Not Fair at All

Last week Thursday the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act. This is now the second time this body passed this legislation, the first time being in 2019. I spoke about its passage and some of the criticisms in this forum. In short, the Equality Act seeks to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the classes protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[1] You would think this act’s re-passage would be of little consequence. However, the difference between now and then is that in December of 2019, with the support of the Adventist Church, a different piece of legislation, the Fairness for All Act, was presented to Congress. In light of this development, the Church publicly commented on what it saw as a negative event. While proponents describe the Fairness for All Act as “a balanced approach” to solving the tension between religious freedom and anti-discrimination, it creates what should be an untenable compromise. This legislation asks the LGBTQ+ community to accept a second-class status that is better than the one they hold now, instead of the equality they deserve.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/11109
1 Like

And the beat goes on…certain aspects of Christianity are an ‘abomination’. What Christ came to change is still preserved. Freedom for all…except…‘here is the list’!

a·bom·i·na·tion;
noun
a thing that causes disgust or hatred

1 Like

I am so disappointed in the NAD for its support of the FFA. We can and must do better. Jesus taught that the one who seeks to preserve his life will lose it. The church, in seeking to preserve itself over this issue is losing its life more everyday. This instinct toward preservation is literally draining the church of its moral courage and conviction, leading us to offer up notions of “religious freedom” in exchange for the precious lives of LGBTQ persons. If inequality and injustice are wrong and harmful in the public sphere, they are equally wrong and even more harmful in the church arena. It is in the “family of God,” where people are nurtured into the belief in a loving God and a caring community, that the willful exclusion, rejection, and shaming of LGBTQ people becomes even more damaging than it might be in society-at-large. We have not even begun to grapple with the harm created by the church with respect to the LGBTQ community and our moral culpability in all of that. Furthermore, I would encourage my fellow Adventists to pay more attention the shifts that have taken place in the denomination’s thinking about “religious liberty,” particularly over the past several years. The NAD’s active support for this bill signals a departure from Adventism’s more centrist past on religious liberty issues and the extent to which we have been sucked up into the right-wing evangelical agenda. Buyer beware.

7 Likes

are you supporting social media closing and shadow banning people ?

seem like what the LGBTQ community have been crying are now returning unto others
we all quote bible text and LOVE
why not turn the other cheek

no mater what the debate there need to be church freedoms otherwise this movement is nothing other than a trojan horse to take down sections of the constitution

there is a part of hypocrisy about the LGBTQ voice

can we have both ???
religious freedom and protection for LGBTQ
without eliminating bible TRUTH ?

1 Like

ANDREW L SEIDEL
A constitutional and civil rights attorney states it powerfully and pertinently:

PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE,
THIS IS NOT HARD:

YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS,
NO MATTER HOW FERVENT,
REASONABLE, OR ABSURD,
ARE NOT A RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS
OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

THE RIGHT TO FREELY EXERCISE
ONE’S RELIGION
ENDS
WHERE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS BEGIN.

9 Likes

Why do you think that you cannot have religious freedom and protection for LGBTQ at the expense of Bible TRUTH? What is Bible TRUTH to you?

Not fair to criminalize the church for the whims of other groups. Rights for everyone but leave the church with its flaws alone. Whether or not you agree with the beliefs of the church you cannot use gov legislation to force the church to change its beliefs.

Next thing coming: the throuple

A baseball club would want to have a manager who loves baseball and knows its history and how its played. Having someone who doesn’t really like baseball and is there for the money will cause poor operations of the club. So the club’s selection committee seeking a new manager would ‘discriminate’ between those who love and know baseball and those whose heart is elsewhere. This is reasonable and practical. A person who loses interest in baseball should go and join another sport club, not try to change the club to play a different sport. The best wedding cake for a homosexual couple would come from someone who is also enthusiastic for homosexuality, not from someone forced to make the cake because of some ‘law’. ‘Shop’ around! Making a law to force someone to do something they don’t like gives the ‘game’ away doesn’t it?

From the Bible viewpoint (not the ‘Bibles’ based on Gnostic beliefs) we see God putting two people, both made in His image, on this planet. From the start one was male and the other female.

God said to them to fill the planet with their offspring (children). To accomplish this we have male and female persons. Their differences were complementary, where the female bares the baby while the male supports her.

Why did God set this up? The context of the creation chapters is the conflict between God and a created being, Lucifer, who thought that he could do God’s job and maybe a better job. This problem reached a stage where, after a lot of angels had joined Lucifer, both Lucifer and his angels were barred from entering God’s Tabernacle because they had passed the point of no return. God wanted to refill the positions that the fallen angels had abandoned (Jude1: 9). The Genesis creation event was a special creation event for creating the replacement persons, not for making the universe (read the first 48 pages of the EGW compilation, ‘The Truth About Angels’ to check this out. Doing the Bible support is another comment, which I can do if you want).

We are told in Psalm 8 that we were made a little lower than angels, but Jesus said that when He comes that we would be changed to being EQUAL to the angels (Mat 22:30, Luke 20:36). There would be no longer any marriage because the original purpose of having male and female was fulfilled in having sufficient people to replace the fallen angels. Asking for ‘equality’ in marriage for homosexuals doesn’t make sense because marriage is the human term for the mating process as we see in nature. Only a male and female couple can do that. It would seem that after Christ coming there would be no male or female?

God could have just instantly created new angels. However, we see throughout the Bible that God compares Himself with either the male or the female. God was using the male and female / child relationships to illustrate to the universe how He looks after all creation. Of course, the fall of Adam and Eve disrupted, but did not stop God’s plan.

Naturally, the fallen angels were not happy about us taking over their places in God’s Tabernacle and Lucifer in particular is not happy about us being on thrones (Mat 19:28). In any case Lucifer/Satan hated anything that reminded him of God. With the fall, Satan knew that Christ would be coming to be a human. So Satan and his angels would want to stop us having children or if we do destroy them physically or spiritually.

How do you think that the LGBTQ, gender identity issue, abortion, feminism/women’s liberation fits into this scenario? Remember that the original plan was to have enough descendants of Adam and Eve to fill the vacancies in His Tabernacle, change them to be as angels and put them into the Tabernacle. Having and raising babies was central to this plan. The female had the top job, which wasn’t painful or limiting etc as it became after the fall. Keep in mind also that Lucifer wanted to be EQUAL to God, which could remind you of things that are being said today?

Do Christian business owners deem “truth” to be trampled if they transact with liars or Muslims? I don’t hear Christians complaining about generating profits from other “sinners”.

5 Likes

Dene, in your somewhat fanciful scenario, you state:

HAVING AND RAISING BABIES WAS CENTRAL TO HIS PLAN

What an atrociously sadistic God !!

As the planet’s population explodes into the multiple billions,
more and more live in hunger, if not outright famine,
the refugee and homeless population explodes,
billions living in slums, shantytowns and shacks,
the majority of the women living in jurisdictions
which treat them worse than second class citizens,
many subsisting on a dollar a day,
in many countries, ALL, not just the LGBTs
totally lacking basic civil rights,
and rampant COVID devastating the planet!

MISERY ABOUNDS.

And all this, you say, so a selfish God can replace the fallen angels??

A more compassionate god would just create new angels in heaven.
And why does this selfish god need to surround himself with more billions of subservient souls ?

Not the kind of god I wish to worship !

6 Likes

As an institution, we Adventist pride ourselves on our ability to “ride the fence” and have a “balanced” approach. However, while we ride the fence and do our balancing act, our entire estate of confusion and double speech is being purchased with gold, and scarlet, and purple. All the religions of this world must submit to “the common good.”

Agreed with the assessment and conclusion of the author of this article. In this secular nation, wherein all men (mankind) are created equal, to pusue their inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the NAD needs to mind the business of the last day message of salvation and stand clear of endorsing choice pieces of legislation, keeping the example of Jesus before them, Whose conscience was never offended to serve ANYONE.

This is not the first time the NAD erred. In Oct 2019, the family planning platform that existed since 1985 was altered to include ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) terms referring to developing fetuses as ‘unborn’ and ‘personhood’. These terms feed an already tainted view that abortion is murder. Constitutional rights are given to a fetus all the while it lacks a birth certificate! Fetal ‘rights’ then supercede its hostess!

The oppressed class is where the bangage is to be applied, not bandage the whole body. Religious liberty is wrong when used as a sword to harm, or discriminate.

Dene - My grandmother passed away when she was after a 60+ year marriage. Then my grandfather married and was widowed two more times. Of course, it was not possible for those wives to conceive. However, I know the marriages were happily consummated. Shall we say this was not according to God’s original plan? Was it sinful?

There is much in this world that is not according to “God’s original plan”. Certainly you know that!

Thus I find “original” plan arguments ineffective.

3 Likes

If you read what I said again you will see that I refer to the fall of Adam and Eve causing disruption to God’s original plan, but not stopping it.

What you are talking about is one of the confusing things that occurred because of sin after the fall.

This is nothing to do with the focus of what I am talking about in the comment.

Thank you JohnJohn for sharing the story of the “ throuple “ — the three dads with biological children thanks to egg donors and surrogate mothers.

It appears that anything is possible in this modern medical era

Many lesbian couples ( and single women )
are having biological babies
thanks to sperm donors.
And an amazing number of gay men are ( expensively ) opting to have biological children with surrogate mothers.

I read your article with fascination.
My take ?—

Those children are surely blessed — the three dads are high paid professionals, so the kids will get piano lessons, ballet lessons, ski lessons and luxury vacations. Plus private schools and expensive Ivy League degrees.

Also, each father seems to be super loving — these children will be inundated with abundant love. In addition, the surrogate mother will continue to be in the picture.

I know many delinquent fathers among the heterosexual population, whose children have not fared so well.

Thanks for sharing this fascinating story !

2 Likes

Whatever happened to the sales pitch for same-sex marriage that was to be basically a monogmous legal marriage between two people of the same sex. In my mind polyamory, of 3 dads and a baby, is 1 dad too many. What if another wanted to join this union, and there would be 4 dad’s?" Polyamory is pushing too far and makes the rest of us look ridiculous. The Mormons could then claim they are discriminated if polygomy continues to be illegal.

2 Likes

I agree Jason that the Fairness for All, is not a good substitute for the Equality Act. It should be called the Fairness for Some bill. But the Equality Act in its present form will likely not become law. If it did pass the Senate, and signed by the president, it would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court.
I do not support the insistence of some that it needs to have a carte blank religious freedom exemption. That will become a wholesale escape clause that a heard of elephants could be run through. But I do think a church should have the right to choose its clergy, teachers and such and be discriminating in those choices without running afoul of legislation like this.

Presently, about 20 states have antidiscrimination laws protecting the rights of LGBT’s, like myself. The rest of the states, like my state of Idaho, LBGT’s have no such protection against discrimination. As I see it, the Equality Act, would basically cover in the remaining 30 states what is already covered by state law in 20 states.

I am aware of how some gay rights activists may use a federal law to try and force churches to comply, and take this to a new level of enforcement. Churches have tended to be the bane of gay folks, and you need look no further than see what Franklin Graham accuses this bill of enforcing.
Most of his accusations are absurd. His father, the late Billy Graham would be ashamed of him.

This is not supported by the Scripture. Angels and humans are of a different orders of creation. Man was created lower than the angels. Though would be made immortal (at resurrection) man can never be made equal to angels ‘in nature.’ This doctrine Ellen White borrowed from earlier authors.

6 Likes

EGW’s pathetic, prolific plagiarism and purloining of other’s perceptions,
again confounds gullible souls like Dene —
I wondered where he had got the fanciful idea that humans were to replace the fallen angels.

As you so explicitly state, mankind and angels are two entirely different orders of creation.

God used a most circuitous route to pass his messages onto Ellen —- the numerous contemporary authors of her day, whose concepts she stole and “borrowed “.

She often clearly states “ I was shown “ and then regurgitates what later, is proved to be, a paragraph / page of another author’s perceptions. It is not just the plagiarism which is problematical, it is her deliberate attempt to conceal that she copied.

Dene needs to read Steve Daily’s new book:
ELLEN G WHITE - A PSYCHOBIOGRAPHY

4 Likes

From my own research I quite agree with what you said!

2 Likes