A friend of mine from high school posted a link to this article on facebook. It's a conservative case for gay marriage, and is very well thought and written.
I've stated my position on same-sex marriage and specifically Prop 8 in This Piece. Please read it before you have a knee jerk reaction to anything I say below. I don't think you knew me then, though my mental timeline is quite broken.
It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This is kind of a stupid, close-minded comment. I'm sure the slaves thought the same thing when they were freed, women thought it when granted suffrage, etc etc. We'll come up with something else.
Other comments from the crazy Bible guy:
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual.
This is probably the biggest point in this article where I disagree with the guy. Obviously I don't reject the religious teachings of my faith, that should be without question.
I do, however, think "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual" is a stupid comment, especially in the context of this article.
He says this as if that makes it a signed, sealed, and delivered consequence of our being. Science has also suggested that the children of rapists are more likely to become rapists, etc etc. Does this automatically mean it's okay for those people to rape others? Of course not.
Now, why do I say that? Obviously he's making a statement about the nature of a person, and I'm talking about actions as a consequence of that nature. I mention it because he's cheapening homosexuality by suggesting it's not their fault, or it's just the way they were made, or something along those lines. In my opinion, the rest of the article is so well written that this almost seems a childish manuever. I feel like someone's right to be gay or straight, frankly, while usually a consequence of their nature, should not be excused based on their nature. Does this make sense? We can talk about it sometime if it doesn't.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason.
The main distinction that seems to be missed by the fundy whackos is that sin is sin is sin. The Bible talks about all sorts of sin, and the fact that everyone is a sinner. In the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. This is true within the Abrahamic Covenant as well as the Mosaic Covenant (the books of Law in the OT are the rules of the Mosaic Covenant, Christians are governed by the Abrahamic). However, there is one sin that is considered a greater sin than all others. News to WBC, it is *not* homosexuality, but rather the blaspheming of the name of God. Prejudice, hostility, and discrimination towards homosexuals on the basis of the Bible is inappropriate - not because the Bible doesn't state homosexuality is a sin, but rather because it is elevating the offensiveness of that sin above others, which is a clear example of man(global/corporate reference) judging, which is in direct contradiction to James 4:11-12.
That was longer than it was meant to be. I do that a lot. Feel free to ask for clarifications/comments of any kind.
If you take in the whole of the paragraph at the top of page 3, I think he was going for "I understand that a multitude of religions prohibit homosexuality, but that is not reason enough for civil law to". I agree with you and dervishspin that the last page is weak and probably was not proofread to the degree the first two pages were.
Actually, can you elucidate this statement? I think I know where you are going with this, but I don't want to assume:
"I feel like someone's right to be gay or straight, frankly, while usually a consequence of their nature, should not be excused based on their nature. Does this make sense?"
From the article: "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual"
My question to the writer is, "What's your point?" He spent two pages writing on the rights of gays and lesbians at that point, and then says something that smacks of "It's not their fault, they were made that way." Within the very fabric of that idea there is an implication that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality - or to carry it one step further, a gay person's nature is inferior to a straight person's nature.
The differentiation this culture fails to make is not that someone's nature (sexual preference, personality, whatever) is better or worse than another person's, but rather their decisions with regards to that nature.
For example, if someone is an angry person by nature, we don't tell that person "You aren't allowed to be angry anymore" but rather "You need to learn to manage your anger". A person's maturity, respectability, etc, is not based on their nature, but rather how they choose to represent themselves (sometimes in spite of said nature).
It goes back to the fundamental tenets of the founding fathers, that "All Men Are Created Equal" - Created being the key term here. Our natures are equal. Our reactions are not. It doesn't make a difference if you were "born that way" because if it did, we would judge someone "born straight" who chose to be gay differently than someone who was straight up "born gay".
It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This is kind of a stupid, close-minded comment. I'm sure the slaves thought the same thing when they were freed, women thought it when granted suffrage, etc etc. We'll come up with something else.
Other comments from the crazy Bible guy:
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual.
This is probably the biggest point in this article where I disagree with the guy. Obviously I don't reject the religious teachings of my faith, that should be without question.
I do, however, think "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual" is a stupid comment, especially in the context of this article.
He says this as if that makes it a signed, sealed, and delivered consequence of our being. Science has also suggested that the children of rapists are more likely to become rapists, etc etc. Does this automatically mean it's okay for those people to rape others? Of course not.
Now, why do I say that? Obviously he's making a statement about the nature of a person, and I'm talking about actions as a consequence of that nature. I mention it because he's cheapening homosexuality by suggesting it's not their fault, or it's just the way they were made, or something along those lines. In my opinion, the rest of the article is so well written that this almost seems a childish manuever. I feel like someone's right to be gay or straight, frankly, while usually a consequence of their nature, should not be excused based on their nature. Does this make sense? We can talk about it sometime if it doesn't.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason.
The main distinction that seems to be missed by the fundy whackos is that sin is sin is sin. The Bible talks about all sorts of sin, and the fact that everyone is a sinner. In the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. This is true within the Abrahamic Covenant as well as the Mosaic Covenant (the books of Law in the OT are the rules of the Mosaic Covenant, Christians are governed by the Abrahamic). However, there is one sin that is considered a greater sin than all others. News to WBC, it is *not* homosexuality, but rather the blaspheming of the name of God. Prejudice, hostility, and discrimination towards homosexuals on the basis of the Bible is inappropriate - not because the Bible doesn't state homosexuality is a sin, but rather because it is elevating the offensiveness of that sin above others, which is a clear example of man(global/corporate reference) judging, which is in direct contradiction to James 4:11-12.
That was longer than it was meant to be. I do that a lot. Feel free to ask for clarifications/comments of any kind.
Reply
Reply
"I feel like someone's right to be gay or straight, frankly, while usually a consequence of their nature, should not be excused based on their nature. Does this make sense?"
Reply
From the article: "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual"
My question to the writer is, "What's your point?" He spent two pages writing on the rights of gays and lesbians at that point, and then says something that smacks of "It's not their fault, they were made that way." Within the very fabric of that idea there is an implication that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality - or to carry it one step further, a gay person's nature is inferior to a straight person's nature.
The differentiation this culture fails to make is not that someone's nature (sexual preference, personality, whatever) is better or worse than another person's, but rather their decisions with regards to that nature.
For example, if someone is an angry person by nature, we don't tell that person "You aren't allowed to be angry anymore" but rather "You need to learn to manage your anger". A person's maturity, respectability, etc, is not based on their nature, but rather how they choose to represent themselves (sometimes in spite of said nature).
It goes back to the fundamental tenets of the founding fathers, that "All Men Are Created Equal" - Created being the key term here. Our natures are equal. Our reactions are not. It doesn't make a difference if you were "born that way" because if it did, we would judge someone "born straight" who chose to be gay differently than someone who was straight up "born gay".
Does that help?
Reply
Leave a comment