I generally find myself in agreement with the Judeo-Christian values upon which our country was founded. I'd be happy with a monument of The Ten Commandments displayed prominently in every school and courthouse. I believe that life begins at conception. On things such as these, I guess you could say that I'm fairly socially conservative.
But not on this. Scroll down the page for the results of the poll, which asks "Is it possible to be both a committed Christian and a practicing homosexual?" 78% of respondents answered negatively.
My understanding of Christianity is that it accepts all people. I do not believe that a person can choose their sexual orientation any more than they can choose their skin color. I'm saddened and disappointed by the results of this poll, even taking into account that it's not a scientific sampling.
The conservatives may be well advised to stay away from this kind of social issue in 2012 if they hope to woo independent voters like me. Our nation was forged on hard-fought-for tolerance; in our workplace, in our neighborhoods, and in our places of worship. You may not like sitting in a pew next to a homosexual man or woman, but to exclude him or her from the joys and rewards of your faith is wrong, and about the most un-Christian thing I can think of.
That's my couple of shiny copper pennies, submitted respectfully. (Pull pin, hurl grenade, run for cover).
Please feel free to clobber me if you disagree. I'm not an expert in Christian dogma (or anything else, for that matter!). :D
ReplyDeleteI think there are a couple of things about the gay movement that scare people.
ReplyDeleteFirst is the camel's nose in the tent aspect. "Just accept us as people." And then they start barraging first graders with books espousing the gay lifestyle. Children who aren't even old enough to know anything about sexuality are being taught about sexuality. No. Leave them alone.
Second, look at Gay Pride parades in any large, liberal city. People are encouraged to act in ways that would get anyone else elected in a heartbeat. And police are told to let them do it. A man looks at a woman and he is a male-chauvanistic pig who needs to be re-educated. Gay Pride parades have people running around in leather thongs and little else and symbols of penises are a common sight, and someone who objects is a homophobe? Most of the people who object would also object to similarly-themed hetro displays.
And as I posted a couple of months ago, kids of all stripes get bullied all of the time. Do I approve? No. But popular culture really doesn't give a rat's ass until gay kids get bullied? And to listen to the activists, no one else gets bulled except for gays. In other words, no one else is important.
How does society look at straight guys whose lives revolve around their sexuality? Such people are not really held in high esteem. WHen was the last time you heard anyone refer to the "straight lifestyle?"
Cancer has been around for hundreds of years, and we have no cure. Aids has been around for how long, and it is some homophobic plot that we don't have a cure? And proportionally, far more money is spent on Aids than just about any other disease. And to suggest that people perhaps alter their lifestyle to reduce the chances they get Aids is considered bigoted.
If a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman, that is fine with me. I am happy when two good people come together and have a fulfilling relationship.
You make some very good points, Matt.
ReplyDeleteI too think that some gays have gone WAY overboard in bombarding society with their lifestyle, and I don't appreciate it; not because they're gay, but because I don't want a glimpse of ANYONE else's bedroom practices. The graphic public displays that zombie has captured are sickening. I don't believe that the gay lifestyle should be taught in schools, either.
However, there are many homosexuals who live their lives as you and I do, and they don't flaunt their sexuality or demand to be a "protected" class. I guess it's them that I'm thinking of.
A church does have a right and an obligation to keep sexually explicit displays from their parishioners, but it would be a shame to exclude someone who comports themselves in a manner consistent with his/her neighbors just because they're gay.
Perhaps the people who participated in the poll were also thinking of the raunchy gay parades, the shrill demands, and the constant belligerence exhibited by some members of the gay and lesbian community.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, obviously, Christians and conservatives are two separate things. I am not allied with any religion although I was raised Catholic.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't agree with my Christian friends that being gay is a choice, I respect their dedication to the bible, which they interpret strictly as the direct word of God. And as such they view homosexuality as an abomination. They They don't condemn the person, they condemn what they see as the "sin" of homosexuality. So the person is accepted but the "sin" is not.
I think this is the same in Orthodox Judaism; I'm not positive though, maybe annie will comment.
Great points, Matt, you hit the nail on the head.
ReplyDeleteIf a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman, that is fine with me. I am happy when two good people come together and have a fulfilling relationship.
Yes.
I could give a crap if someone is attracted to someone else with the same bits and pieces. I have bigger things to worry about.
ReplyDeleteThe 9/11 terrorists didn't stand in front of the plane and make sure they were only murdering homosexuals. The implosion of the world's finances isn't happening because people are straight.
And Jesus didn't seem to address the issue of gay-ness at all. And since he's the ultimate authority I'm supposed to listen to, that's where I am. Apparently, Jesus thought there were more important things to worry about which were violating the Law of God. Which is more than I can say for some people who just can't let it go.
One of the hottest up-and-comers in women's MMA (not usually considered a bastion of liberal thought and causes) just came out as a lesbian. She even served her time in the Marine Corps. Weeks went by, and then an article appeared in the Sunday Edition of MMA Junkie, "MMA Fighter Comes Out of the Closet and No One Cares."
It seems pretty telling to me.
I will say this - the day my eldest daughter and problem child came out to my husband and myself, our first reaction was, "Um, duh." I'm not sure why she thought we didn't already know.
*Clarification* My eldest's being a problem child had nothing to do with her orientation.
ReplyDeleteI'm totally in touch with my inner feminine side.
ReplyDeleteShe's a complete lesbian.
;)
RadioMattM for Sau Paulo city councilman!
ReplyDeleteI'd totally march in a hetero-pride parade.
I think I've totally had too many ice tea's this afternoon. Totally.
ReplyDeleteTotally!
ReplyDeleteNobody welcomed Florabista?
ReplyDeleteI agree with AFW that Jesus had more important things to worry about. I wonder if the religious prohibition against homosexuality had something to do with health issues in an earlier time -- and the prohibition was a way to fight those issues.
My son and I were talking this weekend, and he said that religion should play no part in setting public policy. I mentioned that religion used to be the main source of education in many societies, and that morals are -- for the most part -- lessons learned over time on how to have a successful society. It is not that these morals were necessarily religion-based, but became so for no other reason than they were taught by religion. to reject these lessons simply because they are "religious" is absurd.
Jesus did not sit around thinking, "OK, what dumb things can I tell people to do today." He taught things because they work to have a just society.
Do religious people sometimes go overboard? For sure, but Judeo-Christian people are called to answer for just about anything they say or do. People who do not follow traditional moral teachings are not. And Judeo-Christian people are often called to clean up the mess that is caused.
If I were asked to vote for or against gay marriage, I would probably vote for it. If a Gay Pride parade were about telling people about gays who had made great contributions to society, I would go.
But if Gay Pride is all about demonstrating debauchery that would not be tolerated in a straight context, I am not interested.
I've refrained on this topic until now. I will never vote for "gay marriage" until we simply recognize domestic partnerships and "civil unions" in general ... if you live with and jointly and lovingly support yourselves with a partner, married or otherwise, whatever sexual orientation, if any, under the law, in particular under tax law.
ReplyDeleteI don't give a damn about an individual's version of intimacy and cohabitation, nor their lifestyle if, within reason providing that when they seek "protection" under the law as a class, the hetero couples are also included. Otherwise it is nothing more than another contrived victim-hood and protected class. Two men or women can also be lovingly cohabiting and still be hetero. Recognize that, legally, and I'll think about "gay marriage." Not until then.
Meantime I'll continue to define marriage in an old fashioned way ... a union between a man and woman. Not to marry is a choice, even under extenuating circumstances, and deserves every bit as much to be recognized as gay unions do ... if we are going to expand the legal definitions an iota.
I've managed for over 30 years so far and intend to continue. Marriage is a choice, not a right.
I'd ask a personal question but I'm afraid to.
ReplyDeleteNobody welcomed Florabista?
lol, Matt, I just now noticed that.
Wow, this is a really interesting discussion. #5 Florrie, you wondered about the attitude towards gays in Judaism:
ReplyDeleteThey don't condemn the person, they condemn what they see as the "sin" of homosexuality. So the person is accepted but the "sin" is not.
I think this is the same in Orthodox Judaism;
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Judaism complicates things because even if you convert "out", you're still considered Jewish according to Jewish law: i.e. if you're born Jewish you stay Jewish no matter what you do. But certainly practising homosexuality is considered a sin.
We had a gay pride parade just last week in Jerusalem, and in respect to the holiness of the city, the parade was not the usual display of debauchery and showmanship; it was more like a regular protest march with placards etc., and AFAIK most of the marchers were dressed pretty decently.
That's the kind of parade that I can accept, though as several of you have pointed out, I can't see the point or the need for a gay pride parade in the first place. Why do they need to announce to the world what they get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms?
And nowadays, especially in liberal democracies like the US and Israel, it's not as if there's a lack of gay rights. Sure there's room for improvement but that goes for so many other social issues.
But that's just my 10 cents...
"I'd ask a personal question but I'm afraid to."
ReplyDeleteCom'on florrie... don't hold back. :)
Thanks, annie.
ReplyDeleteThat's the kind of parade that I can accept, though as several of you have pointed out, I can't see the point or the need for a gay pride parade in the first place. Why do they need to announce to the world what they get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms?
Hear, hear.
hi annie, thanks for the report from Jerusalem.
ReplyDeleteOn reading your post it struck me that gay pride marches are indeed paradoxical - anywhere they occur, they aren't needed, and anywhere where they're needed, they can't occur.
Of course, humans being territorial creatures - marking territory by claiming a presence in the public square seems like a reasonable thing to do, especially if it's civil.
Debauchery, however, is not about reserving space and claiming legitimacy; it's actively hostile and agressive.
Thing is, is that gays need police their image. I have no problem at all with a particular individuals choice on how they choose to live their life.
ReplyDeleteBut what am I led to think when I watch the Zombie films. Disgusting is what I'm led to think. Yes, I know. San Francisco is a subset of the country (I lived there for 14 years by the way). And Folsom street is but a subset of San Francisco. But to see sworn Police Officers stand by while laws are broken and do nothing because of the 'privileged class' that gays demand, well, it doesn't bode well in the end. No pun intended.
Religion was foremost in the founders vision... no matter their individual thoughts on the matter. As, they too, like myself and Lady Red may have realized that without religion, the ten commandments, structure and foundation upon which to build a civilization would be much more difficult.
Having said this, my view is one must separate 'Christianity' from churches. To my addled mind a church is a community of seemingly like minded folks who hold to a common creed. It can be a harsh and cruel creed, for sure. But gays aren't the first to suffer the narrow mindedness of sects.
Toleration is almost always in the mind of the receiver, not the giver. I don't think it used to be that way, but that is how it has become.
"but that is how it has become. "
ReplyDeleteHow about 'what' for 'how'.
A thought that went in too many directions before I could corral it down to words.
Yes, this may be purely a cynical remark.
ReplyDeleteBut what happens to 'gayness' when it reaches societal 'normal'.
Does the mystique disappear. Does the challenge to 'the man' disappear. Does it become boring to be gay.
Hell, this was a much more composed thought out on the porch a few minute ago. :)
Minute = minute's.
ReplyDeleteDWT... may I apply for an apprentice position?
#20 Luther, well-said, I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteI'm enjoying this conversation, and the way we all look at this from a different angle.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "marriage" is concerned: is marriage a instrument of religion or law? If marriage is a religious rite, then gays, as a class, have no claim. If it's a legal matter, then they should be allowed the same protections and rights as everyone else.
If we add a constitutional amendment that marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman, we are infringing on the civil rights of everyone, IMHO.
Personally, I tend to see marriage as a religious rite, and civil unions as a legal contract; although Noah and I were "married" by a justice of the peace...hmm, it gets confusing, doesn't it? b-(
Luther sez ...
ReplyDeleteToleration is almost always ....
... the act of waiting until you find a big enough rock to kill someone with.
Lady Red sez ...
If it's a legal matter, then they should be allowed the same protections and rights as everyone else.
See my # 14. Gays, etc., are already allowed the same protections as everyone else. A non-gay "couple" is under the same restriction as a gay couple ... e.g., without the recognition as "married." That's how it is, period.
What gays seek is special recognition and status. When consensual and affectionate cohabitational by men and women or men with men or women with women is "legal" without regard to sexual practices, then it will be like "everyone else.
And it ain't going to happen. Therefore, gays may F' off about this "marriage" thing. Or any other exceptional recognition. They are no better than those they would ignore vis a vis being a couple, sharing facilities, incomes, and community responsibility.
In short, if I elect not to make an exception of your relationship, don't presume to make it for me or judge mine as different. Marriage is a choice, not a right.
But it's not a choice if you can't choose it.
ReplyDeleteFlorrie ... right, like many things in life, not everyone is eligible to choose it.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a "right" to eligibility. In the military I was told I could not be a pilot ... because I have flat feet, of all things. Infantry was okay as were other ground based specialties. (Reason given is that flat feet can cramp up at inopportune times ... and that is true ... it would effect my ability to operate pedals while airborne, etc.)
"Qualifications" still count ... to marry the current qualifications in most places is to be man seeking woman or woman seeking man. Now if we wish to change that and make it omnibus under ALL aspects of the various laws, including taxes, health care, etc. ... make it universal to cover loving cohabitants, who may not be "eligible" to marry per se, for various reasons. Or simply do not choose to marry due to circumstances they cannot control, such as tax penalty liabilities they'd rather her not share...one example. No fricking "special" treatment for gay or lesbian based upon their sexual practices (apparently) as the primary differentiator.
In short, if they get it, then I get it ... with an instant monthly savings for health care around $400 net, among other legal benefits. At present we don't "qualify" and I'll be damned if I'm going to support exceptional qualifications for select groups / couples ... while leaving me out because I'm hetero.
That, or no one not other wise qualified to marry gets married. I will survive and so will they. This is an area that does not demand change, except by dint of excessive whining for special treatment.
OK, I see what you mean.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the only solution to your scenario that would make things equitable for all would be to dispense with marriage altogether.
Florie ... what I am saying is that things do not have to be "changed" for the sake of creating exceptional class. I am not asking for the same recognition as married couples, not now, nor ever, but I am saying that no other otherwise "ineligible" group should be accorded recognition as "married" with attendant benefits (and penalties, such as they might be)...unless they wish to accord to any and all. Sexual orientation, and behavior, at that point, would be meaningless. n a sense that would dispense with marriage as we know it.
ReplyDeleteI see no need to do that. I see no need for a change.
My personal 2 cents on marriage:
ReplyDeletethe legal aspect of marriage has NOTHING to do with the church. NOTHING. And so the church need not be involved. Legally, everyone should have a civil union, with the option of the church ceremony to make it marriage according to the religious rites of the people involved.
We're talking about tax breaks and insurance co-pays here, not the salvation of someone's soul. The state of my soul has nothing to do with the government. And thank goodness, as the government can't even seem to get its shit all in one sock to pass a budget, much less police my sex life and prayer practices.
To enter into a legal contract, however, falls under the purview of the state. Which means the state has something to say about whatever the contract involves... like civil unions.
And once everyone has a civil union, it's much easier to factor gays in, should they wish. If a church doesn't want to marry gays... then don't. Or straights, for that matter. Whatever.
Thanks for explaining, Aridog. Sometimes it just takes me a while.
ReplyDeleteimg:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/embarrassed.png"
I don't see a need for a change either.
I don't think I've explained anything very well. AFW's perfunctory analysis is on the money, theoretically. In short, she says it mo' betta.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it would be very hard to separate "marriage" as a religious institution from that as a civil institution ... although, in thoery (only), it would settle my primary complaints about creating another exceptional class. I think the end result would be a negative to what we know of civilization today. I use my unique circumstance only as a point of debate on what would be fair IF there would be change. I'll never support any change that falls short of it. Further, I'm not inclined to agitate for any change. Pretty sure I'd fight such a change if it gained momentum.
I consider "marriage", religious or civil, or both, as exceptional classes and deservedly so. I see no need to change that or add to it. The husband and wife who manage lives honorably are exceptional and deserve distinct recognition. The rest of us are no less "equal" but that isn't an impediment actually, to living as though you are married. With few exceptions the gay community has hardly demonstrated such longevity of devotion. I know of only one gay couple that has done so, in my experience, and one of them is a State Supreme Court Justice. Hardly anyone is aware she's gay, but by coincidence of knowing her paramour and her brother as well, I do. The only argument I've ever had with her is over her religious zealotry and intolerance ... which is almost an amusing point, given AFW's analysis. Well, that, and now that I'm an Independent with Republican tendencies, da'judge is an unmitigated RINO.
There is much more to "marriage" than tax breaks and co-pays. Among them are property rights in the material arena, and devotion/integrity in the emotional arena...not to mention responsibility for children begotten or adopted. marriage is far more than the relatively minuscule portion of "romance" that is sexual. I know AFW knows this, just from I know of her and how she treats others, even those with differences that make a difference.
What I would object to is any legal or formal redefinition of "marriage" based purely on sexuality and practices. The strident advocates of "gay marriage" are not satisfied with "civil union" equivalences...they demand the same reverence and respect properly held for those men and women who are married, in particular those who manage to stay married for decades with no loss of affection.
So of us, for one reason or another, do not marry or re-marry, but otherwise manage to accomplish the same integrity and respect in the relationship. We aren't looking for any change, but demand inclusion if others do try to make a change.