posted
Wow. This has been a sadly amusing read, for the most part. Tom, Sara, fugu and others - you guys are awesome, and I admire all of you. I wish I could have said something last night, but I came down with the Death Cold and probably wouldn't have made much sense. Anyway, it's morning, I've slept and am drinking lots of liquids. So here it goes:
As you have probably guessed, I'm of the same school of thought as Vána on this one. I have been a little sad that she's been absent from Hatrack over the course of the pre-election campaigning. The forum here is a different medium than a face-to-face conversation and having both helps me understand her better.
That this referendum went through is an excellent example why we need the state and federal governments balanced. It disturbs me that Christianity has grown so broken and paranoid that it would endorse active descrimination against another group of people. Where that paranoia comes from is beyond me, though it might have something to do with the belief that we are living in the end times.
Whether we are or not...
What I do know is that Christ was merciful when the Law called for stoning and other harsh punishments. He was also merciful in many other instances where standard practice of the day would have done an evil to the person in question. Right now we're unclear, exactly, as to what the actual nature of homosexuality is - whether it be genetic (which we have seen some evidence for) or a combination of factors when growing up, or a decision, we don't know. And not knowing, I say that it is better - for my own personal accountability to God, and the image of Christ that I'm supposed to bring to the world - that I err on the side of mercy and love.
quote:It disturbs me that Christianity has grown so broken and paranoid that it would endorse active descrimination against another group of people.
Vana, is it okay if I love your husband a little bit, too? In that brother/sister way, of course. He is very succinct, even in the afterthroes of the Death Cold.
I have enjoyed this thread, because it helped to crystalize my frustration. I was amorphously upset, and now I have words to express myself. I thank all of you, but especially Vana.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vana, excellent post, you said that so well... I am so saddened and horrified by these amendments. Such widespread fear and discrimination......
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awww, I'm always late for the dogpiles. Anyway, BC:
quote: I once wrote in a paper "A difference that makes no difference is no difference" I then read it years later never knowing if it came from me or if I inadvertantly stole it
posted
I am stunned at the lack of compassion and anything resembling tolerance BC has displayed, in this thread and others. It is not often I am stunned by people's lack of tolerance. (Obviously Hatrack has spoiled me for the real world.)
I think it is possible to debate things without resorting to comments like the one about lesbian sex, which was absolutely unnecessary and incredibly offensive.
(Okay, this came a little late, but I am all sadly about this and I had to say something.)
posted
Hopefully BC finally gave up... I read most of his posts and none of them made any sense.
On the gay marrige issue and those amendments: AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! What is wrong with people that they voted for this? WHAT THE HECK?!
Maybe its hitting me worse becuase a great deal of my absolute best friends are gay, or lesbian or bisexual. They are all amazingly intelligent, kind, caring, wonderful people. Some of them were once christian... I think they got sick of religion after having their fellows bash them too much, I don't blame them. I can't see how we can deny people such a basic right as being aloud to marry and raise a family. YES RAISE A FAMILY. One of my little brothers best friends was raised by his two LESBIAN MOTHERS. They are all christians and attend church regularly. They are wonderful people! The two mothers both work and are incredibly sweet and kind, and are very much in love with each other. Their son is amazingly smart, very caring and a generally awesome guy. While they live together, and for all appearances sakes are married and a family, they can't marry. Or get marrige legal benefits that all other families take for granted.
Its sort of ironic, but that family is one of the most stable and sane I know. My straight parents divorced in the spring, after apparently years of loveless marrige. Many people I know have divorced or fighting parents. These two have a wonderful family. Better, more stable and healthier than most straight families. Kind of ironic. AND YET PEOPLE ARE DENYING THEM THE LEGAL BENEFITS OF MARRIGE?! ARGHH!
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been looking at some of the post-election data and there are some interesting facts about the "get out the vote" efforts of both parties. This is all from USA Today (free newspaper in the hotel, so sorry I don't have links...). What it seems to be saying is that the GOP indeed did get out the vote better than the Democrats -- sort of an obvious conclusion.
It does point out, however, that the conservative religious constituency (especially in the South, but generally everywhere) was solidly pro-Bush and came out in far greater numbers than in the past. Exit polls also seem to indicate that people said "morality" was their number 1 issue more frequently than any other "big issue."
Putting those together, the group that delivered this "victory" was: - right leaning - Christian conservative/evangelical - voting what they thought their religion says or has taught them.
Here's the question I have. I'm a liberal Christian. Most of the people who voted this way are completely unlikely to listen to what I have to say. Many of them would come right out and say I'm not even a Christian by their definition. Or, if they grudgingly admit I'm Christian, they would say that I'm following a flawed path that is not nearly "Bible-centered" enough.
When they find out that I tried and rejected the Southern Baptist tradition, they'd be even more likely to view me as "lapsed" or otherwise misled.
Talking to them about what I think about flaws in THEIR theology isn't going to get us very far. The likelihood of me "fixing" the parts of their views that I think are "mistakes" is not very high.
And, in fact, I'm probably ill-equipped at present to do it. I mean, someone like me isn't going to win a Biblical argument with the average Baptist, and that's the only source they will generally accept.
I believe that's true of most fundamentalists.
I'm not saying I won't try. Or that I won't be there if there's an opportunity to get the word (and the WORD) out to folks who might listen. But I'm pretty depressed when I think that my duty as a Christian is to argue with other Christians about what they see as their core beliefs.
I know many people think that "CHRISTIANITY" is broken and it's up to Christians to fix it. But I think a more likely solution to this problem is to find ways to get more of the uncommitted folks to care about these issues and then get them to the polls to show what the REAL majority of Americans think.
I despair over the lack of interest displayed by the folks who failed to go to the polls and vote against these restrictive laws. But it's probably a lot easier to foster some greater interest in those folks than it is going to be to try to tweak the theology of fundamentalist Christians.
dkw tells me I'm missing something in the positions posted by Tom and Irami, and some others. I probably am. She's a far better judge of these things than I am.
So...I'll also add here that I have no desire to be to the right of any of you on this issue. I am in no way in support of laws that ban gay marriage (as no doubt most people know from past posts).
I just don't see the solutions that seem to be energizing you all. And I'm sorry for it. I just get depressed by the prospect of trying to argue theology with people who I know believe I'm going to hell for holding the beliefs I do.
I've tried it before. It takes more emotional energy than I have to give.
And it doesn't work, in my experience.
Maybe if we just schismed again and had one Christianity for people who look beyond the Bible and another for people who ONLY look at the Bible?
Sad prospect for me given that I know some truly wonderful people who are Southern Baptist, and, more to the point, who I believe are living the life of a Christian.
Anyway, I'm sorry this is such a rambling post. I probably come across as some sort of fence sitter here when everyone is really ready for ACTION of some sort. Captain Bringdown...I know.
I hope I haven't lost the opportunity to be a friend to folks like TomD and Irami, (or others like Vana, Lime, Sara, etc.) because frankly, I admire you all a lot.
I just don't know what to do that would be at all constructive.
I'll teach those who ask me, and with Dana teach my kids what we know is right. But do battle (verbal or otherwise) with fundamentalists??? Unlikely.
Maybe the point is to be vocal about what I think is true about Christianity and maybe it'll spark something in someone who might otherwise not have understood that one thing in that particular light. Is that what we're after? Just being vocal in general and not necessarily fighting those who believe I'm wrong????
Oh well...work to do.
Thanks for letting me puzzle over this in public.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once had an excellent post. It was short, it was pretty, and it explained why I support gay marriage. Unfortunatly, I have lost that post into the mires of the forum. Finding it would take 2 minutes *insert gasping*!
So...I'll try to remake it. Here goes:
---------------------------------------
Marriage is a religious institution. The state is not concerned with religious institutions; it is concerned with law. And the law has it that two people living together can file for a certain status called "marriage" which has certain legal benefits.
However, the word "marriage" carries much religious connotation. It should be changed to "civil union."
Both gays and hetros should be able to gain public status in civil unions. The state should not be marrying off anyone.
---------------------------
I'm sad. I liked my original version better. The main arguement is that there should be no marriage done by the State; rather, that there should only be civil unions for both gays and straights.
posted
Vana, thank you for your initial post. I totally agree.
IDemosthenesI, I empathize with your feelings.
As I was listening to NPR Morning Edition this morning, I got the distinct impression that to many Ohio voters, "moral values" equals a ban on gay marriage. That was the reason given by those interviewed for voting for Bush. That is just depressing. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ela, that pretty much echoes what USA Today had in it. Like the folks responding that "moral values" were the most important factor for their decisions were almost entirely "pro-Bush" "pro-war" "anti-gay-marriage."
That's what really bugged me. Others have said it better about how the "left" seems to become synonymous with immoral or amoral.
I mean, I feel pretty much like I voted a moral stance. But I guess my morality isn't mainstream.
Guess I knew that already.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and Irami, Vána, Lime, and Sara all told me the same thing. I'm not sure why they all decided I needed to know this. But Vána in particular was annoyed by your condescending lack of an 'á' in typing her name. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation. Until you can find me a homosexual couple who can reproduce naturally, I will not support their union.
posted
I'm sure they're all broken up about not having the support of someone as thoughtful, well-spoken, and considerate as you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know we have gone over this before (over and over and over), but some people do NOT have biological children, and have state-sanctioned marriages. Incredible, but true!
I still love Bob. So there. Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
If I'm not, can I still come to the wedding? I'm really interested in this "chocolate fountain" thing . . .
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I just got through reading this thread. And I didn't think anyone could annoy me more than Chad.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation
Hmmm. How exactly would you tell the difference between a normal genetic occurrence and a genetic defect. Wouldn't that depend on society's idea of normal?
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Icarus, you can sit right next to the chocolate fountain. Even if you aren't MY friend, you'll be dkw's friend and she'll make sure you get a great spot.
Johivin:
quote:I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation. Until you can find me a homosexual couple who can reproduce naturally, I will not support their union.
My initial reaction to your post is to just reply along the lines of Dag's appropriately sarcastic and witty retort. But I realize that maybe you are being serious even if you aren't really thinking this through clearly. As has been pointed out by jexx, your criterion should also exclude couples who are parents via adoption rather than "natural" childbirth.
I just want to add that all of evolution is a story of the spread of genetic defects. Humans are, in a sense, defective proto-humans. We are the result of a beneficial mutation.
So, you're really back to arguing whether or not there is a genetic "component" to homosexuality or whether it is all "societal" or "learned." And your stance on it, if I understand you correctly, is that if it is "learned" then you can't support it, but if it is "genetic" then you can support it.
But further, you demand proof that it ISN'T learned before you'll give an inch on this.
Here's what you are dooming yourself to:
1) Being wrong about a fairly large portion of our population (as defined minority subpopulations go) until such time as there is undeniable proof that you've been wrong all along.
2) Using a rather sterile distinction as an excuse to deny equal rights and basic justice to members of that group.
Is that how you want to be known? As a person who willingly denies rights to others? And, more importantly, does so on the basis of a discredited dichotomy?
I mean really, what if it's a little bit biology and a little bit sociology? What if it's 10% one and 90% the other? Who gives a rat's @ss. More importantly, we'll never have a study that will be definitive.
You're just using this as an excuse. And it's a lame one.
As for your stance on gay marriage, if marriage were only FOR procreation, you'd have to deal with the childless couples out there, those who adopt or use "artificial" means of conceiving...and so on.
posted
You've convinced me. I'm giving back all of the undeserved benefits I've leeched off of this country through my sham unprocreative marriage.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I will not support homosexuality until someone shows me direct genetic evidence that it is a normal genetic occurance and not a genetic defect or a societal creation. Until you can find me a homosexual couple who can reproduce naturally, I will not support their union.
Johivin Ryson
First off: Yes they can procreate like normal.
The difference lies in that the man will have to be essentially fantizing about other men in order to get it up enough to do it.
There is also such a thing as those who are Bisexual who often get forgotten about. They are attracted both to members of their own gender and of the opposite gender. I get the feeling that in actuality people who are bi are a lot more common than those who are gay, however, there is a much greater tendancy for them to be in denial and just blend with society. I can't back this with hard evidense, but I would sure like there to be some unbaised anonymous and accurate scientific studies done on the subject.
Still on this issue, I'm fairly certain that the child of the couple I spoke of earlier is actually the child of one of the two mothers. I can't say for certain but I think he's from her and her previous husband. I'm not really sure though, he might be adopted...
Aside from that point, most gay couples would probably end up adopting. And its awesome if they did, becuase there are a large number of orphans in need of a good home, and not enough people looking to adopt, becuase most people will simply have their own. Gay marrige could help fill this gap in society of children needing foster parents.
posted
Hey Johivin... I'm sterile. (I'm female, for the record.) Does this mean you'll never recognize my union, should I decide to get married?
What if I was to adopt, and provide a stable, loving home for a child or children currently languishing in the foster care system?
Guess since I can't reproduce naturally, I should just stay single. Can't see any other benefit in marriage, after all.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about that Bob, I can get really blunt and harsh when people start attacking gays like that, I'll watch myself.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, might as well join a convent. I hear they don't like motorcycles, but they'd allow Vespas.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about people who choose not to have children? Is that incredibly selfish? I know for a fact that my brother has terrific genes (*grin*), but he and his wife are not having kids. Ridiculous people. Clearly they are unfit for marriage. I'll call him and tell him in the morning, I'm sure he'll have his unGodly union dissolved.
Oh yeah, and he's a pagan to boot. How does that factor in?
Boy, this marriage thing is complicated. Will there be a test?
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, rest assured that you have never said anything to disillusion me, much less alienate me.
That I believe that this election demonstrated that there is not in fact a silent majority of decent, slightly liberal and moral people just needing to be dragged to the polls to vote in huge numbers does not mean that I think less of you because you do. Your attempts to get out the vote, even if that vote doesn't necessarily exist in large enough numbers, isn't counterproductive or harmful or foolish or anything -- and, frankly, since I can be friends with people who do do things that I find counterproductive, harmful, or foolish, you've got a long way to go before you have to worry. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmmmmm. And the moment, that would cramp my lifestyle somewhat. I am still single, remember, and I somehow doubt going straight into non-biological single motherhood would be much of an improvement, by this guy's standards.
And, truthfully, although I know there are many, many families out there getting by just fine on less than what I make, I cannot imagine trying to pay for full-time childcare. I would need a wife if I was going to try to take on the responsibilities of raising a family.
Oh, wait... I guess that wouldn't work, either. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Kerry got more votes than Reagan, the previous record holder. Bush got more votes than Kerry. Weird!
ElJay -- You don't have to have an actual kid. Just make sure that the government knows you are purchasing disposable diapers and formula. That way the brown shirts won't suspect you to be unreproductive, you know. That's the real danger.
If you have nosy neighbors, buy a crib and put a robot in there with a blanket over it. Program it to cry a lot. (you can get one from K.A.M.A. Inc.)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's so cute when people try and bring up genetics as being the only thing that would them accept homosexual marriages. A lack of understanding of genetics aside, can I disrespect religious people and disregard religion as a meaningless and harmful social construct until someone points out the religion gene? No?
posted
Let me just state for the record that if I order anything from K.A.M.A. Inc., it will not be a squalling infant.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I hope you don't take this offensive, but I find the thought that I might be upset with you really bizarre.
Good grief, I want people out in the world, trying with sincere and thoughtful conscientiousness to do the right things and fight the good fight, however it is presented to them.
What Tom said, like, totally.
quote:I've tried it before. It takes more emotional energy than I have to give.
You've got to figure out for yourself where your energies are best spent. It is always a choice, and it always means that there is something else one could have chosen to focus on.
I'm actually really impressed that you've thought so hard about what and where you want to do to go about solving this problem in the most effective way possible, for you.
I'm all about that, these days. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
*is lazzzzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyy!*
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
Thanks Tom!![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
