26, 2006  
Blogger Ryan Charisma said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:19 PM, June 27, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...


Once again, you seem incapable in proposing an argument without using your emotional foul mouth. Try bringing your point across to others without using profanity and making fun of others in a negative and cunning manner.

Thanks for stopping by Ryan. I know in the past you have provided some interesting rebuttles and I expect your knowledge to be expressed in a different manner in the future.


7:20 AM, June 28, 2006  
Anonymous Gary Tucker said...

Dear Reverend Scott:

Last time I checked Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was not part of the Gospel according to Jesus. The truth is, the closest Jesus actually comes to saying ANYTHING about homosexuality is when he comments how man and woman leave their homes to become one in together marriage, Matthew 19:4-5.

You might want to check your facts before you scold someone and get it wrong. I have a Bible and I read it all the time. I would think a man of the cloth would be a little more informed and a little less hostile, given that you have dedicated your life to spreading the love of Christ and all.

The strongest message I get from it all is to try to spread love and peace where ever and when ever you can. Judgement of sinners is reserved for Him the way I was taught.

God shows himself to us every day in many forms, what if He is testing our ability to love without condition?

11:18 AM, June 29, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

God...what would He want?

In the beginning...God woman.

For anyone that believes this, and claims to follow the Christian faith, there is a hurdle to overcome in saying that man was made for man, and woman for some cases, because that's the way God made them.

If that's the way God made them, then why did He start with such a flawed design?

It's not just about procreation. God created man and woman the way that He did for a variety of reasons, and He created their sexual organs to fit together in a pleasurable way because He wanted us to enjoy it.

He never would have intended for us to mate male to male, and female to female, because God said that His creation was "very good" when He made woman for man. It wasn't because woman needed man, either, it was because man needed woman! Adam was incomplete without Eve, and God knew that. When Adam saw that all the animals had a help-meet, He wanted one, too! Woman was given to man to help man meet his responsibilities as a follower of God.

Animals aren't created to worship God. They bring glory to God, because they are incredible, awesome, wonderful, and we marvel at them and find use for them. But they will never understand God the way that we humans understand God. And with our understanding comes great responsibility to carry out His will for us.

If we know God, and we know His word, and we know His will, then it is sin to you and me to fail to follow Him. I will be the first to raise my hand and admit that I am sinful by nature, though I desire to do His will. This is not about hating anybody, when it comes to same-sex marriage. I do not hate those who are in a homosexual relationship. What I do hate is the sin...perhaps because it reminds me of my own sinfulness.

But as a follower of the One True God, I must stand up for what I believe to be right...what I ascertain to be His will. His will is most important to me. I must love unconditionally, and I do to the best of my ability, though I am certain to fall short on a regular basis. I must also declare that what is sinful, is sinful, starting with my own actions. I must stand up for the innocent and come to their aid when I can, and I thank Him that He has given me opportunities to do just that.

And with respect to same-sex marriage, for the sake of my children and my children's children, I must take a stand to defend God's for woman, and woman for man, and not some other combination.

It is man who has perverted what God has declared to be very good, and it is man who must seek to restore God's design, to sanctify it and protect it for our future generations.

8:03 AM, June 30, 2006  
Anonymous Gary Tucker said...

Does God wish us to force His will on others?

11:02 AM, June 30, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I think that the better question, Gary, is...does God want us to stand up for what is right?

What would Jesus do?

1:29 PM, July 03, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

Mr. Tucker,

You stated in a previous comment:

"The truth is, the closest Jesus actually comes to saying ANYTHING about homosexuality is when he comments how man and woman leave their homes to become one in together marriage, Matthew 19:4-5."

My intent was to not be hostile in explaining to others the TRUE translations of scripture. My intent was to prove to others that they cannot translate scripture to fit their own agenda.

I do sincerely apologize to those who took my previous comments in a negative manner.

In regards to your translation of Matthew 19:4-5 Mr. Tucker, it is a little off base as it has nothing to do with Jesus talking about homosexuality in any way, shape, or form.

This is what the scripture means:
According to the Bible, God's plan for all His creation is heterosexuality, making homosexuality a sexual orientation that is world/society/man made.

Even if homosexual tendencies are indicated prior to birth, as some researchers theorize, that predisposition still does not make the behavior "normal" in God's eyes.

There are many, many pieces of scripture that speak out against homosexuality:
· 1Corinthians 6: 9-11
· Leviticus 22:22
· Leviticus 20:13
· Any many others that describe sexual immorality, including homosexuality, as wrong in God’s eyes

Please be careful in translating scripture because any verse in the Bible can fit an argument if manipulated the right way.

I hope this makes sense. Do not hesitate to ask me to help you with translations as I must agree as I was in seminary they are tough to understand.

In Peace,

Rev. Scott

6:18 PM, July 03, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

Surely this is not the only instance where we should think of our neighbors well being instead of just our own. The Holy Spirit calls us to be the change we wish to see in the world. We understand through Christ's sacrifice that the more we give to another the closer we are to Him. Live your life on your own terms. Love yourself and others just as God has created you. Learn to be a better person by being kinder and more caring each day.

This is the true will of God, we just seemed to keep sideling it. First there was blacks, women's voting, rock and roll, Dungeons&Dragons, now gay marriage.
We have to live together in peace, we need to start trying instead of the constant effeort to bend one to another's will.

I can promise you a few things:

I am a good neighbor
I am respectful to those who respect me
I contribute to the community in positive ways
I am willing to learn and grow

I am not willing to let someone else dictate how I live my life, however, so whether or not we lose the right to marry is going to have little effect on MY effect on society.

10:38 AM, July 04, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...


As I have been saying for the past 2 to 3 comments on the issue of translation of scripture. You can not manipulate scripture to fit your argument. Here you clearly do. Yes, Jesus said to help those who are in need but he did not ADVOCATE for homosexual behavior anywhere in the new or old testament.

If the man who fell in the hands of robbers was a homosexual, Jesus would help him and heal his wounds. Jesus would next try and help the sexually immoral sinner repent and follow His word and His lifestyle.

Stop trying to make it sound like Jesus is saying something that he is not. I pray for all sinners, including myself. We must come together as one and help those who are living a destructive and sinful lifestyle such a homosexuality.

You stated in your comments:

"I am not willing to let someone else dictate how I live my life..."

Then why are you advocating the word of God who IS dictating how you SHOULD live through his true word via the Bible?

It does not all equal out John. You can not be a true Christian or Catholic and live a "whatever works for me" lifestyle and "follow" in the TRUE footsteps of Christ. We all need to give it all up to follow the true word of Christ. We can not engage in a "but he will not notice" policy and then manipulate scripture to fit our "society/man made" behaviors.

In Him,

Rev. Scott

4:07 PM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

With all due respect Reverend, I do not have to follow what you say in order to be Christian. There are a lot of us out here that are Christians who believe that God's true commandment was to spread the love of Christ and the woramth of peace. We don't need your approval to do so, and I am dissappointed that you would give such a narrow minded view of the bible considering there are approximately 5,000 versions floating around out there. Your is the only right one?

You do God's will as you see fit and so will I. In the end we can see who is right. Last time I checked I lived in America and you can get angry all you want at what I do, but you can't make me see God your way.

5:15 PM, July 04, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...


I mean no harm.

The only Biblical translations I am talking about are the ones God wrote.

In Christ,

Rev. Scott

6:17 PM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

And how do we know them from all the translation errors just like you were talking about? How do we know what He really wants? Just because you say so is not proof enough. Give me something to go on.

6:48 PM, July 04, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

The translation of scripture is an exact science that has been replicated in thousands of different languages over thousands of years.

I would strongly recommend a book titled "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Excellent read about an atheist journalist/lawyer who through interviews and research with experts around the world on the authenticity of the Bible becomes a believer due to all the scientific facts to back up the true translations of scripture.

Give it a chance. I will send you a copy if you would like.

Great question John, I like your curiosity.

In Him,
Rev. Scott

7:34 PM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Send me a copy, I will send it back to you or reimburse you for it when I am done reading it.

281 Lafayette St.
Salem, MA 01970

9:09 AM, July 05, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

Consider it done John.

Don't worry about sending it back. I have a few extra copies hanging around in the church.

Just give me a week or so because I am on a Christian seminar business trip in Nevada.

In Him,
Rev. Scott

6:58 AM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Rev. Scott, I have had many debates with John Hosty about this and many other things. It is my opinion that he will always have a counter-rebuttal to anything that you present to him about the veracity of the Bible.

I was given some chapters out of the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman - and it's painfully obvious that he comes to the conclusions he comes to because he had a predisposition to disprove the Bible. In one case, he says that the older manuscript is more another he says that the newer manuscript is more accurate. He says that the harder teaching to accept is more likely the accurate translation of the Bible. If you read his book carefully enough, you will see that he comes up with theories to support his conclusions, but they are merely theories, and in my opinion they are not to be taken seriously by anyone but the foolish.

When it comes to the accuracy of scripture, it is easy for those of the pro-homosexual mindset to say that the Bible is accurate in saying that Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, but when the Bible strictly condemns homosexuality? That's an inaccurate translation, you know!

1:41 PM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Hey Tyler, Love thy neighbor!

9:24 PM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

What have I said that is "unloving", John?

You can say that as many times as you want, but without evidence...well, it's just words, my friend.

9:07 AM, July 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a crazy argument Tyler. When something is translated, some of what is true and accurate comes through and some does not.

The bible is a book of faith, not a book of fact.

1:25 PM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Tyler are you trying to say the Reverend is wasting his time talking to me? You always have a comeback for everything, should we stop listening to you?

3:13 PM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

John, what I'm pointing out to the Reverend is that you believe certain parts of the Bible are fact (that support your view) and other parts are not (that support my view), therefore, what is the point of discussing the Bible with you?

4:38 PM, July 08, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Anonymous, are you saying that the Bible is true and accurate when Jesus says to love your neighbor as yourself (which I believe in as well) but not true and accurate when it says that homosexuality is wrong?

Either it's a book worth reading because it means something, or it's just another piece of garbage that needs to be tossed.

I respect the WHOLE bible as inspired, and take everything together to form my views.

What I've learned from the Bible is that I'm a sinner saved by grace, and that grace came through Jesus Christ on the cross. I can't earn my salvation, Jesus paid the price for me. Every day I fail, and every day God loves me. One day I'll stand face to face with my creator, and He'll determine my fate. I know that I've trusted Jesus, and I'm not worthy of my salvation...except that I can be robed with Christ's robe, and not my own, because only in His righteous robe may I approach the throne of grace of my Lord.

I do not dismiss my sins by saying that "well, the Bible doesn't really mean it when it says 'whoever looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart'". Oh, no, I know it's sin, and I thank God that He overlooks my offense when I come to Him seeking forgiveness.

4:43 PM, July 08, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

Interesting points Tyler. It is true that if one sins, such as lusting after another women, and approaches God and seeks forgiveness it is therefore granted. Although, the trick here is that the sin cannot be committed again. One must work on his or her behavior to not engage in that sinful behavior a second time.

Sin is attractive, but we must do all we can, beginning in our hearts, to not repeat the eye and mind catching act again.

In Him,
Rev. Scott

5:42 PM, July 08, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe being gay is a sin. Jesus did not speak on it at all, and I feel His love in me although I am in a twelve year relationship with my partner Ray. Is homosexuality so bad in Jesus' eyes that it alone can keep an otherwise model citizen from going to Heaven? My heart tells me no, but I want to hear what others think on the matter, and why they think what they do.

7:09 AM, July 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you the same Rev Scott from the Poseidon Adventure?

7:23 AM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

John, are you sure that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality?

What does Mark 10:6-9 say about homosexuality?

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10:29 AM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Sorry but that is an indirect reference at best and only furthers the idea that being gay was not a big issue for Christ. We went from ten commandments which had nothing to do about homosexuality, down to two commandments, still nothing about homsexuality.

Do you know what they focused on? Love. Christ asked us to concentrate on two things; love god and love each other.

Why is it so hard for you to see that judging people is wrong. You say you identify the fact you are a sinner and then you want me to ignore your sins you want to focus on mine. How about you work on yours and I'll work on mine and we leave God to judge us both?

11:29 AM, July 09, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...


No, I am not from Poseidon Adventure. I am from Eastside Christian Church in Fullerton, California. I just started here not more than 5 months ago. Do you know the church?


The Ten Commandments have nothing to do about homosexuality, you are absolutely correct.

The Bible is the word of God and he did speak directly on homosexuality in Corinthians 6:9 and many other pieces of scripture. This is straight from the words of God and no one else.

Good sole searching though John, I commend you for your spirit in Christ.

In Him,
Rev. Scott

6:57 AM, July 10, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from