Melodrama’s So Much Fun
Travis Stanley has posted an overwrought, melodramatic note from a homosexual friend about Proposition 2 on the November ballot in Texas. The note begins with this, “In a couple weeks Texas voters will be deciding whether or not I am a human.” It proceeds to an emotional appeal insinuating that those who support this ballot measure want to “hurt children,” not just generally, but specifically a little girl named Bridget who “has two mommies that [sic] both love her unconditionally.” It goes on to urge Christians to reconsider their views, but only after accusing them of being in favor of torture: “If you can nod in agreement at the suggestion that God will send me to an eternity in hell fire, it actually makes sense for you to start that torture by taking away my basic rights[.]”
The note reaches its hysterical climax by — and after all that, what else would do? — equating supporters of Proposition 2 with Nazis:
I can only pray that we will heed the voices of the wisdom that is history:
First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Rev. Margaret Walker chimes-in to drive the point home, just in case you missed it the first time: “It might be a good thing to remember that the first step that eventually led to the Holocost [sic] was the removal of rights from the Jewish peoplle [sic] in Germany.” Head over here, and you’ll see that this accusation has been leveled before.
Yes, Travis, Wes, and Margaret. You guys caught us. I confess. Our right-wing plan to exterminate the homosexuals was about to begin with this first crucial step — to formally define marriage as it has been universally understood for millennia. Alas, you have unmasked our scheme. I am so ashamed.
Naturally, Greg Kendall-Ball weighs-in with an ostensibly related post.
Please. Do y’all actually believe this stuff?
related articles
- Soft on Crime? That’s Rich (July 2nd, 2007)
- Churchill on Islam (July 2nd, 2007)
- Five Years Later: Americans Trapped in Saudi Arabia (June 27th, 2007)
- Huckabee’s Conversion (June 19th, 2007)
- WorldNetDaily: Elrod v. Thompson (June 11th, 2007)
October 24th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Extremist, I think perhaps the linking of Proposition 2 with the Holocaust was a bit dramatic, but I honestly cannot fathom how someone could vote for the alternative…for choosing to remove the few rights that gay couples have had to fight and struggle for. Is it the “Christian thing” to put the custody of children at risk? Would Christ willingly damage the ability of a person to visit their sick spouse in the hospital?
As many have said, this is not about condoning or endorsing a lifestyle. I think a person could be 100% anti-gay and still vote NO on Prop. 2, in the same way I think someone can be 100% anti-abortion and still be pro-choice.
Whatever your views on homosexuality, you have to agree that removing rights or protections currently afforded them by law is wrong.
I would rather err on the side of compassion and love and mercy.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:07 am
It is worse than a bit dramatic, Greg. It is an insult to those who sincerely believe such amendments are appropriate. Even worse still, it cheapens the Holocaust to appropriate the suffering of its victims for entirely unrelated political purposes.
As I understand it, the amendment doesn’t “remove” anyone’s rights.
Actually, it has everything to do with condoning and endorsing a lifestyle. That is one thing about which folks on your side of this debate are precisely correct.
Some equate a lack of official state endorsement of their relationships with bigotry, but I think most Americans understand the difference between “live and let live” (which is where the country is right now) and endorsement (which is what homosexual marriage proponents want).
I don’t have to agree either that this amendment removes current protections or that, if it did, that it would be wrong. That would depend on what the current “protections” are, and I am not familiar enough with Texas law to know.
While there may be differences from state-to-state, I am fairly confident that virtually every state already allows by private contract, all the essential arrangements necessary to allow homosexual couples to cohabit on equal terms with a heterosexual couple — including the right to visit each other in the hospital.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:52 am
I agree that the use of the Holocaust was in bad taste. But, I also cannot begin to fathom what it must be like to be a gay person living in Texas.
As far as I can tell, and because I am not a gay person I have not researched this extensively (I am taking the word of those who have researched this), this amendment would repeal the current protection they have, something I guess that is similar to common-law marriages. According to my friend, this amendment would determine if a man’s gay “husband” could visit him in an emergency medical situation. It would also determine if a woman’s “wife” would be allowed to retain custody of an adopted child. There is a whole lot at stake here, none of which hangs on whether or not you believe gay people will burn in hell.
Although, as Wes said, I think people who DO think gays will burn if they don’t “convert” probably don’t care what happens to their medical coverage, or their inheritance rights. THAT is a tragedy.
October 25th, 2005 at 8:41 am
Thanks for the link.
First of all, I shared Wes’ comment so that others could read what a gay, Christian man thought about this proposition. I did not make the holocaust reference. I am still not completely convinced it is entirely out of place, though I realize it might be a bit alarmist.
I cannot help but think, though, about some of the rhetoric I’ve heard coming from those opposed to gay marriage. They too have argued for a slippery slope, though their slope usually ends with the assumption that allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legal consent of men marrying horses and pedophilia becoming legal. That, to me, is a bit dramatic.
Like Greg said, it is not about condoning a lifestyle. It is about offering the freedoms and liberty that every U.S. citizen is afforded. If we desire people in Iraq to have these freedoms, why would we want to deny a segment of our own population these freedoms? Wes and his partner have attempted to make previsions, guarding their property and insurance coverage in the event that one of them dies. If this proposition is passed, according to Wes, it would give the state the ability to override the wishes they have made.
We don’t have to agree with everything Wes said. But in a country like ours, where we pride freedom of speech and equality of all, I would hope we could at least give him a fair hearing, trying to understand what such a proposition might mean for him and others. If he sounds overly dramatic and alarmist, perhaps there is a reason. Maybe you would sound the same if you were scared that some of your rights were being taken away?
October 25th, 2005 at 10:52 am
I am 100% in favor of the state recognizing the marriages which gay people are already creating.
However, I agree that the Holocaust reference is overblown, unneccesary, and inappropriate. As this post proves, comparing anything to the Nazis is a sure-fire way to encourage your opponents to ignore your real arguments.
I would just like to point out, however, that proponents of equality in state recongition of marriages are by no means the only ones to use overheated rhetoric.
James Dobson once said that recognizing our marriages would “Destroy the earth.”
October 25th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
How ridiculous. The Nazi and Holocaust references were ignorant and way over the top. But my favorite statement was this one:
“In a couple weeks Texas voters will be deciding whether or not I am a human.â€
Oh boo hoo! (wringing my hands). You mean they’re actually going to take away your humanity?
Give me a break. This has nothing to do with human rights or civil rights. It is all about a tiny group wanting special rights and special recognition of their chosen form of immorality.
As far as the children go — they also need to take away the right that homosexuals have to adopt children (yes, I realize that the lesbians can still have their own).
If some folks want to practice immorality and perversion, they are free to have at it. But the state does not have to recognize it, or give special rights to those who choose to do so.
Here’s hoping that Proposition 2 passes by a huge margin.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
I also believe the note was a bit sensational — especially the Nazi stuff.
I just don’t believe that the state should give rights and privileges based on what you do under the covers. And it seems that’s what the gay lobby is after.
I certainly don’t hate those who practice homosexuality. But I know that what they do is offensive to God, and I desperately wish they would stop and turn back to Him.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Jeff,
No one is asking for rights based on what people do under the covers.
Instead, gay people are asking that our families (including our children) be afforded the same protections that other families are afforded.
And we haven’t turned our back on God. There are millions of gay Christians who worship God with their lives during the week, and also during “worship services” on Sunday.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
It’s not about “special rights”, but “equal rights.”
October 25th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Jim,
I am personally against gay marriage and share your conviction that homosexuality is a form of immorality and sinful behavior.
However, some of your rhetoric (”Oh boo hoo!”) does not come accross in a loving manner or Christian manner. I know that it is hard to understand a person’s demeanor only from a written blog. But we as Christians need to pay careful attention to how we approach sensitive subjects such as this, because we don’t want to come accross as though were hateful towards those we disagree with (and it is well known that there are some Christians who advocate hatred towards the gay communites and teach that God hates gays as well).
October 25th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
No Travis, you are wrong. It is about special rights. Homosexuals want the same rights as married people, and they are not married people.
What’s the difference between a couple of gay men who share an apartment and a couple of normal guys who share an apartment? Answer? The gay men have sex with each other. And somehow they should be given the same rights as a married couple because of that?
Give me a break.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Gay people are getting married whether Texas recognizes it or not.
Non-married gay people don’t want the rights of marriage. However, married gay people want the same rights as married straight people.
Two gay men (who are also normal men, by the way) can share an apartment without having sex. This is called “being roommates.”
The people who are asking for their marriages to be recognized are not not roommates, but rather the gay people who have gotten married. That is, the gay people who have committed their lives to one another as a family, and who have promised to be faithful to one another until death.
The difference between these gay people and between two random men sharing an apartment is that the former are married, and the latter aren’t.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Jim: You are henceforth given a break, as you have requested.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
OK…I am “the homosexual.” Although I have a name…Wes. Thank you for NOT acknowledging my humanity so well that you even refuse to call me by my name.
I have very little to say here because I think we all agree that time spent on your webpage is, for me, a waste of time.
First, concerning my citation of the holocaust. Please recall that it was the Jews AND GAYS who were murdered by the Nazi camps. And, I am not saying that this will happen here if we pass this bill, but I am saying that Nazi Germany did these things too. That is a fact. Like it or not.
Finally, thank you to Travis who recognizes that this is something I cannot help but get passionate about since it is my life that stands to be changed by your vote. As Travis said, “Maybe you would sound the same if you were scared that some of your rights were being taken away?”
This has been a very hard day. Today I have forced myself to read blogs that I cannot help but allow to affect me. Though you may not care, it does hurt me to hear so many of you disregard my life, my love, and my feelings. Thank you for continuing the pain that caused me to leave the conservative church that used to love me. Thank God for the other churches who still show love.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
I write with no knowledge of Texas law. But it has been my understanding that gay couples do indeed have the same legal rights conferred upon their relationship by the state, only the means by which these rights are acquired are different. A gay couple can in fact go to a lawyer and draft all the necessary “equalities” they want, including provisions regarding distribution of income post mortem and healthcare. Yes, there might be some issues whereby a company may refuse to provide health insurance to a gay man’s partner, but that sort of thing is increasingly rare.
Of course, most legal provisions are immediately conferred upon a man and woman at their wedding ceremony. But even here they are not afforded final control over death-and-dying issues (at least in many states) without signing numerous legal certificates beyond the marriage certificate. A will is still required if a couple, settling an estate post mortem, wants to avoid probate court regarding certain possessions not legally shared by name (if a house is in my name and not my spouse’s, it is not necessarily conferred to my spouse upon my death).
I think it disingenuous when a gay marriage supporter argues that all that is being sought is equality of rights. That is not what is REALLY being sought. What is being pursued is reductionistic: it is even an effort to change not only traditional conceptions of marriage, but also of love and personhood. This is more than a legal battle; it is an ontological one as well.
Peace to you all,
BG
October 25th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Wes, if you don’t mind, I’ll respond more fully to you and many of the other commenters later this evening. (Don’t you people have jobs?
Just kidding.)
But, for now, I want to quickly note that if you re-read my post, you will see that I did call you by name, and I linked to your site.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
BG: Does the state have the authority to change the definition of traditional marriage? I thought the sanctity of marriage rests in God alone? For me, the issue is not changing the definition of marriage, but recognizing and respecting that there are others in this wonderfully diverse country of ours who define definition differently. Such a recognition does not require one to give up their own personal beliefs about marriage, but it does force one to realize that they are not the only ones in America who’s beliefs matter.
October 25th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
Now this might seem awfully philosophical, but let me try it anyway.
Travis, your view is this: that the state should recognize your view of “definition” and “marriage”–namely, that the state position should be that a diverse country must permit people to “define definition” (your words) “differently” one from another; and that the state should make me live in a place that permits me to keep my definition to myself without limiting others.
If this is the case, then it requires that my definition of marriage and “definition” is not given the same status as yours: Yours is embraced by the state because it is seemingly broad; mine ignored because it is seemingly narrow. Mine does not matter while yours does.
Let me put it this way. I want to live in a country that permits me the pursuit of happiness. Well, part of my pursuit of happiness is to have a state define marriage in sacrosanct and traditional terms. Why am I not permitted this? Why should my definition, or the majority definition for that matter, not be the prevailing paradigm, if that is what makes the majority achieve happiness?
Another analogy. Imagine standing before a tolerant school board. Each objection you raise, each affirmation to an idea you offer is greeted with this: “We tolerate your right to say that, sir, and we acknowledge your right to free speech. Thank you.” Now, when I say NO to a school board, I just don’t want my free speech to he heard, I want it to have ontological impact: I want it to effect change, to have power, to be a real NO (or a real YES).
What you are suggesting is that my definition of definition, or my meaning of meaning, or my definition of marriage is perfectly fine—for me, in private—but I have no right to expect my beliefs to be standardized in culture. Why then, do we permit ANYONE’s beliefs about “marriage” be adopted by culture or the state?
When you say that “Such a recognition does not require one to give up their own personal beliefs about marriage,” you make something of a blind error. What if one of my personal beliefs is that the state should not permit gay relationships to be given marital status; and another one of my personal beliefs is that I should work to ensure that the state does not define gay marriage as such. Must I not have to give up one of my personal beliefs if the state does indeed legalize gay marriage? And what if one of my personal beliefs is that the state will not ever do such a thing? Will I not have to give that up too, if gay marriage is endorsed?
Lastly, do you mean to imply that all people’s beliefs matter in this context? Are some beliefs best decried, despised, rejected, even expunged? Do all beliefs really matter?
Just being too philosophical for on-the-fly typing, but peace to you anyway, and thanks,
BG
October 25th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Greg said:
According to your friend, the amendment will also lead to the gas chambers. Forgive me if I’m skeptical.
That just doesn’t follow. Millions of people believe in John 14:6, perhaps even you. Does it follow, that none of these people “care what happens” to non-Christians? Perhaps what you see as a lack of concern for their economic benefit, is actually a great concern for something far more important.
Travis said:
This is not a slippery slope argument, and the point is not drama. Generally, it is a response to the sort of thinking under discussion here, where Rex said, “I think you make a good point concerning the difference between a law against gay marriage and a law against stealing. The former is a choice between consenting adults and the later is an action that brings harm to someone else.”
The point is to challenge one who approves of homosexuality to distinguish between that private, consenting sexual behavior which should merit tolerance and/or approval, and that which should not. The best example is not bestiality or pedophilia, but rather consensual adult incest. How could you respond, for example, if a 30 year-old man and his 28 year-old sister came to apply for a marriage license citing every single argument that the pro-homosexual marriage side of this debate has made?
You can’t. The point is not that this will lead to brother-sister marriage, which it eventually might (though such unions would probably be rare). The point is that logical consistency would require you to sanction the brother-sister marriage. Rather than a slippery-slope, it is highlighting inconsistency on the other side. Most proponents of homosexual marriage would not sanction the brother-sister union. Hence, they are inconsistent in condemning as close-minded bigots all of us who believe in the Biblical prohibitions against both homosexuality and incest. When it comes to incest, they too are “close-minded bigots” but don’t admit it. Of course neither of us are bigots at all. We all believe that it is legitimate to make moral judgements about the appropriateness of certain private, consensual, sexual behavior and to write those judgements into laws about marriage and other matters. We only disagree about the details.
I’ve never seen an adequate response to this reasoning, not even from relatively thoughtful homosexuals like Andrew Sullivan.
Brian said:
No Brian, but one should not excuse the other.
Then explain how a cohabiting, unmarried, heterosexual couple who are personally, though not “officially,” committed to one another for life are treated any differently under the current law than an identical homosexual couple. The issue is not about civil rights, it is about redefining marriage and demanding government approval.
Wes said:
It’s only a waste of time if you want it to be. If you want it to be constructive, it can be. But, why waste time posting to tell me it is a waste of time? Either be willing to engage in a dialogue or don’t bother.
Instantly questioning the motives of those you disagree with and painting them as Nazis is not constructive. That was the point of my post. Your humanity exists because you are a creature of God, Wes, regardless of whether I use your name as often as you would like me to and regardless of whether you happen to notice when I do, in fact, use your name.
I think your reaction to this entire issue is out of all proportion to reality. That’s why I called B.S. on your note, but don’t take it personally. It doesn’t mean I hate you. It means I think you are wrong. Period. My post, the amendment, Christian disapproval of homosexuality — it’s not all about you. It’s about ideas much bigger than you. If you showed some respect for that notion, you might get more respect in return.
Some of the guards and some of Hitler’s henchmen were also homosexual. What does that have to do Proposition 2 or the price of condoms in San Francisco?
Wes also said::
What happened after dinner? Did He tell them to go have a fabulous night of whoring? I don’t think so. It was probably something more like, “Go and sin no more.” Of course this is about real people. It’s about fundamental issues of right and wrong, which is why folks get worked up about it. If you don’t want others to pretend to know what’s in your heart, don’t pretend to know what’s in theirs. People who choose to discuss these things without getting hyper-personal — those who may use a bit of humor to lighten the mood (e.g. the San Francisco comment above) are not being inhuman or inhumane.
Wes, it is fascinating to me that you can be so self-righteous in your condemnation of supporters of Proposition 2, and then turn around and demand their approval with equal self-righteousness. Are you not disregarding the life and the feelings of those who sincerely hold true to their understanding of Scriptural teachings about homosexuality? Who are you to judge “conservative churches” or the hearts of those who disagree with you as loveless? I’m constantly amazed at how judgmental the high-priests of non-judgmentalism can be.
Love does not equal unconditional approval. Not for you, me, or anyone. Everyone deserves hell, including you and I. Likewise, no one earns forgiveness and no one can demand it. We all have to decide which is more important — our life and our feelings, or God.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:21 am
Extremist, Your time in the churches of Christ, in which I grew up is obvious (and I say this as an observation, not a condemnation). It is obvious because of your failure to understand how I connect love and justice. You say “love does not equal unconditional approval.” True. But, for me, and for all others who ascribe to liberation theology, Love does equal justice. It is why James Cone can suggest “God is Black” (an essay I doubt you have read), and why I can sound self-righteous. This is not becuase I feel that I am self-righteous. I am simply demanding justice in the way the Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and other leaders of the Civil Rights Movement did.
To concede my point a bit, I admit that I was very angry when I posted earlier…which is never a good time to open one’s mouth. However, I still stand by my belief that God is love and love is justice.
Again…I would not have understood what I meant by all that only three years ago. My paradigms and viewpoints have all been changed by my studies of black theologians, liberationists, and feminists. In some sense we are simply speaking different languages. This is why I suggest that I am mostly wasting my time…we see the issues so drastically different that dialogue–that true communication–is difficult if not impossible. This is not a character statment about either one of us…it is just a statement of the fact that a few short paragraphs on a blog do not equal a true dialogue between Christian brothers. For that, I think it would require several hours, a lunch, and some “face time.” Then we might be able to actually communicate and see the humanity in one another. I regret that this is not an option for us. True dialogue like that would actually be appealing to me.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:46 am
Earlier I spoke of people who “define definition differently”. What I meant to say was people who “define marriage differently”. I made a mistake.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Perhaps it is not my place to comment, but Wes’ remarks have inspired me to point out a couple of things.
First, Wes commits the logical fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam. I know, perhaps it is pedantic to point this out, but it is helpful to note that Wes’ fallacy - the appeal to pity - is logically irrelevant. If he wants to truly “dialogue”, then he needs to hold his feelings within the confines of reason.
Second, it is something of a reduction to say that the Holocaust was directed at Jews and gays. It was directed at all humans: Christians and gypsies were killed, as were German nationals who opposed Hitler. No group is entitled to claim a unique place in the death camps, though, in sheer quantity we know that the Jews were soundly victimized. I wonder what percentage of Down Syndrome chiildren were likewise exterminated.
Third, Wes reduces love. Sorry, but that is what he has asked for: Love, to him, is acceptance. But Wes is only partly right: Love is acceptance – within truth. Love separates sin from sinner; disease from diseased; death from the dying. Jesus, contrary to popular opinion, did NOT teach “Love your neighbor as yourself.” That He merely affirmed it as the highest ethos of Jewish morality is clear. But the problem with that Jewish principle is that it makes each person the standard of love. Hence, the heroin addict can say that he was only loving his neighbor as he himself would like to be loved when he shares his needles with other users. The man who provides a prostitute for his son might argue that this is the sort of gift he wishes his not-so-loving father had given him.
What do we know that Jesus taught about love? We know this: His calls to love are rooted in the only NEW commandment He issued (the mandate of Maundy Thursday): LOVE EACH OTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. The difference and newness of this commandment is astronomical, for now we have a standard – The God of the Universe in Christ. And how has the God of the Universe loved us in Christ? He has loved us by rebuking and rebuffing us; He has loved us by insisting that we crucify ourselves with Him; He has loved us by insisting that we shatter ourselves against the Rock (or be crushed) so that He may meld the fragments to wholeness. Christ is confrontational in His acceptance; His tolerance is rife with expectations. Christ, the standard of love which must inspire our love, is indeed all about accepting sinners — at a price; the price which is His death, and the price which is our death when we submit our whole being to the purifying love which is God.
Wes, sadly, reduces God’s love to something tepid and uninspiring. Wes makes himself, how HE WANTS TO BE TREATED, as the standard of what love is. But that is not love; it is wishfulness.
Sorry, but that is what I think. Am I wrong? Perhaps. I’ve been known to be wrong many times. But I think a serious look at Jesus’ new commandment yields only one conclusion; the Golden Rule is insufficient. Why else would Jesus issue a new commandment?
Of course, this opinion is entirely my own: I’ve not read it anywhere or heard it preached or taught. I am not saying that it originated with me (I do not know); I am only saying that I can take the blame for its heresy if it is indeed shown to be erroneous. In fact I would welcome anyone to steer me toward the light if I am found to be in darkness.
Peace to you all (including you Wes),
Gnade
October 26th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Contratimes, Acutally, I am asking that you recognize my humanity…not love me. I am also suggesting that love is justice…a word you failed to use in your post. And, I would suggest that love embodied in Jesus’ command to love God and love our neighbor. It would not be loving for a heroin addict to share needles because that would do harm to someone else. What I am suggesting is that the heroine addict still deserves love–even if he is sharing needles–simply because he is a human being.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Thank you, Wes, for your gentle response to my commnents. We disagree about love and the heroin addict: I believe that he can say that he is doing something loving – from his perspective (and NOT giving heroin to an addict can also be harmful).
I have not for a second ever not acknowledged yours or anyone else’s humanity. You indeed are human, are loved and lovable, are worth dying for. You do not need to “get” me to do that. What you really want, though, don’t you think, is to have me (or someone else) actually only recognize a part of your humanity, namely your homosexuality? Now I am going to ask you to recognize something about me.
You’ve no doubt heard about sociobiology. It is the belief that a person’s genes, that each person’s DNA right down to the nucleus in each cell, is selfishly interested in transmitting itself into the next generation. Human DNA, according to sociobiology, longs for life in perpetuity. In fact, the sociobiologist makes this point: Everything biological, this overwhelming display around us, reveals that reproduction is what life is all about.
(OK. Now I know you might suspect where I am going with this, but I promise I am going somewhere else.)
What I am left with this is this: homosexuality seems to give the middle finger to sociobiology, even to all of the blatantly fecund natural world. Homosexuals do not seem predisposed, or predirected, toward passing their DNA into the biological future. At least that is what I, a heterosexual, perceive.
Now, I am equipped by God or evolution or both to hate the smell of rotting flesh and to pull away from the heat of open flame. Both are dangerous to health. What if I, as a heterosexual male, am equipped to find a subset of humans not interested in passing along their DNA, content even to let it die with them, something to be well, avoided (for lack of a better word)? What I am actually saying is this: It seems that nature has endowed some heterosexuals with an aversion to homosexuality. We all surely have heard about the love gene, the alcoholism gene, the depression gene, even the God gene; there appears to be a gene for everything under the sun. Well, what if there is a homophobia gene? What if my homophobia is genetic?
And that is what I am going to ask of you now: I am designed by nature to be homophobic, to view marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman; my very cytoplasm avoids homosexuality; my homophobia is something I cannot help. In fact, I have been homophobic since I had my first sexual impulse: I knew the second I saw Julie Jones’ breasts that I was a heterosexual. With all that admitted, can you please recognize my homophobia as part of my humanity, essential to it, inseparable from my very essence? Will you protect my right to be what I can’t help but be; will you work with me to celebrate my homophobia in a grand dance of diversity? Will you work with me as I am true to myself?
OK. Again, I recognize that I’ve asked some tough questions. But there is nothing fallacious or facetious about them. I am sincere: I can’t help my homophobia (though I would not call it that). What do we do? Am I less than human for being homophobic?
Peace to you all,
Gnade
October 26th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
I’m sincerely interested in seeing responses from Wes, Brian, Travis, or Greg on either my or Gnade’s point: (1) What neutral principle distinguishes brother-sister marriage from homosexual marriage? (2) What neutral principle allows you to demand affirmation of homosexuality but deny affirmation of “homophobia?”
October 27th, 2005 at 1:44 am
Genetics or envrionment, whatever the case may be. The part(s) of are humanity that are the result of a fallen world rather than what God originally created life to be, it is this part which God is seeking to redeem humanity from so that humanity can once again live the life God intended humanity to live when God created this world. Whatever ills we as humans are prone too, whether they be of a sexual nature, of a malicous nature, of a violent nature, etc… those ills are sinful. It is true that we may be more prone to a certain ill because of a genetic or environmental factor, but that does not change the fact that God calls them the sinful nature (or “flesh” depending on your bible trans.), does not will for us to live by it, and seeks to redeem us from that nature. I can agree that envy, for example, is part of my nature but it is part of the nature which God is seeking to redeem me from. So why would I want to live an envious life if I really want to live a redeemed life? The same argument can be made for sexual sin, whether it be lust, fornication, homosexualality, aldultery, incest, etc…
Though I presently am convinced that any form of homosexual behavior is wrong, I am aware that some are arguing that homosexual activity between one monogamous couple in a covenant relationship is not condemmed in scripture. I am open to the possiblity, but I would need to see a strong convincing argument (I will admit that I have not taken the time to research this subject much on my own).
So what should we do with people who struggle with particular ills? This is where the Christian church has failed miserably, as it has regarded certain ills as tolerable while discriminating other ills and those who are guilty of those certain ills as beyond redemption. If I struggle with envy, am I beyond the grace of God? I believe there needs to be a qualifying question: Am I struggling to overcome my envy but am so weak in that area that I stumble occasionally (or even often) - or - have I just rebelliously said “to hell with overcomming my sin of envy, I will just continue living as an envious person?” The later is a rebellious heart but the former is a penitent heart that has a weakenss.
So what happens when a Christian’s major weakness is some sort of sexual sin? There are some Christian who would be fine with just branding them with a scarlet letter, humiliating them even more, and showing no grace to them. They justify themselves saying, “We’ve gotta protect oursevles from this perverse person.” Nonsense, in Luke 7 how interesting it is that it is the sinful woman welcomed at Jesus’ side and it is the merciless Pharisee who is scorned by Jesus.
I am still convinced that homosexuality is a sinful behavior, along with adultery, incest, fornication, pornography, etc… But nobody who struggles with any of these sins deserves to be treated as though they are a diseased specimen in need of banishment from the church house. Maybe if more Christians would see their church communities as a redemptive hospital for the sin sick, even those often unspeakable sins, then maybe more people would actually find healing rather than shame. Just maybe the spiritual discipline of “confessing sins one to another” would not be a destructive tool (and I have personally witness a narcissistic individual use confession as a personal weapon of destruction and manipulation on a weak Christian — and the outcome is what you would expect)
…And just maybe then more people who are struggling with some real tough issues would stop trying to fight the battle alone and instead allow their brothers and sisters in Christ to bear their burdens with them.
October 27th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Once again, Bill Gnade is enviably (or maddeningly) irrefutable.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:36 pm
preach on Milton, er, uh I mean Bill.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:00 pm
I think I can assure you, anon, that Milton and Bill are two very different people.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
What happened to loving as we were first loved? Can we love those who believe we are at war with them? The church is called to take the greatest political action ever enacted but we don’t like the feel of the nails in our hands, our feet or our head so we take our own way and call it rights instead. We have so skewed Paul’s becoming like all people to mean the adoption of the cultures methods and practices that we see the cross as our vote.
I wonder how one who votes against those who oppose us believe they can hold their hand when they see a war with us going on. The truth we believe in can’t be accomplished on a cross but only in the arogance of our American citizenship. Where is our faith in the Almight God? We wonder why he “doesn’t work like he used to?” Perhaps our lack of faith and willingness to pray has been relented for our voice.
The harshest voices on this website might ought consider who they are really serving with their dogmatic self-righteous commentary of those who realize we don’t know the full power in our GRACIOUS judge. If you don’t think it will be gracious on that day, I pity us all for I am undoubtedly bound for destruction. May we seek to be more like Christ on a cross than the mighty eagle that flies free.
November 11th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Les, thanks for commenting. What you wrote is fascinating. I read it three times, and I’m still not certain I understand. It sounds to me like what you said could apply to both “sides” in the debate — that the debate itself is wrong. Am I missing your point?
November 12th, 2005 at 1:59 am
No, I think that is my point. Believe me this is quite the irony coming from me. I am strong willed and have been known to beat others over the head with my own ideas and theology. Then I read a few of my favorite passages to dislike because they remind me that the power is not in me (not the real power anyway). The passages I am mostly talking about are, Phil. 2, Beatitudes and Hebrews 13. I read them and realize that I have been more of a driver of nails than a reciever of them. (Oh and by the way, after rereading my post I can see how it didn’t make sense. I’m a better talker than typist.)
We speak often of living as Christ, dying to self, etc… But do we take this seriously. We stand strong on our positions like the Pharisees and pity the Gentile dog of a woman who submits to Christ because she knows that the real power to heal is when she admits her lowly position. And at the same time we would rather be Jesus drawing in the dirt, with his quick witted rhetoric that saves, than the adultrous woman who knows she has been caught but is saved by his wit. This man whom she had never even met lets her go with simply a gentle command to sin no more.
Yet, both sides want to claim their innocence (or maybe its their rights, these days the line seems really blurred) rather than simply admitting to the heavy burden of guilt and releasing it into his control.
For me this is about my faith, the churches faith to truly trust in his power. It is my own lack of faith that will not allow me to live in Exile because out in the desert there is no evangelism accept maybe of self. In the desert their is only complete dependence on him.
Let me be clear though, this does not eliminate conversations that can form and nurture both sides into a healthier understanding. When are we going to realize that growth can only occur when we quit taking the axe to each others hearts? Debates demand winners, conversations seek to learn together and in our case from a common story still rooted in God’s power of deliverance and his promise, which one do you think we ought to be about?
Lastly, its funny because even in my writing of these words I feel a sort of intensity in me. Why? I think it’s because it is how we are bred in this world. Only the strong will survive. Oh that we can redefine earthly strength and power toward the glorified submission of the cross.
Grace and peace to you, Les
November 13th, 2005 at 1:31 am
Les, in my view debates don’t necessarily demand “winners.” The winner is whoever finds some new measure of truth in the clash of ideas — whether that person is an observer in the middle or a participant on either side. Debates, disagreements, or discussions (if you prefer) help define differences and clarify common ground. Can they degenerate into unproductive shouting matches? Sure, but that is not a reason not to try to do better.
Too many people are content to just seek out and consume reaffirmations of their own views. That’s one way to avoid arguments, but I don’t know that you learn much.
I certainly do not claim innocence. The Lord knows I can’t and so do I.
Your point of view has some appeal. Neither side should be self righteous. Both sides should recognize their guilt and seek reconciliation with God.
However, the issue remains. People were asked to vote. Saying that both sides are wrong doesn’t resolve it. Either homosexual marriages will be permissible in Texas or they will not.
A vote against defining marriage the traditional way would be one to officially remove another bright-line rule of conduct in our seemingly endless march toward a more and more permissive society.
There are sound reasons so many want to hold firm on this bright line rule (traditional marriage). Among them, for me, is one closely connected to your idea that we all need to acknowledge our heavy burden of guilt and release it to His control. You are, of course, right. However, some people, do not recognize their guilt. I was once one of them.
As an unchurched person, I could not begin to take one step toward God until I broke my own internal moral code in a big way. Otherwise, why should I need a Savior? I did and have all too frequently since. What if everything around me had told me my behavior was okay? It would have been harder to recognize my own guilt and thus harder to turn back toward God.
That internal code is innate in some sense, but it is also nurtured, shaped, and defined by civil society and the rules we choose to impose through government.
As our civil society continues to becomes more and more libertine, where do the unchurched get a recognition that they need a savior? Divorce has lost most of its stigma. Adultery is hot on its heals in some circles. If virtually nothing is forbidden and nearly everything is endorsed, then what will cause a pang of conscience in anyone?
In that sense, this issue is probably a symbol for much more. A last stand of sorts.
The proposition under discussion above has since passed with about a three-fourths majority. Every voter, on both sides, was a sinner in need of a Savior. The people who voted in the majority are not better than those in the minority, and I would guess that most of them don’t think they are. However, they do want to hold firm to a historical standard. That doesn’t make them Nazis — which was the original point of this post. We can make that distinction, can’t we?
November 14th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Last thoughts that I wish we could deal with as CHristians and not as Americans. • To be holy is very different from forcing our morals and values as a Christian society. So we won yet, the sin is still pervades both sides. What did we gain? More importantly for me as a minister, what did we lose?
• Its interesting, Jesus never argues. Instead, he silences his opponent with words that are sharp but really not all that effective in chagning those who oppose him. Yet, we continue to argue while he chooses to speak to those who are willing to be transformed. We want to change those who have no interest because we fear a world that isn’t church. I wonder what does the church in America look more like, Christ or America? IS there a problem here?
•
The only time we see Jesus violently react is in the Temple, the house of God, where they have made the house of GOd a den of robbers, a place of injustice, where people no longer depend on God but the ways of culture to make a living. Where doe Jesus really affect change in a political act? What makes our vote different from the Pharisees who were locked others out of the gates of heaven?
• Power that comes from this world is wrong no matter which way you frame it. There is only one power and it is a cross with Jesus and now his church upon it. In our submission to the governing bodies we show others how to submit. In our submission to one another we raise others up. But in our vote we WIN by a large majority based on our rights and our power produced by those rights. We do not stand as seperate and apart we stand with culture that despite a perhaps morally right vote negates the sin in our own lives. To pass judgment in that way, through a vote, we do not recognize our own unworthiness, instead we raise ourselves up against those who see us at war. We may be called to love our enemies but I am pretty sure we are not called to make them.
Lastly, I am not saddened by these blogs or concerned that debating is wrong. I am concerned with us being Christlike to the extreme. When I see your name extremist, I hope that this means one who exhorts and then takes up his cross for in exhorting it is God’s power working through the proclaimer, in a political voice it is fear that drives the vote. I am TRULY THANKFUL for the challenges that these blogs present us as Christians. However, if nothing else maybe we will all keep our blogging clean and free from bleeding ears (sorry for the poor Tyson vs Holyfield allusion). God bless you and I hope he continues to make you an extremist! Grace and peace, Les