Short answer – Yes.

When it comes to marriage, the question boils down to this; what “right” does someone with a heterosexual sexual orientation have that someone with a homosexual sexual orientation does not? The immediate response from those in the pro-homosexual camp is that homosexuals can’t get married. This is clearly not the case. What needs to be kept in focus during this debate is that “rights” are accrued to individuals. This is an issue regarding the law as written and concerns “rights”. Does a homosexual person have less “rights” than a heterosexual person in virtue of their sexual desire? Of course not. A heterosexual person can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex of their choice. The same-sex attracted person has the exact same “right”. If they say they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then my response is that they don’t have to. This is not meant to be cold hearted. It is an answer with regard to legality and “rights”. What is being sought here is a right that nobody has had previously under that government. Clearly not an equality issue. Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either. In both cases, each individual is treated exactly the same by the law.

When it comes to individuals, this argument is compelling with regard to rights proper. But what happens when the rights of homosexual couples are brought into the equation? And in this regard they may seem to have a legitimate complaint. The problem is that constitutional “rights” are accrued to individuals, not groups. Governments always treat couples differently than they do individuals. For example, if two people enter into a contract to buy a house, then there are certain laws and obligations that apply to those two people as a couple that don’t apply to other couples who aren’t buying a house. Why? Because their circumstances are unique. And because they are unique, they get unique treatment under the law. The question then becomes; Is the unique treatment under the law justifiable given the unique circumstances? And given our example, those involved in the sale of a house are treated differently to those couples who are not. So the government does not treat you the same, because the circumstances are different.

Homosexuals have the freedom to do all the things that married people do – pledge their love, live together…etc. But the State does not recognise that relationship. It will not licence it, privilege it or control it. Why? Because it has no reason to do so. Governments are free to make provision for homosexual couples, and they do in some cases (civil unions), but civil unions between same-sex couples are not the same as marriages between opposite-sex couples. This is because they function differently in the culture. Long term heterosexual unions, as a rule, as a group and by nature, produce the next generation. Same-sex unions do not. Heterosexual unions are very different to same-sex unions in a way that matters to the State. This is why it is appropriate for the State to treat those unions differently. They are not obligated to declare them exactly the same when they clearly are not the same to the State when it comes to policy purposes.

While this may seem quite reasonable to most people, the homosexual activist will most definitely not be convinced. This is because they don’t really care about the facts of the matter; the issues of law. What they care about is getting public approval of same-sex relationships. That’s what it’s all about. This is not about equality of rights but rather a restructure of culture so that there is complete public and official government approval of homosexuality.

The distinctions offered here are entirely legitimate. Will they make any difference to the homosexual lobby or those sympathetic to them? No. Not one bit. Because what they want is for everybody to say that their lifestyle is the same as everybody else’s and that what they do is just wonderful. I’m not willing to say that. There are many others not willing to say that. The State of California was not willing to say that (Prop 8). Legitimate distinctions have been made with regard to public policy, to which the other side has become so unhinged that they broke things and punished people (in response to the Prop 8 decision).

Anyone who thinks should be able to see the difference. And I don’t know why we should apologize for the obvious. But this is what the politically correct leftist culture is forcing upon us.

What is demanded of us is a rationale. And when a rationale is given, it becomes very clear that they do not want a rationale, they want things their way. They want approval. Which strikes me that homosexual people are the thinnest skinned people on the planet. This then leads us to ask the question, why?

[Paraphrased from Greg Koukl's radio show, Stand to Reason]

The failing philosophy that allegedly grounds the ideas presented in the new book by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow has drawn much criticism over the last couple of months – even from those who agree with his conclusions. I certainly don’t intend to offer any new or profound thoughts on the matter. Nor do I intend to pontificate on the details of quantum physics, especially when those who are actually qualified to do so think it makes “absolutely no sense” (to quote Roger Penrose).

I simply want to draw your attention to the failing philosophy of the book – something that Hawking and Mlodinow characterize as “Scientific Determinism” (SD) – and point you in the direction of one who is demonstrably more qualified and seemingly more careful in his thinking on that subject than either Hawking or Mlodinow appear to have been.

Greg Koukl (M.A Philosophy and Ethics) writes in the most recent edition of his bi-monthly newsletter, Solid Ground:

For Hawking and Mlodinow … event causation governs everything—even human choices. Determinism is absolute. There are no exceptions, even human ones. Everything, including human nature, must submit to the sovereignty of physics:

Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, then scientific determinism must hold for people as well….[p.30]

Do people have free will?…Though we feel that we can choose…biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets….[p.31-32]

Our physical brain, following the known laws of science…determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. [p.32]

So it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion. [p.32] [emphases added]

It’s hard to believe brilliant men like Hawking and Mlodinow do not see how destructive this move is to their own case, but I think you will see it readily.

Let me put the question this way: Did the laws of physics determine the order of the words on the pages of The Grand Design? Or did Professors Hawking and Mlodinow make that call? Did they ponder the evidence for their theories, consider the implications of the facts, posit conclusions, then choose the right words and select the precise order that would best communicate their views and persuade readers of the rationality of their own ideas?

…in light of SD … ultimately, the laws of physics wrote the book that bears their names no less than the laws of physics determined the arrangement of rocks resting on the surface of the planet Mars. … Remember, the only causation Hawking & Mlodinow allow for is event causation—dominoes fatalistically falling—which is rigidly deterministic.

In other words, if Hawking and Mlodinow are right, they’re wrong. Moreover, it becomes meaningless to talk of the person “Hawking” or “Mlodinow” as agents capable of free thought and action. As this mock interview highlights, the universe deserves all the credit, not beings who merely appear to think and reason for themselves.

Read the rest of this entry

• Please sign this petition to have her freed

Just a quick update from me, very brief. Some emails were sent back and forth among our staff just recently pondering what might be an effective response to the common dialogue over the historical track record of atheism versus Christianity. That is, some Christians point to the atrocities under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., while atheists shoot back with such atrocities as the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, etc.

“What might be a good response to this?” it was asked. Here was my answer:

When an atheist offers the reply, “What they did was horrendous, but it wasn’t done in the name of atheism; unlike the Crusades and witch hunts, which were done in the name of Christianity,” you can call him out on the False Analogy fallacy; i.e., when comparing apples, it is invalid to introduce oranges. The contrast of atheism is actually theism—not Christianity. Just as communism (e.g., Stalin) was atheistic but it was not atheism, so too Christianity is theistic but it is not theism. Consequently…

Atheist: “Stalin did not act in the name of atheism.”

Christian: “And the popes did not act in the name of theism.”

Since Eugene Robinson does not get the driving force behind the Tea Party movement, he decided that it must be racism—thus proving that he truly does not get it!

In an article for the Washington Post Writer’s Group published at RealClearPolitics.com 2 November 2010, Robinson attempted to demonstrate how the driving force behind the Tea Party movement must be latent racism.

Almost immediately after the inauguration of the first African-American president, Robinson writes, there arose an “overwhelmingly white and lavishly funded” national movement which targeted every initiative of that president, while breathing new life into “the discredited and moribund” Republican party—a series of events that he says is no mere coincidence. What Robinson seems oblivious to, ironically, is the racism in his very own article, which he injects from the very first paragraph. Take notice that he described both the president and the Tea Party movement in terms of race, as if that is somehow relevant. I guess to Robinson it is, which is fine albeit disappointing; but it is certainly irresponsible of him to project that onto others.

Tea Party activists and supporters are united in their cry for taking their government back, he rightly observes. But then he baits the reader by asking the question, “Take it back from whom?” This simply proves his confused ignorance, since it is not a ‘whom’ that they want to take government back from, but rather a ‘what’—namely, a titanic and ever-expanding centralized government, which many in the Tea Party movement described pejoratively as the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of fiscal evil. The problem is not a specific person but a political administration and its agenda, which occupied not just the White House but also both houses of Congress. That Robinson thinks it is a ‘whom’ the Tea Party movement is targeting just proves that he truly does not understand it.

He also refers to the comment from Mike Huckabee about returning government to the American people and then asks, “Who’s in possession of the government right now, if not the American people?” And the answer remains the same: the Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration in Washington that was defying the Constitution and refusing to listen to Americans. Once again, that is not a ‘whom’ but rather a ‘what’ and in the shaking fist of so many Tea Party activists and supporters was the contractual “consent of the governed” that those elected officials had sworn under oath to support and defend, the U.S. Constitution. If the federal government pursues its own agenda while ignoring the outcry of its citizens and brazenly overreaching its enumerated powers, then indeed the government is not in possession of the American people. It is creeping tyranny.

These issues and more certainly were—and are—being articulated and protested by so many in the Tea Party movement loud and clear in town hall meetings, rallies, and campaigns. Is there a problem with lobbyists and special interest groups? Obviously, and the Tea Party is very upset about that. However, the more egregious problem is who Washington is not listening to: the American people.

After issuing a typical canard about President Bush, Robinson finally wonders why it was only now that people felt “somehow the government had been seized or usurped” by hands not belonging to the American people. “Why,” he asks, “would this concern about oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now?” It is simply incredible that Robinson could be so out of touch as to pose this question, with the history of this movement not only so readily available but with an answer so clearly obvious. This concern became so acute now because that was the progression of its growth. While its meager, scattered roots can be traced back three or four years ago to the libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, the voices started becoming more numerous under the final years of the Bush administration and its wasteful spending, but rose to a deafening crescendo under the Obama administration because it escalated federal spending to dizzying levels. From the 2006 midterms to 2010, the House of Representatives under Speaker Pelosi committed to five trillion dollars in deficit spending, three trillion of which was under the Obama administration. But in addition to skyrocketing national debt and federal budget deficit, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis also put together a major national health care bill in defiance of the growing outcry throughout the states to such unconstitutional overreaches of the federal government, e.g., individual health care mandate. Add to that the tax hikes, including letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, and it is frankly obvious why the Tea Party movement organically coalesced into the remarkable powerhouse it turned into and why this concern about oppressive, intrusive government became so acute now…

…and why a Republican tsunami swept the nation’s political map this week.

“I have to wonder what it is about Obama,” Robinson pondered, “that provokes and sustains all this tea party ire.” A slightly less myopic view of the American political landscape and what the Tea Party is actually protesting very clearly and loudly will help enlighten Robinson to see that it was not about Obama as a person but about his administration and its dizzying tax-and-spend socialist experiment supported by the Democrat majority in both chambers of Congress; i.e., the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis. It had nothing to do with Obama as the first African-American president. It is patently absurd to think that all the Tea Party activists and supporters would have been just fine with skyrocketing national debt and federal budget deficit and unconstitutional overreaches of the federal government if the president had only been white.

If you are truly concerned about racism, sir, you should start paying closer attention to some of the things that President Obama says, with particular interest in his speeches and interviews when he was stumping for Democrat candidates this past midterm.

Update: 4/Nov/2010

Adding insult to injury, frequent Tea Party speaker Lisa Fritsch from Project 21 had the following to say about the 2010 midterm election results, further confirming my point in this article—and from a black woman:

An explosion of American enthusiasm and a return of the government to the American people was witnessed last night. Though there were a few races where conservatives came up short, the momentum for conservative values and principles cannot be denied. The tea party has translated protest into power. And we are just getting started restoring our rights and founding principles to America.

Would Robinson suggest that Fritsch has a latent racism against black people? (Well, probably; he could suggest she suffers from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, similar to how Charlie Crist accused Marco Rubio of turning his back on his Hispanic family.)