love is not about gender
this argument, which holds special attention across the country today, is something i think my children will be astounded to know existed.
it's like freeing slaves, integrating schools, and giving women the vote--granting equality to homosexuals has to happen. my kids will be shocked that, in their parents' lifetime, gay and lesbian americans were denied the right to be married, much as I am shocked that my mother's lifetime contained segregated schools.
those who speak out against gay marriage claim that it is a moral issue. i agree. it is a moral issue. prejudice, freedom, and equality are all deeply tied to morality. hatred, i think, is immoral.
i'm working today, so i can't make the rallies and protests downtown. my blog is my voice today. if you run across a gathering of people speaking out against prop 8, please join them for me. otherwise, take today's opportunity to think deeply about what we can do to grant equality to all americans.
54 comments:
Thank you for this thoughtful piece.
1. I think your post, like many similar to it, misses the point. The point being: the right to marry has nothing to do with equality.
2. Marriage was the first of two (yes, only two) divinely ordained institutions given at creation. Therefore, it is a sad mistake when man attempts to redefine that institution, much like the redefinition of the Sabbath.
3. I don't believe it is the government's place to enforce holy marriage anymore than they should enforce the Sabbath, therefore proposition 8 misses the point as well.
4. Gays should not be persecuted. They should be treated with love and respect, because their sin is no greater than any of yours or mine. We are all imperfect human beings. God is the judge of every one of us.
5. That does not mean we should support their desire to marry. I believe that God loves every homosexual and heterosexual equally. But I believe he doesn't want them to indulge in homosexuality any more than he wants me to cheat on my spouse. He desires us to strive for holiness, and when Christians support gay marriage, or even homosexuality, they are counteracting God's intentions.
ryan,
1. i think your comment, like many similar to it, completely misses the insight on the nature of discrimination, that being: the fear-mongering and imposition of myopic views onto a class of people in the name of a sturdier 'moral fiber' of society
2. arguing the validity of marriage as being a 'divine institution' is one thing (admittedly of little importance to those of us who do not believe in 'creation' or in 'god')--and to each his own-- but a completely different and dictatorial thing when this small-minded perspective is imposed onto other humans who do not share your beliefs and whose humanity is actively denigrated, belittled, and oppressed as a result of it and of religious factions systematically--and conveniently--coalescing to suppress it (sometimes at the cost of lives). therefore it is a pathetic mistake when man attempts to clutch at the mother's hem of this tradition, much like the stubborn definition of the world as being flat.
3. the government as a 'point of authority' has every right, it seems in your view, to impose any kind of moral legislation onto a people if this same government believes it has a right to disallow certain privileges such as, say, walking on sidewalks, to certain individuals whose code of morality does not quite 'measure up' to a standardized level arbitrarily defined by a diluted 'elite' few.
4. Homosexuals should be treated with love and respect and not persecuted for many more reasons than just on the basis of their supposed 'sin' not being greater than yours or mine. for one, they, like 'us', are humans who aspire and laugh and worry, thus participating in the universal human experience. for another, they did not choose to be homosexual just as we did not choose to be heterosexual. the real problem here lies in the dichotomy your message is underlined with, which is that of 'us vs. them', in which 'them' could never win simply for being 'them' and 'we' will always be right simply for being 'we'. another word for this way of thinking is 'ignorance', 'homophobia' and also commonly known as 'hatred' although i am sure there is some kind of christian vocabulary with which to produce these same assertions.
stop patronizing us with inflated doublespeak because your veil is only too thin and poorly concealed. the 'sandwich principle' holds little ground as a form manipulative tool of debate within the arena of free inquiry, open-mindedness, and genuine dedication to the good of mankind rather than to the interests of a church institution.
5. you comparison of homosexuality to adultery is lopsided. whereas the forbidding of adultery allows room for the expression of sexuality, and hence human identity, within the confines of marriage, the same forbidding of homosexuality denies homosexual humans any kind of human identity within the realm of sexuality. not only this but you contend that supporting gay marriage/sexuality is a counteraction of 'god's intentions', i would argue that in order for someone to counteract god's intention one would seem to have be equal or greater than this god. this in turn imbues humanity with a 'god-quality', something which western religions spurn and eastern religions embrace, referring to it as the Self. could it be that all this intolerance, libel, and fear has something to do with preserving an overarching straw-man 'authority' over the western hemisphere and in intentionally diverting humans from internalizing their search for meaning and perceiving 'god' as part of the self?
ryan, i am usually a very nice person and i hope i did not hurt your feelings. i feel very passionate about this and so i tried to choose correct words. i don't hope to change your mind, just to maybe make the issue less black-and-white.
the threatening of a western deity that provides meaning
ryan,
last night i said to my friend israel, "how do i respond to this?" because i wanted him to help me reply to your comment clearly and reasonably. i even left my thoughts in draft form overnight so as to prevent a hasty, emotional response. i woke to find that israel has provided a more articulate, intelligent, and bold answer than i would have been capable of. i agree with him (with the exception of the sandwich principle--i still think that has its merits!) and hope you will consider his points thoughtfully.
i have a few decidedly less-eloquent, and likely less-relevant points to add.
since your comment was in response to my blog post, i assume you are "replying" to it. your statement "when christians support gay marriage...they are counteracting god's intentions" causes me to believe you make assumptions about my religious beliefs, which have changed a great deal since we were acquainted. since i do not use the label "christian" for myself, i feel no pressure to concern myself with the intentions of a christian god. but i don't think the government should either; this is a legal issue, not a religious one.
i think what it comes down to is a principle from your own faith. i always grew up hearing "do unto others..." i've changed that a bit as i've adapted the religious worldview i grew up with to one i am happy and comfortable living in. i try to do even more for others than i would ever ask them to do for me. that is where my stance on this issue comes from.
thank you for your thoughts; i'm glad you felt comfortable to be so honest here and hope you will continue to be.
Since this is pulling in a religious direction let's also remember what Jesus said was the greatest commandments: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:29-31).
It doesn't say anything about making judgements, or declaring what we think God thinks is right or wrong. It simply says to love him and everyone else we come into contact with. No matter whether we believe what they do is right/wrong/questionable/ANNOYING(that's my struggle, not sexual orientation).
I don't think we as individuals or the government should be making decisions about this. I think there are much more serious issues that should be being addressed and not whom someone chooses to commit themselves to.
Just wanted to point out that Ryan's #3--"proposition 8 misses the point as well"--seems to disagree completely with Israel's #3: in effect, you are coming from the same point of view.
ie: Government should not mandate these beliefs.
Homosexuality is unlike murder or shoplifting. While I believe homosexuality is wrong, based on my belief that the Bible is true, should the world's government put this into law form? I'm not so sure. In reference to legality, I see homosexuality as I see church attendance: a personal preference that does not harm anyone to the point where legal action should be taken.
I do believe that at life's end, each individual will see Truth for his or herself.
Again: although you (Ryan and Israel) are coming from somewhat opposite ends of the spectrum, you agree that 1. the individual has the right to choose for him/herself on matters of "religion," "spirituality" (or lack thereof) and that 2. people who are homosexual should be treated with love and respect.
Really, any person should be treated this way, no matter who they are. To be honest, I think the whole "us" vs. "them" was taken out of proportion. Also, why classify Ryan's viewpoint as being dedicated to a church institution? Maybe it is; maybe it is simply his personal creed just as Israel's words express his own beliefs.
I appreciate each of the comments here. Katie, thank you for reminding me that it does come down to personal faith. I honestly don't believe Ryan was trying to patronizingly impose his perspective on anyone, unless sharing one's opinion can be considered that. And the world has been proved round. Can the Christian God's non-existence be proved? Not anymore or any less, I believe, than the existence of any other gods--evidence of the one true God is everywhere, yet he gives us the choice to take other gods while we are alive on this earth.
Faith is the essence of every belief, and I am thankful that as humans we have the freedom of choice to "counteract God's intention"--this god-ness of self that came from the Garden of Eden was a gift from a God who does not use force, fear, or oppression to make us serve him. Hopefully, whether we accept him as our all in all or not, we will respect that gift enough to do the same for others.
Somehow this reminds me of Blake's class where we stood at different places in the room and tried to reach across the line for commonality. I like peace. Thanks for letting me share my views from a different place in the room.
Katie,
I find one of your comments to be very insightful, that being related to what has been labeled the "golden rule" which, by the way, is a secular interpretation Christ's principle of loving your neighbor as yourself. I think however that your adaptation of the principle is more closely a reflection of what Christ was really was trying to say. I don't agree with how you relate that principle to this situation, but it isn't my place to tell you how to apply your convictions.
Israel,
I have spent much of the day thinking about what you said and trying to figure out how to respond and I must say it is very difficult. My initial comment was the first time I had ever tried expressing my perspective. Perhaps, I did so imperfectly, but when trying to be concise, as I was, it can be hard to state everything exactly as intended.
I also find it hard to respond, because I'm really not sure who you were talking to most of the time; much of what you said, had absolutely nothing to do with me. It seems you often misapprehended my words perhaps reading them through lenses of counter-prejudice.
Because my perspective stems from my belief in God, it is understandable that you would not agree--I didn't account for you being a member of the my audience. It is not my intention to impose my perspective on anyone, but I feel that I have a mind and a voice and I should use them.
I did state in my comment that I was opposed to proposition 8 because I don't think it is the government's place to dictate the outcome of this issue. But then I realized that homosexual marriage is not the only marriage forbidden in this country. I am, by law, forbidden to marry my sister, my cousin, my daughter, my mother, my grandmother (you get the point). I have no intention of opposing that law, so why should I oppose a law saying that marriage is between one man and one woman? Before you get all worked up, I'm not standing behind that argument, it was just a thought that crossed my mind.
I quote you: "Homosexuals should be treated with love and respect and not persecuted for many more reasons than just on the basis of their supposed 'sin' not being greater than yours or mine." I never said that, in fact my point was that God is the judge not us. Remember also, I was being concise.
I admit my comparison of homosexuality and adultery is lopsided, I wasn't trying to draw a perfect comparison. Indeed, a perfect comparison may be impossible. I would have done as well to have said, But I believe he doesn't want them to indulge in homosexuality any more than he wants me to steal my neighbor's toy truck.
While it is true for the most part that no one chooses to be homosexual, it is not true that a homosexual is born a homosexual. But I believe that it is possible under specific conditions for a homosexual to choose to be heterosexual. I have not only heard of such occurrences, I have witnessed it.
I believe God is black and white. I realize that man may never know what is perfectly true and false, but I aim to find out. That sort of defines who I am and what I believe. There is such thing as absolute truth. God is God. He is not this for me and that for you. He speaks to us differently and reaches us differently, but His character remains the same. He does not conform to me; it is my mission to conform to Him.
Again, this is me trying to be concise. I appreciate your comments, Emily. Your words echoed my thoughts in many ways and I appreciate you expressing them perhaps more accurately than I could have.
emily: first, i think all my counterpoints were intended to be something of a parody of ryan's points in order to properly convey the absurdity i perceived in his rhetoric. in my third point, i wanted to contrast 'enforcing' some concept, like the sabbath, with 'disallowing' something, like gay marriage. the former is active, the latter is passive. it takes more effort to enforce than to forbid. in my second point i wasn't arguing god's existence. instead i was comparing the traditional anti-gay mentality with the stubborn definition of the earth being flat. you are very right about my assuming his points were efforts to support a church institution and not just his personal beliefs. at the same time, this seems to be one of institutionalized religion's call signs. and combined with the rallying against prop 8 on that day, i felt maybe i was safe to assume as much.
again, worldviews are subjective. one person's liberty stops when the next person's begins. i understand this and i am not arguing with ryan's right to hold these views. in fact, i applaud him for standing up what he believes in because he has definitely put thought into his value system and reasoning. i don't think ryan was trying to patronize anyone now but it certainly came off that way. but i was put off at whole quickly he came to his conclusion in 12 sentences.
ryan: it may be that i have reacted in counter prejudice to your comment and i tried not to make it personal. i began with really not wanting to offend anyone and find a position of moderation but after a while i realized what many liberals have expressed: we're sick of being the tolerant ones, we're bored with the insipid arguments we've heard over and over, we're tired of having to deal with religion's active role in a free-thinking society. my comment came from this frustration and also perhaps from the audacity i perceived in your to comment to paint the issue so black and white as it alienates humans from humans. i understand that you didn't see me as part of your audience and perhaps it was unfair to attack your views as such but i really wasn't trying to make it personal and i hope got that across.
i quote you: "Gays should not be persecuted. They should be treated with love and respect, because their sin is no greater than any of yours or mine." i think maybe the comma after 'respect' is confusing.
i quote you again: "But I believe he doesn't want them to indulge in homosexuality any more than he wants me to cheat on my spouse."
i don't know if what 'god wants' is always very clear. did he want jepthah's daughter to be sacrificed simply for coming out to greet her father after coming back from war? did he want the levite's concubine to be raped, literally, to death while her master slept inside? did he then want him to cut her corpse into 12 pieces to send out to fellow citizens? did he want to the levite of judah to be tricked and mauled by a lion after having prophesied for god? it seems to me that just here god has commanded child sacrificing, rape, mutilation, and disloyalty to name a few and all for his sake. now i really don't want to get into a theological discussion about these particular passages in the bible but would instead just like to point that the argument 'god commanded it' or 'god intended it so' is not strong enough to hold any kind of position (e.g. institution of marriage, observance of the sabbath, the forbidding of clipping the corners of your beard, etc)
you bring up an interesting argument about not being allowed to marry your mother or sister, etc. i think the issue, for me at least a straight male, isn't so much centered on the redefinition of marriage as much as it is the systematic alienation of homosexuals.
i feel that a large portion of my views are a result of having homosexual friends. i would challenge you to do likewise. if religion only serves to insulate, how can you could you be able to treat a homosexual with love and respect if you don't know or talk to any. i am not amoralistic but i do believe that when morals begin to divide and to separate us from hurting humans then our morals are wrong.
i am glad you have written back. you seem like an intelligent person and i respect you for being true to your beliefs.
ah. thank you, ryan and israel, for writing more.
the one thing that comes through here for me is that as humans we are all "guilty" of making assumptions (in my attempt to share commonalities i made them), and without dialogue, much can be lost.
at the risk of sounding saccharine, what we need is Love, in the broadest sense of the term. keep on.
i very much appreciate what each of you has to say. you cause me to think deeply, and i am grateful.
by the time i became close friends with anyone who is gay, i had already become "pro-gay-marriage." but now that i have at least one good friend who is gay, i cannot imagine denying them the opportunity to marry someone they love, the same as i have that opportunity. what i'm saying is that, like israel suggested, i think everyone ought to have friends who live differently than they do. it has opened my mind immensely.
ryan, you say that people are not born gay and can change to not be homosexual anymore. science disagrees with you, however. in fact, one article i read stated that identical twins who share the same amniotic sac have the same sexual orientation, whether gay or straight, almost 100% of the time. issues of gender and sexuality are complicated, but arise surprisingly early in life (leading me to think that you are indeed born with a sexual preference encoded in your genes). i know a woman whose five-year old daughter has insisted since she began to talk that she is a boy. she wears boys' clothing, plays with trucks, and even pees standing up. her 8-year-old sister is traditionally a "normal" girl. how can we answer these sorts of anecdotal and scientific findings with "it is not true that a homosexual is born a homosexual"?
i guess my biggest question for you is why, as a christian whose church strongly supports the separation of church and state, you would want to legislate something based on what god or your religion deems right. what happens when someone else comes along and tells you what god says is right, and it opposes what you believe? i would think that you would want everyone to have the freedom to do as they pleased, especially when it causes no harm to anyone else. otherwise, on what grounds can you stand if someone tells you that god wants to eradicate interracial marriage, and legislates that you cannot marry someone of another race? they could probably support it from the bible. but what if you were engaged to an asian girl and it were illegal for you to marry her? my point (while i'm sure it is a flawed argument) is this: in my thinking, it seems as though religious people would avoid legislation based on religious ideals at all costs. someday, someone's going to come along and do the same thing, only it's going to affect you.
thanks for this conversation, friends. i've never been so excited to check the comments on my blog. you are all so darn articulate.
"so darn articulate" was a little sarah palin of me, wasn't it? (that wasn't meant to be another can of worms!)
Honestly, conservatives probably find some of your arguments just as insipid as you consider theirs.
Observations:
I am sure my comments will not be quite as articulate as the ones that have come before me.
I see the “world is flat” versus “anti-gay mentality” as an unfair comparison. It has been proven with hard, scientific evidence (which I believe should speak to some of this audience, opposed to thoughts revolving around faith and opinion) that the world is round. This is a fact. However, science has not proven whether or not homosexuals are born with certain inclinations, or not. There is evidence that seems to suggest it, but nothing solid. Both sides may say that they are right, but neither side has had their case scientifically proven. (We have pictures of a round world as viewed from space. I have yet to see a picture or model of the gene that determines sexual orientation.) It is simply a matter of opinion and as of yet not proven one way or the other. I am not saying that either opinion is right or wrong, just simply not proven. Actually, I’m not really sure how I feel about the nature/nurture dilemma. I’m still figuring that out.
I am a little confused on your point, Israel, and I may have misinterpreted your meaning that “the argument 'god commanded it' or 'god intended it so’” is not strong enough to hold any kind of position (e.g. institution of marriage, observance of the sabbath,” because as I recall, the fourth commandment pretty clearly states God’s intention about the Sabbath. It holds a position for me because I believe in it. You do not. Does that mean I cannot use my faith as an argument? It shouldn’t. “To each his own”, right?
I don’t appreciate my beliefs being referred to as a “pathetic mistake”. For me, it’s not a “tradition”. It’s my life. I respect your beliefs, and though you claim that you respect mine, your words don’t reassure me of this. You say “to each his own”, but you say that this Christian perspective is “small minded”. If you really believe “to each his own”, then your perspective should be “hakuna matata”. You preach tolerance, but yet it seems that you choose to lump all Christians as conservatives, all conservatives as prejudiced. I don’t understand your viewpoint. I will freely admit that. We come from different places in life. I’m ok with not understanding. I’m ok with having the conversation of life be a semi permeable membrane – I’ll take some of what you’ve got and will gladly let it add value to my life. Other things I will choose to let be your opinions, and be happy with things staying that way.
Sistah—you’re THISCLOSE to shooting a moose. Whoa.
i will never shoot a moose.
and i think a lot of what israel was saying about small-mindedness, etc., was in reference to the political machine of christianity, not individual christians. i know very few liberals who will take issue with your personal beliefs--it's only when your ideology encroaches on ME that i have a problem with you, know what i mean?
anonymous,
i have no doubt in the smallest part of mind that you are right.
emily,
1. world flat vs. anti-gay: the main crux of my point was, again, centered on the aspect of stubbornness. just as many refused to acknowledge the physical boundaries of their physical world, many conservatives today refuse to acknowledge the boundaries of their religion and continue to press it onto free-thinking societies. my argument had nothing to do with science or objectivity. i could easily invert your non-argument and ask you to show me a gene that makes you straight. my counterpoint was not arguing whether or not homosexuality is natural but that religion and government have no place regulating personal human morality.
2. i quote you: It holds a position for me because I believe in it. You do not. Does that mean I cannot use my faith as an argument?
yes. correct. you did not misunderstand my point. faith is not a legitimate tool for debate. it is a guideline for personal belief but, in and of itself, has no power in any kind of arena of logic or rationale. this is because every argument would end up with 'i believe this' and how could anyone argue with that? 'no you don't!' and yes, to each his own but your personal beliefs are not a priori truth. all debate attempts to piece together a priori truth and using your personal beliefs as arguments, in and of themselves, would lead no where and effectively terminate all discourse.
now, i wasn't calling your beliefs pathetic. like i said, i was parodying ryan's comment and his use of the word 'mistake'. my use of the word 'small-minded' stemmed from this parody. i was trying to find a word that meant it only represented a narrowly-held belief. i think maybe 'relatively isolated belief' would have been more appropriate.
i feel a little like my arguments are not being taken seriously here. they are being taken out of context, then distorted and then attacked. like i said before, i don't expect to win any kind of argument or convince anyone of my position. i am only trying to complicate the picture with gray.
don't forget that this debate is not just words.
http://existinginthe.blogspot.com/2008/11/id-rather-it-end-this-way.html
Thanks for the intelligent discussion.
I want to start by saying that theological arguments are fun, but not for me to indulge in right now. I will leave the point of homosexuality, its morality, and how to deal with it in a democratic society based on Christian teachings to those whose opinions hinge on it.
This poses an essential problem in this entire thread that I see pretty clearly; that there is absolutely no way for a believer and a non-believer to convince one another on a moral issue with answers about practicality, because in fact religion is not practical, and anyone who disagrees with me is completely missing the point of their religion anyway. (Israel seems to have addressed this point already.) So, I never try to win these arguments with answers, but only pose the basic questions which, if you cannot answer, have essentially no reason to believe what you believe. That is, if reason is even a factor for you.
1:Would you really be comfortable with the government using religion as morality? The religion clause of the first amendment, after all, was originally intended to protect sects like Seventh-Day Adventism. As Katie mentioned, the government, if given the license to use a religious text as law, would very well go against certain aspects of morality that even people who subscribe to the same text it is using believe in. If you cannot answer the point for why we should make an exception of separation of church and state for homosexuals, then you don't have an argument.
2: Why not go after the multitude of other "sinful" laws pertaining to marriage? Women who remarry are adulterous, just to start on a list of seemingly amoral laws already in place having to do with sexuality. If you can't answer this, I have no choice but to accept that your intolerance guides your "moral" decisions.
3: How many homosexuals, real life homosexuals, do each of you that find homosexuality morally reprehensible know? The reason I ask this is because, beneath all the jargon, all the talk about the first amendment and whether or not marriage is a right, I cannot help but feel like the main issue issue is that homosexuals are strange, the "other", and thus must be a detriment to society if encouraged. The reason I feel this way is because of what I was getting at in question number 2; why pick and choose from your religion these miniscule passages which multitudes of theologians cannot even agree on to supercede larger concepts of equality and neighborly love? I know that you all claim to love homosexuals, but I really don't feel like anyone can love homosexuals and deny them something so simple as marriage.
So who does legalizing gay marriage hurt? Who is damaged by two men marrying? Certainly not the institution of family, which has been degraded by forces like greed, lust, etc. Nobody responding to this blog today can say it will lead to anything but homosexuals being proud and open in their relationships in public, and the only thing "Wrong" with that is that it highlights this social phenomenon that is found so "icky".
Who is damaged by it remaining illegal? Imagine if your relationship, even if tacitly allowed by the greater society, was denied its highest manifestation, marriage. Every day gay marriage is illegal, the state degrades the love of two people, not the backroom lust conjured up in your heads.
Which brings me back to my third question. I have a lot of friends who are gay, and have known countless other homosexuals. They are people, some bad, some wonderful, and it is all too easy to ignore this if you haven't interacted with an openly gay person. I believe that the only way to really understand and empathize with the plight of a person is to meet people like them, and to see that it wasn't necessary to meet them, because they have the same qualities which make us all human. I guarantee that if everyone took the time to sit down and have a conversation with a homosexual, look them in the eye, and tell them they are morally reprehensible, that your opinion of them as a group would change, even if you wouldn't admit it. You all probably know plenty of closeted homosexuals, statistically. People who have been struggling with their natural emotions because they have been told that they will burn in hell for it or lose their friends for it. Put yourself in that position.
And the fact that you would try and change a homosexual's sexuality sickens me. I can't be congenial about this point, because it's a deadly one to make. The suicide rate at "pray-away-the-gay" camps is disgusting. Again, if you knew as many homosexuals as I have known, you would understand that, whether you think it's a disease or a tendency you're born with, they definitely can't help it. And if it doesn't hurt anybody, why try to change them? Yeah, I know, I know, they'll go to hell, and so will you if you don't. But you are also subjecting them to a life of mental agony.
Imagine, for a second, being forced by your religion and society to sleep with your own gender for the rest of your life? Maybe you could get used to it, if you didn't want to be ostracized you'd have to, in fact. And maybe, through the power of religious and societal bombardment you might just start to confuse yourself into thinking you're gay. Or, maybe you'd KILL YOURSELF! But you would go your entire life without knowing joy in love, and that seems like a much bigger sin to me than being gay!
Why not let God judge them, then? They have all heard your crusades against their lifestyles too many times to count, you've done your jobs as "responsible Christians". Whether or not you intend your position as hate, it comes off as hate to the majority of outside observers, I'm sorry to say. At the very least, it's obvious that homosexuality is foreign and gross and a threat to decent civilization to those opposing gay marriage.
I do realize that the last paragraph started with a very theological argument, which I promised I wouldn't make, and one which I know that any studier of religious philosophy could dispute, including myself. The point, is, however, that love is devoid of judgment, it is unconditional, and that denying the healthiest manifestation of love, marriage (according to Christianity at least), means that you have passed judgment, and have played God for yourselves on an issue which begs this final question:
Why do you really care so much about denying gay marriage?
Ooohhhh,
I like Dustin.
So many points have been made since my last comment that I find it impossible to address them all. This topic runs very deep. There are many aspects to this issue which many of us can barely touch because, really, we know so little about certain parts--the psychology of homosexuality, for example.
A few quick thoughts, yes Katie, Science does disagree with me, but that wouldn't be the first time, nor does it make me wrong and science right. Science disagrees with many things which I believe to be true--I'm okay with that. Science is not always and exact science.
Dustin, I appreciate your input. And while you offer some great insight, there are many holes in your logic which we could probably go round and round about, so I will decline the opportunity to argue them.
I will not profess to have extensive relationships with gays, but I do have some. My most relevant associations are a co-worker at my current job, a friend (member of my hometown SDA church) and my uncle. I have no negative feelings towards any of these people, nor do I mull over how I might change their sexual preference. I do not consider their sexuality to be an issue between us; I never have.
Israel, I have come to respect you and your thought processes through our conversation. We may disagree in many ways, but perhaps not in all. I think we agree that the "systematic alienation of homosexuals" is a problem in our society. It seems you have emphasized that more strongly than I, while I emphasized God's intentions, a subject much deeper (as you seemed to point out) than we could begin to touch in this conversation.
I am a firm believer in revolutionary thinking. I pride myself on challenging the paradigms of the world and, from my observation, you are not exactly a conformist thinker.
While your arguments have been painted as the logical and mine the impersonal, I believe neither to be lacking in either quality. I have taken your arguments very seriously and I will likely remember this conversation for years to come. If nothing else, I have learned to consider my audience more carefully when expressing my ideas.
I applaud the earnest discussion in search of truth. This is democracy at its finest! (Al Gore would be proud.)
This is not an addition to said discussion, but simply a comment to Katie's blog.
Katie, I just read Anna Quindlen's editorial in this week's Newsweek, in which she compares today's struggle for same-sex marriage rights to the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia of 1967. The Court's decision was to declare laws banning mixed-race marriages as unconstitutional, though it is notable that the last of such laws was only recently repealed in Alabama in 2000. It it also notable that religious arguments were used to justify such laws.
In any case, I thought you might be interested.
Thank you, Dustin, for sharing your thoughts.
Ryan, you said that there were many holes in Dustin's logic but that you "decline the opportunity to argue them."
I'm interested to hear your, or anyone else's, response to one question that Dustin posed:
"1:Would you really be comfortable with the government using religion as morality? The religion clause of the first amendment, after all, was originally intended to protect sects like Seventh-Day Adventism. As Katie mentioned, the government, if given the license to use a religious text as law, would very well go against certain aspects of morality that even people who subscribe to the same text it is using believe in. If you cannot answer the point for why we should make an exception of separation of church and state for homosexuals, then you don't have an argument."
Why should we make an exception of separation of church and state for this issue?
Here is my response to Ben's comment, the question being, "Why should we make an exception of separation of church and state for this issue?"
First of all, I do believe church and state should be separate and that there should be no exceptions. As I stated previously I am uncertain of my position in relation to proposition 8 and others like it that disallow homosexual marriage.
My uncertainty comes from questioning whether this is a church and state issue for me. It may seem complicated to explain why I question that, but the following perspective may make sense.
Murder, theft and fraud are a few examples of state laws which have roots in religion. Each of these issues is addressed in the Ten Commandments, yet they have been adopted (and rightfully so) by secular society as crimes which are punishable by the law because they are harmful to society.
Homosexuality, as I see it, falls under the principle of the seventh commandment, yet its harm to society is a topic of great debate. Essentially, 'anti-gay' beliefs have been classified by modern society as religious-based, and therefore the state should not be involved in regulating the issue.
Personally, the issue is not a purely religious issue anymore than murder, theft or fraud. I believe it harmful to both the individuals and to society (as I stated, this is greatly debated). But for many religious people, this is may be a purely religious issue. I do not attempt to speak for all.
As stated in one of my previous comments, marriage of incest is prohibited in varying degrees by the laws of our country. This issue also could be portrayed as a religious issue (the Bible condemns incest also). Yet you don't see pro-incest rallies taking place on our streets because incest is still considered distasteful by the majority of society.
My conclusion may be very confusing in that, I support marriage only between one man and one woman. I think a law stating such would make sense. But I'm not sure this law should be passed in our society because it wouldn't be for the right reasons and it would smudge the boundaries of separation between church and state.
I honestly consider these issues and challenge my ideas on a daily basis so my opinion is still under construction. I don't mind if you challenge any of my points; maybe you see things differently. I may seem very stubborn in my ideas sometimes, but really I'm very open-minded.
i disagree so strongly with several things that have been said lately (such as whether it is possible to honestly consider yourself to be right when science gives solid evidence that you are wrong, or whether it is a valid statement to accuse someone's logic of having holes while refusing to address those holes). but i've drafted several replies to these comments and they all come across as angry or mean. so far someone else has nearly always said what i'm thinking; i hope that goes on.
ben, i appreciate your statements very much.
peter, i actually read that editorial this morning at work (before reading your comment!) and found it to be quite excellent. it is a good parallel, and one i think will turn out the same way. i just wish the discrimination didn't have to take place in the first place.
all of this talk and i STILL don't get it. i'm trying to understand, but i just don't understand how anyone could deny the gay and lesbian community the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals take for granted.
Katie,
I wasn't refusing to address those holes, I was simply declining because I felt it would take far too long and mind was bogging down with all the aspects of the argument.
I did however address some of those holes in my last comment answering Ben's question. You may not agree with them, but I see them as legitimate holes. No aspect of the argument is that simple.
It seems to me that most people involved in this discussion consider the bulk of the arguments against same-sex marriage to be rooted in religion. This would coincide with the correlation between religious concentration/intensity in a country and laws for and against homosexuality, with most Eastern European countries supporting same-sex couples, and many African and Central Asian countries banning homosexuality as a whole (Iran, Afghanistan, and Sudan, for example, prohibit homosexuality on penalty of death). The religious base for the arguments would explain why this is such a difficult topic in the United States, which houses both religious and secular proponents. These arguments are not entirely helpful in a conversation between persons of different religious understandings. Therefore, it may be better to find a common ground outside of religion where we could discuss without varying basic assumptions.
Ryan, you say:
"Personally, the issue is not a purely religious issue anymore than murder, theft or fraud. I believe it harmful to both the individuals and to society (as I stated, this is greatly debated)."
It would be useful to bring to light what backing you offer to the issue outside of religion. For example, if you have found a before-and-after study of effects of legal same-sex marriages on general social ethical behavior, it may be useful for all to see the results. Such studies should exist, as there are several countries which have legalized same-sex-marriages, and plentiful others that at least allow same-sex unions, and have for as long as 19 years.
For starters, a study of Denmark, the first country to allow same-sex unions (1989), concluded that, since the institution of same-sex couples, "rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage."
Additional similar studies would be useful for the continuation of common-ground discourse.
My opinion is that "I believe it harmful to both the individuals and to society". I said nothing of it having a negative effect on traditional marriage.
I think that a society is much safer when people are allowed to be their best selves, when people do not feel rejected, despised, or even pitied for loving someone. I also feel that their love will be healthier when they do not have to hide it, when they can be open about it with a community of people who love and respect them.
Also, while the ten commandments do include the commands not to murder, steal and lie, I also believe that those are moral instincts that most humans have. Where people do not know God or the Bible, they still have moral laws that they follow. (This is just my instinctual belief. I will research it more when I have a few more moments.) So I don't know if it's fair to say that the roots of those law are entirely in religion. In creating a new country or community, it seems a point of basic common sense because they obviously hurt others.
But the right for two people to join together in love and not hide who they are? It is not obvious that that would cause pain or damage to anyone. Lying about it for years causes pain to a lot of people: yourself, your family and friends that you lied to. That damages communities. Judgment also damages communities by breaking down trust. But allowing people to make their own choices even when you don't agree and letting their relationships be celebrated and recognized sounds like it can bring a lot of good and a lot of relief.
That's my small two cents to this excellent discussion.
Hello Ryan! Thank you for being so clear about your opinion. I'm sorry that I was not so clear. My proposition is that, if allowing same-sex marriage is, as you say, "harmful to both the individuals and to society," we should be able to observe such harmful effects in the societies where such an action has been allowed for years. It would be helpful for you to offer support for your belief beyond religion, as you say that this is not a purely religious issue, and as we are of diverse religions. Thank you.
I resonate deeply with Angela's words . And yes, wow, what a learning discussion! Thank you!
Katie,
I came as you requested and I find your blog very engaging, its good to see you’re your opinion has matured and changed over the years…however be mindful of the idiots you have lurking on your page, like ryan.
Ryan,
Its not that I don’t have the time to refute the dribble that spills from your mouth, it’s the simple fact that all of your arguments branch from your belief in an imaginary person. Why would anyone bother arguing or countering your views when their not based in reality? Do you argue with Special Ed. kids? The invisible man who had his crazy followers write him a book told me it was so, therefore it must be so.
A man lying with another man as he would a woman is an abomination. I get it, you’re book told you to be outraged and thus you are outraged. What about the other things the book tells you to do?
Anybody wearing a garment of two different threads needs to be burned.
Any farmer who has planted crops side by side needs to be killed.
Letting Cattle graze with other Cattle needs god's wraith.
Psychics, wizards, and witches are to be stoned.
If a pastor's daughter is a whore, she needs to be burned alive.
Prevent anybody who has a flat nose, or is blind, lame, deaf or deformed in anyway from praying at the altar of god.
You cannot cut your hair or shave.
Adultery results in death.
If you catch somebody molesting an animal, not only should he die, but the animal needs to die also.
Kill anyone with a different religion.
If you find out a nearby city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of its inhabitants... even the animals.
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshiping another God, kill them.
If a child hits or curses one of his parents they need to die.
Religious nuts groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host. You do what your god told you to do and if it doesn’t add up you throw your sticky little friend faith in the middle of it. Anything that doesn’t make sense, faith covers. I call it laziness but that will just be our difference of opinion. And if anyone calls out the bullshit you beat your drum and cry persecution.
The country was founded on Christian principles (slavery) so why shouldn’t Christianity guide our laws? I think adulterers should be stoned to death! Your side has stacked the Supreme Court for years now, our foreign policy reeks of evangelical influence, science has been hamstrung, and separation of church and state was proven a complete joke during the Prop 8 debate. Pastors preached politics from their pulpit and were still able to keep their tax free status.
The Mormon Church dumped millions into CA to help defeat the measure and yet they still have factions of crazies running loose in their own tent. Two guys can’t butt fuck in holy matrimony but some sick perverts can have six different underage wives because their religion says its right. If the Mormons really cared about stamping out polygamy they could have used those millions to help the FBI break up the rest of those sects. Focus on the Family dumped a cool half a million into defeating Prop 8 and now they’re forced to lay off about 200 people. Now I can see how gays affect marriages…those unemployed workers would still have their jobs if it wasn’t for the damn fags! I’m sure that it’s all part of God’s plan. I mean everything is how God laid it out. God causes people to be born gay and then saves them with his special appointed team of fixers!
Maybe Christians are nervous about gay marriage because you’re worried they’ll do it better than you. The divorce rate among Christian is around 50%. Not good stats for the morally superior. But where is the moral outrage about Las Vegas and their twenty four hour wedding chapels? What about forced marriages that still take place all over the world including our own country? We won’t give aid to certain countries if they talk about abortion, but what about a woman’s right to choose her husband?
But I’m at a complete loss to even try to understand what gay marriage has to do with anybody who isn’t gay. It doesn’t void your marriage. It doesn’t affect you in any way at all. Love your neighbor as yourself unless he’s gay (FYI it was Hillel not Jesus who said that) I love bigots who get to protect themselves with the claim of religious belief. I don’t respect your viewpoint or your beliefs. Go cry to your imaginary friend and find solace in his edited book.
Civil rights got passed and gay rights WILL get passed. The election spoke of a growing progressive majority. And while I don’t feel the Great Black Hope is going to back gay marriage, it’s going to have more of a chance under a godless democratic majority then the pious republicans.
--Katie it was fun reading your blog, and I’ll keep an eye on it. I’ll finish that reply email to you soon.
Sinfully,
Kevin
Hello my name is ben and i believe in the invisible man...um...i mean...God.
I believe in the God that played a role in designing this realm of space and time that we live in.
And i'm grateful that this God -- in different times, places, and people -- has chosen to show us glimpses of what God is and how we are related to it and to each other.
And i'm so sorry for the many times we have misinterpreted and abused our relationship with God and used it to exert power over others. Every time this happens -- and it happens over and over across time, distance, and cultures -- it is despicable. Detestable. Undefendable.
Even if it happened in The Bible.
I think man has been a poor liason for God to send messages to humanity. Rocks would have been a better choice.
We can never use our picture of God to justify granting privilege to ourselves while denying it to others.
Never.
We can never assume that the perspective we view God from can tell us anything about where another person stands in their relationship to God.
Never.
We can never use our belief in God as a legitimate argument to reject science.
Never.
Doing so only makes us look silly and makes ANY reasonable debate impossible.
We should argue the precision and the comprehension of science's knowledge of humanity, God, and our realm of existence. But science itself will do do this. Through competing theories about the properties of light, dark matter, superstrings, etc., we propel the conversation forward instead of denying its validity because it clashes with our religious worldview. If rocks are crying out too, we don't want to miss it.
We cannot claim to have the truth, but only to be seeking it. There cannot be an absolute truth. If there was an absolute truth, it could only be known through complete understanding. We will never have complete understanding and will never know absolute truth. And having partial truth and claiming that it's absolute is the worst form of ignorance.
The quest for absolute truth cannot be one of surety, but humility. Always being open to a greater understanding.
God is God. But God will always be shaded by the lens we view it through. Different religions -- because of culture, geography, time, history -- will see God through their own eyes, and will each see something different. Even referring to God as "He" is creating a context and a frame of reference for viewing God. Inviting others to see God from our vantage point is a beautiful thing, but applying our picture of God to someone else's actions is devastating for all parties involved.
Even God.
I honestly consider these issues and challenge my ideas on a daily basis so my opinion is still under construction.
Honestly, the paragraph that began with "God is black and white" scared me. It is a statement of religious fundamentalism that is so so dangerous. But Ryan's statement of being challenged and changed is beautiful. Expressing our ideas, engaging with others in a dialog and reexamining our biases and assumptions is so important. It needs to be a daily activity.
So katie, thanks for your beautiful post and the beautiful debate it sparked.
Kevin, I love you, even though you are sometimes not very gentle. Thank you for your comments. I can't believe you didn't make me cry more often in high school, since I was on the other side of things then.
Ryan, I am sorry for the manner in which my friend Kevin approached you because I don't think it's a very nice way to speak to people. But I have known Kevin for a very long time, and I believe in the goodness of his soul in spite of the, well, spite, of his words. I do think that he comes from a place of wanting good things for people. I hope you will believe that.
Ben, you are one of the truest Christians I know. Thank you for allowing room for all of us, even the atheists or agnostics among us, to understand and relate with God the best we can. I don't NOT believe in God. What I do believe looks very different than what you believe these days. And yet I think we're more alike than we are different, and I like that very much. I think you see that too and I'm very glad. You love so well. Thank you.
Eventually I feel that I will need to craft another post to sort of wrap all of this up. I'll wait until I think everyone is done, so it may be a couple more days. And my post might not do any "wrapping" whatsoever. Eventually, though, I will try to find a peaceful and beautiful way for us to move on with what we have learned from listening to one another.
kevin,
you are talking like a fundamentalist. but for the left.
be kind.
no one likes a sourpuss.
Ben,
Your comments on absolute truth seem to be contradictory to one another. First you say, "There cannot be an absolute truth." Then later, "The quest for absolute truth cannot be one of surety, but humility. Always being open to a greater understanding."
To reiterate and (hopefully) clarify my current position on the matter, I address one of your own statements:
"If there was an absolute truth, it could only be known through complete understanding. We will never have complete understanding and will never know absolute truth."
I agree with this statement. But I also believe that God has complete understanding. Therefore I define absolute truth as that which God knows and understands. God is unwaveringly Perfect, Just and Good.
God is by his very definition black and white, though "we will never have complete understanding and will never know absolute truth" and will never know exactly what black and white looks like.
Yet God reveals Himself to the willing--through scripture, through nature and through experience.
The danger comes not from believing God to be black and white or from believing in absolute truth, it comes when we as man set ourselves up as God and claim to be all-knowing. The danger comes when we play the role of the Holy Spirit believing that it is our responsibility to convict others of absolute truth.
But there is also a great danger in believing that we truth is gray and fuzzy. Jesus tells us that if we continue in his word, then we are his disciples, and we will know the truth and the truth will set us free.
I have known many Christians who seem to emphasize how impossible it is to know the truth. But the promise is unmistakable, that we can know truth if we search for it.
I consider this discussion to be very valuable. It has challenged me on many different levels and I think it is necessary for personal growth.
As Ben said, "Expressing our ideas, engaging with others in a dialog and reexamining our biases and assumptions is so important. It needs to be a daily activity."
Is there any way that we could create a blog that is dedicated to discussions much like this one? Would anyone be interested? I'm not exactly sure how it would work, but I'm not anxious for a very insightful conversation to simply end.
Perhaps, I should also address my argument against science as it relates to this discussion.
Katie brought up this point:
"One article i read stated that identical twins who share the same amniotic sac have the same sexual orientation, whether gay or straight, almost 100% of the time."
What about the rest of the 100%? Do we completely ignore those because most of the time identical siblings turn out to have the same sexual orientation?
What are the circumstances that allow for the similarities and the differences? Could it be that the environment in which the children are raised has a determining factor on their sexual orientation? Maybe there is an additional or alternative factor.
You simply cannot determine a child's sexual orientation at conception or even birth based on this study.
I learned in introductory Psychology that identical twins raised by completely different parents will often share similar personalities.
Now, if you consider that a large chunk of identical twins are raised by one set of parents (perhaps somewhere near 100%) it might be logical to wonder if sharing an identical environment had anything to do with those twins developing a shared sexual orientation.
I guess my point is that, science doesn't have all of the answers. A large group of scientists may conclude based on their research that sexual orientation is determined before birth, while another group of scientists may conclude something completely contradictory. The question is then, whose science is right?
Katie,
I am an ass. I’m not gentle, but I’ll try to play nicer with your friends. What I posted was my fourth rewrite because I felt the earlier versions were too harsh. Obviously my guidelines are different.
Wagner Israel Cilio iii,
There is a vast difference between being a fundamentalist and being passionate. I can be passionate about my viewpoint and yet I’m mindful enough that presented with evidence I can CHANGE my viewpoint. A fundamentalist will never change no matter what evidence is presented.
“…if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.” – Kurt Wise
Ben,
You interest me.
Ryan,
Science doesn’t have an answer, which is the point of theories. We prove what we can by what we know and it is always open to change or correction. We constantly test theories and when they don’t stand up we stop, take a look and create a new theory. People gather together to debate their theories and test others, somewhat like what we do here, except they’re ALL grounded in fact. Science never claims to be right, only that to the best of our knowledge, this is what happened or the reason behind it.
Religious types however consider themselves to have the truth. No matter what, the truth is set in stone and they have it in their corner. And that is bullshit. Christians persecuted people for doubting the world was flat. Hmm what do we teach in school now? Mental illness was due to sin? Christians have been on the wrong side of science 99% of the time, unless it backs their stipulated beliefs. You claim an all powerful god yet box him up into your preset mold. God has to be what the Bible says he is. Period. Evolution could be religion’s best friend. Evolution could be used to prove god far easier then creation. Polls show most religious people tend toward being agnostic or at the very most believing in God yet not buying the story of creation.
What makes more sense?
An individual knows that by causing a specific star to explode at a certain time LIFE will form millions of years later on the other side of the universe. That’s fucking power.
Or
A being that has existed before time began and will continue to exist after time ends, decides he must create a test tube society to prove some insurgent angel wrong, and in a week forms everything at once. Rather kind of god to decide to use only a week, which happens to be a human time measurement that we all can easily understand. And now only seven thousand years those who believe in his son, who is he, and their friendly sidekick Casper the holy Spirit who is also he, all those people will be saved by the god which is one and yet three, and taken to live in space while he takes 1000 years to recreate earth into what it would have been if it wasn’t for that damn Eve thinking for herself…or was it Adam thinking with the wrong head? And let’s not dwell on the fact god can create a world in a day from nothing but needs one thousand years to remodel it…like an unreliable contractor…lets just be happy that we will live forever instead of burning forever. All because god loves us enough to not burn us, unlike those poor souls who our kind loving god keeps alive just to suffer because they chose to disagree with him.
Personally I believe neither of those.
Science tells us that we all start out as female and those of us who get to be males are chosen in the womb, but it’s not possible that sexual preference could be determined as well?
Science proves to the best of our knowledge that gay parents do not cause gay kids. However those kids are more likely to reject traditional gender roles. So maybe in their house daddy stays home with the kids and mommy earns the bread.
I would prefer a gay kid verses one who had been molested by his priest. Or some other spiritual leader, but that’s me.
You seem to have an issue with gays and I would like to know why.
I won’t question your sexuality; I don’t care if you enjoy boobies or cock, but explain why you don’t like gay people.
God cannot be perfect, just and good. It’s impossible. And to answer that we don’t understand god’s plan isn’t an answer. Not a real answer. It’s a crutch.
And finally, if you would (which you won’t and you and I know this, but we’ll pretend for the rest of them) before you start your next comment referring to your imaginary friend would you please prove that he exists. If I quote the flying spaghetti monster you would cry for me to prove that he exists. And yet you can base your arguments on the fact that god exists because your parents told you he was real, just like their parents did, so on and so forth through generations.
I don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist. I’m not claiming to be inspired by something imaginary. You however have based your life on something and I would like you to prove god exists. (Pick a time and I’ll go outside to be struck by lightning.)
While you’re gathering your evidence think on this, and this I cribbed from Dawkins.
“If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent” – Richard Dawkins
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the Future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?
- Karen Owens
It’s late and I’m tired, forgive any spelling/grammar mistakes. Katie, talk to you later.
Sinfully,
Kevin
kevin,
there are also passionate fundamentalists. and you sound like one of those. i even agree with everything you said. completely. science is logical. oppression is evil. equality for everyone. i think you are adding an intelligent direction to the discussion but also invalidating it with your rhetoric.
"___________ groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host."
fill in the blank with 'blacks', 'liberals', 'christians', 'gays', 'pro-lifers', 'republicans' and you have typical fundamentalist rhetoric.
Maybe Christians are nervous about gay marriage because you’re worried they’ll do it better than you.
straw man: you just created this problem from speculation and then attacked it.
be mindful of the idiots you have lurking on your page, like ryan.
ad hominem
i feel like you are very intelligent and have very good points but you're not being nice and no one is going to listen to you if you insult them and call them idiots.
srzly.
Israel,
Passionate fundamentalists…don’t exist. To be passionate about something, say Star Wars or coffee, you can speak to what you know about it, you can defend/argue/change your mind. I had a friend who is a passionate comic book collector. I am not. So I will tread lightly. Every few years in any series different writers will try something ground breaking and controversial, a new origin for a favorite character, an important character like Captain America dies. They mix it up. Comic book fans read, and then discuss with each other what they liked, didn’t like and how they feel its going to affect their comic book world going forward. They DO NOT deny that said event happened. They don’t thump their older comic books and say nope, never happened see Batman is still ok. Something in the Cannon has changed and they keenly debate whether they liked it or not. That’s Passionate.
A fundamental person is not passionate. They are beyond passionate. Their belief is infallible. Their belief is right. And in the dogma of most religions your failure to believe what they believe is justification in their holy book for your death.
“A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles 'Islamic fundamentalism' 'political fundamentalism'”
"___________ groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host."
fill in the blank with 'blacks', 'liberals', 'christians', 'gays', 'pro-lifers', 'republicans' and you have typical fundamentalist rhetoric.
All groups cannot be lumped into one solid reference host. Here is what I said because referencing oneself provides a chance to do revisionist history and tweak the original statement.
Religious nuts groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host. You do what your god told you to do and if it doesn’t add up you throw your sticky little friend faith in the middle of it. Anything that doesn’t make sense, faith covers. I call it laziness but that will just be our difference of opinion. And if anyone calls out the bullshit you beat your drum and cry persecution.
How does that not apply to religious nuts? (Should have been ‘Religious Nut groups’, so I’m revising my bad typing.) I stated nothing that would differentiate from Islam or Christianity, I said all religious nuts follow what their god tells them to do and if it doesn’t add up they say faith, and if they’re attacked they cry foul. We get angry at Baptist Pastors who defame Islam as a violent faith. Christians get the Ten Commandments taken down and they cry persecution. As a culture we view it as not fair to lump the crazies in with the moderates. Try lumping in one of your groups into that.
"Republican groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host."
"pro-lifer groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host."
"liberal groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host."
"black groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host."
"christian groups can all be lumped into one solid reference host."
It doesn’t work, (beware potential straw man approaching) because not all republicans hold the same values. What about the Log Cabin republicans? If all republicans held the same values why would we have primaries? Not all pro-lifers hold the same viewpoints. Some view health risks to the mother, incest or rape as valid reasons to abort, yet will still identify themselves as pro-life. Some are anti-abortion and pro-war which has resulted in the death of thousands innocent Iraqis. Yet they call themselves pro-life. The Pope is pro-life, antiwar, anti-contraceptives, anti-abortion, possibly anti-death penalty (not 100% sure) by what about anti-poverty? A pregnant child living on the streets gives birth to a baby she cannot support. The baby lived and wasn’t aborted but now faces a pitiful life with little chance to survive sickness, starvation, or get the opportunity to advance themselves because the mother couldn’t pull her self up, how is she now going to support her and the baby?
Black groups. Would the NAACP be the same as the Black Panthers? I know you’re not racist, but black groups were a poor choice here because they can only be lumped together for racist jokes. Who likes watermelon and malt liquor? Black People!
And liberals can’t agree on anything. So unless you group them together as bickering children, the example doesn’t work.
I get your point, but I think you’re off mark. I feel you can lump religious nuts together but most other people. It is not typical fundamentalist rhetoric. The Bible and the Koran both call for the death of nonbelievers. Most Christians don’t call for that, but the Crazies call for the death of gays. Most Muslims don’t call for the death of Infidels; the crazies however get drafted and blow themselves and others up for a bunch of virgins. (I would opt for slutty soccer moms but that’s me.) We condemn the radical Muslim clerics for calling for the death of Infidels and yet give people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson front and center stage and immunity against their horrid viewpoints. Falwell said we deserved 9/11 due to the gay agenda. Robertson prayed for the President of a Country to be assassinated. Haggard can call for the death of gays and when he’s busted for a sexual affair with a gay man while on meth we accept that his thirty days of treatment at some Christian facility is enough penance and he’s allowed back into the spot light and his word is still gold. I can call the Nuts all the same. I can lump the Nuts all together.
I don’t view this statement as a straw man argument:
Maybe Christians are nervous about gay marriage because you’re worried they’ll do it better than you.
That’s just me being coarse, and setting up where I can use my statistics (because statistics are fun.) and I get to finish off with listed hypocrisies about not caring about forced marriage or 24 wedding chapels. That’s how I generally talk/argue/interact and if it was my only argument and what I based my entire post on, then yes it would be a straw man argument. But I didn’t create a problem, I posed a question.
Calling Ryan an idiot and using that to transition into my post isn’t argumentum ad hominem. Calling Ryan an idiot and changing the conversation to Ryan’s college records and sub par performance at school is argumentum ad hominem.
I understand your concern/advice, but I’m not here to convert, I’m not here to be respected. I disagree with said bigot and I’m going to tell him so. I use terms like idiot because my normal discourse would include calling him a cocksucker. If you’d like me to be nicer, ask me to be nicer, don’t sugar coat with people might not listen, or that it subverts my argument. My argument isn’t going to convince anybody. Its going to piss them off enough to do research themselves.
You’re very polite in your posts, there is a between the lines derision, and some witty usage that successfully calls people idiots, you just don’t use the word. Stupid people don’t get your type of argument. If everyone is so polite and so happy for the great discussion this is provoking then nobody is taking anything away from it. If I piss you off then most normal people will go look up what I’m saying to refute me, being I’m the asshole who called you names and this time you’re coming back armed. Your version is going over their level of understanding and then playing nice towards the end. So they reply with their point and everything you said had no effect on them at all. Nobody has learned anything, but everyone has enjoyed the respected discourse. You disagree with Ryan yet applaud him for standing up for his viewpoint. Yet you find his viewpoint wrong. So when do you step out of your box and tell him that his viewpoint is wrong. Saying to each their own isn’t going to do it. Accepting his use of the supernatural in an argument/debate with you if you don’t believe in it isn’t going to help you show him he’s wrong. And if you’re not going to prove him wrong, then why debate issues anyway?
Its telling that you’re the one replying to me, and not Ryan. Not telling of anything about you, but if you can’t stand up to a guy on the internet who calls your god imaginary then the ‘end times’ are gonna suck for you.
srzly. ---what is that? Seriously? Or your signature?
And no I’m not trying to start a bloody flame war with you. Katie talks about you, and I’d like to see what she sees.
Sinfully,
Kevin
I would first like to start my comments by saying that I am a Christian. I am saying this so those of you that want to turn your ears off to what I'm going to say can do so and the rest can understand where I am coming from.
The issue of belief in creation or evolution is an issue of faith no matter which stance you take. Belief in God and creation takes faith. Belief in Evolution and its many theories takes faith. The reason that both require faith is that neither can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Creation takes faith in the existence of a supernatural being. Evolution takes faith in imagined circumstances.
In terms of creation:
Science has not been able to prove that God exists. Science has not been able to prove that God does not exist. Science has shown that "miraculous events" occur; happenings that are beyond the scope of explanation wether medical miracles or natural phenomenon. Science tells us that the original manuscripts that comprise the Bible are the oldest known to man (there are writings that are said to be from older sources such as the Iliad and the Odyssey but in terms of original manuscripts there are none older). Science is not able to determine if many of the events and individuals in the Bible ever existed.
In terms of evolution:
Science has been able to show the existence of micro-evolution. It has been able to determine that the big bang theory could have occurred. It has been able to prove that rocks and other inorganic matter has existed on this planet for potentially billions of years (certainly millions). What it has not been able to prove is how life originated. It has shown how in a prehistoric world a primordial soup could have existed and that the building blocks of life - such as nucleic acids, compound sugars, and other essential compounds could have spontaneously formed in this environment through the outside influence of photons from the sun. It has not been able to prove that any life would have spontaneously formed (even with the outside influence of photons from the sun). Science has no proof of how so many different organisms could have formed from a single cell if that cell could have spontaneously formed. Science has proven that DNA is the essence of an organisms form and function. DNA dictates what an organism will be and what function each cell of that organism will perform. To date science has no evidence of how DNA would have been formed through the process of evolution (there is so many more scientific details about this process that I will not get into them here as it would constitute a very large "lecture" and I don't want to get hung up on this but would be happy to discuss with anyone further in terms of the Science behind it, ask me and I'll start an e-mail conversation with you. I'm no expert but I have done a lot of research).
It is clear that neither set of beliefs can be proven or justified by science however for me I believe in creation and God. As I said earlier I would gladly discuss the particulars and details more if anyone is interested.
Now onto the topic that got all of this started. Please read everything I have to say about this and don't jump to conclusions based on my first few sentences. I do not believe that people were ever intended to be homosexual. This belief is not based solely on what is said in the Bible either. If you truly believe in evolution then you must also believe in natural selection. Therefore since the whole process of evolution and natural selection depends upon an organisms ability to adapt itself through subsequent generations than the fact that homosexuality removes the ability to procreate states that it would naturally weed itself out of the gene pool. However there is no evidence that homosexuality is an inherited trait (I know many children of homosexuals who do not share the orientation of their parent). Therefore if (and I believe that its true in many cases) homosexuality is a genetic issue it must be a mutation that occurs outside of normal heredity. However I also believe that cancer is something that was never intended to be as well (this is also a genetic mutation). So since we are talking about a genetic mutation the laws of natural selection would state that if it is a mutation that doesn't advance the organism it will die off. Using reverse logic this would state that homosexuality is not a part of the intention of evolution.
Having stated all of that I DO NOT believe that homosexuals should be denied the rights that other monogamous couples have. They should not be treated differently for their life choices. Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Do I believe that I have a right to judge that person and treat them differently because of it? Absolutely not. I personally have never had a struggle with homosexuality. I have had thoughts at times in my life (which if everyone is honest with themselves they have too) but I have never felt compelled to act on them. However I don't believe I was born with a genetic disposition for it, and therefore I have no basis to criticize someone who has. Who am I to deny them the most beautiful and wonderful gift that God has given us, Love? I know many homosexuals. Some are in wonderful monogamous relationships and others are suffering with AIDS because of their promiscuous lifestyle (which is more a result of the promiscuity than the fact that they are homosexuals). Some choose to deny themselves and not act upon their desires because of their beliefs. No matter what their circumstances, or anyones, I believe that Jesus loves us all and died for us all.
One more thought on all of this as I feel I can't conclude without making this statement. This question is for those of you that have commented on this blog that do not believe in God or have been strongly against anything Christian. Is it truly God that you don't believe in or is it that at one point in your life you did believe in Him but people in your life hurt you terribly and did it using God as the excuse/reason? Most of the people I have met and spoken with in my life that do not believe in God or Christianity take that stance out of anger towards people who have hurt them and judged them. If this is true for you I would encourage you not to let the imperfection and ugliness of sinful people keep you away from the source of all love and goodness. If your anger is not due to other individuals but it is with God for something that did or did not happen in your life I challenge you to take God to task over it and see if He responds. I'm not so much asking you to believe He exists....more in the possibility that He exits. I hope to get to know each of you more and would welcome further conversation on any of these topics. Katie has my e-mail if any of you want it.
Andrew
why are we working so hard to do something that isn't going to change the conversation?
you can have all the right answers and still be mean. but if you're mean, no one will want to listen to you. and then it doesn't matter if you're right or not. because you're not being heard.
Andrew included in his thoughts the basic idea that I am about to share.
Kevin,
You're right. I cannot prove that God exists. I never have been and I probably never will. God simply cannot be proven. I have never seen him, heard him or touched him; and even if I had, how would I have known he was really God?
But I might ask you to prove that God does not exist, and you would not be able to do so. The inability to disprove any theory leaves room for the possibility that the given theory is true.
Since I cannot rely on scientific facts to prove (or disprove) God, I turn to experience to draw my conclusions. My experience tells me there is a God.
It's amazing the sense of completeness that I have after spending just a short time devoted to praying to this invisible being--and how empty I feel after neglecting for some time. I can feel him drawing me to himself.
That's why I believe he is real. Not because an old book says he exists. Not because science has proven it. But because I've experienced him.
Andrew, I would value a continued conversation with you. I am interested in what you have to say.
kevin,
i feel like following a semantic thread down a hole with you won't get us anywhere. i don't feel i was sugarcoating anything. the imperative command 'be kind' effectively, i feel, reveals my intentions. i don't understand how your response addressed this point. i feel like you've just proved my point: the way you polarize and pontificate makes you sound exactly like a fundamentalist. humans are more complicated than that. even the 'crazies'.
i think there other, less manipulative, ways to get people to research for themselves.
you are not listening. only talking.
my point was simple. i really have nothing to add.
l8r.
Interesting thread. A few comments from an OG (Original Gangsta or Old Guy):
1. I spent two years researching this topic (um, the earliest one)and ended by publishing the 10,400-word article in a magazine, the first official major treatment in an Adventist publication, and now published in a book (Swimming Against the Current). All sexuality is incredibly complex. But the idea that homosexuality is a "choice" is inaccurate. People may choose to be pan-sexual (with anyone--not a reference to cookware), but gays and lesbians know they are different from before the age of accountability. I well remember a gay asking a gathering of mostly heterosexuals, "When did you decide to be hetersexual?" I couldn't say. Can you?
2. Labels of "conservative" and "liberal"--and, increasingly, "fundamentalist"--tend to be outmoded, reactionary, imprecise, and inaccurate. If you're going to use them, define your terms. At least Kevin defined fundamentalists as, basically, rigid, blind, arrogant morons. Okay, at least now we know what he means.
3. Speaking of arrogance, "Surely we cannot take an open question like the supernatural adn shut it with bang, turning the key of the madhouse on all the mystics of history. You cannot take the region called the unknown and calmly say that though you know nothing about it, you know that all the gates are locked" (G.K. Chesterton). To that should be added H.L. Mencken: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beatiful and his children smart."
4. My son, Geoff, is an Adventist pastor who actively campaigned against Prop. 8. I signed a document against it, based on many factors (See the Spectrum magazine blog for a fuller discussion.) My daughter-in-law, Natalie, made friends while campaigning with Geoff in San Diego. One Saturday fter she marched holding a sign that said "Pastor's wife against Prop. 8," a lesbian told her, "I used to be a Christian. You make me feel like God is whispering to me, 'Don't give up on me yet.'"
5. Keep communicating. I hear it's the key to life.
Sinfully,
Chris
Actually, Chesterton and Mencken can spell words like "and" or "beautiful." SAT*.
* ("Sorry about that." Which is how I felt when I took my SAT.)
Thanks for sharing those thoughts Chris. I plan to read your Spectrum article over the long weekend. I loved your story about you DIL.
Mr. Blake,
If you're still reading along, I would ask you to expand on a particular idea. You said that "the idea that homosexuality is a 'choice' is inaccurate." I haven't really considered homosexuality to be a choice, more so a reaction.
As I have said, my uncle is gay. I am told that my uncle experienced a lot of abuse in his childhood, not only from his father. He was beat up by one of his brothers at the bus stop every morning before school.
I guess I have always considered homosexuality to be my uncle's reaction to being abused as a child. He didn't find the love and approval that he needed from his father or older brother, so he began desiring it and seeking for it more intensely as an adult.
During my intro to Psych class, I remember the professor saying that statistically homosexuals are most often the youngest sibling. The implication from his perspective seemed to be that homosexuality was linked to being treated a certain way due to being the youngest sibling.
My uncle is also the youngest sibling.
I cannot say that I have done years of research, but I have done some and it seems like there is research supporting both sides of the 'nature vs. nurture' debate.
As I said, I challenge my ideas on a daily basis and this issue is no different.
(I guess my bold and italics don't transfer from word, if any need clarification on something that should be in bold or italics ask me)
Forgive me for taking so long to reply, I’d like to say I’ve been fervently researching my response but alas I work retail and the last few days have blended together. So now I have numerous posts that need responding to. It the words of the creepy hamster from Bolt “Let it begin!” (And for Israel, I’ve tried to tone down my angry rhetoric. We’ll see how it goes.)
Andrew,
To begin, I loved that your addition to our discussion was two pages long, at times I feel bad for typing so much, or just taking that much space to get my point out there. It’s nice to have something in common. I did not turn off my ears and I had a few comments on your post.
I don’t believe that it takes faith to accept evolution as the origin of life. I DO understand that argument, but I’m not sure from which angle you meant it. It seems a common misconception, possibly NOT by you, of religious folks to view atheism or evolution as a religion in itself. And if not a religion, at least something of a lower magnitude that has belief guidelines and a form of doctrine/dogma. I disagree with that misconception.
I don’t believe evidence supports any god described in any religious text to be the creator of life. However I feel science offers what we know best as reasons for how we came about. Could science eventually prove that it all points back to an intelligent designer? Sure, but what would make it the Christian God, or the Muslim God? And then science would need to explain who created the creator. I’ll touch base on this part later as it ranges away from my current point, but proof of a higher being or supernatural hand in the beginning of life doesn’t justify or prove religion as right.
But for our conversation here, I’ll take your premise that Evolution takes faith in imagined circumstances. And currently most theories would/could fall under ‘imagined’ but we’re getting closer and closer to being able to recreate those circumstances. This summer proton beams were successfully circulated in the main ring of the Large Hadron Collider for the first time. And something about two magnets being faulty has caused it to be postponed until 2009. But come that day in 2009 we might be able to recreate the big bang and moments afterward. There seems to be some truth to the ‘God Gap’ arguments, that what science can’t explain we find god in those gaps, however the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. I guess what I truly love about evolution is it’s openness…there is no strict doctrine that says the origin of life took place in seven days and what order everything was created from light to polar bears. I think that is one of the biggest faults with any religion, (but due to your belief: Christianity) that the group will define their god to what some book says. Or some long held belief states as true, that most Christians/Muslims, will never look outside their ‘four walls’ to see what is out there. The argument for creation and intelligent design borders on dangerous for your group. Yes we prove god created the universe, this will be the same proof that we’ve used to say the earth is millions of years old, and most of evolution, (because evolution and the origin of life are two different theories) meaning the existence of this god/creator will most likely prove your religion false.
Yes I don’t believe in god, but I can image the awe of some child looking at our solar system and believing god made that. But why did god have to make it in a week? Does the time frame really make god less powerful?
I’m skipping the ‘In terms’ paragraphs, I agree that any debate going back and forth about DNA, or Miracles will seem like an lecture to anybody not involved and would be pointless to the overall argument. One of us conceding a minor point doesn’t change the overall debate. However I feel some of those points under the evolution section could be misleading to average readers. And Andrew DID NOT say this, but I’m merely using it as an example:
I would like to humbly add that evolution does not push the idea that the eye just popped out as we know it. To use an example that worked for me, picture a mountain with a sheer cliff on one side and a slow gradual slop on the other. The eye that you use now is at the peak of said mountain, evolution is often misleading blamed for saying the eye just formed, as if one could scale a sheer cliff that quickly! Evolution actually puts forth that over time, say MILLIONS of years the eye slowly developed into different stages as life progress through its different forms. And it took the slow gradual route to the peak of Mt. Example. Now back on topic.
Andrew, you and I don’t differ much at all on the issue of homosexuality. I’m aware most religious folks are tolerant, just as I’m also aware most religious folks don’t really know what they profess faith in. But they’re there for church or to protest Prop 8 and abortion clinics when needed, as long as they’re home before the game starts.
However I feel you’re wrong on the natural selection part. Gay people can procreate and have kids, just not with their lovers. History shows rulers with mistress who still produced a valid heir. And natural selection is more an argument for the creation of complex organisms from simpler beings. I can see the mutation argument, but I would still raise issues. Yes in a Garden of Eden, cancer like homosexuality would be a sin, and therefore result in death. If we did evolve, there is no reference book to look at, what’s to say cancer and other diseases aren’t normal for an evolved species?
I have one question before I move on, I support you saying hetero and homo couples should have the same rights, and that you have no right to judge or treat them differently, but yet you call it a sin. Why do you pick certain parts of the bible to follow on this? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want you trying to stone gay people, I’m just curious. Because if you feel parts of the Bible to be outdated, doesn’t that raise issues in your heart about the basis of your belief? Sorry that was two questions.
Andrew, I enjoyed you post, seriously. You at least have taken the time to research the ‘other side’ enough to have a debate with it. And forgive me for speaking of the future, but I have an idea what your response to at least one of my questions will contain. And I must say that if moderates, people who can believe in their version of god without condemning the rest of us to hell were to take control of the party and get the crazy stuff off of your official cannon, I’m sure you’d find many a disbeliever far more open to discussion. (Not me personally, but I’m sure they’re out there)
Emily… I don’t understand this:
Emily said...
why are we working so hard to do something that isn't going to change the conversation?
I get the last part, about being mean, but the first part I do not understand what you mean. Please elaborate. And have no fear of me being mean to you, my bma legend is just hype, except the baseball bat and kid’s balls story. That and Katie’s little sister gets immunity.
Ryan,
What Andrew did was present his ‘belief’ with proof and at least a sound argument to back it up.
And while I feel the closing line of your opening paragraph debunks the rest of your argument, I have never seen him, heard him or touched him; and even if I had, how would I have known he was really God, I will continue anyway.
I don’t need to prove god exists. I DON’T base my life on what his will or demands are.
But you’re right, I cannot disprove god, just like I cannot disprove Apollo, Calypso or Thor. I cannot disprove Fairies either.
“To believe in an unlikely event or a deity only because we cannot disprove it, sounds foolish to me.” – Richard Dawkins
Since I cannot rely on scientific facts to prove (or disprove) God, I turn to experience to draw my conclusions. My experience tells me there is a God. It's amazing the sense of completeness that I have after spending just a short time devoted to praying to this invisible being--and how empty I feel after neglecting for some time. I can feel him drawing me to himself.
At the start you said you have never seen, touched, or heard god, yet you’ve experienced him because you’ve prayed. Whether out loud or to oneself you spent time in meditation and felt better at the end of it. Numerous eastern religions have that same practice, some of them don’t believe in a deity. How does prayer demonstrate god? It just proves you feel better after downloading your problems to someone you feel is listening to you.
I view religion as a crutch. People need it to feel better about themselves and do better for themselves. They could pay tithe, be devout, sincere Christians and life could still suck ass, and they would merely say I’m not doing right by god. I must be doing something wrong. You’re never good enough for god. That’s why his love is a gift. Watch Jesus Camp, this lady mental breaks these kids down and then right as they feel worthless she offers them a life line, Jesus. You’re a piece of shit (not you ryan) but here’s the only way out. Who wouldn’t take it? There is no point to your life without Jesus. I guess if my life had no point at all, I would grasp onto the one thing that seems to give it direction, which because of where you were born happens to be the Christian god Jesus Christ. Hope you realize if you were born elsewhere it could have been Allah!
Here’s a quote from a book you should read:
We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad’, ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional’…Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.
--Sam Harris
The End of Faith
Israel,
Human/Crazies are not complicated. Want to win an election in the south? Run an ad campaign that says your opponent wants to ban the bible. Regardless of the truth, the religious will come out in droves to vote against your godless rival. That’s not complicated, that’s stupidity. Humans might like to portray themselves as complicated. But we’re not. Everybody has select things that will trigger responses in them. That’s not complicated.
Since you don’t get my point, or since I’ve proven your point because I polarize and preach, and that you seem to forget I’m an ass by nature, then Israel I accept that I’m a fundamentalist. Though what exactly am I a fundie about? I’m a little lost. What’s my guiding light here? Where to I get my marching orders? Do I get to kill people who don’t agree with me? And if tomorrow Zeus reigns lightening down on Chicago do I get to change my opinion that there is no god?
You don’t feel you were sugarcoating anything? Let’s look.
i think you are adding an intelligent direction to the discussion but also invalidating it with your rhetoric.
i feel like you are very intelligent and have very good points but you're not being nice and no one is going to listen to you if you insult them and call them idiots.
And the ‘invalidating it with your rhetoric’ and ‘you’re not being nice and no one is going to listen’ must be your imperative commands to be nice.
i don't understand how your response addressed this point. i feel like you've just proved my point: the way you polarize and pontificate makes you sound exactly like a fundamentalist. humans are more complicated than that. even the 'crazies'.
Which point? You raise two separate points there. That I’m mean? Or that me being mean makes me a fundamentalist? If it went along the same lines as ‘be nice or nobody will listen’ then I’m not sure how I didn’t address that. I guess my pointing out the difference our debating/talking styles must have missed the mark. Not really sure how, but obviously you didn’t get it. Well sorry but I don’t care.
Or maybe it’s the point that being mean is fundamentalist, that I am the evil I rant against…I’m not sure where my arguments lost you, am I not allowed to reference examples of what I’m talking about? Is that what I polarized?
Me calling someone stupid for their belief is manipulative? How do you get people to research for themselves? I’m lying to people to trick them into something?
“Gee that was a great debate, I don’t agree with anything you said, but wow do I respect it.”
Got a lot of people researching their personal decisions that way? Shit straw man argument, couldn’t be mockery, has to be a straw man.
You seem to be able to call me out about being mean, yet not your friends about things you consider wrong. Do you have a problem testing your convictions against your friends? Scared they won’t hold up?
I’m not listening or you’re not understanding?
And for having a simple point you really missed. Let me put in bold what I said before about being nice and sweet.
I understand your concern/advice, but I’m not here to convert, I’m not here to be respected. I disagree with said bigot and I’m going to tell him so. I use terms like idiot because my normal discourse would include calling him a cocksucker. If you’d like me to be nicer, ask me to be nicer, don’t sugar coat with people might not listen, or that it subverts my argument. My argument isn’t going to convince anybody. Its going to piss them off enough to do research themselves.
Maybe the second time around you won’t miss it. And put a little more effort into calling me a fundamentalist. Your group example failed. Epic Fail since we’re using internet terms.
Srzly weak sauce.
Chris,
I haven’t spent two years researching homosexuality. I’ve read things here and there, and I recall a study of a brain to see if one was born gay that was a little inaccurate due to the fact that the brain will rewrite its sexual orientation at some point. I’m honestly fuzzy on the article, but the findings where inconclusive to prove either way.
I don’t like the teenagers that ‘go’ gay, or bi to fit in. It’s like a version of smoking or drugs, find something that gets you accepted by somebody. My brother-in-law bats for the other team. However, he was once seriously engaged (to a chick), had regular sexual activity and at some point she dumped him. Soon after that he was gay. Years passed. While I was dating his sister far away from him, he suddenly met a chick, dumped his current serious boyfriend, got engaged again and then called it off all within a six week period. I feel that he’s fine to screw whatever he wants as long as he, she, or it consents and is of age and their both happy. And while I personally don’t care what they do, I feel it detracts from legitimate homosexuals trying to get rights they deserve, because religious nuts, crazies, fundamentalists, whatever the term, can hold up examples of ‘cured’ homosexuals and say ‘see its all fake’.
My use of fundamentalist could be considered all of the adjectives that you used. However until I create or find a better term to use in our modern times, I feel that it fits what I’m trying to describe. And while most religious people don’t fit my bill of fundamentalist, none of you seem to have the balls to kick the people that do out of your group. Nor to censure them and their extreme reading of your holy book, they’re given a stage and allowed to spew whatever they feel is god inspired. I feel that is bullshit. You moderates should take over.
Someone who states that New Orleans got what it deserved cause of gays, should have a harder time finding a job then a convicted felon. When it comes to religion, we award stupidity and allow bigots.
Sinfully,
Chris
You sir may steal my valediction. Beware of which Adventist circles you use it in for it has a slight notoriety.
That’s all I have for now, till next time. Though who wants to bet the events in India are due to a religious group??? Any takers?
Sinfully,
Kevin
Kevin--
my point was this: you can yell and scream till you are blue in the face trying to get your point across, but in the end, all your left with is a blue face. you're not changing the conversation by being a jerk. how do you think that calling people names, making generalizations, and spewing hateful words is going to make them agree with you? or help your cause? the fact is, the conversation of ideas and opinions that were shared here will always exist because we will never all come to the same conclusion. but a conversation is an exchange. i can't listen to you when you're screaming so loud all i hear is the hate in your voice, and not your words. what i hear in your writing is the same sentiment that is in the looks i get from the little old church lady when my skirt is too short. isn't that what you're trying so hard to run from? we may not be able to change the conversation, but at least having an exchange that is built upon love and open communication opens a door for understanding. i don't even want to try to understand you when i read your words. it just makes me want to tune you out.
Emily,
God it would have been easier to say that the first time around don’t ya think? If this is me yelling, or previous post are me yelling and being mean then ok. You have no tolerance for my type of hate and dribble. Yet you seem quite fine to reply to other people when they call your beliefs a pathetic mistake, or tradition. If I beat around the bush can I be a hateful bastard too? But here’s what is so great about this…I didn’t scream until I was blue in the face, I haven’t opened my Wrath of Kevin can, and yet I have changed the conversation by being a ‘jerk’. You don’t want to understand NOT because of my hateful words, but because you have no response to the core argument, no matter how I ‘damage’ it with my rhetoric, that I’m presenting. So instead you say stop being an ass, except you use the word mean, and that you would rather tune me out due to my use of language and verbal battery.
But prove me wrong and respond to this: (and I’ll be as nice as possible)
1. You’re a Christian. One would therefore assume you follow Christian doctrine and hold the bible to be at the least the inspired word of god. So how many of these laws do you follow?
• Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12)
• Kill Witches (Exodus 22:17)
• Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
• Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27)
• Death for Hitting Dad (Exodus 21:15)
• Death for Cursing Parents (Leviticus 20:9)
• Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
• Death for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9)
• Death to Followers of Other Religions (Exodus 22:19)
• Kill False Prophets (Zechariah 13:3)
• Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
• Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
• Death for Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)
And if you don’t follow these laws, why not?
2. Please explain to me how the Bible was formed. Forget the Old Testament which embarrasses Christians; just tell me how the New Testament came into being. Who wrote it and when?
3. Why does science need to prove (either way) that homosexuals are born how they are? And more importantly why does it matter to you? Why would it be any of your business if a homosexual couple wants to get married and have the same rights for their spouse as heterosexual couples? Why should their lives be affected by your religion?
4. Clarify a few things for me:
What, other than religious nuts, have I generalized? And how was my generalization of religious nuts wrong?
When did I offer any evidence that I want people to agree with me? And what’s my cause? Yours would be getting to heaven to live forever…mine?
How is your exchange built upon love and openness? Because you refuse to hold people accountable for their views? If you take issue with gays you’re a bigot. But I should love you and respect you and not challenge your bigoted views because their protected by a holy book?
Why is Islam wrong and Christianity right?
And how do you expect to come to any other conclusion then the one you brought when you bring faith into your arguments (not with me, but your previous posts)?
“I cannot answer why I believe in ‘A’ but my faith tells me its right. So you cannot question my belief because that is unfair.”
5. In which Ten Commandments set is the Honor the Sabbath day the fourth? There are a few different versions of the Ten Commandments in different bibles/denominations and in the book of Exodus and I’m wondering which one you’re referring to.
I’m not running from the oppressive nature of ‘the church’ because they might judge me. Why would I care if somebody who believes this: (thought continued at bottom of list)
• In the time of ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.
• The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.
• The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried for three days.
• Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.
• If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his ‘father’ (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.
• If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.
• Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), ‘become’ the body and blood of the fatherless man.
---cribbed from dawkins
(continued thought) thinks that I’m going to burn in hell forever and ever because I don’t buy their bullshit? I’m not a member or believer in ‘the church’ so they can judge all they want. Their wasted time, not mine.
You’re more then welcome to take your religion, wrap yourself in it and avoid reality. But don’t get prissy with me if I don’t give a shit about your beliefs and choose not to respect them. Don’t be a bigot or a supporter of a religion of bigots, and then maybe I will stop trampling your precious values.
Why would the little old lady care if your skirt is too short? Because you’re violating her beliefs…just like the evil gays violate yours. So follow Hillel’s Golden rule: Do unto others as you want them to do to you.
Sinfully,
Kevin
Kevin,
This isn’t all for you, but rather a little bit of everyone on this feed. I didn’t want to take you on because I’m tired of this fight. The fact is, you’re probably smarter than me. You’re definitely more well-read than me. And I know I’ll never win. But I don’t really care to. I don’t call you an ass because I don’t feel the need and also there are people who read this blog that I love and that don’t appreciate the use of language, so therefore I choose to be considerate in my choice of words. The reason I got into this conversation wasn't because I had a huge opinion about gay marriage. It was because I felt the need to say that I hate this. I hate that people that preach about love and acceptance are just as bigoted as the people they’re preaching to. You’re just as intolerant as you think I am. You never asked me how I feel about gay marriage. But you did assume that since I'm a Christian that I'm gulping down the haterade and ready to "pray away the gay". I don't think it's fair for me to make a judgment call on someone else's life. I don't want to deny someone happiness or the right to hold their dying loved one's hand. At the same time I personally believe that homosexuality was not something that God intended. But He also didn't intend for people to hate each other, to commit adultery, to steal, to lie. Unfortunately humanity lives and breathes and we are not perfect. So I don’t really know what the answer to this conundrum is. What's wrong with not having the answers?
I've never felt more judged by people who say they are all about love and understanding and fight for it. How are you any different? You seek a world free from judgment, but you can't stop judging people who don't feel the same, in the same way that "we" judge you. We all suck at that. Welcome to humanity. I can feel the condescension dripping from your words. Like you're telling me "Stupid little girl. Can't believe she still is convinced of that crap. How ignorant." (that crap being my belief in Jesus.) Maybe that's not what you feel, but it's what I hear behind your words. You know what? If I live every second of the rest of my life believing in that "crap" and come to my last breath and find out that I was wrong, that there is no Jesus, and that there is nothing more than this life I lived, I'll be ok, because at least I believed in something. At least I tried to live for something. And you know what? I screwed it up a lot. And apparently so did a heck of a lot of other people that came into your life, because they made you hate me. And I’m sorry for that.
I’m not going to address all of your points because I don’t have the answers. That may make me look weak, but I don’t care. I don’t have to justify my beliefs to you, and I know that probably gets under your skin and drives you nuts. People believe all kinds of things (spiritual in nature, or not) and have no foundation for their beliefs. It’s called faith.
I look at the laws you referenced similar to the blue laws we still have in the U.S. They’re not relevant or simply unenforced. Moses and his OT homies could have never predicted the state of today’s culture, so how could the laws made then be relevant?
I brought up the science thing simply to point out that neither side could legitimately use it in their argument. Science is what speaks to people who don’t believe in God, so that’s the only reason why I mentioned it. I don’t think science needs to prove anything because I believe the Bible has a lot to say about the matter, but for people that base their beliefs in science, we have to talk in those terms. I didn’t say it was my business, remember? I never said anything about my opinion either way. No one asked, just attacked. Personally, I think the reason why this is such a hot topic is because it’s not just an issue of law, but also religion because marriage ceremonies are both. You get legally married, but the ceremony is in most cases performed by a pastor. That’s why people get so touchy.
You lumped everyone who believes in Jesus in the “religious nut” bottle. How is it wrong? How is it RIGHT? You can really, truly tell me that you personally know every single Christian in this world and they are all exactly the same, Kevin? What is your cause? What’s your reasoning behind all this? Do you think by bashing people and belittling their beliefs you’re going to help matters? You’re only going to hurt. And it’s only going to make it worse. I’m not taking issue with anyone that’s gay. And I’m not telling you to not challenge me. I want to be challenged. But I won’t listen to you when you’re being an ass. If you use that crazy smart intellect, that persuading rhetoric in a positive manner to get your point across, it will land on open ears. I don’t know how I feel about so many things, because I don’t see it as my place to say something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I am on the fence. And you have the opportunity to change my viewpoint. But if you just alienated me with your accusations and hatred (or so many big words I have to visit freedictionary.com *ahem Israel ahem*), you just effectively won another for the conservative viewpoint by being an ass. It can work both ways. You can question my beliefs. I can question yours. As long as it’s done with respect, I’m willing to continue the conversation. But calling me a bigot seems to be the same thing as a uber-conservative out there yelling “faggot”. I think we can learn from each other. I’m certain I can learn from you, anyway.
“Do unto others as you would want them to do to you?” Really? You first.
dearest sister,
i don't think that kevin is crossing the line by challenging your beliefs. in fact, i hope you will read his words carefully and think about them. he is not being a jerk. he is being himself, and i don't believe he's half the asshole many people might think.
the reason i hope you will consider his words is because i see many similarities between you and i. when i was a junior in college i was in a very similar place with my christianity that you seem to be. i was passionate and alive in jesus, i was reading shane claiborne and discovering that just being a christian wasn't enough if i wasn't loving people, i was finding goodness and love and god outside of adventism, and i was opening my eyes to a whole world of godliness in christianity and even in other religions. i had no idea where i was going. i see these things in you also. i would not have thought for a minute that i would soon discard the label of "christian" and all of the expectations that come with it.
if i had known where i would be in two years--without a belief in a christian god, surrounding myself with good and loving atheists, agnostics, and rebellious christians, and daily partaking of activities and thoughts that i formerly would have thought would make jesus cry--i would have been terrified. i make jokes these days about going to hell because many of the things and people i find so much life and love in would be going there too, if i thought there was such a thing as hell.
i see you experiencing, thinking, and feeling many of the things i did two years ago, and while i am thrilled with the person i am becoming, i am scared for you. i am afraid that you will see where i have been and where i have gone, and because you disagree with my beliefs and choices, you will close your mind. i had no such example to cloud my explorations of life and belief. i had no shadow of an idea of where i was going, no example of a future to be afraid of.
i am also worried for you because i was so, so lucky (blessed, even) to find a safe place to "come out" of the adventist and christian closet (no pun intended). i had generous and loving christian friends who did not begrudge or judge me for my questions. i had wise and thoughtful teachers who guided me without forcing their own opinions on me. and when i was ready, i found people to surround myself with who showed me a view of the world completely different from the one i had always known. they loaned me books on atheism but didn't judge me when i refused to accept that label for myself. they didn't laugh at me when i refused to smoke with them or when i nursed a single drink for hours because i was in a whole new scary world there. their doors were open when i felt rejected by my family or silenced by my church. i found grace and love and community and acceptance in a little group of sometimes-awkward, sometimes-drunken, often-mouthy, usually-hilarious, always-beautiful human beings who were not afraid to explore their humanity and subsequently allow me to explore mine.
i hope you find the same thing, as i know you always have so far. i don't care where you wind up, sister. i don't care if you are the best small-school adventist teacher in the boondocks with four cats and six children, or if you are the blackberry-wielding superintendent of schools living with her atheist lover in a ritzy uptown flat, or if you move to nepal to join a community of celibate buddhist women who raise goats. i will support you and i know that i will always have your love and support as well.
i just hope that, since your path looks just a little like mine, you do not shy from asking questions and searching the world and your mind and your soul. and i hope that wherever your exploration and thinking and believing takes you, you find a safe place, a community of lovers who will make you toast and lend you books and listen to your wondering.
i am amazed at how far we have come in our sisterly affection. you constantly surprise me with your acceptance of me, with the grace in which you receive my stories and my thoughts. i tell people the volumes of your grace, and i thank you for it. i love you. i wish you many good things. i am not worried that you will find them, because i believe that when people put as much good into the universe as you do, they harvest good in return.
love your sister,
katie.
Post a Comment