Fucking intellectual cowards (fundamentalist Christian rant)

The BBQ Pit
101

OK, I’ve taken a day to think about this- no response of mine other than surrender will make you happy, but here are my thoughts… (I won’t even say “reasonings” as you will label that as false advertising :wink: )

Essentially, it is not a question of law, but of society-culture. Let’s take “God’s will” out of the equation at the moment and say that marriage is a social construct for the creation of families & the protection of partners. If so, then society is entitled to determine what the structure of marriage will be. If gays can gain a social consensus to extend marriage their way, so be it. I won’t like it but I won’t secede from the union either. I will try to persuade people otherwise. I will indeed fear for what my society may undergo as a result. But I’ll just grit my teeth & go on. I certainly won’t protest churches & gov’t buildings that perform gay marriages, much less threaten violence against persons or property.

However, at this time, there is no societal consensus to extend marriage to gays.
Court-mandated solutions to political questions unresolved by society leads to major social rifts, such as the abortion-issue. The reason most court-mandated solutions to racial-civil-rights issues succeeded is that a good portion of society was leaning that way & just needed a court decision to tip the balance. Note that there is no great movement among conservatives to overturn to SCOTUS ruling striking down anti-sodomy laws. Some griping about Federal Court violation of state jurisdiction, yeah; but no real action to reverse the situation. Even Clarence Thomas in his dissent agreed that such laws should be overturned but it should be done on state legislative levels. Btw, LibertarianFriarTed totally supports the SCOTUS ruling.

Another reason I have for opposing civil marriage while supporting civil unions which would be marriage in all but name- a reason many gays have for so deeply wanting marriage rather than civil unions which would be marriage in all but name. That it would give homosexuality the same claim of legitimacy & normality that heterosexuality has. And why do I oppose that? Because of how it would now be addressed in elementary & secondary public education- with full advocacy & affirmation, and hostility to traditional religious-moral perspectives, the same way public schools rightly affirm racial & gender equality & fight racism & sexism.

How do I think gay issues should be addressed in public schools?
NOT by teaching that GLBTQ*ness is sick & abnormal & criminal & unhealthy & yadda yadda yadda.
BUT by saying- most people are straight, some are gay, bi, TG or questioning. There are certain health risks in certain sexual behaviors in all of these. There is a controversy about the psychological-moral-spiritual risks. You, your family, your religion may believe that any of these are wrong or unhealthy. It is your right to believe these things & to even express those beliefs. It is your responsibility to treat other people decently & with civility.
And for those students who do come out & seek school counsel, schools have the responsibility to protect them from actual harrassment & give them counseling to help them through their struggle. but not to affirm their GLBTQness nor fight it.

  • pronounced glibtik
102

A gift for you** [COLOR=Black]spectrum**.[/color]

103

Sorry, I shouldn’t have colored that red. The above is a link. Click it.

104

Friar Ted & prisoner6655321:

This is from ‘West Wing’ but the bible quotes are accurate.

"When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as stated in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s Word is eternal and unchanging."

For heaven’s sake. It’s 2005. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize two people in love who want to get married? Don’t you think that, indeed, god’s word is ripe for changing?

105

Okay dopers, can I please accuse someone of not reading now?

gum, read this. Originally linked in post #102, and referenced in post #103 (the one directly above yours).

Please note, that I only rebuke out of love and compassion gum. :smiley:
And to answer all of your clever West Wing questions… read my link.

106

:: Heartfelt applause ::

Good on you, prisoner! Would that your epiphany might strike those others who insist that their version of rightness, secular or religious, be imposed upon the whole world, to the last jot or tittle. You and I inhabit very different ends of the spectrum (HA!), but we could talk.

Happy New Year to you! :smiley:

107

Wait a minute. Are you saying that you oppose the implementation of same-sex marriage because it’s unpopular? You realize that’s different from saying, “I would like there to be same-sex marriage, but I don’t think it’s feasible at the moment.” Are you saying that the opinions of others have bearing on your belief as to whether it would be just to implement same-sex marriage?

108

Reading post 101, I can’t help but be reminded of essentially identical arguments against interracial marriage, as has been mentioned above. (And yes, some folks in the US still oppose interracial marriage, though it’s clear there’s no going back legally.)

(The claim that kids would suffer was also the keystone argument for that debate, btw, although Biblical arguments were trumped up as well.)

Sound familiar? These arguments didn’t work for denying “mixed race” marriages, and they don’t work for denying SSM either. That’s not saying there are no possible arguments against SSM, but simply that these don’t pass muster.

The thing is, if one form of marriage can be legally barred on such a basis, then any form of marriage to which the argument can be applied may also be legally barred.

Btw, of course this is a question of law. Secondly, “society”, whatever that is (I read it as code for “the majority” – last time I checked, gays were part of society) does not necessarily have the right to “determine what the structure of marriage will be” if in doing so it violates the Constitutional rights of the minority.

One could similarly argue, for example, that society has the right to determine the structure of business and trade regulations, and if there’s no consensus to allow group X to own businesses, then well, too bad for group X.

Imho, this notion of arguing for “the benefit of society” and claiming that it’s not really about individuals (as has been done repeatedly in this thread) is a dangerous game.

Wish I could remember the writer who when asked (translating from the Spanish) if he wrote “for humanity” replied “I don’t know that woman”.

You’re entitled to your opinions about what constitutes moral decline, but when you start supporting laws to enforce those opinions on others, I have to stand up and oppose you. Personally, there’s a lot in the “conservative” and “traditional” methods of parenting that I find destructive, but as I perceive our system of Constitutional law, I have absolutely no right to attempt to pass laws that would prohibit parents from engaging in them.

109

Apropos Prisoner’s changed stance, I went to research the question AskNott wrote in another thread about whether Jerry Falwell had commented on the tsunamis, and found this. While it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of anything gay, it’s head and shoulders above what I would have expected him to have said, based on past performance. I particularly liked his noting that he and Mel White had in fact worked together for years, and his repeating what he’d told a reporter in answer to the hypothetical question of what he would do if one of his children were gay.

It’s faint. And it flickers. But there is light down there at the end of the tunnel. :slight_smile:

110

Thank you, prisoner. I can’t tell you how much that means to me.

Happy New Year.

111

Damn. Wow. I just… I got no words.

Wow.

112

::sharpens knife. fetches fatted calf::

113

I read the thread, thanks, prisoner6655321. Between the bolding and the red, I found this interesting:

Isn’t this what this thread is about? A religious marriage by two people in love?

Thanks for the love and compassion, though. Just what I needed. :smiley:

114

Just wanted to add how absolutely beautiful that was prisoner. IMHO, showing and treating others with loving respect despite our own feelings or opinions is not a concession of anything, but rather the true epitome of Christ’s teachings. With that, you retain your own beliefs and graciously accept theirs. From that spawns healing, communion and collective growth.

What a blessed new year’s present for us all.

115

Wrong. If you want to make me happy, then you won’t vote against my right to marry. But if you want me to be satisfied, then you’ll take some time to think about your position and show me the respect of telling me why you believe the way you do and vote the way you do. Don’t try to make it sound as if I’m beating you down until I get you to “surrender,” when I have said over and over again that I want nothing more than for opponents of same-sex marriage to step up to the plate and say why they oppose it. And with your two posts, you did exactly that. So I’m satisfied with your repsonse.

(And while I’m talking about it – I want to extend my kudos to prisoner as well. NOT for saying that he is no longer in opposition of SSM, but because he showed that he was willing to think about it and listen to the other side and give a reasoned response instead of “that’s just my opinion.” Obviously, I’m happy with his decision, but I’m even happier that he and others are putting thought into it.)

And as for your detailed response, I can only say that while I now understand your position, I don’t see any point in my trying to argue against it. Because I can’t recognize any common ground between us. Your objection is fundamentally based on the idea that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. I of course acknowledge that you go to lengths to encourage a basic level of civil rights for homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals, which is better than nothing.

But in short, I feel that nothing short of my “surrender” by saying that it’s sinful and unnatural for me to be a homosexual and I’m not entitled to marriage, will make you happy. So there’s an impasse that, frankly, I’m tired of fighting against.

So I completely disagree with your take on the issue, but I applaud you for taking the time to present it in detail.

116

This is why we shouldn’t give up on fundies and paint people who disagree with the same brush as the rest of them. They can take steps forward. They at least are capable of doing so, and so they shouldn’t be written off as hopeless bigots.

It’s obvious that Prisoner, even before his ephiphany, truly desires to do right. To the extent that he’s willing to step outside of his mental and spiritual comfort zones and do something that is unpopular to many other christians.

117

I have to go to work, but I finally got back to this thread.

Prisoner: I dont’ know what to say. I find what you did to be most admirable and due the utmost respect. It is not easy to do self-examine, and to do it while under fire is extremely difficult. It’s wonderful–thank you for sharing your insights.

118

Oh, Lord, no! That’s not why I oppose SSM. I oppose it because I think it would be a violation of God’s laws of marriage & family, because it would be a societal-governmental sanctioning of gay sex whereas civil unions is a soc-gov bond which says nothing of sex (I believe CU’s could well be created for other relationships),
because it would be a soc-gov message to those youth whose sexuality is in flux that any option is totally the same & that religious/moral perspectives against gay sex oppose social order & gov’t policy. Religious institutions which teach against gay sex would soon find themselves losing their tax-exempt status much as Bob Jones University lost its t-es because of its racial poliicies. Psychological & social workers who practice reparative therapies (which are nowhere near being cure-alls but do work for those is orientational flux) will be more vulnerable to being charged with malpractice or cast out of their professional organizations, even shut down by government.

119

Thanks- I was hoping that I was successful in getting my points across, as nuanced & tap-dancing & flip-flopping as they are. As Rev. Lovejoy says “Long answer ‘No, but…’; short answer ‘Yes, if…’” I know we are going to be political adversaries on this subject but at least we can be civil, and I’m glad you realize that I am trying as much as possible in context of my beliefs to be fair & balanced :smiley:

Yes, those last three words were self-deprecating irony/

120

This is law respecting the establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional. Believe what you want for yourself, but if the government is going to be in the marriage game, it cannot use your (or my, or anyone’s) religion to determine who is extended the right and who is denied it.

This presumes that the government sanctions what it does not prohibit. Frankly, that point of view puts government, not individual rights and conscience, at the center of a citizen’s life and implies (dangerously, imho) that government is the central arbiter of all things. Under our system, that is not true. The federal government has limited and explicit rights (thank God) – all others are reserved for the states and citizens. Each state is likewise restricted in the scope of its jurisdiction.

Few things make my blood boil like the idea that individuals’ liberties should be restricted in order to “send a message”. The government is not supposed to be our nanny, nor our moral compass. That is not its purpose as spelled out in the Constitution, the highest law of our land. Your conflation of “government” and “society” smacks of totalitarianism.

BJU lost its tax exempt status because of active racial discrimination in education, not because of anything anyone thought, said, or preached. It has long been established that freedom of worship does not grant the right to violate the rights of others. For example, if a pastor were to decide to take in a border in his home, he could select and reject anyone he chose. However, if a church owns an apartment complex as a public venture and advertises for tenants, it can’t add the clause “no Muslims”. Besides, requiring a university to pay taxes doesn’t impinge on anyone’s right to believe whatever they want or to worship as they choose. There is absolutely no precedent for the scenario you describe. It would not happen.

I can’t find any basis, parallel, or precedent whatsoever for that claim.