Lasts of 2008.

Last Thoughts of 2008.

Where did you begin 2008?
"Sigh....graduation year is here."

Stayed single the whole year?
That would be no.

What was your status by Valentine's Day?
Still praying.

Were you in school (anytime this year)?
Finished in July. In Italy.

Did you have to go to the hospital?
Yes; brother broke his leg. haha.

Did you have any encounters with the police?
Yeah, so funny story. I was driving Melody's car to my house one night after a day of fun with some friends, talking about our life stories and childhood insecurities and whatnot, when we decided to park in the parking lot of the park near my house (that sentence had more parks than a Korean wedding). As I continued talking, I noticed three things: a. the car next to us, with the windows fogged up, started to leave b. red and blue lights started flashing in the side and rear mirrors, c. I didn't have my license on me. All these funny little realizations snowballed into one big serious reason to panic.

This followed with an incredibly sincere attempt to convince the officer that: a. this was not what it looked like b. I did actually have a license and my house was right across the creek c. the situation is pretty funny, and no reason to ticket or arrest me.

That then followed with: a. sitting in the back of the police car, giving him my thankGodIremember license number as he put it in his thankGodhehasone electronic database. b. watching Melody put her hands on the front hood as we both laughed at each other c. lighthearted attempts from the both of us to charm the police officer into being nice....successful ones, mind you. :)

Where did you go on vacation?
Arrezzo, Italy. But that's my home now. So really, I'm on vacation in Walnut, California.

What did you purchase that was over $500?
Top 3 cutesy answers in place of a simple "nothing:"
3. Food.
2. Memories with friends.
1. A companion <- less cute more borderline sounding like prostitution.

Did you know anybody who got married?
Nope, missing it by a month!

Did you know anybody who passed away?
Nope.

Did you move anywhere?
Back to the 'nut.

What sporting events did you attend?
Vibe, Maxt Out, Prelude. Dance counts, right?

What concerts/shows did you go to?
I went to watch Wicked.

Describe your birthday.
Golden birthday. Obliviously hung out with Tiffy into the night. Obliviously walked up the stairs to my apartment. Obliviously opened the door to odd noises in the dark. Suprised by friends and a room with fun (embarrassing) facts about me all over the walls, courtesy of Mer and Tiffy.

What's the one thing you thought you would never do (or have to do) but did in 2008?
Stop a pickpocketer. Stop a pickpocketer twice. Stop a pickpocketer three times.

What has/have been your favorite moment(s)?
4. Getting to sit in the auditioner's seat for a change. [MCIA Auditions '08].
3. Walking through New York with my brother. [NY08].
2. Sitting on top of Roman aqueducts on a Sunday morning, in total solace, talking to God aloud. [Arezzo, Italy].
1. The day it became official, and the drawn-out, twist-filled, should've-been-expected, full-of-surprises journey that day to get there. [Aug 14, San Diego].

What's something you learned about yourself?
My overcommitment to many things actually roots itself in - and perpetuates - a newly discovered fear of commitment to one thing.

New additions to your family?
Palbin.

What was your best month?
June, July, August.

What music will you remember 2008 by?
"I'm Yours" - Jason Mraz

Who has been your best drinking buddy?
RJuice. She loves juice even more than me, and she makes excellent smoothies.

Made new friends?
I sure hope so. Make new friends, keep the old; one is silver and the other gold.

Favorite Night(s) out?
World concert in Rondine, Italy. Met a b-boy crew and ended up performing with them that same night.

Any regrets?
Count it all loss for the sake of knowing Christ. Phil 3:8.

Overall, how would you rate this year?
With star stickers, on a chart that starts at 1986.

What would you change about 2008?
Commit more. Commit waaay more.

Other than home, where did you spend most of your time?
On the road. Alseep.

Have any life changes in 2008?
Graduated college, moved back home, left a dance team, joined a dance team, lived abroad, snagged the g-friend. All very life-changing.

Changed your hairstyle?
Trying to equalize. I have the occasional fauxhawk relapse but I'm learning.

Got a new job?
Workin' with the pops.

Did anything embarrassing?
YES. But I say, a funny story is a worthwhile experience.

Bought anything new from eBay?
I thought the point of eBay was to buy something old.

Got married or divorced?
One thing at a time, Mer.

Be honest - did you watch American Idol?
Why wouldn't I be honest?! Loyal since season 4.

Did you get sick this year?
It comes and goes. And I picked up nasal allergies this year.

Started a new hobby?
the blogspot.

Been snowboarding?
3-4 seasons.

Are you happy to see 2008 go?
I'm happy to have had it at all.

Drank Starbucks in 2008?
I don't enjoy coffee, and my sleepiness is extremely powerful. I do like their apple cider and toffee almond cookies though.

Visited a different country?
I'm an Italian in America.

Cooked a gross meal?
Never got complaints.

Tripped over a coffee table?
Scarlet takes a tumble haha.

Dyed your hair?
Gotta hide the blonde...

Went to a party?
I would hope nobody said no to this. If so, let me know and we can work something out for 2009.

Read a great book?
Not intently enough.

Did you drive?
You gotta drive to crash, right?

Did you own a car?
You gotta own one to crash one, right? No, you don't. No, I don't own one.

Been naughty or nice?
Romans 3:23.

What do you want to change in 2009?
I want to lose bad habits.
I want to gain good ones.
I want to read a book a month.
I want to get in shape.
I want to be changed by the Spirit.
I want to get my foot in the door as an actor.
I want to finally access my potential as a dancer.
I want to have a piece in a Mavyn set.
I want to win a freestyle battle.
I want to be more consistent.
I want to be more family oriented.
I want to being late on posting.
I want to grow with her.
I want to have a peace that surpasses all understanding.
I want to be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.

What are you wishing for in 2009?
Increase.

Do you think 2009 will top 2008?
Oh yeah. Definitely.

i have a long history of giving crummy gifts...

December 25, 2008

I'm thankful for the gifts I got last night. The mom furnished me with her annual underwear package, complete with top and bottom thermals distinct only in color from the ones my brother was given. This year she threw in a hat, which I hastily ripped the tag from, only to be immediately relieved by the fact that the name Mervyn's guaranteed it non-returnable.

My brother took pictures, complete with the Canon clunk of that bulky flash. The digital age in all its advances is still easily put to shame by mom's 28-exposure wonder. She has two identical ones, one she bought to replace the other, which she had sworn was stolen by one of her mischievous three children (I'm the youngest) despite our best alibis, only to be found later under the sink. That was her doing, and no, I don't know why.

I chose not to give gifts this year. I told my family right at the beginning of our gift-giving rituals, and showed them the recent video I was inspired by (thanks Joe, Suj) . I mean, I always hear about the needs that need to be met in third-world countries, but I can always find a way to feel like "now isn't the right time" to respond. But how could I say no to now? I feel like a big fat hypocrite for entertaining and regurgitating all that talk of Christmas spirit and giving over receiving when it all ends up being poured into pretty paper and half-hearted thoughtfulness. Plus I have a long history of giving pretty crummy gifts:

Top 3
3. Purple and Gold Fuzzkin; To Patrick Villar, Christmas 2002
2. Pepperidge Farm Sausalito Cookies; To Mom, Christmas 2005
1. Marilyn Monroe CD from Rite-Aid; To Matt Rorabaugh, Secret Santa 2004

This year I just let World Vision decide. I've never given a goat before. But more than anything I resolved to worship this year.

"It started with worship."

My favorite Christmas song has got to be "O Holy Night." It really puts everything into focus. More than the night being silent, peaceful, humble...above all, the night is holy. Above all is who came down. In relation to the universe. In relation to mankind. That night - whether it be December 25th, April 6th, or Maugustber 38th - is the night mankind had hope of once more having a relationship with God the father through the much later sacrifice of Christ the son.

"In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." - John 1:4-5

The Conspiracy: success

Sinner to Sinner: A Christian on Homosexuality

This will be the last post of this series. I set my outline in the very beginning, and now I've followed through with it. It's been long, but read on to know why it's still imporant.

It's difficult to talk about the Bible these days. Statements like "Jesus loves you" or "because the Bible says so" now come with so many negative associations one can call it a good day if he can say these things without being mocked. I titled this as "sinner to sinner," because it's a good reminder that I'm not better than anyone else. I struggle to write this post for fear that my words will be taken as arrogant. Most people I know don't really know the Christian way of life. More often their idea is taken from thirdhand information. But I don't blame them; these days it's rarer and rarer to find someone who preaches the Bible, much less lives their life by it. The time is long past the passing of prop 8, and while prop 8 is still an issue (though a number of opponents joined more because it was a hot topic), this goes much further past it. I told you my personal reasons were biblical, and so I wanted to elaborate on that, as well as dissolve misconceptions about what the Bible actually says about homosexuality.

"The Bible isn’t proven."

This post is not to argue whether or not the Bible is true. If you don't want to believe in it, that's absolutely your freedom. This is for those who want to know - or feel they already know - what the Bible says about homosexuality. If you want to make claims about the Bible, you should know what it says.

“Okay, so what does the Bible say about homosexuality.”

I Corinthians 6:9 & I Timothy 1:10 both mention homosexuality literally in a list of sinful acts. Romans 1:26-27 provides the most commentary on the subject:

"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."

There are only a few texts that mention homosexuality, but it only needs to be said once. It may also be argued that the Bible is open to interpretation. Not all verses are of the same clarity, some are harder to understand. I invite you to suggest how this one can be interpreted another way.

"Yeah but homosexuality is a sin like other things are sins. So why do Christians think homosexual people are an abomination?"

Let me define the line here, because often even Christians get this confused. Homosexuality is a sin. Every sin is an abomination to God. So a person in sin is an abomination because of his sin. Any sin. I'm an abomination for my sin.

"What exactly is sin, anyway?"

It should be noted that sin isn’t based on cultural taboos, things that seem kind of mean, health issues, technicalities, dark-colored things, or superstition. Sin is any failure to conform to God’s law. Nothing more, but nothing less. God requires us to be righteous, but the Bible says that there is “none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10). Everyone has fallen short of perfection, and the punishment for sin is death, which is eternal death in Hell (Romans 3:23, 6:23).

“Why can’t God just pretend it didn’t happen?”

God is holy and righteous, and so He can’t touch sin. What if I gave you a glass of pure water, except I told you there was a drop of pee in it? Likely you wouldn’t want it. Once the pee got into the water, the water ceased to be pure. He can’t touch sin or He is not holy. Also, God is just, and so he must punish sin or else he isn’t a just God. Would you let be okay with a judge letting someone off the hook simply because he sympathized?

"’Okay, so let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ I mean, what place does a sinner have judging another sinner?""

An excellent and very sobering truth. Nobody is without sin, so no man has any place to judge another as less than anyone else. But what exactly does Christ deem as judging someone? He overturned the tables of moneychangers and rebuked Pharisees for their sin, though taught to love your neighbor. How does this make sense? Well, to tell someone he's sinning is alone not judgment. Christ loved everyone he encountered, down to the lowest of society. He visited the degenerate, the sick, the unclean, the prostitutes; he embraced them with compassion, yet he always told them to go and sin no more. Christ knew how to balance truth and love, not compromising either.

Then to rebuke someone in their sin without judging them as less than you is to compassionately hold them accountable to the Bible. The Bible says that if your brother sins, then you should go and show him his sin. I don’t blame anyone for being confused; the definition of sin and rebuke has blurred to the public. Many Christians – including myself – fail to properly exemplify them at times.

In terms of prop 8, it isn’t so much about pressing the Bible on others. I didn’t vote to force people to know the Bible. But like Christ, while he embraced others, he didn’t excuse sin. I have my moral convictions and that means I can’t support something that I don’t agree with.

"What about those laws in Leviticus like the one that prohibits eating shellfish? Christians can’t just go on picking and choosing."

All the laws in Leviticus are Mosaic Law, part of the old covenant of the Old Testament. When Christ died for our sins, he brought "the new covenant." And "in speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13)." Thus the laws in Leviticus are then null and void. You can find this in Hebrews 7-8.

“Well if sinners go to Hell, and Christians are sinners too, then how can they claim they’re going to Heaven?”

First off, not everyone who says they’re going to heaven really is. Christ says in Matthew “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

The answer lies in the latter part of Romans 6:23, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” You see, that’s exactly why Christ came as man, why he died on the cross, and why that means to much to mankind. It was more than him being a good man, sinless, more than him being a perfect example of how to love and serve God the Father. He took on him the punishment for the sins - past, present, and future – of all who would believe in him.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)

Christ's sacrifice, above all, is the center of the gospel of the Bible. He is the essence of the Christian life. Christ offers you, no matter who you are or what you've done, eternal life in Heaven by repentance. It isn’t about joining a name, a title, or a church. It isn’t about doing good works or trying to be a good person. Ephesians 2:8 says “for by grace are you saved by faith.” It’s by repenting of your sins and having faith in Christ as your Lord and Savior that guarantees someone Heaven. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the rest of the Bible, if you really believe in Christ as your Lord and want to give your life to him, why wouldn’t you follow it?

That's it. I hope this helps you understand where I’m coming from and what the Bible says. As for your question Roger, "What if your son was gay?"

I couldn't say how I would react since I've never been a father, only God knows that for sure. But let me tell you about a man I admire. His name is Jose, and I can say he’s sincerely a man of God. You can find him constantly studying the Bible, preparing messages that are convicting, uncompromising, and undoubtedly passionate. Jose has a son. Though his son grew up in the church, his son's views have become vastly different from Jose's. He and his son have gone from discussion to argument time and time again. One day my friend asked him how his son was doing, and he said his eyes immediately became red with tears. His son don’t see eye to eye, but you couldn’t deny for a second that Jose whole-heartedly loves his son. My heart breaks for Jose because I care about him and his son a lot, but I admire and trust Jose’s resolve to be uncompromising about the Bible. If my son and I ever disagreed like that, I can only hope to follow Jose’s example.

If anything comes from this series, I pray it be that you know who Christ is and the hope that he offers you. Of all days, today and tomorrow you should know why it is these days are celebrated.We despair at our sin, but we rejoice at hope in Christ. Merry Christmas and peace be with you.

Prop 8 - The Musical

Recently came across Prop 8 - The Musical.

The movie makes three statements I'm going to address:
1. Prop 8 is hate because it doesn't support homosexual desires.
2. Christians should obey all the laws in the Bible, including the ones in Leviticus about not eating shellfish.
3. Supporters of Prop 8 are afraid of gay marriage being taught in school.

Chrisitians should support samesex marriage because they're commanded to love?
While love your neighbor is a rule, it's second to the greatest command in the Bible: Love the Lord your God with all your heart. And in obeying that you have to obey all the commands of the Bible. 1 Corinthians 6:9 blatantly calls homosexuality unrighteous.

Well what happens when a person sins? He doesn't obey fully then, does that mean he doesn't love God? Yes and no. Yes, in that if he doesn't obey, then he chooses himself over God. But no in that his whole being isn't negated, his desires to obey are still valid even if in his sin he slips up.

So what then, doesn't God require perfection? Yes, and that's exactly why Christ died. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son that whosoever believes in Him will have everlasting life." If you repent of your sins, you will be forgiven. But still, you should strive to obey.

So then you have to obey the laws about shellfish and stuff, right? The laws in Leviticus are Mosaic Law, part of the old covenant of the old testament. When Christ died for our sins, he brought "the new covenant." And "in speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13)." So no, we don't. You can find this in Hebrews 7-8.

And while those opposed poke fun at the thought of gay marriage being taught in schools, I hope they know that it actually happened. Where are the jokes about the teacher taking her class on an official field trip to her lesbian wedding?

Talking about the Constitution, and discussing what it says, that's how things should run. Instead the movie focuses on trying to manipulate the image of Christianity. If there's truth in the No on 8 campaign, then let it rest on that and not on jokes about Christians.

One more thing: The image of the marquee in the very beginning is actually a picture of my Alma Mater, Walnut High School. I thought that was pretty cool.

Why I Voted Yes: A Summary Thusfar

Ahem, is anyone still around? Sorry all for the sudden disappearance. I took some time off from writing these last three weeks for a couple reasons: I didn't think it was wise to continue talking about it so immediately after the election, and it's been a little hectic lately, this past week being spent on an excursion to NYC to handle some bidness. But the protests are still very much alive and questions on a lot of people's minds, so as promised I'm continuing my posts. Momentum is significantly disrupted, so kudos if you're still paying attention.

First, I'd like to review a couple things. I'm not against the people's right to protest and fight for their beliefs. My aim was never to say that everyone should be for or against samesex marriage. But claims about me are being made that are untrue. This is not an attempt to ensure that people like me, but if you want to disagree with me at least know the intentions with which you're disagreeing. Allow me now to clarify what my goals are in writing these posts, and what they are not:

- I don't aim to convince people to be for or against the ban, or to make it seem as if they need to adhere to my beliefs. I maintain that my first post was defending why I voted yes, not why everyone should vote yes.
- I do aim to challenge those who are against it to know while there are valid reasons to be opposed, there are also reasons I find to be invalid. I don't think this can or should be one-sided. I think there are exaggerations on the Yes campaign too, which I don't agree with.

- I don't aim to tell people they shouldn't be fighting for gay rights.
- I do aim to tell people that they shouldn't be accusing people of hateful things for not supporting that fight. This isn't everyone; I do appreciate the ones being very kind and patient with me.

- I don't aim to tell people that they have to believe in any given standard of morality
- I do aim to tell people that one way or the other, you have a standard of morality, a conscience that makes you feel that something is right or wrong.

- I don't aim to impose the Bible on others, to force others into Christianity,
- I do aim to uphold my Constitutional right to have my own beliefs without persecution (though not without debate), and to have my views dictate my vote. My vote was not to put the Bible into schools; prop 8 is not about anything exclusively Christian.

- I don't aim to discourage others from challenging my thinking or disagreeing with my thoughts. I'm grateful to anyone who takes the time to respond to their convictions with integrity and temperance.
- I do aim to encourage other to consider my views and to read them fully and carefully before responding, lest they attach cultural associations and stereotypes that aren't directly expressed in my posts. If you question my statements, please keep them in context, and I'll work to do the same.

- I don't agree with all Prop 8 campaigning methods. I think I should have made it clear earlier that I don't associate with Prop 8 propaganda (because there is and there isn't propaganda on both sides). I don't aim to scare others into being on my side by strategically using children, schools, and exaggerations and in an insincere way. Please don't attach me to their methods, unless you see exaggerations here in these posts.
- I do aim to clarify the line between tolerance and acceptance, and that I don't have stand on the latter to stand on the former. I don't expect you to accept it, but hope you can tolerate it.

_________________________________________________________________
Now, regarding your comments:

If you still believe I was wrong for voting yes - for reasons of breaching an alleged line of tolerance or an alleged line that doesn't involve imposing your morality - please show me why I need to comply to your rules. The government allows me to believe what I believe, so you can't call it unconstitutional, you can't call it illegal. I was given the choice to say yes or no and I chose. I don't think I harassed, heckled, gloated, defaced, or violated. I didn't do anything more than what was offered to me as my right.

"You're imposing your religion."

This has been the response of many. I think it may have been misconstrued when I said my reasons were biblical that I somehow thought the prop itself was religious. If you still think the prop imposes religion, let me ask you this: did the actual ban on samesex marriage teach you anything new about the Bible? Did the ban coerce you into memorizing verses? Have you been forced into knowing anything about my God and Christ and Heaven beyond your will because of Prop 8? Did I force you into Christianity, or do you hold onto the same beliefs you held onto before the election?
What happened is that I made a choice based on what I believe. You made a choice based on what you believe. It happens that in the diversity of beliefs - because not everyone who voted Yes is Christian - that the majority of people personally chose to vote Yes. That's how a democracy works, right?
I don't understand why people assume that everyone who voted Yes not only was Christian, but had the agenda to force people into knowing Christianity. Having reason against samesex marriage is not exclusive to the Bible, and it doesn't force people to know the Bible. I may be imposing a view which is backed by the Bible, but that's not imposing the Bible itself.

"This doesn't affect you"

"what is this to you?" Olbermann asks. If you don't know this by now, then perhaps we can talk in person and get this clearer. Esther you mentioned how parents didn't have to sign the permission slip and thus their children didn't have to go to the lesbian wedding. While I find it doubtful that having the kid be the one that didn't go on the field trip is really sufficient to give parents that control you speak of, samesex marriage has nonetheless affected schools. What I was trying to point out is that people were saying that it wouldn't but it did.

If it's pushing morality to say samesex marriage is wrong, then it's pushing morality to say samesex marriage is right.


"Morals have changed in the past."

There are morals that have also stayed the same. Things change, and things stay the same. There's value in both. Because something has changed or stayed the same in history doesn't necessarily mean other things should follow suit. I'm not sure how using this defeats either of our arguments.

"Discrimination in any form is always wrong."

I suppose I shouldn't have picked those examples of discrimination, because now a lot people are assuming that I consider those examples as "exactly the same" as others. The point, however, I was making is that those are legislated forms of discrimination. Granted, we all agree upon those and don't agree on this one, but I was hoping to invalidate the use of the "discrimination card" as if all times discrimination is involved it's wrong. You agreed that the examples, while not tactfully chosen, are nonetheless examples of discrimination. The point is that there are many forms of discrimination that society deems necessary. Please know that the focus was the challenge the claim that has been made in the No on 8 campaign that "discrimination in any form is always wrong" and not anything else.

__________________________
ROGER BECKER

- I'm not for anti-racial marriage. I'm not sure what you meant by citing the website. It shows how those verses have been misinterpreted, and how the Bible doesn't actually talk about prohibiting interracial marriage. If you mean that verses aren't always what they seem, then you're right, they're not, and people often misinterpret. But unlike those verses (which use metaphor) the ones about homosexuality are clearly about homosexuality. This I'll get more into in later posts.

- As for the second verse you quoted, do you know why Isaac was told not to take a daughter from Canaan? I don't think you should quote it if you don't.
___________________________
HIDEKI FUKUSUMI
-"I was wondering why you say morality shouldn't be imposed on the state?"
I thought I made it clear that morality is imposed one way or the other, just a matter of whose morality gets legislated.

-Yes Christianity was called a cult before. It was also called a fad and was predicted to fade quickly. Can you recall who said that? I don't think people remember.

-In what you're citing, I'm not sure if your point is that we should give rights or we shouldn't take them away? There is a difference, because saying Prop 8 took away civil rights suggests that it is just for supreme court to go above our vote in the first place. I believe our vote is a civil right, don't you?

-As for your last comment, I don't think I claimed everyone in the LGBT community would do anything. Can you cite where I said or even connoted "everyone in the LGBT community" would do anything?
_____________________
GI PARK

-I agree that because something is tradition, it doesn't make it right. But also, because other traditions are wrong, that doesn't mean that all traditions are wrong. So the word tradition shouldn't validate one or the other. In other words, it doesn't guarantee anything. I don't think that's why people call traditional marriage traditional.

-I agree that cooties are a thing of the past; the cootie shot has long been in practice and has proven effective. I don't think that legalizing samesex marriage will turn everyone gay, and I also think it's dumb people are saying that.
____________________________________________________
KEITH OLBERMANN

"What is this to you?" he asks. This is my decision to not support something I don't agree with, plan and simple.

I asked if this prop is about the right to love or the right to express a preexisting love. Roger, you said it was the latter. I thought the same, and wanted to clarify this because the two are often blurred in campaign. Olbermann in my opinion wants to make this seem that prop 8 pushed people to be "alone in the world," which I think is an exaggeration. This prohibits marriage, and that is definitely a big deal, but it doesn't prohibit union. I'm not trying to minimize this issue, but take it for what it is.

As for Olbermann's comments loosely referring to the Bible, I don't think he really has read the context for the verse he cites. That I'll explain later.
__________________________________________

I feel like there's been a lot of misunderstanding in this series of responses. Perhaps we can schedule a one-on-one; I think that might help us understand each other better. Otherwise, stay tuned for the next post. I promise I won't wait as long this time.

Why I'm Voting Yes: The Follow-Up pt 2

Two days from now Californians are faced with the crucial decision, among many, to vote on Prop 8. When I posted that I was voting yes, many responded with questions and claims against my decision. I'm going to address those that pertain to the legal aspect of the discussion, including what place morality has in all of this.

Legal standpoint

"What about the separation of church and state?"

Let me preface this by saying that separation of church and state (whether Constitutional) is a very good thing and it should be in force. Now on to my argument: morality is legislated all the time. Stealing is immoral, and it is illegal. Spousal and child abuse are immoral, and they are illegal. Murder is immoral, and it is illegal. These things are illegal because it is for society's good- for our protection and well-being. I hope no one here would argue that we should legalize stealing because it is a "moral" or "religious' issue. Legislating morality is done all the time and it is a good thing.

"This is about discrimination."

Discrimination is not always a bad thing. Not every choice is equally valid. Some have been saying that Prop 8 is bad or wrong because it denies humans a right to choose who to marry, but that assumes that every choice is equally good. We would never argue this way in other areas. For example, denying someone the opportunity to beat their child or drive drunk is a very good thing. We would not be up in arms about people being denied the chance to beat their children. We would not be upset about a class of people (those who want to drive drunk) not being protected from so-called discrimination.

"Does morality have a place in legislation?"

Supposedly this is not supposed to be a matter of morality. Yet the campaign for those opposed to Proposition 8 - including the official No on 8 website - is that "it's wrong." Legislation can't be made on the grounds that something is simply "wrong" because that's a moral conviction. This is an attempt to infuse morality in legislation. Surely this fact isn't going to stop those people from believing it's wrong, because to them, "it's wrong." So does morality have a place in legislation? Yes, both sides are doing it.

"This is about human rights."

Rather than elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionality of the matter, and campaigning that way, it's pushed as a violation of Human Rights. This is smart, because what does the public feel more emotional attachment to? The law, or their moral beliefs? Whether or not the term is used in law, packaging the issue as "human rights" doesn't cause the public to scrutinize the Constitution and examine the legality of the issue. Instead, it tugs at their sense of right and wrong - their moral beliefs. Why would you feel so emotional and passionate about something if it didn't set off that intrinsic red alert in you that said "this is just wrong!"?

Humans rights? If that's so, why are we stopping at two partners...why not more than two? If it's a fight for the right to love, then nobody should be discriminated against - polygamists and other groups continue to get ignored, as if their right to love is somehow less important or irrelevant. How is it that it's a fight for equality when it's only about what the gay community wants?

That's because you don't want equality necessarily for all, but just for gays and lesbians. Why? Because morally you feel like they should. It's not your desire for the law to speak for itself, it's your desire to fight for your friends, for yourself, and for those emotional attachments, all the while bullying those who don't feel those moral convictions by threatening them with accusations of unlawfulness or intolerance. You don't feel for the polygamist community, or the manboy love community? Probably because none of them are your close friends. This is about only two-person marriage, not for every man's right to marry.

"This is about fundamental rights."

If fundamental rights is the main issue here, why is it that they don't seem to care that four judges went above our right to vote? Prop 22 was passed in 2000, defining marriage as between a man and woman. Last May four supreme court judges in San Francisco overturned that in California, even though California had fairly voted on the matter. I'm sure it's debated back and forth between law students whether or not this is a violation of the Constitution. My point is not to conclude one way or the other on that (far be it from me to know more than the discourse of law students on the Constitution). My point is why are we not talking about it? The judiciary interferes with our right to vote and we just sit here and take it? Why is it absent among "No on 8" campaigners, from their official website, and from your comments on my posts? My guess is that since if it doesn't interfere with your morality, it's not that big a deal.

"Whom does samesex marriage affect?"

Let's now address the rest of your sentence, Massiel, "especially people whose decisions and lifestyles in no way directly affect our own."

If it remains legalized, Gay marriage will normalize as a part of society. Marriage will now be defined as between any two consenting persons.

Okay, then what?
Schools will teach it. Amongst all the defense regarding education, there is surprisingly no response to the event in which a 1st grade class had an official field trip to go see their teacher's lesbian wedding ceremony. Schools are very much going to be affected.

But schools are not required to teach about marriage.
Whether or not it's required to, it will. Why? Because marriage is a part of society. Marriage is connected to school subjects, it's mentioned in conversation, in pictures, it's connected to other topics. What happens when kids ask how babies are made? So in all the inclusion of marriage, schools would have to provide equal representation for all forms of marriage. Fairness under the law would demand it.

Okay, then what?
It gets to schools, and it gets to the home. All children become raised in an environment where marriage is between any two persons. This means that when Jayden thinks of marriage, there is no one picture that initially pops in his head. The whole idea of marriage becomes rethought for everyone in the next generation. How, then, do you explain that these decisions "in no way will directly affect our own?"

Samesex marriages will affect everyone.

This post isn't to say whether or not samesex marriage is moral or not, but to say that every person believes in one side, and pushes that belief on others. And the more you disagree with me, the more you prove my point. If this is to be dealt lawfully, then let our votes decide.

In maintaining the point of my original post, to explain why I'm voting "yes," I'm going to address what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Thanks for reading.

Why I'm Voting Yes: The Follow-Up pt 1

Thank you everyone who commented, whether or not you agreed with my post. I’m grateful for discussion and its reliable habit of refining my thinking. The response has been - I won't say overwhelming, as I should have know this was coming - a lot to handle, so I apologize for the wait. In my reading I’ve found the responses questioning my post seem to revolve around 3 main standpoints:

1. Universal standpoint - Is it respectful?


2. Legal standpoint - Is it just?


3. Biblical standpoint - Is it biblical?

Each of the comments has any one combination of the three, sometimes taking unlike positions in one paragraph. Note that these standpoints are not necessarily in agreement with one another, so for the sake of clarity I’m going to segment my posts thus. I don't know if I'm equipped enough in knowledge or breath (or the people’s attention for that matter) to reply to everything, but I will do my best to explain myself. I respect everyone's right to agree or disagree, to applaud or rebuke, and while I am firm in my response I assure you I'm not being spiteful. Okay, let’s begin with the universal:

Universal standpoint

- Is it okay to impose your beliefs on someone else?

Massiel: "Julian, everyone has a right to have an opinion. But where we as a society need to draw the line is when we try to impose our opinions on other people,"

The universal standpoint (others may have come across this concept as another term) is that, theoretically no one say imposes upon the other. Nobody can say what is right, and we are all right. Therefore for anything to be universal at all, unless all parties involved are already of one mind, nothing can be said. What happens when two incongruent beliefs come in contact?

"where we need to draw the line is when we try to impose our opinions on other people,"

We? Need? I didn’t consent to this. I want to draw the line where we can (kindly) impose our opinions on others. You see we’re already at a conflict of interest.

The statement is self-defeating. Telling me not to impose my opinion is, in it of itself, an imposition. Which is fine by me, of course, because I don’t draw the line there. The universal standpoint simply does not exist.

So is it okay to impose your beliefs on someone else? If done with patience and kindness, yes. It's natural, it's healthy, and no matter what, everyone does it. You don't have to agree, and you don't have to refrain from imposing your beliefs, because either you are, or they are. Now let's continue this discussion in a patient and kind matter, aware of exactly what it is we're doing.

In my next post I’m going to address the Legal standpoint, which includes the rest of Massiel’s sentence, "especially people whose decisions and lifestyles in no way directly affect our own."

Why I'm Voting Yes on Prop 8

Taken from my Facebook:

I would like to begin by stating that my reasons are fundamentally biblical, which I'll elaborate on later. I simply wrote that I'm voting Yes on Prop 8 in my status. I left it at that because I wasn't sure what kind of response I was going to get; I suppose you can say I was testing the waters. My teal year spopper Ashley promptly commented:

"I respect your decision, but I really wish you wouldn't.
I'm not sure of your exact reasoning, but I'd just like to say a couple things about it.
1) Voting yes on prop 8 will take away a fundamental right of a group of people. (This is also known as discrimination)
2) Whether or not this prop is passed, there will still be homosexuals in existence, and individuals everywhere will still be exposed to them.
3) As it stands, gay marriage is permitted in California, and as it stands, I haven't heard of a SINGLE 'case of gay marriage' being taught in California.
4) This week, the California Superintendent of Schools released a commercial creating awareness about the TRUTH about gay-marriage-teachings; Schools are NOT required to teach about gay marriage.
5) The Yes on 8 commercial about the couple from Massachusetts is superfluous and irrelevant. Massachusetts' scholastic laws are completely different from California's.
6) The idea that gay marriage will inhibit religious freedom doesn't make any sense to me. If an individual believes that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman, THAT is what that individual can and WILL believe. There is no problem with that. There is, however, a problem in thinking that we as a people should be able to tell a minority group what they should and shouldn’t be allowed to do. ESPECIALLY when it has to do with love. Who are we to prohibit two people who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other that freedom?
Some will argue that the BIBLICAL ‘definition’ of marriage is that it is strictly between a man and a woman. While it DOES speak of husbands and wives, I haven’t seen a SINGLE sentence that pertains to homosexuality-positive or negative. If you can show me one anti-homosexual sentence in the bible, I might see an inkling of sense in the Yes on 8 campaign.
I hope this didn’t come off as disrespectful or anything of the sort—I just needed to share my opinion because though I’m heterosexual, I’m very passionate about this issue. Many people I love and care about are gay, and I’d like to make sure they are treated as equally as we are."

Thank you for taking the time to respond thoroughly and clearly, Ashley. No, you didn't come off disrespectful at all; quite the contrary. Nonetheless I appreciate you voicing your opinion honestly, and would like to do the same. That said, here's my response:

1) I keep hearing "fundamental right," but I haven't yet heard what right that is. Marriage? To call marriage a fundamental right is to say that those straight people who are unmarried are somehow treated unfairly. The reply may be that they still have the choice to get married, yet there are straight people who despite their best efforts never find the right one, or perhaps one even willing to marry them. Aren't they being robbed of their right too? How should that then get resolved? Arranged marriages? What then is the fundamental right? Pursuit of happiness? The "pursuit of happiness" argument certainly doesn't stop at marriage definition. You'd have to explain why we have all kinds of rules regulations. And despite societal standards, marriage is not necessary for happiness or even "greater happiness." As for discrimination, the argument I found on the No on Prop 8 website is that the amendment will be discriminatory against one group - gays and lesbians - which is untrue. If we're going to talk about who gets excluded, then we should include polygamists and minors without parental consent. Why are these groups not being fought for, or even acknowledged? If you change the structure of marriage once, who's to say it won't change again?
2) I have friends who are gay, and I agree that they'll exist no matter what I vote. That isn't in my reasoning.
3) School Field Trip to Teacher's Lesbian Wedding Sparks Controversy
4) Like in the article, while they may not be required to, that isn't to say that it won't happen.
5) I agree.
6) Prop 8 neither prohibits love, nor prevents two people from spending their lives together. Also, please keep in mind this won't eliminate civil unions.
God's word (the Bible) is my cornerstone for truth, and so my reasons for voting yes are both fundamentally and ultimately biblical. And while you could argue that I shouldn't be pressing my beliefs on others, I could argue the same to you. The pitch for voting "no" is despite how one feels, it's "unfair and wrong." Who says so? To say something is "wrong" HAS to fall on a set of beliefs, with which there is NO neutral ground. (I do believe there are moral absolutes, though, but that's another discussion altogether). In fact the Bible DOES speak about homosexuality. Per your request, here are some passages:

I Corinthians 6:9-11 - "9Or do you not know that the unrighteouswill not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. 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."

I Timothy 1:8-11 - "8Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

Also, in Genesis 19, Sodom (where we get the word "sodomy") and Gomorra were destroyed by God.
"The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality." - R. Albert Mohler

I share a similar hope that I didn't come off as disrespectful, spopper. Please know that I still love and cherish my friendships with my gay friends. I would never hate or ostracize someone because of their lifestyle (whether gay, atheist, Buddhist, etc.), but I won't compromise the word of God. These choices clearly go against the Bible and I am not ashamed of the gospel and of Christ. May He be glorified in my actions and intentions with this post.