-
Website
http://www.disruptivefaith.com -
Original page
http://www.disruptivefaith.com/2008/10/20/prop-8-gets-10-minutes-of-news-coverage/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I don't have a lot of time to respond to this (and your other blogs on Prop 8) right now because of the massive amounts of homework I have to do right now, but let me make a few comments and I will respond more in depth later.
1. Without even addressing the question of whether or not monogamous homosexual relationships fall into the same category as the homosexuality of the Bible, I would be very interested to hear how you can Biblically support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. I'm not asking you to provide an argument as to the sinfulness of such marriages; I am merely asking you to provide a Biblical backdrop from which to gather the notion that it is the church's function to support this political measure.
2. I find your decision to put the word 'ministers' into quotation marks quite condescending, judgmental and even slightly offensive. I think, with respect to both sides of the argument, that it should be known that there are well-respected Biblical scholars who would question the validity of the argument that homosexuality is a sin, and to suggest that a minister who raises such questions is not truly a minister seems to me an unnecessary jab. While I do not agree with these ministers' decision to show up to City Hall in this fashion (nor would I support a ministers' decision to show up to City Hall in support of the proposition), I do not think that a diversion from what you call "conservative evangelical churches'" or intertwinement with right-wing American politics is necessarily a bad thing.
Again, I'd like to hear your Biblical evidence in favor of supporting the proposition, and I will respond when I get a break from homework.
Peace in Christ,
Caleb
One does not have to have the same theology as a conservative evangelical church to be a minister.
My Reverend (and my entire church) oppose Prop 8 because we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, and believe that a right extended to one of us should be extended to all of us. My marriage is so important to me, I couldn't imagine denying marriage to others, and that's why I oppose Prop 8.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
I believe in offering every human dignity and respect. But defining marriage to include homosexual relationships, in my theology is wrong and I believe the Bible clearly speaks to this. I'll be responding to Caleb (above) soon so be sure to check back. Thanks again for your input!
@ Caleb and @ Patrick - Because of the sinfulness of such relationships, it plays into our theology, or at least it should. By not speaking up, you are supporting the very thing that God calls evil. Now I know that we are to love and value every life, and I do. As someone who has two gay cousins, I feel for them in their struggle for "equality". However, sin does not deserve equality with the truth. That's how it is.
So as far as supporting a prop to ban gay marriages, it's not a far jump to make. I would in turn ask you in turn to explain your argument to support gay marriage, how that fits into your theology and how you are able to allow sin to coexist with truth.
This is all the more reason why the discussion needs to keep going.
1. Interesting. Because of time limitations, I'll make this shorter and add more later. First of all, I'd like to see your Biblical support for why the church shouldn't support Prop 8 as well. For me, I find it extremely hard to separate moral issues in politics from my moral stance as a Christian.
2. Yes, I can see now after re-reading this how it could possibly come across this way and I want to clarify that I in no way am intending my " "'s as judgemental, condescending or offensive. The fact is, the terms "minister" and "pastor" when used by the media, often times have a much broader meaning. Hope that makes sense, and again sorry for the miscommunication :-) Also, see my comment to @Patrick below.
Anyways, just a quick response and there'll be more later when, like you, I've got just a little bit more time!
The implication on minors (as young as 5) in CA public schools is terrifying.
The issue was describe very well by a high school friend of mine, David says:
"Some parents may want to protect their children from being taught that homosexuality is ok, if they are morally opposed to it, and they absolutly have the right to do that. Under current california law California family Code 297.5 "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits" as married couples. It's not a question of them being denyed rights. It is a question of them having the legal grounds to sue anyone who doesn't agree with them. Any orginization that says thats it's morally wrong to be gay can be sued and will likely loose. Churches can loose their tax exempt status, and people can go to jail for saying what they believe from a pulpit (preaching 'hate'). This is not hypothetical, this has already happened in MA. If people seem like they are afraid of same-sex marriage, and feel the need to protect their families and churches from it, could it possibly be because they feel under attack?"
First, no, I for one refuse to use a euphemism for something that I believe is wrong, and which I am being told by others is not wrong. So, there is no "gay", there is homosexual. Let's at least have the integrity to call it what it is. If that is somehow offensive to people who believe it isn't wrong, I would ask why? Euphemisms are used primarily to detract attention and minimize. If you don't believe homosexual behavior is wrong, they aren't needed. If you do believe it is wrong, they are counterproductive. Either way, I find it offensive when someone else tells me what choice of legitimate and accurate terms I have to make.
Second, there is definitely a big difference between those of us who believe homosexual behavior (the concept of "orientation" is relatively new and not addressed in the Bible) is wrong and those who don't. We can, perhaps, agree to disagree. However, since many of us believe the Bible is inspired and authoritative in our lives, to claim that somehow homosexual behavior is not condemned in the scriptures is just nonsense. Are there "scholars" (yes, I used the quotes intentionally) who teach this? Certainly. Are they "respected", at least with regard to this position (a reference from an earlier post)? Not by the majority of Biblical scholars and teachers--not to mention the weight of 2000 years of Biblical scholarship.
Third, and perhaps this is really the BIG issue. There is a difference between those who believe that none of us have a right to tell others what to do, and those who believe we do have that right (some would say responsibility). An earlier post asks for Biblical support for supporting this measure. I agree with a response which basically refuses to be put on the defensive. Where are we told this would *not* be the right thing? Is there a weight of scriptural teaching that would somehow tell us that sitting back and allowing (remember the vote thing) a redefinition of something God created (Genesis 2 and Matthew 19) is somehow a good thing?
Since no measure today is likely to have been addressed 2000 years ago, I assume that means for either telling someone else what they can and cannot do, or telling someone that this particular issue is wrong.
This is where the age thing comes in. We all (of course) approach everything--including the scriptures--with lenses--perspectives we bring to what we read. In the last 30 years the term "tolerance" has become almost a mantra, and this tolerance has come to be seen--especially by those under 30--as an absolute moral value. The scriptures teach love--doing what is best for the other. That is *not* the same as tolerance. In fact, if you do a concordance search on "tolerate" you will find the strong teaching that tolerating evil or immoral behavior--and the teaching that says it is ok--is condemned by Jesus himself (see the letters to the 7 churches in the Revelation of John).
So, how do we decide if we have a "right" to tell someone else what to do? First, the obvious is we have a vote as citizens. Those of us who belong to the Lord must recognize that everything we have also belongs to him. Paul showed this through his use of his Roman citizenship to spread the gospel. So, the question becomes, how can I use my vote to carry out the mission they Lord gave the church (make disciples...teaching them to obey all that he commanded). Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman (Matthew 19). Jesus also made some very strong statements about protecting young people, and the judgment that would come on those who caused little ones to sin (Matthew 18).
Now, while there have been a lot of "chicken-little-ish" claims made about what is coming if this measure doesn't pass, we need to understand this. This isn't just about what two people do in the privacy of their own home. It is about how the society is *required* to view those people. The law *right now* says schools must teach about marriage and teach that homosexual marriage is normal and as healthy as heterosexual marriage.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone can fail to see the consequences of this. If anyone truly believes this won't have an extreme effect on young people who are indoctrinated with this relativism in school and then presented with the absolute claims of the scripture about Jesus and his teaching, that person has fallen into naivete.
Terminology - use whatever you like. I don't think it matters all that much. They are the same thing, just viewed differently by different people. However, I do not find it counter-productive to meet them on their level with terminology. It is a bridge (see www.themarinfoundation.org. Not a huge deal, but it does matter to some.
Other than that, fairly well said. You certainly have the wisdom of many years on us. That is called wisdom; sage wisdom. With that being said, you have spoken to the heart of the issue: what is right and what is wrong. There is a difference between love and tolerance for sure. One requires attention; the other silence.
It is almost cliche, but perhaps there is something here, even among believers that draws a line between those who are in the world and those who are of the world. I could be wrong of course, but perhaps there is something to it.
Thanks Josh for getting the ball rolling.
To Ashley:
I would challenge you to sit down with a Christian who is a homosexual and ask them how they feel about your assertion that homosexuality is a choice. I have spoken to quite a few Christians about the issue, most of them living in the horrible tension that comes with feeling like God made a mistake when he created them. This tension is perpetuated by the very thing that we're discussing right now: harmful and divisive language is thrown about like it is nothing, and homosexuals are made to feel that God cannot ever love them. I know several Christians who have struggled with this issue for years; all of them grew up in loving, conservative Evangelical homes and none of them had a traumatic sexual experience, yet all of them knew from early in their lives that there was something different about them. None ever had even the remotest attraction to the opposite sex and most were attracted to the same sex at a very young age. I challenge you, also, to ask yourself this question: why would someone brought up in this environment choose to live in this kind of detrimental tension? You must understand the mental and emotional torture that the Christian portion of this community faces daily. Now, it may be a choice to act on this sort of behavior, but you cannot change what sex you are attracted to. The choice for a Christian homosexual is twofold - not threefold; you either enter into a homosexual relationship or you remain celibate. I certainly don't want to be celibate my whole life, and with all due respect, you didn't have that resolution, either, even though Paul tends to elevate celibacy to a higher level than marriage. And if Russ is right about the lack of political implications, I need to say no more about that topic; if he is wrong, it is not Prop 8 that is the problem.
To Russ, Josh and Randy:
As a Christian, I can approach this topic either of two ways and I have been recently leaning toward the first. That is this:
We live in a two-kingdom world. It was not until Constantine that governmental politics became a vehicle for Christian doctrine and ethics, and if you read the Gospels carefully, I believe it becomes evident that Jesus never intended this to happen. In fact, the language that Jesus used to describe both himself and the Kingdom was all politically and empire-oriented charged: Son of God, ekklesia, faith, lord, emmanuel, worship, savior, etc. were all terms used by Caesar and the Roman empire. Jesus, then, came to introduce a radically different set of politics: those which he preached about in his parables and in the Sermon on the Mount. You cannot, then, simultaneously pledge allegiance to a country or system that tells you to kill your enemies and a Gospel that tells you to love them; nor can you pledge allegiance both to a country that preaches the doctrines of pride, greed and selfishness and to a Gospel that preaches humility, service and selflessness. Since Constantine, there has been a firm belief in the idea that we are to transform culture through culture, perpetuated by almost all evangelical theologians since (namely the Niebhur brothers). However, Christ intended that we transform culture through Christ; not politics. We are not to rid the world of evil, but rather to overcome evil with good.
Christian political involvement is commonly defended by Jesus' statement that we are to "render Caesar what is Caesar's." However, this verse is taken gravely out of context when used for this purpose. Jesus was essentially being cornered here; he was commonly accused of trying to stop people from paying their taxes. A group of Jews tried to trap him by asking if it was right to pay taxes. After getting a coin, he asked the men, "whose inscription is on this?" They replied, "Caesar's." That is when Jesus uttered this ever-misunderstood statement. Thus, its implication is that Christ-followers are not to take any stock in the things of this world that moths will eat and rust destroy, but rather take stock in the eternal Kingdom of God. Caesar, essentially, could have his coins with his stamp on them, but God had his stamp on Caesar. In this sense, this passage means the exact opposite of the common understanding: put your hope in something other than the kingdoms of the world.
Tying this into the debate about Prop 8, one sees pretty easily that this sort of political involvement is not the way to go about ridding the world of evil and of sin. For the church to support the Proposition (aside from the fact that, technically, it should exclude congregations from non-profit status), the church is admitting a lack of trust in God to judge the unrighteous, and instead imposing the laws of nations whose priorities are in direct opposition to God's priorities.
For more on this discussion, I highly highly highly recommend the following books:
"Resident Aliens" by Stanley Hauerwas.
"The Politics of Jesus" by John Howard Yoder.
"Jesus For President" by Shane Claiborne.
Now, the other way that I approach this as a Christian is admittedly jaded by the kingdom of the world perspective, but it's the route I already took in voting.
Kara, you say that some people are confusing tolerance for love, and you are right. Love is a lot more serious. Love is practical.
In a recent book called unChristian published by the Barna Research Group, a survey was conducted asking non-believers to describe the ideology of the Christian community. The number one attribute assigned to Christians? Anti-gay. Is this love? Absolutely not. For years, the evangelical church has been perpetuating this divisive hate toward the gay community. Even the doctrine of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' falters; in a fallen world, hating the sin almost inevitably leads to hating the sinner. Why, as Christians, should we surrender any chance of witnessing to the homosexual community by instilling this idea that Christians hate them enough to deny them a right which, to them, is just as morally acceptable as heterosexual marriage?
Furthermore, while we are mandating our Christian values, why don't we go the whole way and make divorce illegal, too? Is one really worse than the other? Why don't we make a law that enforces loving everyone as ourselves? What would be the implications of that?
As soon as marriage became a political institution, it lost its 'sacred' status. While a Christian marriage is surely recognized as sacred by God, the political married status that is given to couples who receive a marriage license means nothing to God. The rampant divorce rate and lack of value that has been placed on life-long monogamous marriages only reinforces this idea.
I don't know that any of you are reformed, so I suppose I can use this argument as well in response to the idea that a 'no' vote is somehow morally condoning this behavior (though I borrowed it from a friend):
"He is not sending a message of support of the activity by voting against it. He is sending a message that people in this country should be free to pursue their own happiness or mistakes so long as they don't infringe on anyone else's, which I believe is a pretty foundation principle on this country. By your logic, God is supporting sinners by making it possible for them to choose sin at all."
Now, to the Biblical argument:
Randy, you admitted yourself that the concept of "orientation" is not mentioned in the Bible and is a relatively new idea; therefore your assertion that 2,000 years of Biblical scholarship are being fringed upon is faulty. Try maybe 100 years of Biblical scholarship. Also, it quite depends on who you are asking when use subjective terms like 'respected,' which I suppose is my fault.
Now, I challenge any of you to find me more than two instances in the Bible where the mention of homosexuality does not have some sort of linkage to idolatry, pederasty or rape. You will not be able to; there are only two: one in Leviticus, alongside the rest of the Purity Code (so let's not wear any clothes woven of two materials, now), and the other in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where a more direct translation reads 'sodomy.' God makes clear through the prophet Ezekiel that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was not sexual depravity; but rather a lack of social concern for the poor.
It also serves to note, though Randy has already more or less touched on it, that there is no word in Hebrew or Greek for homosexual; monogamous, committed homosexual relationships are assuredly never mentioned in the Bible.
Now, all that said, I still tend toward the belief that this brand of homosexuality is sinful, but it is certainly not as clear cut as the Evangelical community likes to pretend it is.
And now, I'm going to bed.
Randy,
I agree with some of what you've said, but a couple thoughts.
1. With all due respect - and I hope you do know that I have a great deal of respect for you - I don't think it is at all helpful to start labeling scholars and Christians who read the Bible differently than you do as somehow less than you and others who read it like you do. Personally I don't believe that the attempts to explain away verses that deal with homosexuality in the Bible are convincing enough - but there are legitimately other ways of understanding those texts that we need to be in dialogue with, even if we disagree. I also don't understand why, if a particular way of referring to someone is offensive to them, we would want to keep referring to them that way. I've run across the term GLBT, and while I've never seen anyone say they thought the term "homosexual" was offensive, if they did I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use a different term. I don't think either of these reflects some wishy-washy notion of "tolerance" like you describe it. Instead, I think it represents an attempt to keep dialogue open with people we desperately need to be in dialogue with - and to not do things to shut down that dialogue unnecessarily.
I think Caleb makes some good points that have concerned me as well. The way the Christian community has approached this issue has virtually destroyed any ability we have to reach out and minister to homosexual people. And I have a hard time believing God is pleased by that. And I completely agree that biblical marriage sanctioned by a church, and marriage sanctioned by the government of a pluralistic nation are two very different things. I'm not sure this means we shouldn't vote for something like Proposition 8 - but I do think it means we need to think a bit more critically about it than we do. Biblical sin does not automatically translate into something which should be illegal activity. And while I don't support the idea of schools teaching anything about homosexual activity at all, I tend to put it in the same category as evolution - it is also a parent's job to teach their children, especially in areas that deal with their religious beliefs. (Of course, I say that as someone who is not at this point a parent)
I completely agree with Caleb about the idea that homosexuality is not necessarily a choice - I don't think we can remove the biological component. Science is pretty definitive on this point - both biology and environment are components. From a Christian perspective, I'm not sure it matters as much as we think it does, though. Most people have tendencies towards specific types of sin - whether it is a biological tendency or not, we all have the things that we struggle with far more than other people. I don't think homosexual behavior is any different. But I do think we need to be sensitive to the kind of anguish that Caleb is talking about - there are plenty of people in very real pain, and too often we simply aren't interested in understanding that pain well enough to try and offer help and hope.
Sorry if that's all a bit random. I could write more, but I should try and get some real work done too. :-) I appreciate the chance to talk about these issues respectfully - its a pretty significant issue to me because I have a close family member who is gay, and I know how far she and her partner are from the church - and part of the fault for that (although certainly not all of it) belongs to the church and the way we have chosen to deal with homosexual people.
First, I think I understand what Caleb and Jake are trying to say, and admittedly I thought about the tolerant view when I was at APU (in the sociolgy dept...) But I don't think the Bible is ever tolerant of sin...ever. In fact I think we'd all agree God hates sin. God does not hate the sinner...ok I know that's cliche, and I agree most of the Christian community is not very good at distinguishing the two. But it CAN and has to be done. It is entirely possible to love someone who is sinning, but hate that they are struggling with the sin. The thing I came accross was that most homosexuals do not believe that they are sinning, there in lies the problem. I understand wanting to do something to show the homosexual community that Christians do love and support them (not their choices, and by choices I don't necissarily mean the choice to BE homosexual, but to act upon it..whatever you believe it doesn't matter in this case, thanks Jake) and I agree completely. However, I do not think that voting for (or against in this case) something that enables someone to sin is love. Love should not be conditional upon the fact that they repent and are no longer homosexual, but to enable sin is not what we are called to do...if you do believe it's sin, which I think has been said. Now I know there's the whole 'you can't tell someone how to live their life' and it's true...if they are not a believer, we can not hold them to the same standards. But if they are, then it is our responsibility out of love for them to show them...and not enable them...which is what this would do. Ok random thoughts, I'll move on...
As a parent, and in this case aunt of 5 children in California, God has entrusted me with the most precious and greatest reponisbilty...to raise them up in him. Which I believe means doing everything in my power to have an environment where they see sin for what it is, but also to eliminate things and or people (I am not talking about homosexuals here...so don't be offended) that could steer them wrong. I know there's going to be some who say you should teach them to distinguish on their own, but I ask you to find a 4 or 5 year old that could have the capacity to do so...anyway, so then it becomes the parent's responsibility...one I take more seriously than any other. This measure, if not passed, would make it legal for a child to be taught that homosexuality is ok, just as it became legal for evolution to be taught (thanks Ash!) So for that very reason it is important it passes, I feel very passionately as my dad did about people that lead children to sin, or even introduce the idea.
Ok next. I've heard the divorce argument before, and it doesn't really fit. For one, there is an instance where the Bible allows for divorce, and two...if the divorce wasn't biblical, the persons can repent and be forgiven...they do not keep sinning because they are divorced. A homosexual, I believe, keeps sinning and in most cases doesn not recognize the sin. And to throw another wild notion in there, I don't necessarily think it should be legal to get a divorce without biblical grounds...wow I opened up a can of worms :)
Ok well...there you go. I believe there is great confusion in what loving people as Christians really means...it is loving them with the heart of Christ, seeing them as he does. Which again I think Chrisitians have not been great at with this particular group of people, and I think it's great that you're reaching out to them, here in Texas, at least where I live I don't have much opportunity to do so, I wish I did. But I also would challenge you to really think about what tolerance is, and how this is not something the Bible teaches, and how there is a big difference between loving someone and tolerating (or enabling) the sin they are struggling with. There's been an injustice to homosexuals, I agree, but the way to fix it is not to be complacent with the sin. And that's all for now.
Note: I did not proofread, so sorry for any typos...I'm doing good to sit down and type this!
Per your comment to Ashley: Harmful and divisive language is just that. And I (nor Ashley) believe that it is right to disrespect others. I understand that there are those who feel that homosexuals are born with those feelings. I also understand that there are those who feel that it is a choice (Christian homosexuals included). Whether choice or nature, we all struggle with a tension with sin in our lives. See what Paul talks about it Romans 7 for that. And it is our job as followers of Christ to trust in the grace and power of God to help us all overcome the sin we struggle with. In ministry I have encountered many different types of sin and there is one thing I do know, there is no sin too bad or too strong that with God can't be overcome. I agree with @Jake's comments as well on this, since his comment just came in as I was writing this!
Per the rest of your comments:
I too have heard of the reports in "unChristian" and believe that it is horribly sad that is the first thing that comes to mind for so many people. However, I hope you know and understand that myself (Ashley included) are not "Anti-gay". We see homosexuality as any other sin, and it's true that in God's eyes, 1 sin is enough. Romans 3 speaks very clearly to the fact that ALL mankind have sinned.
I think the issue for me about Prop 8 as @russ has pointed out on his blog (www.diftedsoul.com), is that there are other implications that a No on Prop 8 has. I know there is a lot of differing opinions to what affect this will have on public schools, marriages, churches, etc... but no matter what you believe on that, a No on Prop 8 certainly opens the door. And as a father of young children, that concerns me greatly.
I appreciate the discussion here. I think it's great that in this "age of information" we can all have this discussion from miles and miles apart! We all have our opinions on authors, scholars and passages of scripture and I think it's pretty clear that we all have differing opinions on a lot of this stuff, but that is completely ok.
Thank you Caleb for sharing your thoughts here, I'm glad you are! And btw, it was great seeing you a few weeks ago...Love ya bro! :-)
Having said that, obviously there are times when we do legislate morality, since most laws deal with some moral issue. But I think there has to be a clear interest on the part of the nation - beyond simply "its good for people to act like Christians", because I think we'd agree that the law doesn't cause people to act in Christian ways - in order to legislate morality. I'm not positive that exists here with this issue. Before someone jumps on me here :-) - I'd be interested to hear more of WHY and HOW this law affects what is taught in schools. I would argue that it is not a problem to teach that homosexuals are people too, and deserve respect as people - but obviously that can go too far. Although again - where does the issue of parental responsibility to teach their values to children come into play here? Obviously we don't expect the government to do that, do we? Other reasons offered for opposing homosexual marriage typically include the destruction of the family - but I've never seen anyone convincingly argue how homosexual people getting married actually harms families. I believe even the policy guys at Focus on the Family once admitted that they couldn't come up with a reason why this issue truly harms families, and they're as against gay marriage as they come - but I'd have to look up the source for that.
The hardest thing for Christians to deal with regarding this issue are committed homosexual partners. I tend to think that we show a lack of the compassion we're supposed to show as Christians when we deny many of the rights we enjoy as married couples to similarly committed homosexual couples. I'm thinking here specifically of the ability to make medical decisions for a partner, and the right to make necessary decisions when someone passes away - things of that nature. Whether I agree with their lifestyle or not, I think that a couple who has been together for 20 years deserves those rights - granted by the nation, NOT by the church.
Please understand I'm just thinking out loud here. I believe unequivocally that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful - but I think things become much less clear when we start thinking about how to bring that teaching over into the legal realm.
First, please understand that I am coming from this as not only a Christian mom, but a pastor's wife (who shepherds young ones and yes, we have always had gay people in our youth group-at every church) and also as one who also has family who is gay. First, I believe that some people are gay by choice, others by biological bent and others out of pure rebellion. I have met and know people who fall into all of these categories. Whatever the reason though, I have never once met a gay person who in our initial meeting is ever willing to accept that homosexuality is a sin. Some, over the course of months, are able to accept and believe that it is and then the real struggle begins. For those that don't believe that it is-I think that is the first step in our bridge to them. Loving them where they are until/if they come to that conclusion and for the others-loving them and guiding them through whatever their specific situation deems necessary (as stated above, each situation is different). As far as how Chrisitan's should relate to the GLBT community-we SHOULD react as Christ reacted with all sinners (us included)-meeting us where we are and then we as His followers should come alongside those who believe and want to follow to to hold accountable, etc. but that is a whole other story.
I have read all the posts and have very strong opinions on all of this, however I'm not sure that any of my opinions matter when it comes to Prop 8. The fact is that no one really knows for sure what the limits are on what can be taught and at what age in school since there aren't any real "guidelines" in the law as stated now (at least in my understanding of it). It is just like any other issue our schools teach on, the curriculum depends on which school/teacher you get-and that is very scary to me. Passing Prop 8 I believe is vital so that I know at least what will NOT be taught to my kids. I do believe that prop 8 and the passing of evolution teaching laws (sorry-like I said trying to be fast here) are similiar in some ways, but very different in others. Our schools teaching how something happened billions of years ago versus how they can and should be living their lives today are very different. It is a difference between teaching a "fact" (evolution) and a moral issue. Like divorce was brought up earlier-schools don't teach that divorce is either ok or not ok-its just something that is a part of our society and we teach relevant facts of its impact to older students, but not the "you too can be divorced" if that makes sense. When the 4 judges over-turned what voters had all ready passed in California I believe that we as Christians were then given no choice in making it political. I also believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Not that gay people can't be in committed relationships and not that they under the law shouldn't have the same rights-but they do in California all ready have the same rights. I believe that marriage is a covenant as well that cannot be entered into by two of the same sex. Not to mention the part that the judges took out made it so that the part of the law excluding polygamy and insest are now omitted as well. Thats a huge ol can of worms there though...
As far as what Caleb and Jake are saying-I agree and disagree at the same time. I too believe that sin is never tolerated in the bible-Kara you said it very well. However I do believe that when a GLBT person comes into our church and is honestly seeking answers-they already KNOW we do not agree with thier lifestyle and believe that it is sin. That is not something we need to hammer. I have found that in most cases they are just curious how we will react and our reactions will determine whether they will be open to faith. Please don't get me wrong, I do not believe that allowing a GLBT to continue their behavior after accepting Christ as Lord is ok anymore that I believe that allowing a boyfriend/girlfriend to continue to live together after declaring Christ as Lord is ok, but when the latter couple comes in we don't make them move out before we are willing to talk to them, right?
Anyway, I'm glad there are strong feelings on this issue-at least we can't be accused of being luke-warm! Anyway, hope this is actualy inteligible since my kids are starting to wake up...
Its amazing to see the knowledge you have gained on things and your passion for things since the good old days of SJCC. Im not gonna get into whether is right or wrong.. But the point you made about people vandalizing and stealing signs is what I wanted make a comment on.
From a law enforcement stand point it is my job to stay impartial to not pass judgement and ensure everyones civil rights and liberities. It is funny to me that those who say No on Prop 8 want there civil rights protected, but they make a fuss and complain when the other side voices there opinion....For instance there was a 3000 person march for Yes on Prop 8 in the City I work in. There were approximately 50-100 calls for people asking Law Enforcement to stop the march. The march was legal they had permits and they were on public sidewalks and not interfering with everyday life.
Signs are stolen on a daily basis. So much so that we dont take theft reports very often for them. Both sides of this issue are guilty of trying to infringe on ones civil rights and opinions. The sad part is that both sides believe they are NOT. All morals aside both sides of this debate need to look at how they are acting.
Trying to use Law Enforcement as a way to push your beliefs on someone else is wrong. I have my opinions on Prop 8, but I am not allowed to share those when I am working and I dont. It is not are job to take sides and I think its pretty sad when people try to use us to do it.
I have to agree with points made by all people who responded to your blog. Im not saying anyone who has posted on here is trying to violate someones Civil Rights at all. Just making a point that if you see it happening reming people that everyone has the same rights. One side does not have more rights as the other. What I am rambling about may have nothing to do with what your talking about on here. This is just a thought of a tired cop who is tired of the BS pardon my french that people make out of these issues.
I have to agree with Jake and that this is not a theocracy we live in.
Personally for me with a 5 year old very close to entering school the issue is not so much what but how things are being taught in public schools and I'm am upset that parent's are being taken out of the moral equation and that agenda's are being pushed rather then education on the matter. There WILL be educational implications if this does not pass, it is already happening, this just in from the Pacific Justice Institute:
"Coming Out Day" Coming This Week to
California Elementary Schools
Hayward, CA – Parents at a K-8 charter school in Hayward were shocked to learn this week the extent to which their school is promoting gay and lesbian ideals to their daughter in kindergarten.
The parents were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" will be celebrated at the school this coming Thursday, October 23. The school, Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, chose not to tell parents ahead of time, but it is in the midst of celebrating "Ally Week," a pro-homosexual push typically aimed at high school students. When one mother asked her daughter earlier this week what she was learning in kindergarten at the school, the 5-year-old replied, "We're learning to be allies." The mother also learned that her daughter's kindergarten classroom is regularly used during lunchtime for meetings of a Gay Straight Alliance club.
Later this week, the school is slated to talk about families. The parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families. More controversial discussions can be expected through next week, as the elementary school continues to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. On November 20, the school will host TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud, where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk."
These parents are being advised by attorneys from Pacific Justice Institute. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, "Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible? Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools."
Any other parents whose elementary-age children have been subjected to pro-homosexual propaganda should contact Pacific Justice Institute for counsel and possible representation.
Now I'm not anti EVERYTHING the school is doing, like the gay club meeting during lunch, I met in a Christian club during lunch in school and we had gay/lesbian clubs as well, this is nothing new and if you are going to have one I have no problem with having the other.
Like I said, there is a clear difference between propaganda (which as Chris noted is abused by both sides) and education and sadly the CTA is very pro gay/lesbian propaganda in the classroom as evidenced by their generous donations.
Right or wrong, whatever you believe on the issue we can agree to disagree, but agenda's being taught to my kids, no I'm totally not okay with that.
I absolutely agree that there has been some gross mishandling with people on both sides of this issue. I think both sides tend to place a type of double standard on the other side when expressing their opinions and such.
So when are you moving to Sac? The houses are cheap here man! :-)
As for Sarah, the vandalism is most likely teenages who think they are being protesters and standing up for what they believe when they actually dont know what they believe...Thats based on the people I have personally caught and actually arrested for that type of thing.
We are experiencing what are parents did when the Roe V Wade decision came down. Its our turn now I guess.
Kara - I guess I simply do not agree that choosing not to legislate a biblical view of homosexuality by making gay marriage illegal means that someone is being "complacent and tolerant of sin." Plenty of Christians believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, but that legislation is not the way to deal with it.
I can understand Ashley's concerns (and everyone else's concerns) about what is taught in school. Perhaps I'm displaying my ignorance here, but is there any current law that has something to say about how these issues are handled in schools? Does the language in Prop 8 explicitly deal with education? I guess I'm questioning whether what you're seeing in schools there is simply a symptom of cultural feelings towards homosexuality (and the leanings of educators in the area) - would the laws currently in question even have any effect on education? If Prop 8 doesn't explicitly forbid teaching about homosexuality in schools (to my knowledge it does not, but I could easily be wrong), then I'm not sure how passing it would have any effect at all on the types of programs you're talking about.
I agree completely with Sarah about how we relate to GLBT people in the church. Too often we have treated them as if their sin is somehow worse than other's sins (or our own).
I hope that helps clarify the school issue a bit, it basically comes down to the right of parent notification and option to opt out being removed when gay marriage is legally instituted.
Kara, I don't want to read too much into your post, but mentioning that you wrestled with the 'tolerant view' brings up an interesting point; I know that because I am in a period of my life where most people go through a sort-of idealistic stage, a lot of what I have been bringing up might get dismissed as that: simple idealism. However, it saddens me to think that most Christians lose any sense of idealism once they leave this time in their lives. I think Christ was the great idealist - I didn't see him giving into the system much at all. I certainly hope that I never lose the idealism that I have now.
With that said, I am leery of dismissing this issue simply as "a healthy debate." It may be true that you escaped California (though I'm not convinced Texas is much better : )) and I already voted, but our views on this issue and the homosexual community in general play into our daily lives in ways that I don't think we fully realize. I am not convinced that a blog is the best forum to discuss these issues, but it sure is convenient.
Now, in regards to the discussion on 'loving the sinner and hating the sin,' I am still not sure what that would look like in my daily life; maybe that's just a fault of mine. However, legislating morality gets into a deeper debate than just that. I recognize that there is a need to hold our brothers and sisters in Christ accountable. However, I do not think that the American government is the appropriate vehicle to do so; that is the church's responsibility, and the church should truly have no dealings with the American government. As far as non-Christians and "tolerating their sin," I think we tend to look at the issue through the wrong lens. First, I am still convinced that a 'no' vote is not condoning any such behavior or embracing the sin; it's merely saying that government policy is not the right way to affect this change. Furthermore, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside." Here, Paul makes it clear that it is no business of ours to judge those outside, the very thing we are doing. You are right in your statement that those outside are held to a different standard, and it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict them once they have accepted Christ and become citizens of another kingdom - it's not our job. I don't think God ever intended politics to be the means by which church members hold each other accountable. I think that's the church's role and I think it would be incredibly sad to admit that we are now so powerless that we need the government to do our job for us.
It seems then, that the issue must be looked at through a ministerial lens, and telling non-believing homosexuals that they cannot get married seems quite counterproductive.
I would not be so quick to dismiss the divorce issue. There are still other things about divorce that are completely legal and even accepted in the church the Bible teaches are sinful; Biblically, remarriage is considered adultery. I do appreciate your statement that all divorce without Biblical grounds should be illegal, however. I completely disagree, but at least you're consistent.
Now, whether we like to admit it or not, we must admit that we are, at least on a political level, certainly dealing with a civil rights issue. Calling a homosexual union anything less than marriage is telling homosexuals that there is something inherently wrong with them or less-than-heterosexual that prevents them from being worthy of the title of 'marriage.' While many Christians might agree with this on some level (though I hope no Christian would consider themselves any better than a homosexual), it must be seen that this becomes a civil rights issue when people are being told that they're not qualified for something based on something that they did not choose.
As to the issue of teaching children, I understand that I am the least qualified to speak on this issue of all of us. However, I think Jake is dead on in his assertion that this again an issue of responsibility given to the parent and to the church community (not helping my point I guess in that we are the only two without kids). Several of you have mentioned the issue of evolution being taught in schools as fact. However, all of you came out with a creationist perspective, despite what you were taught in schools. Why? Because your parents and your church did what they thought their moral responsibility and taught you that you did not evolve from monkeys but that God created you.
I tend to shy away from the idea that Christians are to protect their children from the world. I certainly hope that if I ever have children, they will be educated enough on both sides of every issue to use discernment, but that my own example and the example of the church body around me will be enough to lead them to the truth of Christ.
No one has yet commented on why it is a necessity to use politics as a vehicle.
And Josh, of course I do not think you or Ashley are "anti-gay." I do think, however, that the emphasis that Christians place on this issue and the rhetoric that is often used tend to be misleading to those outside the community of the church.
Finally, it was really good seeing you guys, too. I feel like I was a little kid last time I spent any significant time around all of you. Hopefully sooner-than-later, we'll have to have a get together with all the cousins involved including Jake, Adam and Brian and their families.
First, let me say I agree-we need to get the fam together again-4 years is too long!
Next, I would like to take a stab at explaining my viewpoint in light of your recent post...and again-limited time while both kids are sleeping so please bear with me.
First, I tried to mention earlier why this has become a politicl issue-and needs to be now that it is on the ballot...the implications of what a no vote would mean are so vague when it comes to practical everyday life (especially for our kids) that until I know what they are my vote will be yes.
Second, I do not see anything wrong with tell someone who is gay that I want them to have the same civil rights as I do but I believe by definition it cannot be called marriage. I believe that by definition marriage is between one man and one woman and is a covenant entered into with God-and because of this I do not believe that a union of two gay men or lesbian women can be called marriage-this does NOT mean that I don't want them to have the same civil rights beacuse I believe as you do that people in our country should have the same rights regardless-I just do not believe that giving them these rights can be called marriage. Which also makes me want to reiterate under current California law-even without gay marriage being legal-any partners (regardless of orientation) who have co-habitated for I believe it is more than 10 years-have those rights. Even heterosexual couples who are not married under the law like my hubby's aunt and uncle. For this reason I do not see this as a civil rights issue.
Next, I too believe that as a parent it is my responsibility to teach, guide and protect my kids and train them in the way they should go. Because I believe this, I believe it is my right as a parent to pull them out of public school if the school is doing something that I do not believe is right or teaching something contradictory to my faith-not that I would always do that, but that I should have the right to know about it and have the choice. If prop 8 doesn't pass I will not have that right anymore in relation to this issue. I believe that is wrong. How can I as a parent give away my responsibility to our schools for this?
Next, whether or not we should maintain our idealism as Christians is a moot point. After college, Russ and I were hit pretty hard that our world is broken and it is our charge as Christians to live in this broken world and do our best to be a beacon in it. At least for us, our idealism faded to reality when we realized that we cannot live an idealistic life in a broken world and actually make a change for better. That is my opinion not necessarily backed by scripture although I'm sure if I tried I could find some to back this-it is just what I believe with all my being. We, like it or not, live in a broken world-Christans included-its all broken, so what we need to figure out is not whether this is what the intent was for us to live, but how do we now do our best with what God has given us to live in this world. As far as that relates to this discussion, we have all experienced different levels of brokenness and ways that people in our lives are broken-how do we live our the ideal of "hate the sin, love the sinner?" That is going to look dfferent to each of us, and it should, we all have different strengths the Lord can use and all have different weaknesses which we have to work through.
I believe that I understand where you are coming from as about 6 years ago I probably would have agreed with you on most of it, however several things have happened since then to make me believe differently. I can go into those with you in a different format if you wish, but would rather leave them out of this public forum. However, the bottom line for me on this issue is this-there is no "clean" answer, and I do not believe this should be on the ballot this year as the voters of california have been very clear in the past where they stand. However, a few judges decided they knew better what was best for us and here we are. The question now is now that you ARE faced with having it be a political issue (whether or not you believe it should be) how are you going to respond? From what I udnerstand, you have already cast your vote, I however have not. I know I will vote yes because of what I have allready said, but please do not think that by voting no for any issue you aren't actually voting no. Voting no is a no vote not a "I don't think this should be on the ballot" vote. Anyway, thats my 2 cents...
Caleb I found your post to be a bit contradicting in and of itself in where when and how you personally believe this issue should be debated. You left me confused as to where you think this should be discussed. Not in texas, not in politics, not on a blog, not in a church, not in a car, not on a train, not with a fox, not in a box, I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I am. But does it really matter? It will be discussed where and how it will be discussed regardless of our preferences . . . your words and mine are case in point.
About the "we heard evolution in school and turned out Creationists" comment. Good point, and in many ways I must recant my former comparison of this topic and evolution being taught in school in that they do have similarities, but those are very limited. Some thoughts for you to ponder:
a. My pro-creationist and ideally supportive environment in my formative years was the exception, and very far from the norm. The relativist and lack of higher accountability influence of evolution upon our youth is evidenced to me all the time as I work in youth ministry.
b. My public education on evolution was confined to one unit in my sophomore biology class and several lessons in a science elective my junior year. There was no kindergarten introduction to the topic or history of evolution month celebrated in my elementary school as is being done with homosexuality is week in a CA public school in Hayward.
c. And I leave you with this: So what? So what if I turned out a creationist in spite of my brief training in evolution as fact. Students turning out with a pro-traditional marriage perspective in no way legitimizes morally controversial propaganda being spread in public schools.
Really, truly, deeply, love you ALL.
Then end.
Now, as far as the civil rights of the issue, I don't know that I made myself clear enough previously. I am not talking about the specific civil rights that are given to the unions; I am asserting that calling it a 'marriage' is and and of itself a civil right. Though I don't like to compare the civil rights movement of the 50s, 60s and 70s to the gay civil rights movement, I liken this to the doctrine of 'separate but equal.' Imagine (though this obviously not the case) that blacks and whites were given separate drinking fountains. Each fountain was equally well-maintained, equally aesthetically pleasing in an equally aesthetically-pleasing environment, with equally cool water and equal water pressure. Would you still be telling the blacks that they were not worthy of drinking with the whites? Yes. It doesn't matter how equal the specific and individual rights of a 'civil union;' merely refusing to call the union a marriage tells the gay community that they are not good enough. I miss your point with the mention of 'common-law marriages' and think it moot because they are legally recognized and called just that: marriages.
Furthermore, I know you recognize that Prop 8 has no educational language embedded in it whatsoever, so your assertion that you would no longer be able to pull your children out of public school is speculative at best and I say we fight that battle when it comes. (By the way, if you're that worried, though I know it's not optimal financially or logistically, Americans have the right to both public school and home-schooling.)
As far as idealism, I do not think it is a moot point. Ironically, 6 years ago, I too would have disagreed with nearly everything I have said in this discussion. I am a born cynic. I have had a very 'realist' view of the world for the entirety of my short life, and I am fully aware that we are totally-depraved people born of sinful nature with no hope outside the grace of God. This, however, is the beauty of Christ's idealism and the beauty of our call to bring about the Kingdom of God: when it is fully come, it will have none of the depraved nature that we have today. I think Christians have lost sight of the hope of the impending Kingdom and too much, we do just accept what we're given and try to do our best with it. I think you'll have a lot of trouble finding scriptural evidence for that mentality, however. We're not called to accept what we're given; we're called to continually push for the expansion of God's Kingdom. Again, in light of this, if any of you have any free time, I want to recommend all of the titles I mentioned above.
Just because you are faced with a political decision, it does not mean you have to go with the status quo and vote. I sent in my absentee ballot, I was on the verge of not voting, and, this being my first major election, I was afraid that if I waited any longer, I would probably never participate in an election. It was admittedly hard for me to shed the doctrine of stewardship in political involvement that I had so easily accepted my entire life. If I was not an absentee voter and was just voting November 4th, I probably would choose not to vote.
Also, nearly every libertarian-minded person in the world, including John McCain would disagree with your last statement. Some things really shouldn't be on the ballot, and you may have to go against your principals if you truly believe that certain things should not be left up to the government.
Ashley, I am working from a few limitations here in how I present my view. All of you are looking at this from a politically-minded perspective, whereas I do not think this should be a political issue. Because of this, I must sort of cater to both sides - if you demand that it be a political issue, I give you my opinion on the topic from a political perspective, though ideally, I would choose that Christians not look at this as a political issue. Hopefully that clarifies that position. As far as the blog issue, all I mean is that the internet holds certain limitations on truly productive discussion, but it is the best we have.
Your concern in your 'formative years' environment seems to represent this idea that if people get too far from Christian ideology, they will never be able to shed their preconceptions and thus ministering to them will be more difficult. However, Christ found it easiest to minister to the most broken people he came across; no one is beyond redemption. In my own experience, it's a lot harder to represent my faith to someone who might have grown up in the church and has been complacent about their faith than someone who is radically opposed to my views.
The 'so-what' argument ignores the idea that, again, we live in a two-kingdom world and our call is not to transform culture through the vehicles of culture but through the vehicle of Christ. I have not yet brought up 'separation of church and state,' but I think it is valid in the sense that the church and the state have radically opposed goals when it comes to the majority of issues, and as Christians we must acknowledge that. Your view of homosexual marriage as 'morally controversial propaganda' is shaded by a Christian precept; your ideology is that of Christian tradition, and much of the world simply does not see it so.
2 things
1) "Let's cross that bridge when we get to it", the bridge has already been crossed my friend.
2) 90% of believers make their decision for Christ before age 18. One of the major reasons Josh and I, and I would guess Russ and Sarah as well, are so passionate about youth ministry that we would sacrifice so much to reach hurting students who are more receptive to the gospel message then they ever will be in their lives. The "formative years" is a term coined and taught by secular psychology, I do not make this stuff up, even the ACLU and ADL acknowledges and utilizes it in their GL push in schools:
"**From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3]
(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign)
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]"
And check this out for more on the signs in Modesto: (the language is slanted, but still interesting information)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20081013/pl_usnw/p...
This is my final post because I fear this becoming an argument rather than a valuable discussion. On some things you and I will have to agree to disagree.
I think the significant difference between your world view at this point in your life and mine has to do with our life experience. I am not invalidating your youth at all as I know some kids-yes kids who have had much MORE life experience related to this topic than I. That being said:
Ashley is right in that Russ and I are very much sacrifically comitted to youth ministry because we believe (as it is proven fact) that the majority of people develop their views, moral, beliefs, etc. during these crucial years. We have come across literall hundreds of kids in our 7 years ministering together and many more years ministering prior to that. Like I said in a previous post, we have always had GLBT in our youth groups-sometimes to the dismay of the church we were at and many of them stayed simply because we were not willing to judge, but simply call sin what it is and love them as people wherever they were and however they needed. Some of these kids left the GLBT lifestyle,some still live in it, however none have ever accused us of being "anti-gay" or judgemental or violating their civil rights. We also have family members who are gay. All of our friends and family know where we stand when it comes to gay marriage and although they may disagree with us, they know we love them for who they are as people, just as Christ does-they do not feel we are violating their civil rights so I do not know where that view of yours is coming from.
Also, my life experience as a youth pastor's wife and mom tells me that BECAUSE there is no language in either prop 8 or in the current california code dealing with gay marriage that people can and will take the opportunity to promote their own agenda in our public schools. Teachers are people too, some with much stronger feelings than yours and giving them a blank slate when it comes to any controversial issue allowing them to discuss it without parent's consent or prior knowledge I believe whole-heartedly is taking the parent out of the equation.
As far as your idealism and grace go-seriously do you think I don't believe in God's grace? I think you are confusing grace with permission to sin. Paul says in Romans "so should we then go on sinning so that His grace may increase?" Meganoita! (Greek for BY NO MEANS!!!). Just because God extends grace does not mean that those who are under His grace should continue to live in a sinful lifestyle. As for those who have not yet accepted His grace-it is an entirely different issue as I addressed in my first post.
Finally, politically I am a registered independant. I have also agreed with you that this should not be on the ballot. However, because it is I PERSONALLY feel that I need to vote yes. Also, please do not group me with John McCain-I will not vote for him or Obama-just FYI.
So, like I said, these are from my life experience as it is-as my dad said earlier we all have different life experiences that influence our bent in this discussion. Just please know that I am coming from all of these as someone who knows people believers and non believers who struggle with the GBLT lifestyles and is/has been trying to come alongside them for many years now to love them and walk with them in their journey to come to faith.
Thats all. If you would like to hear more details, please send me a facebook message or something and we can email that way.
I wanted to first let you all know, that I greatly appreciate your input you have shared here. I never expected this post to launch into such a discussion.
I have personally learned a lot through this and I believe that it makes us all better. If for nothing else, the fact that we can all better understand the many varying viewpoints out there on this subject.
As @Sarah mentioned above, I too sense the time has come to bring this part of the discussion to an end. There are strong feelings and emotions attached to everyone here and as the comments get longer it becomes quite easier to misunderstand and misread these incredibly long (but good!) comments. As these go on, the "Assassin of Amped Emotions" (See the Deadly Viper guys for that!) creeps further and further in.
Because of this, I have decided to close the comments for this post. It's hit 40 comments now, each comment rather lengthy and I feel that while the information in here may be good or relevant to those commenting, no one else will likely spend the time to read through everything here, which in turn could cause more misunderstanding, something I don't want to have happen.
So, with that, I again thank you for your involvement. Of course, feel free to continue to comment on other posts, but I'd ask that we try to keep the discussion related directly to the post at hand. In addition to this, we all pretty much know each other's Facebook/email and can continue conversation outside of here if it's so desired.
Peace out everyone!