Monthly Archives: December 2008

The Gospel of Will Smith

I really like Will Smith. He’s one of my favorite actors, and I almost always dig movies in which he appears. The Pursuit of Hapyness and I am Legend were both good films. His latest, Seven Pounds, is a movie I will probably go see.

Therefore, I read his recent interview in Newsweek with great interest.  He said some very intriguing things.

vibe.com

photo credit: vibe.com

For one, I really appreciate it that he acknowledges suffering in this life. It’s so easy to brush it off, blind yourself to it, and adopt a surfacy, self-help, motivational guru approach to life. I didn’t see that in this interview. Seems like he tries to wrestle with loss and suffering, rather than deny and run from it. For instance, he says:

“I love the origins of a story and have always been intrigued with the idea of trauma—emotional trauma and loss. Life is all about death and rebirth and how do we manage to deal with those things when they happen. And not just death in terms of life. You know when you lose your job or your house—that’s a death of something that is a part of your life. How do you manage that? What do you do the next day after it happens? How do you go on? With these characters, they’ve all experienced traumas that have changed their lives. I like that this film (Seven Pounds) shows you the options in life for redemption and finding yourself again.”

After that, however, the interview takes a strange turn. He starts commenting on religion. Though he makes some spot-on remarks about service and leading an others-centered life, most of his comments on faith and spirituality reveal a profound misunderstanding.

In response to the question, “Are you a Scientologist,” he replies:

“I love the nature of humanity’s search for meaning. For me I’m certain about my relationship with the model of perfection of human life that’s laid out with the life of Jesus Christ. I’m certain of that.”

Wow…that’s a mouthful. “I’m certain about my relationship with the model of perfection of human life that’s laid out with the life of Jesus Christ.” If nothing else, that’s an interesting way to phrase it. Hmm.

He continues:

“So I’m at home and not fearful when I sit in a mosque or a synagogue or a Buddhist temple, the same way that I’m home in the Church of Scientology. I like anywhere people are searching for the truth, and I respect their path and I’m intrigued by their path. I think when you are certain in and of what you believe in, you can open your mind to seeing the ways of others. I’m not bothered when someone says “Allah” because they’re talking about God—we are talking about the same person. I was in India recently and my hotel was near the Taj Mahal. Five times a day there would be a call for prayer, and it was the most beautiful thing. I was lying in my bed thinking, no matter what your religion is, it would be great to have that reminder five times a day to remember your Lord and savior.”

This reflects an “any old god will do” approach to spirituality. What matters is not that its True in the objective sense–he might not even think objective religious truth exists–but that your beliefs are your choice, they make you happy and help you live life to the fullest. If a certain path brings you peace, then that path is “right for you.”

This is what Greg Koukl labels the “ice cream” approach to spirituality: beliefs are neither true nor false. They are a matter of personal taste and choice. It would be silly for me, a rocky road fan, to say to a vanilla fan, “You are wrong. Repent, sinner!” Just the same, its silly and “narrow-minded” for someone to criticize another’s choice of spiritual paths, especially if that path is helping that person “get along” in life.
Hence the popular phrase, “true for you but not for me.”

Many if not most religious claims and “paths,” however, simply don’t fit into that box. Its rather absurd to think that God pops into existence “for” a Christian, but suddenly pops out of existence “for” an atheist. Many religions make historical, scientific, and metaphysical claims.

Did Jesus rise from the dead or not? If not, then Paul himself admits Christianity is for suckers.

Did Muhammad really receive revelation straight from Allah? Did God really create the world?

These claims aren’t simply matters of taste. Rather, they can be evidentially investigated.

Plus, as Koukl says, when you die, you either are reincarnated, you go to heaven, hell, you rot in the grave, you catch a flight on the back of a comet, or, none of the above, or, or…but you can’t do them all!

Secondly, all religions aren’t morally neutral. Some–like the Jim Jones cult or the Branch Davidians of the 90’s–are outright crazy. Others–like Islam, advocate killing the infidel (that’d be you and me). Am I supposed to give a nod to something like that?

Thirdly, I honestly don’t know how he could say “Allah” and “God” are the same person. Yes, the words translate the same, but I’m talking about the concepts of God in Islam and Christianity. Has Will Smith actually read the Koran?

Most importantly, however, he misunderstands that religions aren’t equal on a more fundamental scale. Every religion I know of

a) attempts to diagnose what the problem is with humanity, and

b) offers a solution, or “cure” to it.

Now this is serious business. If a doctor in medicine misdiagnoses a patient and/or gives an inadequate cure, that doctor is no doctor at all. We call him a “crackpot.” If that’s the way we think about our physical bodies, why should we all of a sudden shrug our shoulders and go “whatever floats your boat” when it comes to our souls? The soul is with you forever!

The stakes are high: getting it wrong brings both temporal and eternal consequences.

Given this, Smith is asking the wrong questions. He should be asking “what religion is true?” not “what religion gives me personal meaning?” Every religion is about something. Does it accurately describe reality?

Can we all agree that Jesus was a smart man? He knew a thing or two about humanity and spirituality. He had a perspective on things that all before and since Him lack. He had real authority. Even the most ardent skeptic can acknowledge this. Any person desiring wisdom would give his perspective some thought.

What was His take? His diagnosis was that every human being sins. We are infected through and through with it. Even the best of the best sin….often. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we fall woefully short in word, thought, and deed. We each have acquired quite a lengthy rap sheet. Because God is fully loving and just, this rap sheet separates us from Him.

This, then, is the problem…sin…and its a problem that Muhammad, Gautama Buddha, Oprah, or L. Ron Hubbard can’t solve.

Oh, yes, those others might make you feel better. They might make you behave better. They might bring satisfaction and peace. But they are only curing the external symptoms, not the fundamental disease, if you will.

Only Jesus has the goods. God, in His mercy, has given us the solution: forgiveness. It is on His terms, not ours, though. His terms? Forgiveness through Christ. Take it or leave it.

So, Will: “do-gooding” is part of it. Finding satisfaction and meaning is part of it. But that’s the surface, not the fundamentals. Thinking that all religions basically teach the same thing (I don’t know if Will Smith actually believes this, but given what he said in the interview, sounds like he might) is like saying that aspirin and arsenic are the same because they both come in tablet form. It’s the differences that matter; it’s the differences that bring eternal life, or eternal death.

If you like what you read, please subscribe to my RSS feed (RSS button is at the top right in the sidebar.).

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Why Guys Need God

Mike Erre is the teaching Pastor at RockHarbor church in Costa Mesa, California….he’s my pastor.

He has a knack for explaining things well. In particular, I find his material about masculinity very good.

Here’s one excerpt from his book Why Guys Need God. Read it. Well worth it.

While you’re at it, check out the video interview with Mike Erre on his book.

I’ve kind of shied away from reading his books because, afterall, I hear him preach just about every week.  But I admit, the interview and excerpt was intriguing. I’m gonna have to move this book up a few notches on my “need to read” list.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Same-Sex Marriage Conversation, Concluded

Read the introduction and parts I , II, III, and IV of this series.

I posted the following on my blog about two initial “no on 8″ protests that became nasty:

latimes.com

photo credit: latimes.com

These are two of many reports of the same sort of thing.  I’ve had a few discussions with proponents of SSM, and the emotional vitriol is significant.
I’m not going to pretend that “yes on 8″ folks are totally in the clear here; I saw a news report of some Mormons tearing down “no on 8″ signs and then physically attacking some of the protesters. Their actions are reprehensible and they should be swiftly disciplined (and I don’t think this because they are Mormon! Though I vehemently disagree with their theology, which I regard as a twisting of historic Christianity, I am happy and proud to stand with them on moral issues when we agree.).
My points *are*:

1) Those who are sympathetic to homosexuality and who are proponents of SSM often talk about how the other side is intolerant, hateful, and bigoted, yet the majority of instances I’ve heard of are like the two links above. This needs to be acknowledged.

2) Really, keep it up. When I was a wrestler, you were gonna lose if your opponent got you angry. You would ‘get out of your game’ and do something stupid, perhaps losing a team point or even getting disqualified. It is no different here. All the emoting and anger doesn’t hurt the traditional marriage cause. Eventually, folks will realize that when it comes to SSM, the emperor has no clothes.

To which my friend replied:gdint

Yeah, emotion and anger would be the wrong things to show, especially when children are paying attention right? Especially when there is injustice in the world? Its a great idea to be stoic, not to get upset, to keep it in.

I guess its a good thing throughout history that people stayed quiet and didnt speak out against hypocrisy, injustice, prejudice, bigotry, etc.

Yeah, say nothing, be calm…..then your voice won’t be heard.
I hope the sarcasm is evident.

My next response:

The only thing I’ve seen coming from SSM proponents, and I mean the only thing, is argument by outrage. Of course, there is a time and place for strong words. Some of my blogs on abortion bear that out. But when mere emotional outrage is the only thing relied on, that’s telling. You might bully and browbeat some people into agreement, but it won’t get you very far overall.

Also, I reiterate the double standard I pointed to above. I admit there has been instances of violence from the “yes on 8″ crowd. Like I said above, they should be swiftly disciplined by the law and, where slurs have been uttered by church members (whether Mormon or Christian), their churches should bring discipline. Behavior and attitudes like that have no place among God’s people.

But I have read time and time again of violence, even death threats, coming from “no on 8″ protesters. The verbal rage is quite impressive too. I myself have been called all sorts of names, some by you. This goes past strong and passionate disagreement. This is a huuuge double standard coming from those who talk so much about tolerance and love. To the audience reading the exchange–read the blog yourself, examine our claims, examine our tones and attitudes especially, and make up your own mind.

Response:

Double standard……ah, that just wraps up Prop 8 doesn’t it?

Again, I won’t apologize. I would have called racists just that in the 1930’s and the 1950’s, just as I do now. I would have called Hitler an anti-semetic/homophopbic/hypcocritcal mass murderer (and many other names..but I digress).

I call sexists what they are. I call a spade a spade Rich. You don’t like the name, too bad. The way you are treating a group of Humans is wrong, and I am no longer standing by and just watching it happen. The way you are treating a group of Humans by taking their rights away, by putting them in a “lesser” category is inhumane, and I WILL get angry anytime one human thinks its ok to do that to another.

Do I think the violence is justified, absolutely not. But do I think name-calling is called for? If its unjustified, no, but if its simply to point out the behavior and put a mirror up for someone and force them to see themselves for how they are behaving, then yes, I think its IN line.

Just because you don’t want to see your behavior for the ugliness it contains, doesn’t mean I should walk away. So you didn’t call me a name Rich, you didn’t use the word FAG….your action by voting YES on Prop 8 is the inhumane action.

And trying to show that one side, your side, is acting more calm after the passing of Prop 8 – that doesn’t prove anything Rich. If the vote went the other way, there would be angry Yessers, there would no doubt be protests, and I’m sure there would be violence. Why am I so sure? Because its what I saw before the election. It only calmed down after Prop 8 was passed. From what I observed in my communities before the election were many groups of angry and name-calling Yessers. I also saw a community against Prop 8 that stayed calm and believed that humanity would prevail, that California was not a state that would discriminate and let a majority supress a minority….and afterwards I see people outraged that we have this Double Standard. We are outraged, we are angry, and we aren’t going away.

Your “side” had better be ready….this is the fight of our generation and we WILL prevail.

The Conversation Continues:

Emotion is a good and called for thing sometimes…its just that you’re pretty much sunk if that’s all you rely on, and that’s what I see here (with the exception of Patterico. Who knows, there are most likely more out there like him. December 26 addition–Miller uses more than emotion in her Newsweek article. She at least makes an attempt at some arguments).

If you are going to call a name (again, something I’ve done before), make sure you back it up and show how it sticks. I don’t think you’ve done that here; the best you’ve done is question beg, followed by a lot of outrage.

Let me comment on something more fundamental here, something more fundamental than SSM: does “love” mean that you must approve of everything the person does? I’m glad my parents didn’t think so. When they saw me doing something destructive, whether to others or to myself, they stood against it, many times disciplining me stiffly. I’m a better man for it.

Keep that in mind in the debate over homosexuality.

Many people disapprove not due to some deep seated fear, as you suggest, but because they are convinced the homosexual lifestyle is harmful, both to the individuals involved and to society at large (and not just in the sexual area). An acknowledgement of that is all I ask.

Disagree with that you may, disagree passionately, even, but its unfair to try to pidgeonhole these folks (I’m in this group) as fearful, hateful, etc. If we got it wrong, then we got it wrong, and hopefully history will correct us and we’ll repent. But merely shouting “bigot!” doesn’t show us our error.

I didn’t want to have to say this, but I guess its appropriate now: I’ve lived with a homosexual man for a year in the past. We got along just fine. When I wrote an op-ed piece for the OSU newspaper that shared my view about homosexual behavior, one lesbian invited me to the gay/straight alliance group at OSU. I went, and I went without a protest sign in my hand. I was pretty quiet in the meeting, especially when they decided to talk directly to me.

Through the whole exchange, I gained some homosexual acquaintances (I would call them friends, but I don’t know if they’d call me a friend). I took one to church a few times, and he took me to one of his AA meetings. I never uttered a hateful word to these guys; I just disapproved of their lifestyle. There are men who struggle with Same-sex attraction in a 12 step group I go to for sexual addiction (Yes, I do not lead a righteous life by any stretch of the imagination. I have my own sin to repent of.). I’m happy to call these guys brothers. They are actually a lot nicer than I am, and are a pleasure to interact with.

I could go on, but does this sound like someone who has a deep seated fear and hatred?

Last thing: if disapproving of a lifestyle is enough to garner the label “hatemonger,” then the same label applies to you.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

To summarize, no “rights” are being taken away. Homosexuals have the same rights as I do…I can’t afterall, marry anyone I choose. Homosexuals, as well as myself, can marry someone of the opposite gender above the age of 18.

Just because someone has different desires (this was the point of Koukl’s “French voting” illustration) doesn’t mean that they are being treated unequally if the government chooses not to acquiesce to that desire.

Plus, desire or a behavior is not a good ground for a right.

Most of what I’ve seen so far is question begging; just assuming SSM is a right without giving reasons for that. Now, I think you’ve also assumed something else you need to argue for: that homosexuals, transgenders, etc, should be a protected class of people, similar to racial minorities.

Just as clarification, I’m not asking “why should homosexuals be protected from violence, slurs, etc?” No one should be attacked due to their sexual orientation…pointing that out kinda makes me look absurd, in fact, its just that I feel I need to so I’m not misheard.

What I am asking is “why should we consider sexual orientation the same type of thing as race and ethnicity?” To be somewhat convincing when it comes to SSM, you’ve gotta answer that question solid. Most reasons have something to do with “I was born that way” or “I didn’t ask for this,” or “its who I am.” All three are variations of the same basic answer.

So that was it! I hope you’ve gained some insight by reading this, and I hope this adds to the already lively discussion on same-sex marriage that has resulted from the Newsweek article. Let me know your thoughts.

Also check out related posts from my own blog:

Oy

Balancing Scripture, Reason, and Experience

Tony Jones: Same-sex Blogalogue Update

Tony Jones Part III: Something I Missed

Jim Carey, Eat your Heart Out

Proposition 8 Protest Links

Rights, Shmights

But its a Religious Argument!

Like what you read? Be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed (RSS button is found at the top right in the sidebar)!

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Celebrating Christmas

I have thought long and hard about how to celebrate Christmas (and therefore honor Christ) on this blog.

I will be celebrating the birth of Christ by…not doing a thing on the blog.

goodshepherd-ic.com

photo credit: goodshepherd-ic.com

Yup. Think about it; blogging, for me, is a black hole of time. I have spent so much time working on this thing. It’s borderline idolatry.

Jesus gets 100% of my time Thursday. I’ll see you all on Friday. Have a merry Christmas.

Adultolescence: Never-Never Land

Recently Mark Steyn wrote on our lovely education system in America.

His comments on adultolescence are extremely poignant:

“In droning the mantra that every kid should have the right to a college education, we’re doing the opposite of what we ought to be doing — which is telescoping education into a much shorter period. It’s taken for granted that our bodies mature much earlier than our great-grandparents so we all need access to condoms and abortion by Fifth Grade, but apparently our minds need longer than ever, and in some cases until early middle age. So we enter adolescence much sooner and leave it a decade or more later.

Right now, to put my demography hat on, the western world has a possibly terminal shortage of children. One reason it does is because the fellows on whom society traditionally depends for child-rearing — young adults — are staying in school until their mid-twenties and embarking on grown-up life ever later, if at all. Thirty per cent of German women are childless; among university graduates, it’s 40 per cent. The pursuit of a 100 per cent college-educated populace is a recipe for societal suicide.”

This whole “embarking on grown-up life later” thing does not bode well for America’s future.

See the “addendum” here.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Same-Sex Marriage Conversation Part IV

Read the introduction and parts I , II, and III of this series.

Here was my response to my friend’s latest (part III)–her words are preceeded with a >, mine comes with a –:

babble.com

photo credit: babble.com

>The same argument was made when interacial marriage was not allowed–they all had the right to marry, just not between races. Bigotry, plain and simple.  If it was reversed Rich, and marriages were only allowed between the same sex, would heterosexuals be upset?

–The article I sent you actually gets into this a bit with the bank illustration. The fact that similar *objections* were used in both cases isn’t meaningful; the similarity of objections are only meaningful if the circumstances are the same, and in this case, the two relationships are very different.

With interracial marriage, skin color is trivial to the nature of the union. Gender, however, is key to unions. Like the article says, ‘Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex (not just asexual act, mind you, but the broader category of gender) is fundamental to it.’

To see this point, consider that you could make the same objection to any number of relationships. If, fifty years into the future, polygamists are fighting for multi-partner marriages, a polygamist could say to objectors, ‘They said the same thing about interracial marriage,’ but that response would be wrong headed, for the same reason its wrong headed here; the objection is the same, but the circumstances are very, very different. They could argue, as you have, that ‘if the situation were reversed and they only allowed polygamous marriages, would heterosexual couples be upset?’ Would they have a point? They could argue, ‘the difference between other committed relationships and polygamy is*choice.*’ Would they have a point?

>First, they don’t want preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved – that statement IS ignorant.

–So lets take sex out of it. Something is unique about homosexual relationships, and whatever it is, same-sex marriage proponents thinks it sets those relationships apart from other committed relationships to the point that they claim homosexual relationships should be called ‘marriages,’ where the other relationships shouldn’t be called that.

What is that ‘unique quality’ that sets those relationships apart from, say, me wanting to get married to my 12 year old cousin, or a three some or foursome? Why is age and number so significant? What’s so scary about the number 2 and the age 18? The key question is: if you are going to change the definition of marriage (which is what SSM proponents want to do), why have special pleading?

‘Choice’ doesn’t work, for then I could turn around and argue that I should have the choice to marry in a three some (or my12 year old sister, take whatever example you want) merely because I want to.

Here’s the bottom line: First, the reason why government grants special status (by calling it ‘marriage’) to heterosexual unions is because it benefits the next generation. This goes regardless of whether or not a specific couple or all couples choose to have children. Any child that *is* born/adopted deserves a mom and dad.

In the real world, a great number of children don’t have this, but that shouldn’t stop the government and society from making it easier. Basically, while certain heterosexual relationships indeed are dysfunctional (thanks to many things, no-fault divorce being one of them), and though I know a homosexual couple can and do love their children well (better than many heterosexual couples!), it remains true that having a mom and a dad is the best environment for a child.

This goes far past the ability to produce children. Rather, the matter is: given that government has a vested interest in the health of the next generation, what is the best environment for raising it?

Government allows many other relationships. It doesn’t criminalize single moms, for instance, but it does not privilege them by calling them marriage because those relationships don’t, strictly speaking, benefit society.

Secondly, *people* deserve to be treated equally, not relationships, feelings, behaviors, or desires. Rights are grounded in someone’s humanity, not those other things I just mentioned. Having a desire (in this case, to get married to a member of the same gender) doesn’t mean that the government should grant that desire. To see this, just think about the absurd examples I referenced above (the desire to get married to someone underage, for instance).

Thirdly, and most importantly, same-sex couples already *do*have the same benefits as heterosexual married couples under Family Code297.5 (go here:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5).

All that is left is the name ‘marriage.’ What’s so meaningful about that? Calling a same-sex relationship a ‘marriage’ doesn’t add any sort of benefit, so why is there such a big to-do about it?

The answer is that calling same-sex relationships ‘marriages’ confers approval. This is what the debate is all about: if government privileges same-sex relationships (saying ‘allows’ is not the right word, for the government already does that–same-sex couples can love each other, live together, walk down the isle,and get partner benefits…the government isn’t making any of that illegal and it isn’t criminalizing same-sex relationships.), that is tantamount to approval. That means the people, who are part of the government, approve as well.

If you listen carefully to same-sex marriage proponents, you’ll hear this come out. (Current addition coming up) In fact, Augustine, who attempted to “eviscerate” Greg Koukl (whom I linked to in both the introduction and part two of the series) admitted as much when he said, “I have argued is that disallowing gay marriage unfairly prevents same-sex couples from being given the same level of respect and validation by the state as every single heterosexual couple is entitled to.”

The key question is this: Is *approval* of one’s relationship a right? Someone might want approval,and those relationships might or might not be morally ok, but does that make it a right?

No…well, I take that back, it might be, but you’ve gotta argue for it. You’ve gotta show how the government approving of same-sex relationships would benefit society (even if you were able to show that, that wouldn’t make it a right, but a privilege.). That is something I’ve seen no one do. What I’ve seen so far (and I’ve been reading around and talking to lots of different people) is a lot of question-begging: calling it a right without arguing for it, then attacking the character of those that disagree (no matter what their reason for disagreeing is).

This goes right to the heart of Koukl’s “French voter” illustration. Yes, I’m aware the guy doesn’t live in France. That is a difference, but not an important one.

The relevant part of the analogy is desire: should the government actively sanction something just because someone desires it? Not unless such sanctioning will benefit the common good. Again, desires, inclinations, and behaviors are not proper grounding for rights; this was the point of the illustration.

You know what, at the end of the day, even if there people did vote for traditional marriage for only religious reasons, whats so out of bounds about that? It is perfectly fine. It’s not a violation of the Establishment Clause to vote for an individual citizen to vote for a certain bill/candidate based upon religious conviction.

In the public square it is more beneficial to have arguments that a wide swath of people from different viewpoints can agree to, but that doesn’t mean religious conviction has no place in my (or anyone else’s) voting conscience.

Crying foul because some voted for religious reasons is a foolish attempt at marginalizing a certain point of view. When I go to the voting booth, should I act, believe, behave, and vote like a secularist, or should I, as a Christian, just have no voice?

Keep reading on Friday (I will not post on this on Christmas day…Jesus, not homosexuality, owns that day!) for the conclusion of this series!

Also check out related posts from my own blog:

Oy

Balancing Scripture, Reason, and Experience

Tony Jones: Same-sex Blogalogue Update

Tony Jones Part III: Something I Missed

Jim Carey, Eat your Heart Out

Proposition 8 Protest Links

Rights, Shmights

But its a Religious Argument!

Like what you read? Be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed (RSS button is found at the top right in the sidebar)!

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Same-sex Marriage Conversation Part III

Read the introduction and parts I and II of this series.

Yesterday I posted my response (part II) to my teacher-friend (part I).  I really didn’t make much of my own argument in my response; I just linked a very insightful article.  Now is when things get real interesting. Here is her response to the article:

Ok, first off Rich I’ve never acted like these arguments don’t exist- I’ve heard them, but here’s the difference: in your opinion they are ‘good’ arguments, while in my opinion they are not, in fact I think they are ridiculous excuses to back up and justify discriminating against the gay community. And yes, I did read the article.

I’m not going to apologize for using the word bigot-if you were offended, good. You should be. I realize everyone has the right to their own opinion. But to take action against a group of people who are different than you, to take their rights away is WRONG. You did that by voting Yes – you took action against a group of people, the gay community, and took their right to marry away from them.

I could go into detailed responses to all of the points made in the article you sent me, but quite frankly I dont have the time right now. I will however respond to the two that I think are the most absurd.

1. ‘Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.’

This is absurd to me. The same argument was made when interacial marriage was not allowed – they all had the right to marry, just not between races. Bigotry, plain and simple. If it was reversed Rich, and marriages were only allowed between the same sex, would heterosexuals be upset? Absolutely, and they would point out that their wanting to marry has nothing to do with having sex with someone of the opposite sex, but wanting the right to be married to them, with all of the rights that be married entails. which brings me to the second point.

2. ‘If homosexual couples face ‘unequal protection’ in this area (referring to the legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc), so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?’

First, they dont want preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved – that statement IS ignorant. They want it for the same reasons married couples have those rights (as listed in your article). However, the difference is the unmarried citizens with ‘deep, loving commitments’ who have chosen not to get married — they had a CHOICE Rich, something you and the other 52% who voted Yes have taken away from the gay couples. They don’t get a CHOICE – according to all of you, they don’t deserve one because you don’t agree with who they have sex with. And guess where that argument stems from – two places usually: the Bible/God stating it OR people’s fears of the unknown, of the gay community.

I stand by my statements before. This is a HUMAN rights issue. You DO NOT have the right to take another Human’s rights away. How dare you.

My response is in the next post.

Also check out related posts from my own blog:

Oy

Balancing Scripture, Reason, and Experience

Tony Jones: Same-sex Blogalogue Update

Tony Jones Part III: Something I Missed

Jim Carey, Eat your Heart Out

Proposition 8 Protest Links

Rights, Shmights

But its a Religious Argument!

Like what you read? Be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed (RSS button is found at the top right in the sidebar)!