¤ jetless heights

makin’ tea in your underwear

+ Thu, November 18

From An Island

I am a person for compassion.  I am a person with few beliefs.  I am a person with much trust in fact and empirical evidence.  I am a person for doing what is found to be best and for openly atoning when a mistake is made.

I am a person for reason and I am a person for justice.  It is for this that I am wholly against the Republican party.

I am a liberal man.  I am not a Democrat, I am not a Republican.  Not a Green, Reformist, Libertarian, not even an Independent.  Drop that capital I and call me a person independent from a political party and you’ve got yourself agreement.  I take issue with the political party system as a whole, of which I find none more corrupt and against the very fabric of what it is to be a loving human than the Republican party.

I know many of you are rather sick of hearing about politics and all that – I could certainly do without it for a while – but since the election this month I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on what it is to live in this country.  The politics of hate and close-mindedness that a clear majority of my voting countrymen seem to support makes me sick.  I am ashamed of much of what my government has done in the last four years and I am ashamed to see how many millions of Americans agree.

When I was a sophomore in high school I was bummed out about something and my dad did that thing they all do: give advice.  He told me that as he sees it, life’s a game.  The better you know the rules, the easier it is and the farther you go.  Being the cocky 16 year old I was, I blew it off.  Half a decade later, I think he might’ve been more right than I gave him credit for.  From what I’ve seen, if it’s a game, it’s scored purely in knowledge.  To see my government do everything it can to stifle the free flow of knowledge, especially on the cutting edge of the most important fields of the time, I have a hard time expressing what this does in me.  It’s so viciously disgusting I can barely get the words out.

Stifling research that has the potential to cure diseases that we can’t even begin to treat with present techniques because it kinda-sorta conflicts with the values of one religion takes the cake for repulsive blindness.  This is the most appalling antithesis to our human cognition ability being applied to the bettering of life for all.  Not funding the explosive field of stem cell research because it deprives one man’s god of the worship due from a five day old, microscopic ball of cells — this is insanity.  Mothers and fathers are dying from potentially curable genetic disorders because my government won’t fund the brilliant scientists of this country (just last month it was discovered how incurable brain cancer uses stem cells to continue its lethal growth).  I thank my leaders for this pinnacle of morality.

Global warming.  I can think of one man who doesn’t believe it’s an absolutely critical issue to everyone on this globe.  He is my president and he is incapable of acknowledging his mistakes.  I loathe him for this.

There is much more that this government and its supporters have done to smother scientific growth, which I encourage you to read more of.

So much for science, let’s look at the social end of things.  Let’s look at how 1 out of every 5 states has stolen away the rights and privileges entitled to two people in love because of their gender.  What the hell does it matter to anyone if two guys down the block like to get it on?  As long as they let me live my life as I see fit, I’ll do the same for them.  Hell, I’d let them do whatever they want in their private lives even if they tried to impose their beliefs on me.  I’m free thinking, I’ll make my own choices, thank you.  “Do unto others…”, as some old book once said.

None of the above is compassion.  It’s hate, fear, ignorance.  It’s the refusal to acknowledge a mistake.

At this point I can feel emotion entering into the mix and that is not conducive to making a rational argument.  For this, I will now stop, but not without pointing you toward my inspiration tonight.

The Urban Archipelago is a site I came across tonight.  They say much towards the values I hold, if a bit more polarizing.  I don’t live in a city, but I recognize the need for a government that cares about the human condition.  I think that if there’s a strategy in this day for attaining that end, it has much do with the angles they propose.

Here’s to the day when America is once again a forward thinking nation, not afraid to change and love.

21 people have chimed in.
→ Add your 2¢ by reading through and commenting at the end.

1 → shanecavanaugh  –  (Nov 18 2004, 11:21 PM)

As long as they let me live my life as I see fit, I’ll do the same for them.

I would say that that might be the root of my foreboding about the current state of affairs in this country. The fact that the government can make someone’s personal, harmless choice illegal is appaling. Repeat: appalling. If the government can ban gay marriage, that opens up the possibility to further intrude in people’s lives.

Something that you must remember is that the country is still pretty evenly split. 51% for Bush, 48% for Kerry. The trouble is that those who voted for Kerry are too myriad. Those who voted for Bush aren’t nearly as different from each other as those who voted for Kerry. This is the reason that I think that Bush was re-elected. His campaigning didn’t “divide and conquer us” – we all were already divided. Bush had no trouble consolidating his voters. All he had to do was throw vague FUD at them, and they were captivated.

To be honest, I don’t have much hope for this country at the moment. I think that the major cities will shelter themselves all right, but it seems that, in general, the US has had its time in the sun. Places like Europe and Canada seem so much more progressive in comparison to us nowadays.

There’s a lot to be think about and consider, especially for people our age. We’re going to have to figure out what to do with out lives in the next few years. I thought that it was going to be easy, but current path looks dismal. I still haven’t collected all my thoughts. *thinks*

2 → brian  –  (Nov 21 2004,  4:44 PM)

again, i find myself wondering why… and how… people find it necessary for government to regulate morality.

i think that it was Locke who said that government should protect people’s lives, liberty, and property, and beyond that do nothing else… i find our government doing more and more every day.  telling me how to live, telling me which faith is the right faith… even though i am Christian, and heavily so, i find myself appalled at the actions our government has taken, our PRESIDENT has taken.

i know that in some ways we are better off than other countries… i know that a lot of Canadians use American health care because it IS in fact, better.  and so i am grateful for all of these things we have available to us.  i do not think that “Pax America” is going to end just yet… but… i am wondering if we DESERVE to go on the way we have.

::sighs::
i guess the real thing for me is that i can’t understand why we’re focused on things like abortion and gay marriage when people are starving to death in the streets, dying of diseases that could have been cured, and otherwise living miserably when they could have the opportunity for happiness.  that’s really what it is, giving people the CHANCE to be happy and enjoy the freedom that this country is supposed to afford us.  anyway… i agree with you… and i think i pretty much just restated what you said.

3 → Mike  –  (Nov 22 2004,  6:23 PM)

I honestly believe the U.S. is going through a political realignment, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (or maybe even grander than that…maybe this hasn’t been seen since FDR in the late ’30s).  The U.S. is no longer practicing the liberalism that brought this nation into the forefront of American politics at such a young age.

That the U.S. is such a young country is amazing to me.  At less than 230 years of age, we have the longest-standing constitution in the world.  Most other (read: European) countries demolished and rewrote theirs after WWII.  Most Europeans don’t have anywhere near the respect for their nations’ constitutions that Americans have.  But that young age, in my opinion, also gives Americans the right to fuck it all up once in a while.  And it’s unfortunate that I have to be alive for it, but I fear we’re in one of those stages right now.

Europeans had the Crusades, South Africans had Apartheid, and Americans had slavery.  All major fuckups.  But I fear that this irrational fear of terrorism and Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is leading us to another fuckup quickly.  I don’t think the Democratic Party can save us from it.  I don’t think the Republicans, the Greens, Libertarians, or anyone else can either.

I think we just need rational, secular, logical thought.  Clear-headed thinking will lead to a progressive America that is open to people of all races, sexualities, religions, and any other social classification.  And if someone wants to be bigoted, that’s their right.  But if they want to influence their nation’s policy with their bigotry, then they’ll have to move away, because it won’t happen in this America.

That’s my vision for the future of this country.  And I hope I get to see it in my lifetime.

4 → Scott W  –  (Nov 24 2004,  3:48 AM)

Above, Shanecavanaugh wrote:

“The fact that the government can make someone’s personal, harmless choice illegal is appaling. Repeat: appalling. If the government can ban gay marriage, that opens up the possibility to further intrude in people’s lives.”

I strongly disagree with this view that you all seem to share. Not only do I disagree that gay marriage is a “personal, harmless choice,” but I also believe that it would open up the possibility of many negative effects on our country.

“Two guys getting it on down the street” effects me because it promotes values that  would be detrimental to the traditional family. The intimacy and love between a man and a woman who have committed their entire lives to each other is unique and unrivaled. Also, children develop far better when they have a stable mother and father that love each other. Both in the quality of the relationship and in the effect on our children, heterosexual marriage is something amazing. It embodies positive values like commitment, partnership, and sexual morality. I feel that homosexual relationships seldom value these things. I have understood homosexual relations as less of an emotional, lifelong commitment and more of a temporary, physical relationship. If we condone gay marriage, we renounce the value of the traditional family. I do not want to live in a culture that no longer values the wonderful lifelong commitment, emotional bond, and sexual purity of traditional marriage, nor do I want my children to be raised in one.

Secondly, I often see people arguing that our government is denying people the “right” to marriage. It is an interesting question whether marriage is a “right.” Certainly, if two men, or a man and two women, etc., want to walk around and proclaim that they are married, they have the right to do so. But are the legal benefits of marriage something that any two people can be entitled to? The fact that the entitlements of two married people are called “benefits” means that they are a bonus and not a guarantee. Two parents get the benefit of filing income taxes together, but this does not seem like a “basic right” that any two people are entitled to. If any two people could receive a tax break, it would not longer be a benefit, and it would no longer be a “tax break.” Furthermore, our insurance companies and our already lacking social security program would not be able to survive if the number of legal partnerships greatly increased. Is denying a benefit, which is already something that not everyone is supposed to receive, really “intruding” on people’s lives?

I really like the traditional family and will someday start my own with a woman I love and am committed to for my entire life. I hope that my children are able to see from my marriage what is really important in a relationship, and I do not feel that a homosexual relationship is a good example. Although you have hopefully inferred this, I will throw in the standard disclaimer: I do not think that gays are bad people. I just feel that the relationship between two people of the same sex does not embody sexual purity nor emotional intimacy, nor is it conducive to raising children, as countless studies show.  Many heterosexual relationships are also not up to standard (what is our divorce rate at, 50%?), and I am just as worried about the example they set for sexual morality. I voted to ban gay marriage because I wanted to defend the traditional marriage and family that I believe is so necessary to our world’s healthy and fruitful existence. It comes down to a fundamental believe that a homosexual marriage is very different from a heterosexual marriage.

“Doing unto others,” as one old book says, does not mean “anything goes.”  I would hope that only what is right is done unto me.

5 → pd  –  (Nov 24 2004,  4:03 AM)

> It [heterosexual marriage] embodies positive values like commitment, partnership, and sexual morality.

Show me the gay couple fighting for the legal entitlements of marriage that does not embody commitment and partnership and then I’ll give your argument consideration.

6 → Scott W  –  (Nov 24 2004, 12:57 PM)

I’m glad we can talk about this issue in particular. It is something I have been thinking a lot about lately and I hope that we can share perspectives.

I agree with you that there are many homosexuals that value commitment in their relationships.I have known several gay men at my college  who definately are fighting for same-sex marriage because they want the commitment and partnership of their relationship to be honored.  Several of my relatives have been with same-sex partners almost their entire adult life, and I cannot believe that they would have stayed together for so long if they did not value partnership and emotional connection.

But it also seems that there are many more homosexuals who are very promiscuous. I have come across several articles that cite studies showing that gay partners are rarely exclusive. One in particular from the Family Research Council, says that a huge percentage of homosexuals take hundreds of partners in their lives, and even homosexual couples have a very hard time remaining comitted to each other. I have seen the word “polyamorous” used by many gay-rights supporters as a nice synonym for what I see as infidelity and lack of commitment. I have a hard time believing that these people value commitment and partnership if they cannot find satisfaction in having one exclusive partner.

So while I certainly understand that there are some homosexuals that desire meaningful and lasting commitment, statistics seem to show something different on the whole. I think that many people are fighting for gay marriage because it would make it more convenient to continue to practice sexual promiscuity while obtaining the benefits of a married person.

But while I believe that many gays not do exhibit positive values in a relationship, I also believe that they simply are not able to have the same emotional and spiritual bond that a man and a woman can embody. If two people of the same sex are disadvantaged physically (cannot have children, cannot parent children as effectively), it is likely that the same thing holds spiritually. I believe that marriage is a blessed union in the eyes of God, something that is designed to be amazing and beautiful and between one man and one woman. I just don’t think we are made to be able to achieve this bond through same-sex relationships.

Sorry this was long. I would love to hear what more people think about this.

7 → pd  –  (Nov 24 2004,  2:03 PM)

> “One in particular from the Family Research Council”

Them, yes.

FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

I know what the Christian Bible says about gay people.  Fire and  brimstone!  Raining stones from the heavens!  Right, look, the Judeo-Christian worldview is not for everyone.  It’s fine on a personal level, but when the scope of whatever issue is at hand extends beyond the singular person you have to accept that there are people who have absolutely no desire to adhere one bit to the “Judeo-Christian worldview”  and that is not a bad thing by default.

Find me an independent source explaining the immorality of gays that has nothing to do with one secular religion and then I’ll give consideration.

Finally, on the note of promiscuity: heterosexuals are by and large not exempt from this.  Look at any college in the country.  It’s absolutely everywhere and there are many, many people who do not have an issue with this.  That’s their choice and if it’s fine for them, fine.

> “I also believe that they simply are not able to have the same emotional and spiritual bond that a man and a woman can embody.”

Yeah, that’s fine.  But what on earth does that matter to them?  What does it really matter to them if some dude down the road thinks their love is foul?  As long as they are doing whatever they’re doing in private and it’s harmful to no one outside of themselves (if harmful to themselves at all) no one should do anything to stop them.

8 → Scott W  –  (Nov 25 2004,  1:42 AM)

Sorry that I was not very clear with how I used that link. It does not matter if that the article was secular or not, the statistics that were cited about homosexual promiscuity are still completely objective. I am using those statistics to show that homosexual behavior, by the numbers, is much different than heterosexual behavior. I will readily admit that plenty of straight people are very promiscuous, especially at a young age, but I do not think to the same extent as shown in those studies. To me, this difference in behavior reflects a difference in values. To me, it looks like the average heterosexual couple demonstrates and values more commitment while the average homosexual couple demonstrates and values promiscuity more.

If people want to live together and have sex in private, that is none of my business. But I really think that a society that upholds values such as lifelong partnership, fidelity, emotional connection, unconditional love will be much more healthy and fruitful than the society that values a practice that has so far demonstrated infidelity, lust, and promiscuity as its principles. I do not think that I am being intolerant, nor does this argument involve the Bible. I am just defending what I think is best for our nation, just as you are.

The difference between us is that I do not only see certain values as “better,” but I see then as “right” whereas you see them as relative. My believes are based on the Bible and I would love to share them with you, or anyone that is interested. Based on what you wrote above I am fairly sure that you are mistaken about the Bible. Fortunately, it is much better than you make it out to be. :)

9 → Alec  –  (Nov 26 2004,  7:33 PM)

Please tell me who is enforcing their values on who in the following hypothetical situations:

1) Gay marriage is legalized.  Gays can marry and do whatever they want.  People who oppose gay marriage can protest, tell Gays they’re going to Hell, discourage the act of homosexual marriage in any way they wish.  They don’t have to allow gay marriage at their places of worship, nor do they have to go to dinner parties at gay peoples’ houses.  People who oppose gay marriage continue to get married, have loving families, uphold all of the values that they adore, and America enjoys freedom and equality.

2)  Gay marriage is banned across the United States.  Gays cannot marry.  Christians sleep a little better at night knowing their kids won’t be exposed to “immoral” things in life and have to make their own responsible decisions about them.

Everyone is entitled to pursue their own definition of happiness provided that it does not interfere with the rights of others.  Now whose pursuit of happiness is interfering with whose?

10 → Alec  –  (Nov 27 2004,  5:40 PM)

And I don’t mean to spam Phil’s comment page, but the biblical argument is largely arguable.  Didn’t Paul tell the Galatians that in being committed to one another in love, they fulfill the Law?  “The whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Galatians 5:14)  So in a sense, yes, that commandment as an old book once said, means anything goes.  It all depends on who you ask.
If a person could be made right with God through the Law, then there would have been no reason for Christ to die. (2:21)
My church for one, supports gay marriage.
Your absolutes are not only dangerous but arguable within the context of your own faith.

11 → colleen  –  (Nov 27 2004,  9:05 PM)

While I agree with Alec that the biblical arguement is largely arguable, I dont really think that that should be the issue we are discussing. This country was founded on seperation of church and state. It is completely fine if your personal beliefe is that gay marriage is wrong and you have the bible to back up your beliefe. But who are you to impose your personal religious based beliefe upon everyone else living in this country? I think that the statement that Homosexuals are incredibly permiscuous is just an outrageous stereotype. I think its just like saying all black people are lazy. I think its just a blind, disgusting stereotype. I think that marriage IS a right. And I think the cases where people get married purely for the tax breaks is very rare, however if two people love each other enough and want a way to show that they love each other and are commited to each other both for their own sake and the sake of their families shouldn’t they have the right to do that? Also, along with marriage comes rights in terms of if your loved one/ partner is in the hospital or injured whether or not you get a say in what happens to them or the rights to visit them. How is that hurting anyone other than two people that love each other? I think it all boils down to this: if you dont want to marry someone of the same gender as you, than dont. But who are you to tell everyone else how to lead their lives?

12 → Scott W  –  (Nov 28 2004, 12:13 AM)

Thank’s everyone for responding. I certainly have a lot I’d like to discuss on this.

All of your comments, especially the latter ones, have made me think more carefully about what I’ve said. I don’t know very many homosexuals, and most information I have about homosexuality in general comes from statistics, discussion such as this, and probably several stereotypes (accurate or inaccurate). The article that I linked to above cited several studies in the section about “permiscuity” that suggest that permiscuity is more common with homosexuality than heterosexuality (you don’t have to read the whole article, just scroll to that section). However, I know a fair number of homosexual couples that show great commitment and love each other a lot, while I don’t think I know of any that demonstrate the extreme permiscuity represented in the statistics. My experiential knowledge is very limited, and I hope that I am not making a “blind” stereotype. I am basing my stereotype on objective statistics that I trust are accurate, with the understanding that it is not an all-inclusive label. But I will be more aware of my comments in this regard from now on.

13 → Scott W  –  (Nov 28 2004, 12:21 AM)

Alec, I want to talk with you more about the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Like you said, context is very important.
Verses like Ecclesiastes 10:19, which says “…but money is the answer for everything,” makes it apparent that verses by themselves must be examined in a greater context.

In my own studies, I have found context for the scripture you mentioned that makes me interpret Jesus’ message differently than the way you did.

Above you said that the “Greatest Commandment” means that “anything goes” in terms of our actions so long as we express love in them. I want to go back to when Jesus himself originally said this:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
-Matthew 22:36-37

I think that Jesus is putting an emphasis on the condition of “the heart.” The most important thing is that our hearts are filled with love for God and our neighbors. In saying that the Law “hangs” on this, I don’t think that Jesus is saying that anything goes as long as we do things with love. I think he is saying that this love is a foundation for keeping the commandments, but certainly not something that disqualifies the law.

I don’t think that the “greatest commandments” make the Old Testament law obsolete. Christ came so that we could have a relationship with God through him (John 14:6). I think that it is very reasonable to assume that the laws and commandments God so carefully revealed to humans in the Old Testament are ways for us to thrive in this relationship; they are ways for us to love Him with all our heart, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as well. Similarly, if I love my girlfriend, there are certain things I can do to show her this, and certain things I can do to not love her. I don’t think an “anything goes” relationship with her would be very good. Instead, because I love her, in order to love her I will live a certain way. I believe the same holds in a relationship with God. The Law is something that a Christian should recognize as a way to love God in his life. In this perspective Matthew 22 means that the best way for us to love God and our neighbors is to look to the laws which “hang” upon these primary commandments.

The best part about this love story is that we do not have to fulfill the entire law first in order to have this relationship with God. Faith in Christ allows us to be with God even though we are imperfect. But once we have this love relationship, we live it out by loving God with our hearts and our actions (see James 2 about faith vs. deeds).

I think that God is telling us that, if we are interested in having a relationship with Him, there are certain things we should do if we want that relationship to be most fulfilling and fruitful. I strongly believe that Christ fulfilled the law, giving it a purpose: to develop a heart that loves God and others. This makes the law anything but obsolete.

I would love to talk more about this with you and hear what you think. We both recognize that the bible requires contextual interpretation, and I definitely value your perspective.

14 → Mike  –  (Nov 29 2004,  6:51 PM)

I’m not a bible scholar in the least, so I’ll skip that part of the discussion.  But I do know politics and statistics, so I’ll go with that.

When over 50% of [heterosexual] marriages end in divorce, I belive that any two people who profess to love each other should be allowed to marry and have/adopt children, whether it’s two men, two women, or one of each.

Kids are the future of this country, and growing up in shattered/broken/dysfunctional families isn’t going to produce great American leaders and innovators.

You can preach against moral transgressions all you want, but I’ll take two loving people any day over an orphanage, a broken home, or a juvenile detention facility.

Sure, same-sex households may be targets of criticism at first (hell, they already are), but societal normalization of same-sex households wil assuredly erase any doubts as to their success.

15 → Claire  –  (Nov 30 2004, 12:04 AM)

I have followed the progression of these comments closely and have thought about responding for some time now, but this is an issue that is important to me and at first I was just angry and I know well enough by now that responding in anger serves no purpose.  But now I am ready to respond, I apologize if I come off at all harsh.

Let me start by saying that citing studies in your argument does little to impress your point upon me.  You can find studies to support any argument, and you can design a study in such a way that guarantees the result you are looking for.  I could cite countless studies that support the opposite (particularly in regards to the issue of raising children).  So, I mostly disregarded that aspect of your argument.  However, to address the issue of promiscuity, if it is in the nature of homosexuals to be promiscuous, than that would suggests that homosexuals who choose to settle down with one partner and perhaps begin a family are diverting greatly from a “gay lifestyle” and are therefore very deeply committed to their monogamous relationships.  This is the case for the homosexual couples that I know.  Most of these couples have been together for nearly 20 years now (and that is without having to uphold a vow of “till death do us part”).

Second:  I am in no way an expert on religion but, not being associated with one, I feel as though I can give a fairly objective outsiders viewpoint.  Of all religions, Christianity seems to pride itself on spreading love and tolerance and acceptance.  From what I can tell, Christians seem to believe that they, like Christ, can see the good in people and help to ease suffering.  This is what Christians seem to believe, but not really what they seem to do.  From my experience, those who most strongly oppose gay marriage, also happen to be Christian.  Why is it that many Christians do not  behave in such a way that upholds what seems to be the basic foundation of the religion?  Furthermore, religion should serve the purpose of providing an individual with spiritual wellness and guidance during life’s trials and tribulations.  Why has it become something that is so heavily imposed upon others?  Everyone is free to choose their own religious beliefs.  If your religious code (or lack thereof) does not forbid certain behaviors or relationships, then you should not be expected to adhere to the beliefs and morals of other religions.  That is tyranny, not freedom. 

As to your voting yes on proposal 2: Gay marriage was already illegal in Michigan, so if you voted in Michigan, you have only done harm.  You have voted to illegalize (it’s a word) something that was already illegal.  The proposal was so broad and so vague that all you’ve done is rob non-married homosexual couples, some imperfectly defined heterosexual couples, and the children of both these groups, of benefits.  And while you are right that benefits are in fact benefits and not actually rights, do consider that such privileges should be available for all people, not just married heterosexuals.  Up until a few decades ago, black people did not have all the benefits that whites did, and yet I doubt that you would argue against growing racial equality.  Furthermore, while marriage itself may not be a right, the freedom to declare your love and have that love celebrated and recognized by your government is a right.  All people have the right to pursue a life of happiness and to live freely in whatever way they choose as long as they are not endangering the wellness of others. 

I know that you cannot change your vote and I would never ask you to change your beliefs (because you are free to believe whatever you wish).  I will ask you to remember this though:  Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual… people are just people.  We all just want to live our lives in whatever way we see fit.  It is not up to you to decide how others live.  It is not your place to judge.  Leave the judgment for your God, I’m sure you would agree that he is far more qualified than you. 

16 → Stephen  –  (Nov 30 2004,  2:05 AM)

first of all, i would plead with all of you not to base your knowledge of christianity on the teachings of any man (whether it be our president, a friend, your parents, etc.) except jesus.  i’m sad to say that the term “christian” has been so loosely thrown around in this country that i’m not sure many people (christians and non-christians alike) even know what it means to be one anymore.  therefore i’m glad to see that this discussion is happening because it’s really what is needed, open and honest discussion.  from there i’m not really sure where i’m going with this.  although i’ve been giving this whole issue more thought recently, to be honest (and to the horror and dismay of many of you i’m sure) i didn’t even vote.  do i think that jesus would have voted to legalize gay marriage? no, and quite frankly i think that the bible is pretty clear on that.  however, do i think that he would have voted against gay marriage? i’m not sure…what i do know is that christ answered people with parables and questions and allowed them to make their own decisions.  the truth is we were given free will, the ability to choose whether or not to love god, because without the freedom to choose to love, it ceases to be love. however, while i do believe it’s wrong to force one’s beliefs on someone else, to make known one’s beliefs is an entirely different matter and something that i think we all need to do more of.  i, like scott, believe in an absolute truth, and whether or not the rest of you care to agree with that is not my focus, nor is it my ulitmate concern, becuase only god can change hearts.  however, to hide or water down my beliefs when confronted with the opportunity to share, i believe would be wrong.  claire, you are right to say that we have no place to judge others, and i can only hope that the things that are said do not come off that way.  we are called to make known the truth, and whether it is accepted or not, to continue to love the person from there.  i for one am saddened by the fact that our country is more involved in moral issues than the very things that as christians we are called to do (and i think as people everywhere we feel is important), and that is to feed the poor and clothe the naked.  these are social problems that as a country we can and should change.  for now (and scott and others i’d love to hear your thoughts on this) i think we need to leave the moral debate out of government and keep it at a community level, ie. discussions amongst friends and family (such as this!) where actual talk and thought can take place, rather than mindless political rhetoric.  theres more i’d like to say but this is already become terribly long winded and i meant to go to bed an hour ago, goodnight frineds! 

17 → pd  –  (Nov 30 2004,  2:44 AM)

Reading this has been very interesting.  A scenario:

An elderly man, sick from smoking through his youth, lies in his hospital bed, cancer metastasizing throughout his body.  Weary, broken and old he passes quietly, wife of a half century by his side.

A young girl, born with cystic fibrosis.  Only a handful of years old, unlucky enough to have been born a timebomb.  The death predicted for her from her first moments arrives, her young parents there in the hospital room to weep for her passing.

A man with a body wrecked and ruined in a car crash.  Slipping in and out of consciousness for days, his parents and sister arrive to give support.  Suddenly: aneurysm.  Internal bleeding.  “Beep, beep,” says the heart monitor no more.  Outside, the one he loved the most paces.  Helpless, unknowing, unable to hold a hand.  Out the door the news comes to him.  Collapsing into the chair, he weeps.

…

Family and spouses in the room only.  Sorry gays, another legal benefit you can’t have – it’s The Law.

18 → Kelly Hall  –  (Nov 30 2004,  3:50 AM)

I have spent the past 2 years of my life fighting for the legislative legalization of gay marriage in Rhode Island.  I could go on for hours about all of the positive societal effects we would see by legalizing gay marriage.  I won’t go into all of that here, however.  If you really want my full opinions I’ve testified at the statehouse enough times that most of it is public record.  I will try to restrict my comments here to one important clarification that this conversation is overlooking. 

Legalizing gay marriage addresses a legal, governmental institution, not a religious one.  The word marriage is very important to most religions and in every case it means something slightly different.  Legalizing gay marriage would not force any religion or any church or any priest to marry gay people.  I know that this is a very difficult separation for most people to make - especially since a legal marriage and a religious marriage often happen in the exact same ceremony.  But in the eyes of the government marriage means a lot of very specific things.  The change that we are discussing is a legal one and it has very broad ramifications.  In Rhode Island commited gay couples are denied 1,400 individual rights that straight, married couples have.  These range from the tax breaks that were mentioned before to Social Security benefits, marital privilege in court cases, custody benefits, inheritence, worker’s compensation, maternity/paternity leave, Medicaid and Medicare eligibility and real estate laws.  Rhode Island is far more progressive than many states and has passed legislation allowing hospital visitation in cases such as Phil described above.  These are laws that protect families from debt and destruction in emergencies.  They are laws that affect every aspect of people’s economic, professional and personal lives. 

Men and women in heterosexual relationships can benefit from all of these rights whether they have an intimate emotional relationship or not.  The government doesn’t ask them if they are soulmates or if they have the deepest spiritual connection that is possible on earth.  Whether you like it or not, the government does not care about promiscuity or love or whether the two people are “good people” or not.  Murderers, rapists and kidnappers can get married.  This is a legal contract and everyone is entitled to it, no matter how morally deserving or undeserving you may deem them or their relationship to be.  This is an issue of equal civil rights, not about morals.

If your Christian values dictate that the institution of marriage should be more strict and preserve family values then I would encourage you to fight for restrictions that would affect morals.  Fight for mandatory marriage counselling.  Fight for promiscuity questionairres.  Fight to harshly penalize adultery with jailtime or torture.  As long as all of those restrictions would be equally applied to all marriages then I would be happy to have a debate with you about what moral standards we should force upon Americans.  Clearly we impose some moral code and we could discuss how far that should go.  Marriage, however, is a legal institution and is a collection of thousands of legal rights.  At the moment those rights are being denied to millions of Americans.  This is a violation of equal rights. 

The Catholic church does not consider you married if you’ve been divorced in the past.  They impose their disapproval of divorce upon their congregants in that way.  They could refuse to recognize the marriages of gay couples in the exact same way.  Decisions about religious definitions of marriage should be left up to the churches themselves.    Legalizing gay marriage, however, is entirely separate from those debates despite everyone’s tendency to confuse the two. 

I will save my discussion of why I think legalizing gay marriage is also morally righteous and good for the American family for another day.

19 → Alec  –  (Nov 30 2004,  5:33 PM)

    I wanna thank everyone for doing this because conversation is really not happening anywhere else.  The politicians, Republican and Democrat alike are simply trying to serve their own selfish interests by throwing this issue in our faces.  It’s amazing that George Bush has managed to focus our attention so much on this issue, in a country where gay marriage is not even legal in most states.  I absolutely believe he was using this as an attempt to get votes and to distract America from the dismal situation in Iraq, and shame on him for toying with love and marriage for political reasons.  Before any Republicans jump on me, I have to say that I don’t believe that most Democratic politicians have any higher ethical standards than Bush.  (It’s sad.)
    So I guess this is up to us and it’s encouraging to me to know that there are Bush supporters like Scott that are trying to have a conversation rather than curse all opposers of the marriage ban as evil, socialist, homosexual terrorists, as Karl Rove would love the country to believe.  And that is a run-on sentence.
    I guess I leave off with the pursuit of happiness argument.  As for the biblical argument, which is irrelevant to American politics, I cannot pretend to be a biblical scholar, Scott, but I encourage you to read a book called “The Moral Teaching of Paul” by Victor Furnish.  It may not change your argument, but it’s always good to see another point of view, and I think he makes a convincing case.
      I agree with Stephen that we cannot decide who Jesus would have voted for.  Jesus is of course above petty politics and I think he would rather that we do his work through the love we can give in our own personal lives.  That is, vote for or against gay marriage, it’s still only a distraction from the true work of God.
    That said, seperation of church and state is a part of our constitution, stereotypes are stereotypes, people are responsible and can handle their own moral differences, and freedom and equality are more important than tradition.  I will continue to defend gay rights.  The end.

20 → Claire  –  (Nov 30 2004,  6:27 PM)

Even as a mother
Protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish
All living beings.

-The Metta Sutta
(Buddha’s teachings of loving kindness)

I too will continue to defend gay rights.

21 → Scott  –  (Dec  2 2004,  2:04 PM)

Wow, everyone has good stuff to say and I am really thankful that we got to have this discussion. I myself have learned a lot.

I don’t think I’ve been very clear with why I originally started this debate, and why it is an issue that concerns me. If anyone has a few minutes to read I would love to reclarify.

As a Christian, I am in a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I think that the bible is the coolest thing ever because it is God’s message to us, and that we can understand who he is through these scriptures. The bible also offers a lot of advice on how to live. My favorite verse is John 10:10, where Jesus says “I have come that they might have life, and have it to the full.” So, I believe that this advice in the bible is God telling us how we can have this fulfilling sort of life. The biggest and most important piece of advice God gives is this: have a relationship with me through my Son. Then there are a lot of “smaller” pieces of advice about things like anger, lust, money, adultery, and marriage. This advice is unimportant compared to the big advice (as Alec was right about), except that it serves as a good guide for how to best follow the big advice and live out this “life to the full.” For example, when Jesus warns about being angry, I don’t think this is arbitrary, I think he is saying that if we are angry it will be a lot harder to have this relationship with God and to live the life he wants to bless us with. So, when the bible says that one man should not lie with another man, I don’t think that God is out to condemn gays. Instead, I think he is saying that, if we want life with and through him, we would do best not to engage in same sex relations. Similary he says we would do best not to commit adultery or divorce, or have sex before marriage, etc. In my opinion it is not a matter or arbitrarily telling people they are bad, but more a way of telling people that they are making it harder for themselves to have the abundant life that Jesus is talking about.

And I know that not everyone wants to have this life with God, and it is by no means my duty or desire to try to force this on people. All I can do is personally testify that in my own life, living the life God has for me has been an amazing ride so far. I hope that the way I voted was a way for me to stand by the biblical principles I believe in. If an issue to ban adultery had come up I would vote for that too. Homosexuality in itself is not that big an issue to me, because aren’t things like murder and tyranny “worse?” But I think it carries extra weight as a political issue that our entire country is deciding over. Since it came to vote, I am going to stand by my views. But my concern is in much bigger things than homosexuality, and when such things come to vote I will stand by them too.

I guess I want you all to know that my main concern is not accusing people or telling them they are bad. My main focus is fighting for the “life to the full” that Jesus offers. I do this by loving people, seeing the good in them, and realizing their God-given glory. I hope my main focus never becomes exposing people’s mistakes and being critical of others. My main focus is definately sharing God’s love with anyone, unconditionally. I definately love homosexuals just as much as anyone, I think that the bible is clear that homosexuality and lust and adultery are things that prevent us from having this life, and this is why I argue as I do. Not because I want to tell anyone they are a sinner…I am a huge sinner…but because I want to share what I have found to be an amazing way of life. But God knows a lot more than I do, and I could definately be wrong. Whatever means of bringing life to the full that he wants to use is still life to the full with him, and for all I know, it is possible that it could be by allowing gay marriage someday. My concern is with the reality of people living life with God, not in the particular way this happens.

Thanks for listening. I really appreciate being able to have open discussion. Again, I truly apologize if the way in which I said things was imposing or forceful. I would much rather offer my beliefs as information the let people make their own decisions.

-Scott
wedeme_s@denison.edu

P.S. Kelly, I would really like to hear your opinion about the positives of gay marriage if you have time to share.

P.S.S. Alec, I appreciate your perspective a lot. I will try to get a hold of that book.






→ Be kind when posting.  Vulgarity and rancor beg removal.

→ Be brave and sign what you write.  Email addresses are required though never displayed.

→ Allowed HTML: <strong>, <em>, <a>, <blockquote>, <q>, <cite>, <code>.