Should "I'm So Afraid" be Kerry's campaign song?

[BrokenWing]

Mark Rosenfelder at Zompist.com had some interesting comments about the gay marriage issue back around the time Dubya first started squawking about a constitutional amendment:

http://www.zompist.com/rants04.html#4

24 Feb 2004: Here comes the bride... Here comes the other bride

Oh, those "judicial activists". I don't recall Bush complaining about judicial activists declaring him President; but he's all in a tizzy over them possibly maybe bringing us gay marriage.

This issue is like an onion; to understand it we have to peel it back layer by layer.

1. Why do we need a constitutional amendment-- the first since Prohibition (and what a fine idea that was) to restrict people's rights? No state can force another to recognize gay marriages; there's a federal law against that. That law is not even being challenged; if it were, it'd be decided by the Supreme Court-- which is under the Republicans' thumb.

2. The issue, however, is the perfect sop to throw to the religious right-- and my undercover agent (hi, Harry) tells me that they are extremely agitated over this. (Bottom line: they feel that once you countenance indecency like that, God will punish you. This is very likely the meaning of the "serious consequences" in Bush's speech.) It's great politics: Bush gets the credit with his base whether it passes or not-- without descending into actual oppression; you can't really take away a right that people don't yet have.

3. But why has the religious right convinced itself that this is the bottom line-- that the creator of the universe doesn't care about feeding the hungry, shrugs at the worship of Mammon, countenances hypocrisy and adultery, but draws the line at two men playing tonsil hockey?

The quick answer is "Because it's in the Bible." However, that's not really an answer. For one thing, it's not; there's not one word about gay marriage in the Bible. There's not one word of Jesus about gays or lesbians. The denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah pass them over. Ezekiel 16:49 does mention the sin of Sodom-- but it's not sodomy; it's ignoring the needy. There's not one word anywhere, in fact, about lesbians (the closest is Rom. 1:26, which talks about women acting parÃ* fúsin 'against nature', which could mean many things).

Only someone already obsessed with the subject could read the Bible and believe that homosexuality was an overwhelming concern of the writers, or of God. Yes, it's mentioned in Leviticus and in 1 Corinthians-- so is adultery, which is mentioned first and with the same penalties. But we don't find Christians urging death for adulterers, or wanting to build monuments to vigilante killers of adulterers, or writing constitutional amendments to deny them rights.

It's also not because homosexuality is unnatural; as Bruce Bagemihl has documented, homosexual behavior has been observed in over 450 species of animals.

And it's not that gay marriage somehow threatens straight marriage. Any harm that's been done to the institution of marriage has been done by straights. Gays can't hurt it; they weren't allowed in. No one's going to be any less married, or any less happily married, if gays and lesbians they don't even know are allowed to enjoy the tax benefits of marriage.

4. So what is it? My best guess is that it's a combination of two things. First, our culture's historical condemnation of homosexuality. Cultural taboos can certainly feel powerful and universal, but they're not. Western culture thinks it's wrong for men to have sex with men just as it thinks it's wrong to eat dogs. Other cultures have thought differently, and ultimately we'll probably get over it, just as we've gotten over the idea that women are corrupting lesser creatures, or that human beings can be owned.

The other component: homosexuality is the one sin that 95% of the population can easily pass up. Though too many Christians have forgotten Jesus's command "Do not judge, lest you be judged", they can't quite read Paul's collection of sinners-- "fornicators, adulterers, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, swindlers"-- without some worry that it might apply to them, or someone they know... except when it comes to homosexuals. Those, the vast majority can easily reject-- and thus single out for special condemnation.

When C.S. Lewis was asked why he spent little time addressing homosexuality and gambling, he explained that it was because those were the sins that he himself wasn't tempted to. That's true spiritual wisdom, fully responding to Jesus's warning that our standard of judgment will be applied to us. Those who follow Jesus ignore this teaching at their peril. Concern yourselves with your own sins; that will give you plenty to keep busy with.

Eileen

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by BrokenWing

Johnny, I just wanted to say thank you for saying so eloquently what I have trouble saying without resorting to shouting and name-calling and smoke pouring out my ears.

Thanks, Eileen... I really appreciate that.
I have to admit that I sometimes have to fan away the smoke that's pouring out of my ears, but I try not to let my emotions get the better of me when trying to make a point.

Originally Posted by BrokenWing

Is that what Christian values stand for? Treating a person who has lost or is about to lose his or her partner as if their relationship somehow doesn't count or isn't real because they happen to have the wrong combination of genitalia? Somehow, I think Jesus would be very displeased.

I think you're right. I can't imagine someone who preached love and acceptance, being thrilled about what is done in His name.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by blinker12

Johnny, we don't have to apologize for being gay. Being gay is not a moral weakness that needs to "compensated for" through other virtues!

Don't get me wrong... I don't think my homosexuality is something I need to compensate for, or that I need to apologize for. I am VERY proud of who I am.
I was just raised to believe that you should live your life as decently and morally as possible.
I am FAR from perfect, and that's not even something I try to be... so I seriously hope I didn't sound "Holier Than Thou," or anything like that... it's just that I do try to avoid as many "bad habits" as I can.

And the only reason I brought up all those things, is because it's often implied (and often downright stated) that homosexuals have "weak morals," etc.
So I just wanted to illustrate that that's simply an ugly stereotype, and that even the President of the United States... who seems to think he has his finger on the pulse of all that is good and moral... has engaged in some less-than-honorable behaviour.
Therefore he has no business telling homosexuals that their relationships have the potential to damage the moral fabric of society.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by BrokenWing

Mark Rosenfelder at Zompist.com had some interesting comments about the gay marriage issue back around the time Dubya first started squawking about a constitutional amendment:

http://www.zompist.com/rants04.html#4

Thank you for posting that, Eileen. That was so well-written... my hat's off to Mark Rosenfelder!

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm telling you, people:

If you are not well-versed on politics and the issues, don't chime into the discussion. It's a waste of our time and waste of your time that you could be using to research these things.

Uh, at the risk of angering you, thought this was a bit...well, lemme just say...YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF US!!! Is this an expert's (or those who think they're an expert?) opinion board only? You could just not answer people when you don't want...happens to me all the time! Blessings,
Amber

[amber]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

Shrub would have the following on his shirt:

WWG(WIATB)D

What
Would
God
(Which
I
Assume
To
Be)
Do

I also thought he might be thinking:
WWJFO
Who
Would
Jesus
F***
Over ?
or
WWGSD?
Who
Would
God
Smack
Down?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

Uh, at the risk of angering you, thought this was a bit...well, lemme just say...YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF US!!! Is this an expert's (or those who think they're an expert?) opinion board only? You could just not answer people when you don't want...happens to me all the time! Blessings,
Amber

I was only joking, doll.

Of course people can post about what they think about the issues we discuss, this is a message board after all. I just think that if someone is going to join in on the discussion, they should at least have some knowledge of what they're talking about and have some facts or links to back it up. A lot of people don't.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I was only joking, doll.

Of course people can post about what they think about the issues we discuss, this is a message board after all. I just think that if someone is going to join in on the discussion, they should at least have some knowledge of what they're talking about and have some facts or links to back it up. A lot of people don't.

OH, I Couldn't tell, how odd. I'm only forgiving you cause you called me "doll" Yeah, in a perfect world people would be like that. That's why i try not to talk to anyone. I certainly don't know what you know about politics, that's for sure. You're capacity for sorrow and bull**** must be gargantuan! Good for you!
Amber

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

OH, I Couldn't tell, how odd. I'm only forgiving you cause you called me "doll" Yeah, in a perfect world people would be like that. That's why i try not to talk to anyone. I certainly don't know what you know about politics, that's for sure. You're capacity for sorrow and bull**** must be gargantuan! Good for you!
Amber

Well, in a perfect world we wouldn't have Dumbya in office.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Well, in a perfect world we wouldn't have Dumbya in office.

yeah...but can you remember the last clean, good, president, not counting Jimmy C? I don't think there ever was one. Even Abe had some issues. I don't think there can be one, cause of the sneaky politicking and money grubbing that is an intrinsic part of the system. But who that works within the system will work to completely change it? That person would never get elected! (apparently). That's why Jimmy C. couldn't get anything done...
Amber

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

yeah...but can you remember the last clean, good, president, not counting Jimmy C? I don't think there ever was one. Even Abe had some issues. I don't think there can be one, cause of the sneaky politicking and money grubbing that is an intrinsic part of the system. But who that works within the system will work to completely change it? That person would never get elected! (apparently). That's why Jimmy C. couldn't get anything done...
Amber

As much as it pains me to say it, Gerald Ford was a very decent and caring man. He f*cked up big time by pardoning Nixon, but he was still a good man with no agenda and he truly loved this country and its people.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by amber

yeah...but can you remember the last clean, good, president, not counting Jimmy C? I don't think there ever was one. Even Abe had some issues. I don't think there can be one, cause of the sneaky politicking and money grubbing that is an intrinsic part of the system. But who that works within the system will work to completely change it? That person would never get elected! (apparently). That's why Jimmy C. couldn't get anything done...
Amber

I think Ford was (is) an upstanding, honest man.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

As much as it pains me to say it, Gerald Ford was a very decent and caring man. He f*cked up big time by pardoning Nixon, but he was still a good man with no agenda and he truly loved this country and its people.

But, if he had an agenda, wouldn't it be a repub one? regardless if he was a nice person, his policies, etc....
Amber

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

But, if he had an agenda, wouldn't it be a repub one? regardless if he was a nice person, his policies, etc....
Amber

He was a Rethug, but he wasn't in office long enough to really do anything; he was only there for two years. And from what I know of him, he's not a hardcore Rethug, he's a moderate. And he hates Bush.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

He was a Rethug, but he wasn't in office long enough to really do anything; he was only there for two years. And from what I know of him, he's not a hardcore Rethug, he's a moderate. And he hates Bush.

Yeah, that's pretty good, but given time, he might have f-ed something up, so i'm not gonna count him, mmmkay?
Amber