Intro:McDanell99, in his recent post, "
The (In)Tolerance of the Homosexual Movement: See, I Told You So," twists the truth and fails to recognize his own bigotry and ignorance in regards to the escalating cultural mess over gay marriage.
"In truth, such legislation is geared towards Christians who stand firm on the conviction that some things are right and some things are wrong. Our culture calls this bigotry, intolerance, and closed-mindedness."
Should it be any surprise that their fantasy based morality often doesn't happen to find legal standing? God's absentee opinion is not one of the facts of the world that courts can take seriously. And the facts they do have seem to indicate that there's nothing harmful in general about homosexuality. Christians aren't opposed for having moral convictions. They're opposed because they have no basis for those convictions and yet they push their credulous morality on others on things that
matter. Obviously Christians would rather believe otherwise, twist the issue to suit their own prejudices, and pretend to be moral martyrs but in reality their intellectual sins are at fault.
"They want to be able to get married like everyone else. They want to be recognized like everyone else. They want to be accepted like everyone else. They want to be treated like everyone else. However, they do not want to be held accountable like everyone else."
After twisting the issue, McDanell99 slanders the entire homosexual community with such a broad generalization befitting of his own bias as though he knows most homosexuals want anarchy.
"If this was about equality, then why the show of force? Why throw condoms at churches? Why the assault? Why the rape? Why the violence? Why the bigotry? Why the anger?"Christian bigotry (like all bigotry by definition) has a great deal of trouble empathizing with the object of its discrimination. Does McDanell99 really think that a group of people who have been denied their equal rights for so long (and given that anti-homosexual Big Religion doesn't seem to be going anywhere as an oppressive agent) shouldn't be just a wee bit angry? Is it really any surprise that some of these people might react like caged and cornered animals and lash out? I'm not trying to justify the riots and I think those who participated should be prosecuted, but at the same time, Christianity needs to learn to see its own damn reflection in the culture even if it's at the expense of its evil doctrines.
"It is time for Christians and for our culture to wake up to the threat we face today. This is no longer a nation where everybody shares their opinion in the public arena and contributes to societal dialogue."It never was thanks to a conversation shipwrecked by "faith."
"If such movements like the homosexual movement do not get their way the traditional way, then they are willing to force their wills and agendas on us, even if it takes assault, molestation, threats, violence, anger, mobs, and anything else."
And yet all the Christian majority has to do is allow for a tiny percentage of people to get married to alleviate the pressure point. Again...not trying to justify the violence, but merely adopting a slightly different policy towards living in a non-theocracy of your own denomination would be prudent. If Christians want to be treated like grown ups of the world...they have to act like them with their votes.
"Previously, I pointed out the dangers that redefining marriage presented. I argued that if homosexual marriage is allowed and becomes wide-spread, this nation will see persecution against the Church in ways unimaginable."
more music chartsMcDanell99 is clearly blowing things out of proportion, but even if he was right, Christianity would merely be reaping what it's sown. Sow oppression, reap retaliation. Who doesn't know that? Neither is justified in this case, but failure to understand the natural yins and yangs of human behavior is purely ignorant. Virtue ethics ought to be tempered with consequentialism and many Christians seem to be notoriously bad at that.
"Will my children be considered enemies of the state because they disagree with the culture? I pray that my fears are not realized, but in the meantime by the looks of everything, we better brace ourselves for the worse."
The mainstream Christian worldview is already an enemy of moral progress and it always will be. I would hope that things in general would remain civil, but there's never a guarantee of that when people are threatened.
Outro:
I really don't have much to say in closing. We have a mess on our hands and the stereotypical lack of self-awareness that Big Religion tends to boast isn't helping to clean it up, in my opinion.
Ben
Comments (22)
I really enjoyed your post. You make some very good points. The violence was wrong and the people responsible should be punished. However, we shouldn't deny rights to a whole group because of the actions of a few -- just like we shouldn't deny freedom of religion just because some people use their religion as an excuse to commit violent acts.
Another part of McDanell99's post that struck me was when he wrote, "We are not living in the same country we were decades ago where freedom flourished and dialogue was encouraged." This nostalgia for the the "good old days" always annoys me. There was discrimination "decades ago" as well -- not just against homosexuals but also against many other groups. Dialogue wasn't encouraged; the people who had a different opinion had to work hard to be heard at all.
In resonse to his statement, "This is no longer a nation where everybody shares their opinion in the public arena and contributes to societal dialogue," you wrote, "It never was thanks to a conversation shipwrecked by 'faith.'" I agree with you.
That's just my two cents.
-J. M. 713
Considering of all the tens of thousands of individuals that took part in the nationwide demonstrations, the "assault, molestation, threats, violence, anger, mobs, and anything else" were actually the act of a very very very small minority. Essentially, the brash actions of the few gave a bad name to the rest of the group.
...kind of like McDanell99 and every other Fundie...
"Sow oppression, reap retaliation. Who doesn't know that? Neither is
justified in this case, but failure to understand the natural yins and
yangs of human behavior is purely ignorant. Virtue ethics ought to be
tempered with consequentialism and many Christians seem to be
notoriously bad at that. "
Unfortunately it's true. White men have seen this recently. They have to watch what they say and do on a constant basis. Sucks, for them, but it's what happens when people are oppressed.
I replied to the poor bastard's post. I was very harsh...and very pissed. It was deserving though. I'm just tired of hearing the cries of persecution from the least persecuted people in the country. If we were in the Middle East, some Asian and African countries...fine... I'll concede. I wish these people would do as you said and act like grown-ups.
"Life expectancy at age 20 for gay or bisexual men was 8 to 20 years less than that for all men." http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bates/050607
@drung888 - "
"...kind of like McDanell99 and every other Fundie..."
How intolerant and bigoted of you! If you were truly tolerant you wouldn't mock even those who are intolerant. You are merely a hypocrite.
@misuriver - "I'm just tired of hearing the cries of persecution from the least persecuted people in the country."
Perhaps you can't read. The Christians in San Francisco were very much persecuted recently. Sure, it was local and isolated, but that didn't help them. There are instances all over the U.S. from time to time; thankfully, not many. The persecution in the U.S. tends to be legally-based--especially for outdoor preaching, praying in Jesus' name, and stuff like that. Even the Creation Museum was denied its original land request due to opposition from an evolutionist group. There is lots of persecution in academia and the scientific community against creationists, which has been thoroughly documented by Jerry Bergman. Of course, persecution also occasionally occurs against a few evolutionists by creationists.
There was also an immigrant Christian family murdered in New Jersey by muslims a couple of years ago. The father was active on some arabic forums and was evangelizing there. The entire family, including the father, mother, and children, had their throats slit. Muslim converts to Christianity in the U.S. often face death threats. Jewish converts are often disowned by their families.
@soccerdadforlife - You know what? Fine. You win. Christians are being persecuted. The entire, free-thinking, logical, ever-changing world is out to get Christians, because they are God's people. I understand that now. Burn gays, praise Jesus, one true god, the Earth is 6,000 years old. Am I missing anything, oh wonderful all-knowing, wise, Jesus worshipper. Did God tell you that you would be persecuted if you limited the rights of a people that he (according to you) created? That's the only explaination I can come up with to your logic pattern because NOT ONE EXAMPLE YOU'VE GIVEN ME REMOTELY EXPLAINS PERSECUTION!
Being fed to lions during the time of Rome... Persecution
Not being allowed to be paid for work, sit on the front of the bus, go to the same schools or marry whom you pleased because of skin color... Persecution
Being mass murdered for ethnicity or religion... Persecution
Land being stolen and you being murdered in the name of Manifest Destiny... Persecution
The rest of the country... who don't believe quite what you believe, in the way you believe, to be practiced how you believe, to be taught on a universal level... decides not to.... Not Persecution
The rest of the country... standing up for what they believe in, which goes against what you believe in, even though what they believe in does not hurt you or anyone else... but what you want for the country does.... Not Persecution.
Or is your god whispering in your ear, telling you I'm wrong? If I were you. I'd stop listening. He's not helping.
I believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I also believe that if the government wants to grant legal status to homosexual marriage then it has every right. I also believe voters have the right to strike down that legislation and that they have the right to challenge the legality of it in the courts. They have this right for every bill that is passed.
They however do not have the ability to define marriage in limited terms.
Both sides have a responsibility to sway the general public - which lets be honest the general public is not always well educated.... - to their opinion.
I do not believe the government has the right to force any church/synagogue/temple/house of worship to recognize and perform those marriages. It has not come up in Iowa yet but I am not sure how I would vote... I would have to weigh my own convictions and values against the bill.
@soccerdadforlife - Well, in order to be a hypocrite, I would have to had claimed to be tolerant in the first place. However, never did I ever say that in this discussion and for the record, never in my life have I proclaimed to a truly tolerant believer. So am I intolerant? The issue of my tolerance isn't at question here on this blog (for now anyways), but I guess I will answer that.
If you think I am intolerant of intolerant individuals with no basis for being intolerant, then yes, I will admit to that charge. Whether or not I am a hypocrite is a different matter but could be determined on the basis whether or not my words conflict my actions. In this case, I am not aware of any such conflict. However, if you do see one, please point it out for me. I am a person constantly striving to improve myself.
And if you sense a sense of sarcasm, I would like to say that there is not any. I am very serious in what I said.
Lastly, the quote that you have pulled had nothing to do with tolerance. In contrast, I was referring to how one individual can make the collective group look bad simply (and incorrectly) through association. I am sure that you also agree with this point (regardless of what side of the fence we may stand on). Are there not "Christian" individuals who you believe aren't really Christian and are giving the Christian faith a bad image?
@soccerdadforlife - You make some good points. There's no doubt that many people, even members of the majority, are sometimes persecuted, even today. If we look at the whole world and throughout history, we'd find that every group (at one time or another) has been persecuted either officially by the government or by others civilians. What always bothers me is when the persecuted decide to go and persecute others, which just breeds resentment and more violence.
I just thought of some more comments I wanted to add.
There is persecution of homosexuals, but that does not mean that homosexuals should then persecute others. Similarly, there is persecution of Christians, but that does not mean that Christians have the right to persecute others. No group should take away the rights of others, regardless of personal belief. We can't make a law againt any entire group based on the actions of a few.
It always seems that some people in each group focuses only on the bad things that have happened to their group and completely ignore the bad things that happen to everyone else. That was my main disagreement with McDanell99's post. I'm not denying that there was violence against Christians in California. I just think it's unjust to blame homosexual marriage for the violent actions of a few people -- the same way it is wrong to blame the entirety of religion for the violent actions of a few religious people.
We're only going to more ahead if the rights of every group are respected. Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and should not have to hide their relationship just because others think it's wrong. Religous people who feel homosexuality is wrong should be allowed to express their opinions and to refuse religious ceremonies to a couple, if they so choose.
Giving another group equal rights shouldn't be seen as persecution of a group that previously had exclusive access to those rights.
That's just my two cents.
--J. M. 713
@soccerdadforlife - I read the article in the link you posted.
I don't think a study of the life expectancy of gay men is reason enough to ban same-sex marriage. The claim (from the article) that "the practice of homosexuality, with its attendant lifestyle, shortens the life of practitioners by about 20 years" is incorrect. Homosexuality does not shorten life-spans. HIV/AIDS does. HIV/AIDS affects heterosexual people, too, and shortens their lifespans as well.
The six authors were justified in being upset that their study was being used by homophobic groups "to intimate homosexual practices were somehow self-destructive." It sounds similar to when Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was twisted and used to "justify" discrimination based on race.
Michael M. Bates, the author of the article, writes, "As I've written before, Oscar Wilde's 'love that dare not speak its name' has turned into a lifestyle that won't shut up. The 'we're here, we're queer' chant may not be heard as frequently as it was once, but gay activists and their sympathizers tolerate little deviance from their orthodoxy."
I very much disagree with this. First, I don't think homosexuality is "lifestyle." There are many other parts of a person's life, other than their sexual orientation. Second, I think the claim that "gay activists and their sympathizers tolerate little deviance from their orthodoxy" is an extreme claim. As we can see, there are some violent extremists in the gay community (just like there are in any group) but most supporters of homosexual marriage don't want to take away the right to marry from heterosexuals. They don't want to make homosexuality "orthodox," but rather allow people to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender. It's the people who want to ban same-sex marriage who don't "tolerate deviance from their orthodoxy," because they think that heterosexual marriage should be the "orthodoxy" and don't wany any deviation from it. Third, while the author writes that the gay activists won't "shut up," he fails to notice that the people who want to ban same-sex marriage and thereby force their religion on others also refuse to "shut up."
That's just my two cents.
-- J. M. 713
@Jedi_Master_713 - Thank you for calmly writing my feelings. I need you to follow me where ever I go translating my enraged babble into something more coherent.
@misuriver - No problem. I tend to go on rants anyway, whenever I feel passionate about a topic.
-J. M. 713
@Jedi_Master_713 - Thanks, man. So does that mean you'll follow me around
I have responded to your reply. I hope it helps clear some things up. And I hope that I have not misrepresented you at all. Hope all is well!
@Jedi_Master_713 - Amen. Freedom did not "flourish" decades ago.
Women weren't allowed to vote. Even after they secured the vote, it took a freakin' war to convince people that women could hold steady jobs and have a place outside the kitchen. And that's not even touching things like equal pay, equal status within a marriage, or equality in sports.
Blacks were forced into subpar schools and had separate waiting rooms, restrooms, and drinking fountains. Lynching, hangings, murders, police brutality... the list goes on. Again, that's not even touching equal pay or equality in sports, not to mention interracial marriages.
If you were gay, you could not even whisper it, many times even to your own family, because you would find yourself ostrasized from your community and oftentimes without a job. Heaven forbid you were actually caught with a partner of the same sex. People who were even suspected of being gay, in some areas of the country, were beaten, strangled, and sometimes murdered.
If you were of a minority faith, or had no specific religion (atheist or agnostic), you were a crackpot loonie, or (even worse) a cult member out to destroy American children. You could lose your job and even sometimes your own children, depending on the circumstances.
If you had slightly leftist views, or knew someone who did, you'd find yourself under investigation to see if you were part of the Communist threat.
If you were Japanese-American, along with all the inequalities and hardships non-whites faced, your ass was shipped off to an internment camp.
Not only was dialogue not encouraged, it was downright stamped out if you were not in the majority or "norm". Not only did the people who had a different opinion have to work hard to be heard at all, many times they risked their very LIVES to be heard.
Ah, the "good old days". Yep, so full of love, openness, and freedom... <--*sarcasm*
Great post as always. *toasts to WoE*
JT
@soccerdadforlife - "Life expectancy at age 20 for gay or bisexual men was 8 to 20 years less than that for all men."
Two things.
First, this is an excellent argument in favor of same-sex marriage, don't you think? After all, if we encourage people to enter committed, monogamous relationships, it will undoubtedly curb the spread of often promiscuity-induced diseases. Ay, the values of compassionate conservatism prevail!
Second, did you perhaps check up on who conducted the study cited in the article? It was the Family Research Institute. Just do a quick wiki on them. Doesn't this seem like the sort of group that would conduct a study with a presupposed goal in mind? This is quite suspect to me, and I would certainly hope you've got the bearings not to lack suspicion on this. Real scientific studies do not go in with the aim of supporting presupposed conclusions. If I see peer-reviewed studies from sources that are less... dare I say it, biased, that reach the same conclusions, I'll be more apt to believe what the Family Research Institute concluded.
Additionally, I put my own reply to McDanell99 on my own blog. Feel free to drop by and check it out.
@drung888 - @ithiliya - @Jedi_Master_713 - Thanks guys, for your contributions. ;)
@misuriver - Why did you have to inspire more irrationality in McDanell99? He'll just channel it all into more validation for his point of view like his hero, Dinesh D'Souza. tsk, tsk...
@bassangel - You're right. If the majority wants to vote against gay marriage, they are entitled to. And we, the minority (?) are equally entitled to try to keep swaying opinions the other way. :D
@Zerowing21 - Thanks!
@Karanis - Great response to soccerdad, but that article he responded to actually listed more than one study.
Ben
@WAR_ON_ERROR - What? I did.. ah crap! My bad everyone.
@misuriver - You didn't know the, "See! All that stuff you just said! That makes me more right!" reaction? :p
@WAR_ON_ERROR - Yeah, I know. I know. I'm working on that foot in the mouth thing.
@misuriver - I totally understand the anger and frustration. No worries.