A gay man and his partner once asked me, ‘But how can you say our relationship is wrong? We’re not hurting anyone and there is no victim.’ I asked them, ‘Would you approve of two adult gay brothers having a relationship?’ They both replied, ‘But that is so wrong.’ Yet when I pressed them further, they could not say why their relationship was fine but that of two consenting brothers was not.
So, what’s it going to be? Do we hold the line on marriage as the union of a man and woman only, or do we eventually open the door to incest too?”
- Michael Brown, excerpt from “Here Comes Incest, Just as Predicted” article
If you don’t know of the amazing work and ministry of Dr. Michael Brown, you should.
This from the man charged and convicted of beating his third wife and now married to a fourth. What a light he is the christian way.
Readers, I urge you to do a fact check to see whether or not tildeb is talking about the same Michael Brown that I am.
Thank you for the correction, Josh. Yes, I did indeed research the wrong Dr. Brown. My sincere apologies (assuming as I do that you will make an exception on this web site in spite of the domain name).
I commend you, tildeb.
There are a lot of Michael Browns. The Dr. Michael Brown I was talking about has been married to his wife Nancy for 36 years. He practices what he preaches, which is reaching out to the homosexual community in love. In fact, just recently a gay newspaper in North Carolina called Q-Notes decided to protest at his church building FIRE. In response, Dr. Brown wrote an open invitation to the LGBT community saying:
Guess what happened when the protesters got there? They were welcomed with open arms, food, and drinks, which led them to leave and caused even the protest organizer to call in to Dr. Brown’s radio show to apologize publicly for their attempted protest and gross misconception of him, saying that the didn’t deserve to be protested against. (Phone call at the 8:02.00 mark.) Jeff, the protest organizer, said that when they got to Dr. Brown’s church building, they were met with “absolute perfect love” (8:49.00 mark).
Things to think about…
Joshua
It seems to me that tildeb received the proverbial “bitch slap” for failure to fact check.
No, I was wrong and Joshua corrected me. For that, believe it or not, I am thankful for I have mistakenly maligned the character of an innocent person. My bad.
Well, I’m willing to accept that with regards to this matter, it actually reflects well on your character that you had the courage to admit to your mistake and to apologise. Good on you.
If two consenting adult brothers wished to marry each other…so what? In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
What if seven women want to marry one man? How does that affect YOU?
And what if a man wants to marry his dog? Well, in that case, the dog cannot consent to the arrangement, and so the arrangement may not proceed.
See how that works?
Your comment perfectly reflects the attitude toward the institute of marriage that a redefinition of it entails.
But tell it to Andy, not me. He’s the one who supports gay marriage, but opposes incest and polygamy. (I oppose all three.) You should ask him and people like him “If two consenting adult brothers wished to marry each other…so what?” and “What if seven women want to marry one man?” Then the rest of us can watch the action from the sidelines.
Joshua
I said the arguments for and against polygamy and incest have nothing to do with allowing or not allowing gay marriage. That you can find people who may agree on gay marriage but disagree on polygamy and incest actually backs up my point. You’re against gay marriage but for inter-racial marriage. I’m for both. Someone else might be against both. Should I let you argue it out with THEM while me and other Andrew watch ‘the action’ from the side-lines? How does any of this help your argument?
Well, Andrew was saying, basically, that (paraphrased) “If gay brothers want to marry, so what?” and “If seven women want to marry one man, so what?”
That was the point.
He would likely justify their “legal / human right” to marry because they are 1) adults; 2) consenting; 3) “in love”, which is essentially what you pose is the case for homosexuals who want to marry, is it not?
Joshua
Oh, and I should also point out: incest is nothing new and certainly isn’t the result of the rising tide of the LGBT community.
Actually, come to think of it, God must not actually oppose incest, right? It’s how he populated the world on two separate occasions after all.
Andrew Marburger:
“Actually, come to think of it, God must not actually oppose incest, right? It’s how he populated the world on two separate occasions after all.”
You ask a good question, which is worth a closer look. While I cannot claim to have absolute knowledge pertaining to matters of the deep past (I suppose no one can), do allow me to share my best understanding of the situation, in the hope that it addresses your question.
If the race was to fulfill the command of Gen. 1:28, Adam’s sons and daughters had little choice but to marry their own sisters and brothers in order to populate the earth. However, if God had created human beings, as the Bible says, then it would be expected that they would have been created without genetic defects. And so, due to the initial purity of the race as evidenced also by the long length of life, there were no adverse effects as we see happening today.
Gradually, as the effects of sin took its toll on the human race, incest, as we know it, began to create hereditary problems (the accumulation of detrimental mutations). This would have taken many generations, at which time God instituted the laws against incest for a number of reasons, one of those reasons being to protect humans against the majority of these defects.
Something else worth noting is that while there was indeed sinful behaviours prior to God’s official decrees outlawing certain behaviors, those penalties were not carried out until the Law was given. As the Bible clearly teaches in Romans 5:12-13:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned – for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.”
It is clear, though, that by the time of the Exodus, God codified prohibitions against incest and many other behaviours that were previously not specifically prohibited. God in His infinite wisdom and mercy illustrated the reason for the Law of Moses was to show us right from wrong and indeed show us our need for the Saviour.
So in closing, God does indeed oppose incest. He expressedly forbids it in the Bible:
“If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” – Leviticus 20:11-12
“You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they shall bear their guilt. If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.” – Leviticus 20:19-21
“No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD” – Leviticus 18:6
I hope my answer has served useful. =)
Andrew Marburger:
Hope you don’t mind some additional sharing. Writer and theologian also wrote an interesting piece on this issue in his book Basic Theology. I provide an excerpt for your view:
“We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters. Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or moronic children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly, Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous.
Many, many generations later, by the time of Moses, incest was then prohibited in the Mosaic laws undoubtedly for two reasons: first, such mutations that caused deformity had accumulated to the point where such unions were genetically dangerous, and second, it was forbidden because of the licentious practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites and as a general protection against such in society. It should also be noted that in addition to the Bible most other legal codes refuse to sanction marriages of close relatives.
But here is another issue to consider. If one accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race, has that really relieved the issue of incest? Not unless you also propound the idea of the evolution of many pairs of beings, pre-human or whatever, at the same time. No matter what theory of the origin of the human race one may take, are we not driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the need for intermarriage of the children of the same pair?”
Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks for your time. =)
Oops, silly me, forgot to add the name of the writer and theologian. Haha.. he is Charles Ryrie. =)
“I said the arguments for and against polygamy and incest have nothing to do with allowing or not allowing gay marriage. That you can find people who may agree on gay marriage but disagree on polygamy and incest actually backs up my point. You’re against gay marriage but for inter-racial marriage. I’m for both. Someone else might be against both. Should I let you argue it out with THEM while me and other Andrew watch ‘the action’ from the side-lines? How does any of this help your argument?”
Precisely why we need to maintain our moral values instead of turning everything into a issue of moral relativism that are worth wasting time trying to rationalize and justify.
When you try to chip away at the sacred institutions of others; try to alter it and essentially make a mockery of it, you have a problem.
Should women fight for their “right” to perform female circumcisions? How “discriminatory,” that it is only males who are performing this on males! Who cares if others object–they are just bigoted relics of the past!
Should foreigners fight for their right to have an equal chance to immigrate and become Israeli citizens–no special considerations for being Jewish?
Should marriage be redefined to be more “free” and “open” so that a cheating spouse is no longer a cheat (and therefore such evidence in cannot be permissible in divorce cases)? Or are there some traditions that are too meaningful to you? What right do you have to say what gets changed and what doesn’t? Why not leave people’s sacred traditions ALONE and instead create your OWN traditions and see if it gains popularity and recognition by your country based on its OWN merits?
“Should women fight for their “right” to perform female circumcisions? How “discriminatory,” that it is only males who are performing this on males!”
I don’t think anyone should be snipping off any functioning parts of babies’ anatomies, male or female. What inconsistency do you imagine you’re showing here? And what’s your position – your ‘respect religion and tradition’ argument would appear to actually be a defence of female genital mutilation. If religion and tradition are reason enough, then on what grounds do you oppose it?
Regarding maintaining moral values, this is a non sequitur – allowing gays to marry is completely consistent with my moral values. Allowing it has nothing to do with abandoning my values or moral relativism. And by all means carry on whatever sacred traditions you fancy, as long as you don’t harm others then I’m not standing in your way.
Why not leave people’s sacred traditions ALONE and instead create your OWN traditions and see if it gains popularity and recognition by your country based on its OWN merits?
Gay people have claimed recognition in modern society and, yes, it turns they are nice people and quite popular. Society is no longer fearful of “teh gay” (with the exception of places like Russia and Iran and the Sudan etc.) Gay people are accepted as being just people and not subjects of discrimination or bigotry. The moral zeitgeist has profoundly shifted and the fundies are left in the past. Everytime you try and talk about “teh gay”, you only remind people of how out of step you are. Go ahead, dig deeper.
Cedric Katesby:
“Gay people have claimed recognition in…”
And so the man interested in his sister would say, to the gay person who is against the idea of incest:
“Incestuous people have claimed recognition in modern society and, yes, it turns they are nice people and quite popular. Society is no longer fearful of “teh incestuous” (with the exception of places like Russia and Iran and the Sudan etc.) Incestuous people are accepted as being just people and not subjects of discrimination or bigotry. The moral gay zeitgeist has profoundly shifted and the gay fundies are left in the past. Everytime you try and talk about “teh incestuous”, you only remind people of how out of step you are. Go ahead, dig deeper.”
And the pedophile. And the zoophile. And so on… (btw, before you carry the strawman forward, no one is suggesting that gay people can’t be fantastically nice or just or popular, amongst other fine virtues)
Which brings us back to a related question synapticcohesion posed you on another thread (https://noapologiesallowed.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/when-bad-excuses-go-bad/#comments):
“OK. So how do YOU define what is acceptable sexual behavior and what is not?”
Specifically – and we are all genuinely interested in finding out – what is the defining criteria you use to say, “Okay, homosexual behaviour is fine, but incest, beastiality, pedophilia and the likes are not”? Perhaps that 1% of the world is gay? Personal preference? Or anything else?
Do venture an answer, thanks.
(P.S.: Just to check, do you really believe only Russia, Iran, Sudan and the likes are against the idea of homosexual activity and behaviour, and not any modernised, democratic countries? Really?)
“Society is no longer fearful of “teh gay” (with the exception of places like Russia and Iran and the Sudan etc.) Gay people are accepted as being just people and not subjects of discrimination or bigotry. The moral zeitgeist has profoundly shifted and the fundies are left in the past. Everytime you try and talk about “teh gay”, you only remind people of how out of step you are. Go ahead, dig deeper.”
Don’t try to make this into a “discrimination” and “bigotry” issue. By the way you say, “teh gay,” it seems that you are uncomfortable even mentioning gays. I actually had a friend in school who was (is) gay.
There are already “civil unions” for gays, but for those with political agendas, that is not enough. They want to redefine MARRIAGE–destroy it–by taking it a part at the seams. They know it can’t be done overnight, but that it can be more easily done in stages. And they have to inculcate gays with the idea that marriage did not consider homosexual relationships due to “bigotry” and “oppression.” Thus, after all these millenia, gays are only now beginning to “protest” this “discrimination.” Media inculcation can easily make people want what they never wanted before–what was never a part of their lifestyle.
Marriage was always a sacred ceremony between a man and a women in order to (hopefully) forge a lasting union between the two and the resultant family. Before “race” was even a word, there was marriage. Whether you see logic or reason for such sacred ceremonies, is irrelevant. It is not for anyone with political agendas to say what marriage is “now” about any more than those with political clout saying what other sacred traditions should “now” be about. Think for yourself. Don’t whine and glom on to the traditions of others just because you are now told that this is supposed to be what you want. Assess what you really want (and don’t want) and create it for YOURSELF. Name it for YOURSELF. Be YOURSELF.
synapticcohesion:
Excellent points. =)
Thanks, GA. :)
“Don’t try to make this into a “discrimination” and “bigotry” issue.”
I’m not the one mentioning gay people in the same breath as rapists, pedophiles etc.
The very fact that you think that’s somehow acceptable speaks for itself. Most people react negatively to that. It only isolates you.
By the way you say, “teh gay,” it seems that you are uncomfortable even mentioning gays. I actually had a friend in school who was (is) gay.
Of course you did. Maybe you even had a black friend and a Jewish friend too at school. Listen to yourself.
(facepalm)
I’m not the one uncomfortable mentioning gay people.
Few people are nowadays.
It’s the fundies who are unconfortable with “teh gey”.
There are already “civil unions” for gays, but for those with political agendas, that is not enough. They want to redefine MARRIAGE–destroy it–by taking it a part at the seams.
Ok, how?
How do you “destroy” marriage?
How do you “take it apart at the seams”?
If you are opposed to gay marriage then don’t marry a gay person.
Easy enough.
Your own marriage is unaffected.
Thus, after all these millenia, gays are only now beginning to “protest” this “discrimination.”
There’s no need for scare quotes.
They really are protesting as opposed to “protesting” or whatever.
And yes, it’s discrimination, not “discrimination” or something else.
Nobody fears gay people any more. This millenia is all about change. Even women have demanded and successfully fought for change.
Same with black people.
It’s such a recent thing that there are even (gasp) photos of them.
Media inculcation can easily make people want what they never wanted before–what was never a part of their lifestyle.
Yeah, it’s the media’s fault. Sure.
Marriage was always a sacred ceremony…
Nobody cares. Your “sacred” stuff you can keep. Put it in a happy, private place along with your ghosts, taboos, icons, souls, prayers and other mystical woo.
A modern society will get along just fine with marriages without any sacrednessiness.
“Don’t whine and glom on to the traditions of others”
Right, like Christianity took pre-existing Winter festivals to make Christmas. And you are aware that marriage existed independently of Christianity, right? And Judaism too, if you’re wondering.
Oh and by the way, those South Korean biology textbooks you cited the other day – you may want to look up the update on that story.
synapticcohesion & Josh:
On a related note, this might interest you guys.
” ‘Gay’-Rights Leader Quits Homosexuality – Rising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle” (http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42379/)
And this is how the person in question – Michael Glatze – puts it himself (I strongly urge anyone and everyone to hear what the man himself has to say about, his perspective is quite something).
“How A ‘Gay Rights’ Leader Became Straight” (http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42385/)
Oh my… you’re actually using World Nut Daily as a source! I didn’t think any grown ups would publicly admit reading it but to proudly present it as a source? Astounding. Again, you show me the error of my ways.
For those unaware, WND is famously described by the Sensuous Curmudgeon as “the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed.” WND is to journalism what the McRib is to fine dining.
Don’t fall over tildeb but I actually would agree with you. I’ve seen far too much nonsense come from WND, (although that doesn’t mean that it’s all nonsense).
Joshua
Tsk tsk, Tildeb – its proper name is WING Nut Daily.
Again, my bad. Of course you’re quite right.
Obviously, Brown – like most religious people – assume marriage is a religious concern and that because its a religious concern particular superstitious beliefs about imaginary beings adds something legitimate to human affairs. I’ve been waiting for someone to point out the obvious, but the obvious is something rarely understood by those busy with their meddling superstitions.
Gay marriage is not about superstition. It’s not about morality. It’s not even about biology. It’s about equality. It’s about equality under the law (what a radical perversion of god’s will!). This legal point has been hammered home in almost every superior court case that examines the legality of gay marriage and finds the law discrimnatory wihtout just cause.
In law, you see, one must have better reasons to legally discriminate than “Because my imaginary friend says so.” This renders the religious input moot (reality tends to do this rather often so the religious try to pay it no mind). Marriage is a legal contract between two people. To base it in part on opposite gender creates a legal discrimination. That’s why it’s struck down over and over again (not that most religious people care one whit about what is discriminatory unless it reduces religious privilege… and then it’s a ‘war’ against religion. Those who attempt to level the playing field and reduce religious privilege are considered ‘militants’ and ‘radicals’ who would supposedly support Hitler if they could).
Because Brown does not understand the concept of legal equality, he misses the reason why gay marriage has nothing to do with why incest or polygamy does carry legal discriminations – because of just cause. The concept of legal equality is actually pretty simple: if you can get married to an unrelated person, then so can I. If you can’t marry your sister, then I can’t marry mine. If you can’t marry a hundred and twelve women, then I can’t marry and hundred and twelve men. See how this works? It’s called equality and it’s a legal concept the religious really should spend a bit of time learning about. It might help move the religious zeitgeist past the Iron age, god forbid.
‘Gay’-Rights Leader Quits Homosexuality – Rising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle”(…)“How A ‘Gay Rights’ Leader Became Straight”.
Wow. It’s impossible to parody. Tone deaf doesn’t even begin to describle it.
Cedric Katesby:
Hmm, I doubt you’ve read the articles, but for the benefit of the rest of us, do go on:
1) What is “impossible to parody”?
2) “Tone deaf doesn’t even begin to describe” what?
Thanks, Cedric Katesby.
What is “impossible to parody”?
“‘‘Gay’-Rights Leader Quits Homosexuality – Rising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle”
It’s not possible to make something that silly even more silly. It’s genuinely bizzare. It’s more than a little creepy that someone would actually think that an article from WND is ever “related” and “interesting”. Raise your reading standards. Those people are wackjobs.
Note to self: Check out WND. It must be a valuable source of information–to garner that much protest.
The gay rights movement has often compared itself to the black civil rights movement. I think it’s fair enough to say that the former has borrowed the latter’s language somewhat, been inspired by it. It’s also quite possible that gays owe some of their growing acceptance in the community to the successes of the civil rights movement.
Given this, would any of the anti-SSM proponents on this blog say that the civil rights movement set us on a ‘slippery slope’ towards gay rights? Given that, isn’t rights for black under the same vulnerability of setting us supposedly on a ‘slippery slope’ towards this claimed increased acceptance for incest and polygamy? If you’re going to conjecture that there’s some continuum, with ‘anything goes’ at one end (which we’re heading towards), and you claim that an argument against gay rights is that it has helped set us on this course, then logically you must also argue against the black civil rights movement in turn for moving us towards rights for gays.
You can say that’s different because you’re in favour of rights for blacks but not for gays, but the principle remains the same. You were offering the ‘slippery slope’ argument as standing apart from any ‘rights and wrongs’ of any individual cause – simply arguing that the one led us on a path where the second became more acceptable.
” I’ve seen far too much nonsense come from WND, (although that doesn’t mean that it’s all nonsense”
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. And what’s that Acts quote about the devil? He mixes in a few truths to gain credibility for the more outrageous lies. That’s WND for you.