Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Proposition H8 -

From "American Idiot" by Green Day

Don't want to be an American idiot
One nation controlled by the Media
Information age of hysteria
It's going out to idiot America

*sigh*

I'm just going to say it.. I'm pro-gay marriage. Why should I care that two people are doing what makes them happy AND that they get equal benefits that any other lawfully wedded couple should get.

I've seen a lot of for and against this article, but what it boils right down to is that apparently there are people who believe being gay is a sin. Why? I guess this is the same people that believe that fellatio is a sin.

**Edited - removed due to reports of these comments being offensive. Apologies if you were offended!

I don't care if you are against 'em. That's your right.. but what's next? If the bible told you that people with green eyes were evil, would we try to outlaw them too?

Ya know.. I don't recall any wars headed up by gay people. No "CrusGAYdes", no holy wars.. I never see stories in the paper about how a gay person has committed some sort of heinous hate crime.. Why is it that those who purport to be the most righteous are the most small minded about what being righteous means?

Seems to me like the pot is calling the kettle black here. Didn't the great bearded one say something about glass houses and throwing stones?

And now it seems like it's a battle of semantics. Marriage has been a defined word and if they changed the definition, that they'd have to change the definition of family and parents..

Why?

I feel like I'm bombarded with social regression more and more each day. If it offends you so much, I'm afraid you're going to have to leave the planet. Because I'm afraid most of the rest of the world is already on board.

Gits.

2 comments:

Nick and April said...

Josh,

I just read your blog and I would like to offer a few comments regarding the proposition H8 blog.

First let us start by stating that what we are discussing is two fundamentally different worldviews, one very naturalistic/human-secularist/post-modern. The very fact that you recognize that the opposing side has the right to see things differently obviously draws the distinction between rights and "the correct view", so let us then focus on the idea of "correct view".

So the bigger question is: "What is the right view?" or "Is there a right view?"

I won't bother discussing the second question as the blog clearly implies you feel there is a right and a wrong in this issue. So we will not tackle the idea of an absolute truth; the fact that you are outraged at a specific point of view suggests that there is a standard that is being violated, you just disagree with what that standard is, so that we won't need to discuss the idea of a standard much further....

However, "What is the right view?" is an issue that must be handled.

First a few comments on the statements made in the blog:

1. (In a mater of correction) Jesus never stated anything about glass houses (unless that was a tongue and cheek paraphrase) but he did say that he who is without sin can cast the first stone. This was in response to a woman committing adultery and let us not be mistaken as Jesus was the only one there that was without sin and could throw a stone, instead he chose to forgive and redeem. This is the response and purpose of Jesus regarding ALL sins. Now as to what is defined as sin, and what is not, is spelled out clearly in the bible, but it never calls for hate crimes by man against any sinner (so let us not distinguish between different types of sin as God does not). Judgement is reserved for God against all sinners, not just homosexuals. Also, be careful to lump all hate crimes into the religious camp, because I am sure if you scour the records there were crimes committed by gay people against others.

Now if you are talking on a larger scale it is not just the religious that have waged a war of worldviews. You are correct that the crusades were waged in the name of religion, but WWII was waged in the eradication of a religion, and the atrocities of communist Russia were waged based on behalf of atheism (which was at the heart of Stalin and Lennin). The tragedy of course is that the crusades were in direct opposition to the very gospel and message it was trying to advance, but that is in the fault of man, not God.
But I digress some...

2. I think you are mistaken in the comment about the rest of the world being on board. If we look at the largest population centers of the world gay marriage is not legal, and any religion with very strong moral codes does not allow gay marriage either. In fact Islam is one of (if not the) fastest growing religions in the world and they are firmly against gay marriage, and as for the US very few states recognize gay marriage and even california has overturned the initial ruling, and this was on majority vote.

3. And as for social regression, what you are saying is that a society that is moving towards the satisfying of sexual desires in the way each individual sees fit is progressive. Where then would the line be drawn? Would it be OK to have sex with animals, or children, or incest...? At some point a line needs to be drawn, and God drew the line thousand of years ago.

4. Now as for small-mindedness, that typically (or contextually) has a hint of implying exclusivity. That is not the case, the religious that claim righteousness (or let me just speak for evangelical Christianity) is not an exclusive set, it is open to anyone who is willing to accept Jesus. Also if we are simply on two sides of one issue, how is one camp small-minded and the other open minded. Because by small-minded you are implying closed-minded, but as the views are mutually exclusive, you cannot possibly accept both either and are in the same small/closed-minded category.

5. As for the pot and the kettle, the bible clearly states that no person is righteous by themselves. An exclamation of some specific sin is not one of condescending judgement, but an exclamation of mutual need for righteousness.
(I will admit that there are those who are judgmental and condescending, but do not confuse the faults of man with the intent of God)
So understand God's intent was never to alienate, judge, hate, and condemn sinners. His holiness demands that a standard be met, but he meets it for us in Christ. In fact the entire reason Jesus came was to allow all of us who have messed up our life (through any number of sins) to be made righteous by no work of ourselves. God is about fixing and repairing busted lives. And because he created us, and if he is the one fixing, he knows what it means to be broken.

Now let us look at one point regarding "What is the right view".
I assume you are not upset that murder, stealing, perjury (lying), and adultery are illegal, yet these are clearly biblical standards. So this particular issue is seated in the fact that we feel that a homosexual lifestyle does not "hurt" anyone. Therefore, we accept that this could not really be a sin as "no harm, no foul". But I would say that if God understood the damage and hurt done by lying, murder, and stealing (which we need not debate) we should trust him to know that the homosexual lifestyle is damaging, even though we do not see how.

I would discuss some further but it is late and this email is waaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than I initially intended, but was very exhilarating to write.

Please do not take this email as a personal attack, it is certainly not meant as such. Feel free to reply to any, all, or no parts.

We will catch up later brotha-from-anotha-mutha

The Raging Swede(tm) said...

Ok, sorry, I re-read what I wrote and it didn't sound right.

First of all, I appreciate the comments. They are very well articulated and well thought out. I would expect nothing less from you, Nick. =) You are, as always, thoughtful and provocative in your writing!

After reading them, my first question would have been "do YOU think that homosexuality is a sin?" But after re-reading your message, it's clear that you are deferring that decision to God. Even if you don't personally understand or agree.

So instead let me ask - if being gay is a sin, but people don't choose to be gay, they just are, how do you reconcile that? They're doomed to the judgment of god because they are what they are?

That seems a cruel trick for a kind and loving god to play. Certainly something the Old Testament God would do, but the New Testament seems a kinder gentler version.

Or do you believe that people choose to be gay? And what should a god loving Christian do if one day they realize they're gay?

Do you expect these people to bury their true feelings down deep and live a lie? My personal belief is that living with those feelings is incredibly destructive.

I also question your use of Lenin and Stalin in the name of Atheism. I would argue that both of these leaders took affront to the power of the church, rather than the church itself. Remember - technically England did about the same thing except they just made up their own version of the church rather than swearing off religion entirely.

Further, to say that being gay is the same thing as being a pedophile is horribly misleading. I feel that it's equivalent to saying killing cockroaches is the same thing as murder. (while both are technically taking the life of another living creature)

I feel this way because a child is in many ways powerless to defend themselves. They are not physically strong enough to fight back in many cases and don't know enough of the world to understand what's going on in many other cases.

However, two consenting adults is a far cry from that. It could be argued that it's a slippery slope and that homosexuality, if allowed to spread, would lead to all other sort of deviant activities. I disagree.

Being gay isn't a phase for most people, it's the way they're wired. So when they understand the truth that they're gay, I don't see them saying "Well, being gay was fun, so how about woodchucks or children"

I personally feel that religion is far more damaging, in general, to the population of the world than being gay. Hell, far more damaging than bestiality for that matter!

For every kindness and virtue a church espouses, there is a group or sub-group of people it turns its back on.

You and April are certainly good examples of what religion can teach and do. However, you were good people BEFORE religion. All the church has done for you is find useful and powerful outlets for your already sizable positive energies.

Even the mormon church teaches wonderful values and kindness and charity. And for that, I am glad for my time in the church. However, even before I was in the church I knew that those qualities were good and something I'd aspired towards.

I realize that my response is coarse and vulgar when compared to yours, but I assure you I don't make these statements lightly or without careful thought. I also assure you that I'm not making these statements to rebel or strike out at anyone.

The last thing in the world I'd ever want to do is offend and alienate you, my oldest friend and one of the people I respect most in life.

Either way, I wish that all of the conversations about these incredibly sensitive subjects could be discussed so rationally.

I look forward to your reply, sir!