The Moderate Republican

Bobw,

Shoot me an email and Ill send you the info, unless the other bloggers dont mind the diversion. I dont have a problem sharing it, just dont want to be discourteous to everyone.

I've heard of shotgun weddings but jeez... :-) I think you mean the 1st Amendment and its freedom of religion clause.

That's funny Brian - I nearly ruined my keyboard with my coffee - though in my defense, it has been easier of late, with all the campaign ads, to confuse the two amendments.

What's even funnier, is the image of a same-sex couple being forced to "marry" at the point of gun. Now there's some fine "family values" I could subscribe to.

mike: ok. am I missing a place where God condones polygamy? or was it something else that I missed?

"The sacrament of marriage (for those who believe in such things) is protected by the 2nd amendment to the constitution"

I've heard of shotgun weddings but jeez... :-)

I think you mean the 1st Amendment and its freedom of religion clause.

bobw wrote, "because I disagree with your beliefs doesnt necessarily make me ignorant, does it? "

Bob, Not necessarily. A lot of people aren't overtly anti-gay but as just uncomfortable in some difficult-to-define way with the concept.

Gay rights activists can't worry about the 'gays will burn in hell crowd' but rather people like Bob who don't seem overtly hate-filled but just aren't comfortable with the notion. Those are the people who are open-minded enough to be persuaded that "Yes, we understand your discomfort, but there's really nothing to worry about. Gays aren't really a threat to anyone. You don't have to celebrate us being gay, just let us be." We have to acknowledge both their discomfort and the possibility that they can be persuaded to accept gays as they are or at least accept that they can have equal rights without society collapsing. All while recognize that this isn't going to happen overnight.

But it's worth noting that homosexuality is not a belief. Christianity is a belief. Liberalism is a belief. Homosexuality is a state of being.

Bobw, this is the paragraph i was commenting about.

and I've seen folks bring this up: there are examples of folks in the Bible with lots of wives. but dont for one minute think that God was happy about that. those guys wrongly bought into their own culture. it makes me angry to see people misuse the scriptures when they say "see, those guys did it! it's in the bible!" many, if not most, of the things that folks did in the bible (especially the old testament) are examples of what NOT to do. responsible interpretation, in context, is always necessary. ok, hermenuetics lesson over ;-)

marriage is an institution established by God, for His own glory and the good of His creatures, and He set it up for one man and one woman.

The sacrament of marriage (for those who believe in such things) is protected by the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Neither the federal government nor the states can force churches to marry a couple they choose not to. It can't be done without reversing a long history of case law and the 2nd amendment itself.

GOP election strategists have suppressed a real debate in this country, with the "family values" rhetoric about what civil rights should be granted under the law to same sex couples and to domestic partnerships in general. And they've done so to win elections, not for the good of the people they serve.

This is not a new phenomenon. It began in the 70's with Wyrich who had ties to the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby and the Christian Reconstructionist Rushdoony.

And it is not done by chance - it's done with specific intent to secure an electoral majority that can advance a libertarian economic agenda.

It's an unholy alliance (google the players and pick your own adjective if you don't like mine).

I've yet to meet a Republican that is proud that we have made millions of Americans feel unwelcome in both the Republican party and in America.

If there are any here who are proud, raise your hands.

curtis: God created marriage for all His creatures, not just Christians, Jews, etc. I guess a lot of it comes down to what's the definition of "marriage," and on what you base your definition. I suppose most of the debate these days is focused on the legal definition, but then it gets clouded with the emotions, etc of the religious definition. what a mess.

mike: you are quite correct in saying that I need to read my OT closer, but I'm not sure what statements you're referring to?

"you couldnt be much more wrong, and you sadly dont know the true nature of faith. fiction isnt worth dying for, nor can it give the power to live.

you see contradiction, I see interlocking and fascinating mystery. it really is worth looking into, if you're able to put aside your pride.

I would at least appreciate it if you dont accuse all christians of "denying cognitive ability," as there were and are clearly some smart christians out there. "
-------------------------------------

I dont question the intelligence of Christians. Most of the Christians I know (cant even think of an exception) are very intelligent people.

I have read the new testament at least a 1/2 dozen times from end to end. The old considerably less, focused on the highlights.

I dont find the religion offensive. I dont see too many Christian suicide bombers. I think most have the best of intentions, even when I disagree.

We could argue the contradictions but I am not interested in talking you out of your religion, even if that was possible, and I am never going to abandon my own beliefs that have been carefully researched with an open mind.

I do apologize for the fiction remark. It was inflammatory and served no purpose. I knew the reaction it would produce. I do believe that faith causes a person to interpret things in one way and that is what my denying cognitive ability was refering to.

Bobw - you should read the old testament a bit more carefully. Your statements are factually incorrect. I will provide chapter and verse if you would like.

Bobw,

Thank you for your explanation. But based on it shouldn't christians also be upset with people who get married by justices of the peace, or rabbis for that matter? My wife and I got married in front of a JP and just a few close friends. I don't think God granted me the right to get married, since He wasn't involved in my wedding. But the state did grant me a marriage certificate, which was signed and witnessed by a judge, therefore entitling me to all the benefits married people receive.

I don't want and would never ask to change your religion or your moral views of sexuality. But I wish I could convince you that gay people deserve the right to a secular marriage. :-)

while I understand the desire for marriage and family (no matter what your orientation may be), I would have to respectfully say that marriage is an institution established by God, for His own glory and the good of His creatures, and He set it up for one man and one woman.

and I've seen folks bring this up: there are examples of folks in the Bible with lots of wives. but dont for one minute think that God was happy about that. those guys wrongly bought into their own culture. it makes me angry to see people misuse the scriptures when they say "see, those guys did it! it's in the bible!" many, if not most, of the things that folks did in the bible (especially the old testament) are examples of what NOT to do. responsible interpretation, in context, is always necessary. ok, hermenuetics lesson over ;-)

one more thing: many christians believe that God's establishment of marriage wasnt just for our good. we belive that the institution itself is a reflection of His character. perhaps an object lesson, if you will, but something much deeper. Jesus called Himself the bridegroom, and His church the bride. also our earthly love for our spouses (or spice, as I like to say) is a small taste of the triune love of God. these are all wonderful mysteries that He has given us.

so perhaps you can see better why this issue gets many christians all riled up. it's not we dont want you to have something that's ours (since we didnt earn it, nor do we deserve it ourselves!). I wouldnt consider marriage a right, but a privaledge, granted by God, for our good.

Geez, didn't know my comment was going to get this response...

Bobw- To clarify my comment, I don't think you are ignorant. If you hate gays, or hate any 'group' then I would think you are ignorant or at least not to my mind a good person. You asked the question: "just because I might oppose attempts to normalize something I think is wrong -- does that make me hateful?" I have to ask what does normalize mean to you? Do you mean to make all people gay? Do you mean to make everyone accept gays? Or do you mean to give gay people the same rights as straight people? Because, I don't expect everyone to accept gay people. Hell, when I was a kid, my brother used to pretend he was gay, just to make my dad uncomfortable. I doubt my dad will never be able to accept gay people, but I do believe that he accepts that they have rights. Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? Why can't gay people adopt kids? Giving gay people rights does not force their views on you. They aren't asking you to change your beliefs. They aren't asking for anything except to have the same rights that you enjoy.

you couldnt be much more wrong, and you sadly dont know the true nature of faith. fiction isnt worth dying for, nor can it give the power to live.

you see contradiction, I see interlocking and fascinating mystery. it really is worth looking into, if you're able to put aside your pride.

I would at least appreciate it if you dont accuse all christians of "denying cognitive ability," as there were and are clearly some smart christians out there.

ill say it. the bible isnt a load of crap. it is one of the greatest works of fiction ever produced.

being a strong christian means being able to ignore the contradictions by denying your own cognitive ability and replacing it with faith.

thank you for your kind reply. I agree that being gay and being a christian are not mutually exclusive, although I have a very hard time seeing how scriptures could be interpreted in such a way as to not speak out against sexual sins.

Bobw:

Thanks for the clarification. I understand and appreciate your religious views. I do not believe the Bible is a 'load of crap' or anything negative about you or your stance. There are Christians who are gay (they justify the belief based on their understanding of the verse that 'condemn' their sexual behavior).

There are many gays who understand your stance and appreciate. The issue that angers gays is that homosexuality is singled out as the 'sin of sins' and ignore the log in their own eye. For example, voting against gay marriage and voting for statewide gambling. I do not sense this hypocritical stance from you.

Thanks for your offer of an offline chat. I may take you up on it soon.

since you asked: it stems from my religious beliefs. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and there's lots of places in the Bible that condemn sexual sins (whether they be gay or strait, acted out or in the heart).

my sexual sins are no better or worse than yours, but there is one difference: I dont identify myself by it, I dont attempt to normalize it, and I dont try to pass laws giving me rights because of it.

now I am not any better (or worse)...it's honestly not my fault that God chose to change my crappy heart, but since He has, I do my best to respond to Him as He would like (as found in the Bible).

of course if you think the Bible is a load of crap, you're thinking I *AM* an idiot for believing all this, and that's fine. but Christianity really does make sense to me, in my heart, and in my mind (really!), and you'll have a hard time changing that, especially on a blog.

I think lots of Christians hold fast onto a couple principles found in the Bible and forget the grace, forgiveness and freedom that dominate the new testament especially. but make no mistake, sexual sins are indeed wrong, but are certainly not unforgivable. one clarification: sexual temptations and desires aren't necessarily wrong, but acting on them is. if you disagree, that's certainly your right, but how do you come to your conclusions?

I dont hate you or think you're evil if you're gay...I just think you've chosen wrongly. I only write this because you asked where my stance comes from. I'm not really interested in a protracted religious debate online. if you'd like to chat over beer or coffee, let me know.

"what about those of us who are not bigots, nor fearful, but simply believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong? just because I disagree with your beliefs doesnt necessarily make me ignorant, does it? and just because I might oppose attempts to normalize something I think is wrong -- does that make me hateful?"

You are not hateful and I appreciate your willingness to post your feelings.

What aspects of the gay lifestyle do you find wrong? Is this a basis of some religious teaching or is something else about being gay that disturbs you? You do realize that you cannot tell you is gay unless their is some action you see or the person tells you.

Do you feel the same way about bi-sexuals?

what about those of us who are not bigots, nor fearful, but simply believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong? just because I disagree with your beliefs doesnt necessarily make me ignorant, does it? and just because I might oppose attempts to normalize something I think is wrong -- does that make me hateful?

Ok, how do you "educate" them? How do you educate someone who believes with ever fiber of his/her being that homosexuality is immoral and a sin? How can you invoke something like the Declaration of Independence or Constitution when the only document that person cares about is The Bible?

I'm not criticizing you. I really do want answers. I'd rather not write those people off because they're really too numerous to do so.

Essentially, attitudes in Europe and Canada regarding homosexuality have changed as those places have become less overtly religious. And attitudes remain "traditional" in parts of those places which remain more overtly religious such as Italy or Alberta.

So how do you educate an absolutist?

It is instructive to attempt to place your mind in the psyche of anti-gay bigots to understand the fear factor of the Republican and religious right.

A woman or a black can be noticed within one second of meeting them yet a homosexual may work with an anti-gay person for years without being detected. The anti-gay fear is more akin to the anti-Communism hysteria of the 1950s-1980s than it is to a minority or a gender fear. A racist or sexist person will not mingle around those he/she hates but an anti-gay person must always question everyone around him, family members, work colleagues and friends.

Secondly, homosexuality is not clearly understood by scientists or explained to the general population. Does homosexuality stem from a mental, a hormonal or a genetic difference? No one can definitely say. So can a heterosexual child be ‘changed’ into a homosexual? Of course not, but if you cannot pinpoint what make someone a homosexual then it can be a choice.

Finally, the gay community has miscommunicated the concern of forcing heterosexuals to adopt the homosexual lifestyle. The gay community does want the heterosexual society to accept their lifestyle, not adopt it. The anti-gay bigots do not want to accept it as it goes against their religious beliefs or their own understanding of their own sexuality.

Nowhere do I advocate pandering. I advocate educating.

Karl Rove panders. Dick Cheney panders. I want us to be educators, not salesmen.

So yes, you do have to educate people who have ridiculous fears. You don't have to pander to them.

Simply writing them off and trying to ignore them is a sure way to guarantee they will work to defeat you. You want them on your side so that they are working to make you succeed.

Well, people who hold "ridiculous animosity toward gays" "are part of the country too." So are the guys who killed Matthew Shepard.

To what degree should I pander to them?