Wednesday, 18 July 2012
-
Gay Marriage, Bigotry and Religion
By now, if you have Facebook or an Internet connection, you have heard about these two men who were recently married at a military base. The first same-sex couple to do so. For the article, click here.Of course there have been some vehement reactions. Often these comments are colored with Bible passages from Leviticus. It’s funny because almost anything can be misconstrued as a sin when you take out singular quotes from the Bible. One often thinks of this famous passage: “Slave obey your earthly masters.” Are all runaway slaves from the 1800s sinners? They certainly did not obey their earthly masters.
And yet one would be hard-pressed to find anyone in this day and age who would advocate such a believe, despite the clear black and white lettering of the Bible. But it should noted, plenty of preachers/religious folks in those days of the (pre) Civil War era certainly fought for slavery. After all, “It’s in the Bible!” Harriet Tubman must be burning in hell for being a sinner and helping other sinners in the Underground Railroad! That servant of the Devil!And then of course there are those who say – “Why can’t I believe that homosexuality is wrong?”
First we have to recognize the difference between bigotry and belief.
It’s not necessarily wrong to hold a belief, just like it’s not wrong to believe that Christianity is the true religion and Judaism and Islam are flawed. It is wrong however to assert that all Jews are God-killers (and thus cursed for life) and all Muslims are terrorists. It is wrong to assert that since Judaism and Islam are flawed religions they should not enjoy the same rights as righteous Christian followers.
You can believe that homosexuality is not a part of “God’s plan” without being a bigot. You do not have to partake in homosexuality, just as you do not have to partake in Islamic or Jewish traditions. But when you start stereotyping homosexuals, that is when bigotry comes in. When you start saying, “Well homosexuals make bad parents because they are sexual deviants who set bad examples," or "Homosexuals should not have the right to marry because it will somehow bring about the destruction of the world" (Most probably because the Bible said so), that's when you cross the line. *Stares angrily again at the picture of Harriet Tubman aka The Devil’s Servant*
It’s just like saying, "African Americans are dangerous to society because they are often criminals and I have the incarceration rates to prove it!” If someone were to say that (most of) you would say, "You sir/madam, are a BIGOT," and you would be correct in your assertion.
Having beliefs and recognizing and respecting other people’s differing beliefs is key. And of course it goes both ways. A gay person shouldn’t assume that all Christians are against gay marriage and are bigoted against gay people.
Naturally from my post you can guess where I lean. But regardless of my beliefs, I think that homosexuals should be afforded the right to marry.
It’s likely that a gay person has very different values than say a conservative, right-winged Christian. But a conservative, right-winged Christian also has a very different way of living than a Muslim, too. Just because people are different, does it mean they are dangerous? Does it mean the union between two different people is going to destroy the world? Should Muslims not marry because their way of life is so different than the Christian way of life and thus they will raise their children in such a different way it will cause the destruction of our society as we know it?
Should Hindus in our country not marry either? Or Buddhists? Or anyone else with differing ideologies, unless they fit into a certain brand of Christianity, where the nuclear family is man, woman and child(ren). Is it wrong if say, a single man, decides to raise his child with his brother, because his wife died? Is it okay for two men to raise a kid? Is Full House some kind of propaganda for gay men poly-amory? What exactly was Danny, Joey and Jessie’s relationship?
What if the husband died and the wife’s sister-in-law moves in? Is it okay for two women to raise a family together? Isn’t that wrong? Isn’t that somehow going to cause problems because it’s not the specific union as bestowed by God according to the Bible?Sounds silly but not too long ago, these same kind of arguments came up for interracial marriage. Two different people from two different cultures with two different skin colors would contaminate the world with their mulatto children. That’s why we now have Barack Obama (aka Satan’s Spawn/ the Anti-Christ). His "interracial-ness" is contaminating our country with his support of gay marriage. See those anti-interracial marriage people were right!
What kind of problems actually present themselves from homosexuality? Their “different-ness?” Does being different mean you are dangerous? Does two men getting married on a military base present any kind of danger to our world? They risk their lives for our country, to serve and protect, despite their “different-ness.” Aren’t they a benefit to our world?
It is certainly something to think about if you use your personal beliefs to withhold rights for “different” people. Where is the danger?
To note: One could argue that the freeing of the slaves was dangerous for societal well-being namely the economic downfall of the South. But we still freed the slaves because it was right. Despite what the Bible explicitly says and the danger it presented to society. Even modern homosexual unions do not suppose any serious economic downfall and may in fact cause a minimal boom in the wedding industry, providing job opportunities for people.What about adoption? Countless children without homes who get passed along in the foster care system may have a greater chance to be raised by two loving people who will remain a constant in their once inconstant lives. Hrm.
Certainly food for thought.
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: AmeliaHart@xanga
- About Me: I crashed my plane..... trying to find a way back home...
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 6 Views: 0 11674 Comments: 0 272 View all posts by AmeliaHart@xanga
Comments (54)
Of course anyone with a Biblical world view will recognize that homosexuality is a sin, just as they will recognize that marriage is a God-ordained/designed institution between a man and a woman. The Bible is very clear on those issues. Someone who believes the Bible also recognizes that rights come from God, and it's not up to humans to "give" anyone a right as it's not something we are capable of doing, any more than we are capable of changing the color of the sun.
In general, I try not to argue with unbelievers about whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. It's pointless to argue morality with someone who does not share your basis for morality, and who operates under a different moral code. However, the argument against "gay marriage" is simple enough. Legal recognition of "gay marriage" would entail the government dictating terms to private entities, such as businesses and individuals. If a business, such as an insurance company or a caterer does not want to recognize a particular behavior as legitimate, or as marriage, then that is their prerogative. If they want to recognize to cohabitating queers as married then that is also their prerogative, but as soon as government gets involved then freedom gets slashed, and that is where you have a despotism. Of course, most liberals will not understand this because A) most liberals want a nanny state and B) most liberals care more about ramming their agenda through and using force to make people "agree" with them than freedom.
As for your arguments about different religions being allowed to marry are just silly, and in fact I find most of the points in this entry to be nothing more than straw man fallacies. I have never heard anyone use such arguments. But you should know, most of the world does not approve of homosexuality. If you go to any non-white country you will find that homosexuality is universally considered taboo, and often met with violence. Now, I don't advocate the use of violence, but I'm not going to let the government dictate to me what is moral and what is not (especially not if it's a behavior which I consider to be morally reprehensible), and as soon as you try to get the government to do that then we are going to have a problem.
The argument against gay marriage is found in Natural Law which is secular.
It goes like this:
The male and female gender is part of human nature. Male-female complementarity is essential to plant and animal life on planet Earth. So the male and female gender is integral to the nature of countless plants and animals.
So if gender were to disappear it would set life on Earth back 100s of millions of years.
However, if homosexuality disappeared, no one would notice. That is because it is a disorder. The nature of anything is defined by the healthy, whole specimen of a particular thing.
Consequently, homosexuality constitutes an unhealthy state of being.
And the idea of gay marriage is an assault on human nature since it renders gender, male and female, as not important.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex@xanga - [Of course anyone with a Biblical world view
will recognize that homosexuality is a sin, just as they will recognize
that marriage is a God-ordained/designed institution between a man and a
woman.]
...and his other wives. And any unwed women he happened to rape. And his concubines. And his female slaves.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - Not to mention the argument that the christian god didn't create or define marriage to begin with, considering that christianity is only 2012 years old and pre-christians wed one another for thousands of years before even Judaism was first practiced.
Thousands of years late to the wedding, and didn't even bring a decent gift.
@Lynn Males@facebook - My argument concerned human nature.
Although the ability to choose is part of human nature, it does not concern this issue because it has nothing to do with male-female complementarity.
Religion is good. In Genesis for example it states that, "God created man after his own image. Male and female he created them."
There we see a religion state the obvious: that gender is integral to human nature and human nature is far above the nature of animals.
Again, it is obvious that gay marriage is an assault on what it means to be a human being.
Both Revelation and Natural Law are in agreement as they well should be.
@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - @GodlessLiberal@xanga - Gay marriage is an assault on what it means to be a human being.
That is because it ignores gender which is integral to human nature.Relgious arguments don't work on people who are not religious. The Natural Law argument gay marriage is iron clad, however.
And anyone who ignores it, ignores science, philosophy and reason. Anyone who ignores those things ignores the building blocks of civilization.
Consequently, the call for gay marriage is a call for barbarism.
@Lynn Males@facebook - We are animals, but we are not pigs or goats.
Human beings have a nature particular to them which is far above the other animals.
Humans can fly airplanes. Pigs and goats cannot.
This is so obvious that I'm embarrassed to have to explain it.
@Lynn Males@facebook - Monogamy is indeed the natural state of union between male and female. And the family centered around a committed and bonded male and female is as old as mankind.
That people deviate from what is healthy does not change our nature.I'm a Christian, and I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't think the government should be the beacon of a Christian's belief, anyways.
But, I do hope that my freedom to think that homosexuality is a sin..while still having homosexual friends, and loving them, and wanting to spend time with them, and valuing them as people...will not be tread upon. I hope that the freedom to express what I believe the Bible's stance on this matter will not be done away with, like it has in England.
But I agree with you. Belief is different from bigotry.
@Lynn Males@facebook - I suggest you take a pig with you from now on and put him or her in the co-pilot's seat.
And after that little piggy learns to fly your plane he can take your job and teach wifey pig the same way you taught him.
And then the name of your airline can be changed to Aerolineas Chanchitos.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - A critical element of our American Republic is morality.
A republic cannot exist without a moral citizenry.
Consequently, it is a property of republican government to have morality as the foundation of its laws.
Since Christian morality comes from God, Himself, it is tailor made for all men and must be the basis for our legal system.
AmeliaHart, nice to see ya again!At first, I was like, oh boy, here goes dating-ish, but then I saw you were the author and the post was made very well. I try my hardest to be careful of what I say in discussions about homosexuality, because I know the fact that I am against it can automatically make people assume I am a hateful person. I think the distinction between belief and bigotry is a big one... and I also agree with you that there is a difference between believing in freedom for my belief and freedom for others belief. As a Christian, I do believe I should have the freedom to believe what I want; however, unlike some other Christians, I also think others are free to believe (or not believe) what they choose as well. I thought about this when Valedictorian at public schools were not allowed to thank Jesus. I think they should be allowed to thank Jesus, and if a Muslim was in that position, they should be allowed to thank Allah. I also think if prayer is allowed at football games, it should be allowed from different faiths. I know a lot of my fellow Christians would disagree and think I am encouraging some type of Polytheism. What they dont understand, is that when we say we want freedom of religion but others should not have it, we set our self up to become persecuted if the majority switches. This is what happened between 300-400AD when Christianity went from being persecuted to being the main religion of Rome. Sadly, they went from being persecuted to persecuting... something I do NOT think is in keeping with the faith and the person of Jesus Christ.
"It’s likely that a gay person has very different values than say a conservative, right-winged Christian. But a conservative, right-winged Christian also has a very different way of living than a Muslim, too. Just because people are different, does it mean they are dangerous? Does it mean the union between two different people is going to destroy the world?"
Lol... as if a male and a female aren't two different people.
@Lynn Males@facebook - By doing such things, dont you become just as bad as those you oppose?
@Lynn Males@facebook - We know from 1000s and 1000s of years of experience that civilization depends on stable families. The stable family is extended to include many relatives, but at the center is the monogamous male-female bond.
Part of the nature of man is that he is complex and conflicted.Nevertheless, the primacy of gender, male and female cannot be ignored.
The idea of gay marriage denies gender, therefore it denies human nature.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I actually agree that a government based on Christian principles is more successful in the long run.
But I don't agree that we can force that. Simply, people don't want a Christian government, even if it is pragmatically superior in some ways. And I don't want to force it on anyone, because in the end, a Christian government is obsolete when it comes to the spiritual well being of the populace. Making a law against homosexual marriage will not make anyone a true a Christian. Making a law against adultery will not make anyone a believer in God.
In short--Christ's kingdom is not here in America. It never will be. It is in the people who love and follow him.
Obviously, some things should always be outlawed--things that infringe upon the personhood of another human being. Things like murder, theft, rape, molestation, infringement upon a person's freedom of speech--I will fight with all I can to make laws against these things. But private things like sexual preference (whether it is to be homosexual, heterosexually lustful or promiscuous, what have you) is something that does not infringe upon another person's rights, and therefore, is none of my business. Especially if they are an unbeliever.
I agree, though, and sympathize with your viewpoint that a Christian worldview is generally a wise worldview. But until the end of time, we will never know a moment of perfect peace and unity under a Christian mindset. And we shouldn't force it before then.
Also, I strongly agree with you about the stability of a nation being found in the family unit.
Oh for godddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddssssssssssssssssssssssssss sake.
I might leave Xanga.
@Lynn Males@facebook - Atheist regimes in the 20th century alone are responsible for more (murderous) deaths than can be recorded by religious wars/persecution in all of recorded history.
But I will not take away someone's right to be an atheist.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Nobody wants a theocracy, but most people want a government based on Christian values.
Those values include wisdom, prudence, and being strong in the face of difficulty. They include the rule of laws and rights given to us by God, not man.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," was the first time in the world that equality among men was stated explicity:
"The eye of king is the same as the eye of the pauper."
That is American and it comes from a very, very old religion: Judeo-Christianity.
@Lynn Males@facebook - You are a precious person. You are a precious soul. You have great value.
And you are loved.
I am so sorry for picking a fight at all.
I loved this post!
I refuse to get into with these certain individuals who can't pull the sticks outta their asses long enough to see the big picture, so I won't be putting any '@' symbols. But you can, if you read the comments you can probably guess who I am referring to.
According to a certain person here, being gay "goes against human nature/law" so am I to understand that gay humans aren't real or human?? o.O Hm..they look like a human, talk & walk upright like a human..I am pretty sure the old saying of "if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck...it IS a duck" comes into play here. Since gays are indeed, HUMAN -- they deserve, in my opinion, the same rights as any other human does, including the right to marriage & all the laws that accompany a straight marriage.
As the author has clearly stated & correctly so, it wasn't long ago that inter-racial dating & marriage was severely frowned upon & now it's largely accepted -- because are they not human as well? Pretty much gay marriage is the new inter-racial marriage. Same issues, different area.
I'm pretty sure God doesn't give a damn who you marry or chose to love - free will. Live & let live.
I don't agree with all of your points and, at first, I was tempted to blow this off as yet another crap datingish entry that had somehow merged with revelife to create something odd.
I'm glad I kept reading, because I like what your main point was. I came to the same result, albeit by different means, and even though my line of logic is pretty vastly different from yours, I'm glad that we can agree on this.
I'm sorry if that didn't come out very well. ^^'
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "the family centered around a committed and bonded male and female is as old as mankind" but if you are trying to say that the nuclear family unit has always been the norm, it has not. Nuclear families are actually a really unnatural way of living from what I've gathered.
@Digital_Angel21@xanga - I did not say nuclear family. I said extended family centered around committed male-female bond.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You need to learn to open up your heart and mind a little bit. Accept that not everything is scientifically or "religiously" explainable. No matter what your agrument, modern science has not yet figured out the human brain. They know bits and pieces. But the entire concept of consciousness completely escapes any kind of scientific theory out there today. No one knows exactly what makes a person who they are, what determines how they react to things, or how we even process as much information as we can. Everyone is different, therefore every person in this world has a different formula which makes up their existence. Scientific experiments must be proven over, and over, and over again, to be accepted as varifiable information. And people... cannot be repeated.
You don't know what formula made up the people you are so unfairly denying of the happiness every person alive should be able to experience, if they so choose. "Human nature" is different for every person, because there are no 2 people who are exactly alike. Just like any kind of animal, there are never 2 of the same personality. Each one has different instincts, different reactions... humans are no different.
You don't have to agree with it, you just have to acknowledge it. You just need to accept that it's happened, and be done with it. Because these people are not going to stop fighting for what they deserve, and they will win. Their resolve will always be stronger, because they KNOW, and you DON'T.
It's people like you that make me hate those who have faith. Religion is sickening when it turns people into monsters like this. It's poison to a perfectly good mind. I hope you wake up one day and realize how foolish you are to try and control people who have done nothing at all to purposely hurt you.
xX Ame ~*~ Hana Xx