KellyKeeton dot Com v3.0
KellyKeeton dot Com v3.0
reverse engineering life

28Oct/090

Ref. 71

Today some “pastor” posted to katie’s facebook page

Why would you want to approve Ref. 71? Do you really want to have your childrentaught that homosexuality and same-sex relationships are morally equivalent to heterosexualityand heterosexual marriage? Please, NO. Vote REJECT R-71

After yelling WHAT! This was our reply…. (wish I could handdeliver it to the guy)

Three Issues. 1) FACT We are not here to judge others so it is not my place to judgehomosexuality any more then theft, adultury, or racisim.

2) This Ref. has nothing to do with the defintion of marrage. It has to do with therights of differently minded people in the nation where we are all free and equal.(ignoring issue of hetrosexual domestic partners are also affected)

3) This Ref. has nothing to do with the teaching my children get. I as a parent amresponsible for teaching my child right, wrong, god, sin, grace, and compassion mostof all the love God has for everyone.

I don't see how voting no will show anyone with sin the grace and compassion of followersof God, we are not here to change others we are here to show others the light, itis not our job to condem them. Shame on anyone who says they are a Christan and thencondems the law of the land to further banish sinners into exile. You argue confusionis the point of satan to blind us, I argue satan is blinding you from grace to others.

Galatians 5:14-15 NIV "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watchout or you will be destroyed by each other. The entire law is summed up in a singlecommand: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Followup (here are the comments continued…)

I agree with you, but I hardly think Homosexuality is analogous to "theft, adulteryand racism..." Those are all wrong, immoral and ignorant acts that rip at the heartof communities and families...I wouldn't say that homosexuality does that...

…, point taken - but to be clear the issue is Ref.71 and Religion used as abattle ground for Ref.71 corrupting society and "christian beliefs" the 'debate' isnot inductive of personal or religious stance on homosexuality however that is whatpeople are spinning it as.

In Issue 1 that you pointed out. The bible defines a sin as a binary measure, meaning1=sin and 0=no sin,we as humans (biblical again) are all 1 or sinners, so all sinsin the eye of god are equal. So to help reference this debate and the reason the argumentwas used in the "fact" statement.

In the argument taken in context for the debate of a rebuttal to 'Dan's' statementI feel that we can have a analogous comparison.

To your point about homosexuality in relation to the other sins on a more 'human orearthly' debate (aside from the religious debate of homosexuality which I am not addressing.)I agree, the issues were just strong points chosen to show that small or large a sin(in religion) is all equal. *

Another good example would have been Alcoholism which fits nicely into your exampleas well as mine. All beans to count however the statement was being very general anddirected at Dan's point specifically to help others make a choice.

Which in the end, is all that is there, your choice.

Hope that clears up the issue #1 in the debate?

*Mind you this is all our(Kelly and Katie) interpretation of Gods word AKA the bible,we are followers of God's Word and as you can tell feel passionately about it. I totallyunderstand if out there you don't think like we do, or agree with the statements wehave or will make. We can still hang out be friends and live in the country wherewe all have the opportunity to do so! (that last paragraph isn't directed at anyone,just a statement for the reader)

Kelly, wonderfully explained. I suppose I just tookumbrage to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, but after reading your post, itoccurred to me that as an atheist, I suppose I don't really believe in "sin." Or,more accurately, the idea of "sinning" is entirely subjective to me. As I live withoutgod, everything I do is then a sin, right? But... ReadMore as you pointed out, this is adebate about Ref71, and I see now the utility of framing the debate in the contextthat Katie did above, which is ultimately to say, hey, no judge. 🙂

Filed under: Social No Comments