Green Baggins Sola Scriptura Discussion

I am posting this message to my own blog because in its original form, it does not show up at Green Baggins. I did post it there, after removing the URL to this blog (I put it back in for posting here), but I misspelled a closing tag of a blockquote, so it appeared totally as quoted text - AND - my first part of the response appears to be "Ron's" words - so rather than repost it there, I am posting it here. If the readers here find it interesting, use the link to "170" below (we're not afraid of links to Protestant sites here) and you can scroll through the history of that discussion. Currently they are starting to digress into ad hominem (which, sadly, is typical) so I'm not sure how much longer I will remain there.

I have also color coded the response here to make it clearer who said what and when.

In 170 Ron said:

(sw) Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18 – MEN are given infallible authority.

Scott, Please provide a series of premises strung together in a valid form of argumentation that leads to the grand conclusion of a perpetual, infallible magisterium located in Rome.

The citation of Matthew 16 and 18 was not to show "perpetual, infallible magisterium" - only that MEN were given infallible authority. You're getting ahead of yourself. First acknowledge the premise before moving on to things built upon the premise. If you do not accept the premise, there's no sense in moving on to "perpetual..."

(sw)1 Timothy 3:15 – It is the Church which is declared to be the “pillar and bulwark/foundation of truth” – not a collection of books which nearly 400 years after St. Paul wrote that to St. Timothy would be assembled into the canon of the Vulgate and eventually be dogmatically declared as THE Canon of Sacred Scripture.

Jesus promised to build his church. (Matt. 16:18)

Agreed! His Church, ONE Church - not thousands of churches, but that is a digression into yet another topic (one I sufficiently cover in several articles on the CathApol Blog, http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/search/label/33000%20Denominations ).

Jesus also told his apostles that those who received them received Him. (Matt. 10:40) The implication is that the building project of the Lord was to be founded upon the words of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. (The reason being, Jesus and the apostles are no longer here, but their words are.) (Eph. 2:20)

As Jesus was set, so also He sent His Apostles - which means that they too were to continue to "send out" others, just as they had been sent by Jesus. (This also answers your anachronistic request from your first comment in this posting).

The apostolic tradition was both oral and written (II Thess. 2:15) but only the written apostolic tradition has been providentially preserved. Accordingly, Scripture alone is what the church is built upon, which must have been God’s intention since Scripture alone is all he left us in keeping with Christ Jesus’ promise to build his church.

And where does Scripture tell you that the apostolic office (bishop) would cease with the death of the last Apostle?

So, in keeping with the analogy of Scripture, whatever it means to you that the church is the foundation of the truth it must harmonize with the premise that Scripture alone is what the church is built upon, which is to say her sure foundation. Please just don’t provide a Scripture reference as your rejoinder, provide an argument to defend Roman Catholic tradition.

Yet again, no where does Scripture say that Scripture alone is what the Church is built upon. Scripture, in fact, says the Church is built upon St. Peter (Matthew 16:18-19) and upon The Twelve Apostles (Rev. 21:14), but never says the Church is built upon a book which did not even exist as such for some 400 years, certainly not even close to the form/format we call "The Bible" today.

(sw) No where does Scripture say it is or is to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church – no where.

Does the Old Testament uphold this principle you assert?

That would be your question to answer. I've presented the negative assertion, prove me wrong in presenting the positive. Silence on this matter lends itself to concession.

Didn’t Jesus blister the religious leaders of his day for operating according this Roman Catholic premise, that Scripture alone does not provide the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Actually, Jesus - several times - broke with "what was written" to demonstrate their fallacy of adhering so firmly to "The Law" saying, "you say 'it is written, but I say...'" Do you need me to list out those examples to you?

While we’re at it, didn’t Satan try to tempt Adam and Eve and even Jesus with this Roman Catholic axiom?

It is, yet another, pure anachronism to attempt to apply sola scriptura to Adam and Eve! As for applying it to Satan tempting Jesus, Satan attempted to use Scripture to tempt Jesus, so Jesus used Scripture to answer him. The irony here is that I'm trying to get you (or anyone else) to defend sola scriptura, not satis scriptura, with Scripture - and no one can (because no such support/defense exists).

Is it not an unworkable principle (not to mention unwise) to act contrary to divine precedent, in this case OT precedent, without explicit divine instruction or good and necessary inference?

The OT was a time of the Prophets - and clear was NOT based AT ALL in sola scriptura. You gain no points for attempting to say the oT supports your case.

What NT argument have you offered to abandon the consistent testimony of redemptive history on this matter?

You're "bobbing and weaving" here, or in logical rhetoric terminology, a "red herring." I challenged that there is no "no where" any support in Scripture for sola scriptura, so to try the "table turning/red herring" tactic here is simply, in your terms, bobbing and weaving. That you claim it is 'the consistent testimony of redemptive history' is simply "begging the question" (another common fallacy of rhetoric).

(sw)If Scripture is sufficient, then why do we need “apologetics” of ANY sort?

We are to engage in apologetics because God says so. Secondly, unbelievers don’t submit to Scripture so we “do” apologetics in the hope that men might be saved. The same principle applies to why we should engage in polemics, for God’s glory.

Thank you for conceding that sola scriptura is NOT the premise of the existence of apologetics organizations! Rather, according to your testimony, it is partim scriptura/partim verbum Dei. Yes, yes, yes - I know you will equivocate "Scripture" with "Word of God" but "verbum" means "spoken" while "scriptus/scriptura" means "written." Words mean things.

(sw)Why do we need Green Baggins, Beggars All, Triablogue, AOMin, etc. to tell us what Scripture means?

That Scripture must be interpreted according to sound hermeneutical principles is not at odds with the sufficiency of Scripture. Moreover, that God gives the church teachers does not undermine, at least in any logical sense, the doctrine of sufficiency. You might wish to argue that if Scripture is perspicuous then we don’t need teachers, but that too would prove to be a baseless argument.

All I am saying is they are not necessary according to the unscriptural premise of sola scriptura. Let us add to the description: partim scriptura/partim verbum Dei/partim apologeticus. 

AMDG, 
Scott<<<

Ron also said, in #180 on Green Baggins:

Scott,
The bobbing and weaving remark was intended to refer to your actual responses (to the others). You hadn’t responded to me.
I actually reserved judgment on why you hadn’t responded to my comments. Had I assumed the worse, which I didn’t, I would have called your non-responses to me a complete hit-the-canvas duck rather than a dodge. Glad to see it was just an oversight on your part.
I’m glad to let the others deal with your responses to me as I’ll be tied up for quite some time. They’re all more than capable.
Cheers,
Ron

I'll respond here...  Does that mean you're "ducking" out?

AMDG,

Scott<<<

Gosnell Murder Trial and Time Magazine

In the flurry of articles (like our previous CathApol article) hitting the scenes, Time Magazine online in their "Heatlth and Family" section published an article yesterday attempting to answer to the charge that the press isn't covering this case, and while the article starts out by recognizing the heinousness of "Dr." Gosnell's offenses, but after the first paragraph another article is inserted, "Why the Pa. Abortion Doc's Case Is About Poverty, Not Roe v. Wade" which closes with:

 It’s likely that he was the cheapest abortion provider around in a community that’s not accustomed to the highest health-care standards anyway.

As if that is supposed to justify the fact that "Dr." Gosnell was committing late-term abortions (beyond 24 weeks) and since the procedure would be rather difficult, he would induce labor then the child is born, ALIVE, and (in his terms) to "ensure fetal demise" he would stab into the baby's neck with a pair of scissors and cut the spinal cord.  Some report are that the babies are literally screaming in agony while he is doing this.

This is NOT about Roe v. Wade, it's about MURDER.  It is also about a "doctor" running  a "clinic" in unhealthy, unsanitary conditions and with a staff which. while administering "medicines" and other duties which normally would have been provided by a Registered Nurse, NONE of them were licensed to practice medicine.  The staff is facing charges as well.

Also in this article it includes a brief summary of the Report of the Grand Jury (which formally charged Gosnell on January 20, 2013) with these points:

• Fetuses, fetal remains and dismembered baby parts — especially, for some reason, baby feet — in bags, jars, milk jugs and cat-food containers kept around the clinic, in the freezer and in the basement; some containers were stored in the same refrigerator where clinic staff kept their lunches
• Instruments that were not properly sterilized or discarded, which allegedly spread venereal disease to several patients
• Cats roaming and excreting freely in the filthy clinic

Why was Gosnell "saving" these things, and especially "baby feet" - were these some sort of "trophies" for him?

It seems not always did Gosnell (I think I'll stop using "Dr." in his title) induce labor to remove the child from the mother as there are charges of "failure to remove all the fetal parts from a uterus, his puncturing a uterus, tearing a cervix and colon, and refusing to call in assistance from another hospital when a patient convulsed and fell on the floor."

Time's reporter, Belinda Luscombe, continues to describe "At least one woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, died in Gosnell’s care, after his untrained staff administered an overdose of Demerol" and then in the next paragraph goes back to saying this case has "much more to do with poverty than Roe v. Wade" and then provides another link on "The Complicated Link Between Abortion and Mental Health".

In short, it seems to this writer that Time Magazine is attempting to do some "damage control" because of their lack of coverage.  Yes, the report defends that several outlets reported this back in 2011 - ONCE - but then we look at the sensationalism of the Jody Arias trial we have to ask WHY?  Some outlets are beginning to give a bit more coverage, but not nearly in the proportion the Arias Trial is getting.

Please use the "share" buttons on this article to help spread the word!  "Like" it on Facebook, "Tweet" it on Twitter, etc.

Gosnell Murder Trial

Many of you may not have even heard of this until recently, if at all.  "Dr." Gosnell is on trial for murder with horrendous charges related to his abortion methods, some include testimony of an aborted baby literally screaming in agony as "Dr." Gosnell severs its spine.  The baby was born alive, and a "doctor" who is pledged to "do no harm" coldly murders the child.

Why haven't you heard?  This trial has been going on since March 18th!  It seems like all the major news networks are so obsessed with the Jodi Arias trial that they turn a blind eye to an even more graphic and tragic murder case.  Below is a shot of the seats at the Gosnell trial which are reserved for the press...

Do you hear the crickets!?  THIS is why you haven't heard - the "press" isn't there!  Well, don't feel bad, I hadn't heard of this prior to yesterday myself, but I'm hoping to make a change in that and do my part to echo the "news" about this case.  If you agree with me, please "share" this posting and help spread the word!  Tune out the Arias trial and start demanding to hear about Gosnell's trial.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Pope Francis Announces New Panel

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Francis marked his first month as pontiff on Saturday by naming eight cardinals from around the globe to a permanent advisory group to counsel him on running the Catholic Church and reforming the Vatican bureaucracy – a bombshell announcement that indicates he intends a shift in how the papacy should function.
The panel includes only one current Vatican official; the rest are cardinals from North, Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia – a clear indication that Francis wants to reflect the universal nature of the church as he goes about governing.
More here.

Got Questions?

This is an open post where I am inviting anyone who might be reading along to ask a question of me or one or all of the contributors to the CathApol Blog.   We may answer in the combox or if it is a question which would be better answered in a full article, we may do it that way too.  You may also use this to request an article be written on a given topic.

Extremism?

This article should catch the interest of both Catholics and Evangelical Protestants alike...

Defense Department classifies Catholics, evangelicals as extremists

By Lachlan Markay - The Washington Free Beacon - Friday, April 5, 2013    


The Defense Department came under fire Thursday for a U.S. Army Reserve presentation that classified Catholics and Evangelical Protestants as “extremist” religious groups alongside al Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan.

The presentation detailed a number of extremist threats within the U.S. military, including white supremacist groups, street gangs, and religious sects.

The presentation identified seventeen religious organizations in a slide titled “religious extremism.” They include al Qaeda, Hamas, the Filipino separatist group Abu Sayyaf, and the Ku Klux Klan, which the slide identifies as a Christian organization.

“Religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world,” the slide explains, in language that closely resembles the text of a Wikipedia page on “extremism.”

While outfits such as al Qaeda and the KKK are explicitly violent, the presentation also lists Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism as extremist groups.

More than half of all Americans identify themselves as members of those two Christian denominations. National Public Radio reported in 2005 that 40 percent of active duty military personnel were evangelical Christians.

“Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” said Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain and the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

“It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization,” Crews said in a news release.

Crews also criticized the presentation for citing the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center to support its findings.

The SPLC has dubbed organizations “hate groups” for promoting Christian teachings on morality and sexuality.

A SPLC map of “hate groups” was used by a gunman in 2012 to target the conservative Family Research Council for its position on gay marriage. The gunman shot a security guard at the FRC’s headquarters. The SPLC has refused to comment on its role in the shooting.

The Archdiocese for the Military Services, a Catholic organization that trains and endorses military priests and chaplains, said in a release that it was “astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist.”

The AMS called on the Pentagon “to review these materials and to ensure that tax-payer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.”

An Army spokesperson said the presentation “was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.” The Army removed the offending slide after receiving complaints.

The person responsible for the presentation, the spokesperson said, “was not a subject matter expert, and produced the material after conducting Internet research.”


President Barack Obama is scheduled to posthumously award the Congressional Medal of Honor next week to Catholic Army Chaplain Emil Kapaun, who died in a North Korean military prison in 1951.
“It is hard to understand how a priest like Chaplain Kapaun can be honored in one breath while his faith-group is dishonored in another,” Crews said.

On the contrary...

Homosexual Rights and Religious Liberties

By Scott Windsor

Well, as promised, I am writing another article to deal more with the topic of the article I quoted from (Gay Rights and Religious Liberties, by Skye Jethani) in my previous posting on this subject.  One might first notice that I don't use the same title as the original author.  I don't because I'm not into sugar coating the topic, and I believe that's exactly what the use of "gay" does to the subject of homosexuality.  It sounds so much happier, freer, etc. and that's because the original meaning of the word "gay" means exactly those things!  It is no accident that this word is chosen, and it is no accident that I avoid using it.  Does that make me bigoted?  I hope not.  All I'm doing is sticking to the precise word without the sugar coating.

So, back to that article.  The author, a pastor himself, Skye Jethani, breaks his article down into sub-topics, so I will address each sub-topic.  Before the sub-topics, he opened with the story I quoted in my previous article about the silly approach both sides had taken at his college when he was a freshman there - except Jethani calls the GLBA tactic "silly" and the Christian group (which he doesn't name) he calls their tactic "stupid."  I was a bit offended by Jethani's statement, perhaps even bias, here.  The Christian group's tactic was actually quite clever - and matched the silliness of the GLBA plot.

On with the response to Jethani...

REFRAMING

Jethani seems upset, or at best - disappointed in the fact that Newsweek declared 1976 "The Year of the Evangelical" as opposed to, perhaps "The Year of the Homosexual."  Why?  Because Evangelicals were making a huge impact on the political scene, and comprise a very large piece to the overall picture, both politically and religiously.  He objects because 1976 was also the same year that an openly homosexual person was elected to public office in San Francisco.  Well, this might have been big news for the homosexual community, but it was not for mainstream America - but indeed it was a turning point for the homosexual community.  While I agree it was big for the homosexual community, objectively speaking it is not all that big a deal at the time for the rest of America - so this event does not trump the hugeness of the Evangelical movement in 1976 which would lead to the "Moral Majority" (founded in 1979) which for about a decade, had an impressive impact on the American political scene.

Jethani also cites statistics:

For the church this framing has been costly. According to Gallop, in the 1970s 66 percent of Americans said they had a strong or high confidence in the church. Today it is only 44 percent. In 1994 only 27 percent supported same sex marriage. Today it is over 50 percent.

Well, we all know how numbers can be played with, but even accepting these numbers as fact - Christianity is NOT a democracy!  If one is true to their Christian morals and stance - then one is not affected by some sort of numbers game.  If even only 1% remained faithful to Judeo-Christian morals, then it would be that 1% which remained "right."  My friend who pointed me to this article said it wasn't about morals - but the subject of morals is unavoidable when we're discussing homosexuality.  Why would we just ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room?  On that, I'll let my original article stand.

Jethani closes this section with this summary:

Therefore, rather than asking: Whose values will dominate the public square? we should be asking: Whose identity is welcomed into the public square? Do we believe LGTB citizens ought to bring their identity into government, business, the media, and education without fear of discrimination? And likewise, do we believe a Christian holding traditional beliefs should be able to bring their identity into the public square without fear of discrimination? Framed this way, the issue ceases to be about winning or losing, or which group gets control and which is pushed back into the closet, and it becomes about learning to share the public square as Americans with different beliefs about marriage and sexuality but all possessing inherent God-given worth.

The only "side" which seems to be so concerned about "winning" influence is the homosexual side.  The arguments I hear from the "other" side are based in, "they already have equal rights."  What is it they are really trying to accomplish here?  It would seem the goal of the homosexual community is to get the Christian community to not only accept the sinner, but to accept the sin too - otherwise, why insist upon "homosexual marriage" when a "civil union" creates essentially the same thing?   When they speak of "dominating the public square," just think about it - "they" make up such a minute percentage of society, yet "they" are already dominating in the realm of "the public square!"   "They" are not satisfied, however, with the fact that "they" already have such an influence on public discussion, "they" want "victory."

RETHINKING

In this section Jethani brings up the fact that in the 17th century those who came to America were essentially founding the "New World" upon Christian values and that they believed if they upheld these God would bless them and if they abandoned these principles, God would curse them.  Jethani cites some modern televangelists who blame America's morality for things like 9/11 and even the hurricanes and other disasters relating to the John Winthrop sermon of 1630, where the New World is the "city upon the hill" - and President Reagan echoed the sentiment as well.   Failure to be that "city upon the hill" will result in punishment.   In short, due to the moral decay these disasters are merely a reaping of what we have sowed.

Jethani writes:

According to this logic, the way to prevent terrorist attacks and natural disasters is by earning the Almighty’s protection through moral behavior, adherence to prayer, traditional family values, and frequent worship. This popular belief about God was also prevalent in Jesus’ day. It followed a simple formula—God blessed the righteous and cursed the unrighteous. Obey his commandments, it was taught, and one could avoid disease, accumulate wealth, and find favor with God and men. The equation worked just as well in reverse. Those with material blessings were seen as righteous and those who suffered did so because they were sinners.

Not necessarily so.  Not everything "bad" which happens is due to a "bad" act in Christian thought.  Sometimes "bad things happen to good people" can be a "test" of their faith and/or fortitude.  It might be convenient to use Jethani's cookie-cutter approach, but we cannot force such an interpretation on every situation/disaster which America faces - or any other country for that matter.  I realize he's trying to point out fallacious thinking, but in reality that is NOT the thinking for the majority of Americans, religious or otherwise.

Jethani's Conclusion

Jethani states: 

As Christians, as those clothed in the gospel of peace, we cannot, and should not, demand that everyone share our beliefs. But we can, and should, demand that everyone share our freedoms. When this happens, we will find the courage to take off the armor of the culture war and put on the image of Christ. We will find the grace to put aside fear and take up love. And we can be assured that Christ will be lifted up in the public square and draw all people to himself.

The point is, like it or not, the United States of America was founded upon Judeo-Christian standards.   We believe in those standards and we do not appreciate it when a (minority) group of people get together in opposition to our standards and attempt to force us to accept their standard.  That being said, while we do not want to see our standards whittled away, by the same token, the "rights" of minority groups and individuals cannot be ignored - and even respected.  In fact, the "rights" of religious groups are protected by the United States Constitution.

This is not a matter of putting aside fear and taking up love.  If we truly love our homosexual friends then we don't pretend that a homosexual relationship is some sort of blessing and/or give our blessing to such.  When Jesus stood with the harlot caught in the act of adultery (which, when you come down to it - homosexuality in practice is equivalent to adultery), after getting the hypocrites to leave her alone, He did not turn to her and say, "Go, continue to practice your sin."  No!  He told her she was forgiven and "Go, and sin no more."

Is It A Right?

The bottom line here is the homosexual groups argue that marriage is a right, and they demand equal rights.  Marriage, however, is not a "right" - it is something, much like a drivers license (when it comes to the "state" regulating it) making it a privilege.  No one has a "right" to a driver's license, and likewise no one has a "right" to a marriage license.  This matter of "licensing" (taking it out of religious context for the moment) is purely a "states rights" issue.  The states have the "right" to license whomever they choose.

An attempt to make this a matter of civil rights is quite displaced.  The homosexual community is constantly making comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement (CRM) in the United States and to people like Martin Luther King, Jr.  Those who stood for the CRM should be totally offended by the comparisons.  By in large, the homosexual community is accepted and treated fairly.  Yes, there are some pockets of "homophobes" who mistreat them, but these actions of these homophobes is already illegal!   Homosexuals already have "rights" under the law from such things the CRM protested against.  Continued comparisons to the plight of African-American citizens to homosexuals wanting to redefine marriage should be taken as quite insulting to those who lived through the CRM, and especially those who gave up their lives for the CRM.

Now, that which IS a "right" and IS protected by the United States Constitution is the "right" of "religion" to exist.  Marriage, while "licensed" by the state, is still commonly and traditionally administered by religion.  The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony can ONLY be "sacramental" within the confines of the Church.  Now, I realize that the homosexual community is not currently campaigning for the Church to accept and "bless" homosexual unions, but the fact is they have made such campaigns - and even "won" some in some religions, even some which call themselves "Christian."  From the religious, especially Jewish and Christian view, homosexuality is not a "right" - but a "wrong," and one which cannot be accepted or "blessed" by any truly Christian standard.

Is Is A Wrong?

This is the real bottom line for Christians.  As my previous article points out, homosexuality is a "wrong" and one which is repeatedly condemned as such in both the Old and New Testaments of Holy Scripture.  There's really no getting around this, from the aspect of "religious freedom" (which is part of the title of the article I am responding to!).  What is really happening here is the homosexual community is infringing upon the rights of the Christian community to uphold the standards upon which this country was founded.  They would like the Christian community to give their nod (blessing) to homosexual unions and just stand by and accept the redefining of marriage to include that which Christians see as an abomination before the Lord.  

THE NUMBERS GAME

All too often we see the argument being used that it (homosexual marriage) is becoming more and more accepted throughout the United States (and the world) as if that sort of thinking should influence the Christian stance.   Whose opinion dominates the public square truly is not the issue here.   On the public square in another topic, that of abortion, the abortionists have "won" that "position" but organizations like the Catholic Church have not and will not "give up the war" in that respect.  Catholicism, along with other groups who believe abortion is murder will continue to stand up for the rights of the unborn and fight for those rights until the "public square" comes around to acknowledge these facts.  Similarly, we hold to the same standard on the matter of homosexual marriage - regardless of what the court of popular opinion may adjudicate. 

NOT A MATTER OF MORALITY?

I was criticized in my original article that Jethani's article was not about morals, but rather upon religious freedom.  My question to whom would criticize me on this is - how can the two be separated?   It was Jethani who brought Jesus into the discussion and questioned what He would do - and as I said, He would not bless this "movement" nor should Jethani or those who support homosexual marriage expect true followers of Christ to ever accept the concept anymore than we accept abortion. 

ARE CIVIL UNIONS THE ANSWER?

Well, many, if not most, states already have such "civil unions" on the books wherein those of the same sex enter into a contract with each other - which when push comes to shove, isn't that "civilly speaking" all that a marriage license does?   The homosexual community already has this ability, even "right" if you will, in many states - and they have this "right" without impinging upon the "right" of the state to define "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman.  Where this battle should be fought is in those states which do not even allow for the "civil union" of homosexual persons.  

I have had and continue to have several friends who identify themselves as homosexual in either preference and/or in actual participation.  I do not shun these people in the public world, and they know my feelings on their chosen lifestyle.  We rarely get into discussions on morals - for they know where I stand.  Essentially I see this attempt to get me/us (Christians) to "accept" homosexual marriage as an attempt to get around the moral discussion by making it purely a political/civil discussion.  As I said before though, I compare this to trying to get us to accept legalized murder - which is precisely what happened in the abortion debate.  If the marriage debate ends similarly, I will be saddened, but I will not accept that a "homosexual marriage" is anymore "right" than abortion is, and when asked, I will continue to voice my concern for MY "freedom of religious rights" which are being whittled away by those who pick and choose which of God's Laws they will follow - or reject God's Laws altogether.  

Thank you for reading, and I do invite respectful discussion/debate on this topic.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

PS - I should clarify too... those who identify themselves as "homosexual" in preference, but have not acted upon it are not what I would call "homosexuals."  To BE a homosexual requires more than desire.  To BE a murderer, one has to murder someone.  To BE a rapist, one has to commit rape on another.   To BE a homosexual one must have participated in the act and/or continue to participate in it.  Those who are not actively participating I would consider to be, sexually speaking, celibate.