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.