A Month in the Life

Wow. I am so impressed at your courage, I have yet to be able to work up the nerve to let some of my more liberal views be known on my conservative and Christian blogging sites. I'm very curious as to your thought process regarding gay marriage. I'm looking forward to hearing from you this month, promises to be very interesting. Welcome! :)
 

My thoughts regarding gay marriage go something like this.

1. In the United States all people ought to share the same legal rights regardless of membership in what have come to be known as "protected classes." Those include but are not limited to: age, race, gender, ethinic background, weight, and sexual orientation.

You can't fire someone from their job because they are white, or fat, or ugly, or gay. These are protected classes.

(Ignore the question of whether sexuality is a matter of choice or biology, it's not important to the discussion at hand.)

2. In the United States marriage has become a rights granting institution. Married people enjoy over 200 more legal rights that non-married persons. These include tax breaks and insurance benefits.

3. Since, marriage has become a rights granting institution all people ought to be able to receive these rights regardless of membership in a protected class.

Notice what does NOT follow from what I have said.

1. That the government ought to force individual religions to perform, endorse, or offer same sex marriages.

If a religious organization wants to make it against their rules to perform same sex marriages, then they have every right to do so.

We want separation of church and state. But, we have to realize that it's a two way street. The government can't interfere in running your church. But, the church cannot impose its moral beliefs on the structure of the government. This is especially true when rights/privileges granted by law are at stake. The plain truth of the matter is that America is NOT a Christian nation. It is a nation of religious freedom. (*Wince!* What did he just say?)

I think using the word "same sex marriage" scares people. They say, "Marriage is between one man and one woman." That's fine. Then my position is that the US Government ought to recognize "same sex civil unions" and that the members of these unions ought to receive all the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.
 

You and I agree on this issue for basically the same reasons. It's nice to know I'm not alone on this view. Now how do you feel about the death penalty, abortion and immigration? ;)

(Might as well get the hot topics out of the way!)
 

Quote: "America is NOT a Christian nation. It is a nation of religious freedom."

So happy to hear another Christian say this! I feel exactly the same way.
 

Arghh! This is the second time I've tried to post this comment. Stupid publish button!

Boy, you don't ask the easy questions.

Death Penalty: I'm undecided for moral reasons. And, I don't know if the logic behind it makes any sense. Can it ever be the RIGHT thing to do, to kill someone, even a murderer? Can somone forfeit their right to life? Does it really make sense to kill people in order to teach people that they shouldn't kill people? These questions concern me.

Immigration: Something needs to be done to help those immigrants who are workers and are living here supporting our way of life. Each and every one of you benefits from illegal every day. Sure these people got here illegally. But, if you think that our agricultural industry in this country could survive with out them, then you're crazy.

Abortion: Touchy subject! Okay, abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, cruel, and inhuman. If you want to argue that occasionally a pregnancy must be aborted to save the mother's life, and that she has every right to do so, then I will listen to you.

A separate but related question would be; can the US legally, constitutionally, deny women access to abortions? 2 arguments.

1. A woman has a right to not have her genetic material "out there" if she so chooses. Right, that's why there's birth control. That issue aside it would seem that this argument also applies to men. They must have the same right to not have their genetic material "out there." If you follow this argument then men could end up forcing women to have abortions because they don't want to be a part of the gene pool. I don't want that.

2. A woman has a right to NOT be pregnant. (Again with the birth control, there's more than one method, people!) This seems to be true as well. Still, technology is advancing at a rate that I believe I will see a successful artifical womb in my life time. If this is the case I could forsee the government forcing women who want an abortion to give up their children to artificial wombs. That just scares me! And, you still have to answer the objection of not wanting their genetic material as part of the gene pool.

There are so many alternatives to abortion that I just can't see it ever being justified, except to save the life of the mother.
 

Well Mr. Month Blogger, I think you have found a small gathering of like thinkers! I'm glad to be in that number! :) Keep up the controversial work!
 

An excellent find.

Please, call me Tim.
 

I have some problems with your gay marriage post.

1. The US government does not currently, and should not in the future regulate marriage. The states regulate marriage. That's why a 14 year old can marry in one state but not another, or why common law marriage is recognized in one state but not another.

2. The solution is not to have more government involvement, but less. If the government would withdraw from the marriage business altogether then each religious institution could choose what kind of "marriages" to perform. (This view has been espoused by both Americans United for the Separation of Church and State as well as the American Center for Law and Justice, maybe the only thing these groups have ever agreed on).

3. Sexual orientation is not currently a protected class in the same way that race is. You absolutely can fire someone from their job if they are gay, under the right circumstances. The Boy Scouts effectively banned gay scout leaders, and the Supreme Court agreed this was legal. If a prof. at UGST announced he or she was gay, UGST would be able to fire them.
 

You bring up some interesting points. The US government does not regulate marriages, the states do. But, there are many federal laws that grant specific priveliges to people who are married. (We can focus on the main example of tax breaks for couples who file jointly.) My contention is that homosexual couples ought to be entitled to these same privileges.

I'm all for less government involvement. It seems that the government wants to say that it's withdrawn from the marriage business, but has not. I get cold chills everytime I hear about some Representative introducing a potential constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, or defining what marriage is.

You said, "Sexual orientation is not currently a protected class in the same way that race is." That's true in some places and not in others. I'm not sure of any court rulings at the federal level that would announce it one way or the other. But, at the state level, in 2004 Oklahoma made it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In other cases there are city ordinances and other local laws that prohibit it.

It is my opinion that sexual preference should be a protected class.

As far as the Boy Scouts of America goes, I'm not sure if the example fits. I'm fairly certain that the ruling was that saying that the BSA must admit gay scout leaders violates the group's right to freedom of speech and association. What I think is important to note is that BSA is a club, not a business. As a club, the BSA can deny membership in the club based on its own set of rules. They aren't denying someone legal privileges based on sexual orientation. They are just saying, "we don't want you in our club."

Incidentally, it was a state law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation that the potential scout leader sued under.
 

Again, I agree with you on these issues. After a lot of "soul searching" I realized that I can't support the death penalty. I'm opposed to state sanctioned murder in any form (euthanasia, death penalty, abortion).

And that brings us to the whole abortion debate, I am obviously against it but I doubt in this political and moral climate, Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. And I feel our politicains would benefit us better by moving on from this issue to what you also said: preventing abortions in the first place. Discussions about personal responsibility, birth control,safe sex, abstinence need to replace the discourse of pro-life, pro-choice. Even most pro-choicers would tell you they're not wanting MORE abortions, they just want the choice to be there. If both sides could agree to that, they could work on decreasing the need for abortions in the first place.

And immigration, I'm all for legal immigration. It's the backbone of our society, it's what this nation was founded on. I think the immigration proccess as it currently stands, is too difficult and costly for those who need the opportunity the most. I'm opposed to amnesty but I'm a huge supporter of easier, quicker legal immigration. And better more efficient ways for seasonal workers to cross borders to do the agricultural work and other work no one in this country would do.

I consider myself a conservative but instead of getting more conservative as I've matured, I've become more moderate. I'm not 30 yet but who knows? By the time I'm 40, I might be a liberal! ;)
(Actually if I have to label myself, I usually call myself a "bleeding heart conservative")
 

I couldn't agree with your assesment of abortion more! The fact is that abortion has become a decoy issue. There will never be any real change on the issue. But, it's the issue that brings voters to the polls in the "red states." If there were any change on the issue they'd have to find another issue that would draw their base to the polls the way that abortion does.

I hope that immigration does not go the same route as an issue.
 

Please note that I mean all my disagreement repsectfully, but that I cannot however, disagree without getting specific. But, you wanted controversy, so . . . here goes.

Here's what amazes me. The idea that supporting gay marriage in a forum comprising a religious demographic with no political power is "courageous."

It is to me, just silly. Why? There is an an entire world full of leftist bullies ready to take up the gun and ride in defense of these positions if someone gets a little too articulately close to refuting them. I judge you not, but I have to admit that writing from a voicethat says "one foot in the world anyway" just seems goofy for anything other than deliberate spectacle.

Hollywood routinely pats themselves on the back for their "courage," when they make films either lauding abortion, lascivious cowboys or deafeating the German juggernaught that apparently must still be defeated.

But what courageous about defending-or-defeating what is either legally entrenched, privately engaged in, or 65 years dead and gone?

In a world which the spirit of antichrist is beginning to flourish uninhibited, I just simply say this. Apostolics wanting to reach the gays need not worry about the upward mobility of gay rights. They've got plenty of defenders. What they don't have is the truth. And their not going to get it if we spend our time pandering to their alleged tax-bracket inequalities and start showing them Jesus. As an aside, Jesus had ample opportunity to weigh in on the efficacy of executing a thief. He demurrred. Instead he saved the man from hell.

Spending one's time with a picket sign on either side of the issue wastes the light of the setting sun we all face here. And unless you believe that homosexuality will pass muster at the great white throne, then we better be trying to marry them to the truth--and not to each other.

I look forward to your future posts, and I promise I won't run so long nest time I decide to pitch in:)

-R
 

I don't just support equal rights here. I support it anywhere I have to, including in the polling booth.

Why is it courageous? Because instead of asserting that certain citizens of our country are not entitled to the same rights as others, I'm trying to demonstrate that a Christian can intelligently and articulately talk about a meaningful distinction between religion and politics. I can maintain this distinction and still be "evangelistic." I can allow them the same rights I am entitled to but still consider their lifestyle sinful.

As to your assertion that it's "silly" to do this here because, "There is an an entire world full of leftist bullies ready to take up the gun and ride in defense of these positions if someone gets a little too articulately close to refuting them." I don't even know what that means.

Do I endorse a homosexual lifestyle? NO! Do I defend the rights of all human beings to have the same rights under the law regardless of sexual orientation? YES!

Is this a "one foot in the world anyway" approach to dealing with a real issue? If it is that's fine. I'm okay with being "in the world." It's the constant situation that we find ourselves in regardless of our attempts to shelter our children and purge ourselves from the world. You're not getting "out of the world" until the second coming so it's best to deal with these issues in an intelligent manner.

You said, "In a world which the spirit of antichrist is beginning to flourish uninhibited, I just simply say this. Apostolics wanting to reach the gays need not worry about the upward mobility of gay rights. They've got plenty of defenders. What they don't have is the truth. And their not going to get it if we spend our time pandering to their alleged tax-bracket inequalities and start showing them Jesus." I've got sad news for you. A gay person who thinks that you consider them a second class citizen isn't going to want to talk to you about Jesus, period. The inequalities are real. That's the problem. This is like saying during the civil rights movement that we shouldnl't worry about the upward mobility of black people's civil rights, we ought to just show them Jesus.

To show concern for the rights of your fellow human beings is to show your fellow human Jesus!!!!!!

Is it so wrong to show a gay person that a Christian can side with them on the side of rights? How else are you even going to get them to engage you in a conversation? As long as there's a picket line I'm going to end up on one side or the other. There is no choice not to choose.

On their side of the picket line at least I can talk to them.
 

I'm really enjoying the conversation here. I don't take issue with your arguments for gay marriage, so I'm asking this question not out of desire to weaken any of your points but rather out of an urge to occasionally play the devil's advocate.

That "a gay person who thinks that you consider them a second class citizen isn't going to want to talk to you about Jesus" is a strong point. But would believing the gay lifestyle to be "sinful" be considered by a gay person just another way of considering them a "second class citizen"?
 

"I'm trying to demonstrate that a Christian can intelligently and articulately talk about a meaningful distinction between religion and politics."

You obviously value education, intellect and image very highly. Becoming a patron for the rights of those who live in sin isn't going to make them think any more highly of Christians. They will continue to dismiss the idea of salvation as folly for the uneducated, simply so that they can live in sin, without the guilt of sin weighing them down.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your political beliefs, just the way you've chosen to utilize this forum.
 

Chantell,

Would believing the gay lifestyle to be "sinful" be considered by a gay person just another way of considering them a "second class citizen"? This is an excellent question.

I hope not. I'm trying to avoid being a crazy religious zealot who would use the government as a theocracy, force everyone to live according to my value system, and hand out legal rights based on said values.

True, a gay person may not want to talk to you at all, if you consider their life sinful. But, I want to make it clear that even if they live in a way that I do not approve of I will stand by them and fight for their rights. This, to me, is showing them the love of God. That's the core of my argument.

So, might they think that I still consider them second class citizens? They might but I don't think the objection is any stronger in this case than in the case of any other sinner who might not want to talk to you because you disapprove of his or her lifestyle. They are more likely to want to have anything to do with you at all if you recognize them as human beings with the same rights as you than if you do not.


Dear Anonymous,

You said, "You obviously value education, intellect and image very highly." Yes, I value education and intellect. What importance image has to do with the conversation I do not know.

You said, "Becoming a patron for the rights of those who live in sin isn't going to make them think any more highly of Christians. They will continue to dismiss the idea of salvation as folly for the uneducated, simply so that they can live in sin, without the guilt of sin weighing them down."

I disagree. I won't rehash the argument for why I disagree as it's basically the same as my response to Chantell. As far as I see it there are two choices on this topic. You can either support their rights, or not. Again, there is no choice not to choose. Here's a question. What's more "evangelistically effective" supporting equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, or not supporting equal rights? For my money, it's supporting them. We may disagree, and if so we may have to agree to disagree.

Finally, you said, "I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your political beliefs, just the way you've chosen to utilize this forum." One, I think you probably do disagree with my political beliefs but that's okay. Two, I'm okay with you disagreeing with the way I've chosen to use this forum.

The law of our great country makes many provisions for us disagreeing. Besides, you only have to put up with me until the end of November.
 

Okay, I respect most of your argument up to this point:

"This is like saying during the civil rights movement that we shouldn’t worry about the upward mobility of black people's civil rights, we ought to just show them Jesus."

Are you equating something I am to teach my children is one of many abominations to race? Being born a certain color in no way can be compared to a lifestyle that is the composite boiling-down of man's fall from God.

I in no way consider any gay person (and here, let me sigh, and make the usual, preemptive statement that I too, have gay friends)"second class," as you put it. But citizenship issues, as well as humanity issues, have only to do with marriage insofar as, like everything else, marriage is yet another one of God's institutions hijacked by government.

My gay friends already know my position on homosexuality. And they also know I see marriage as something not conjured by government.

My question to you is this--as an Apostolic. Why would a gay person take issue with you on gay marriage, when they supposedly already know you don't "endorse" homosexuality? Wouldn’t that be a deal-breaker here?

So answer me two questions, and I'll borrow from your analogy for my first one.

1) Would you ever say to a black voter, "I endorse your right to vote, but I don't endorse your color?"

And,

2) If a homosexual asks you if they would have to give up homosexuality to make it to heaven, what would you tell them? Would the same apply to a black man?

I have a feeling that real “courage’s” heart lies in the answer to that second question.

Hope you don’t mind the back and forth here, Bro.

-R
 

As an aside, I'd also like to refute something else you stated:

"There will never be any real change on the issue. But, it's the issue that brings voters to the polls in the "red states." If there were any change on the issue they'd have to find another issue that would draw their base to the polls the way that abortion does."

The 2004 loss by John Kerry illiustrates exactly the opposite. In this election, abortion barely made it to the radar. Oh sure it was there, since all democratic politicans must adhere to the scarament of abortion or they will never even see a televised debate above the local level. But beyond the usual trvailing at the altar of Roe V. Wade, it went largely unnoticed, since Bush was already elected once with his fervently pro-life position. There was no definitional need to explore it. And there was no way that an apalling man like John Kerry would throw NARAL under the bus the way he did his buddies in Vietnam.

But "red states" did manage to fire up those polls with unprecedented voting activity, all courtesy of one issue that emanated from the halls of the Massachussetts Supreme Court in february of 2004:

Gay marriage.

-R
 

In response to your questions.

1) Would you ever say to a black voter, "I endorse your right to vote, but I don't endorse your color?" NO.

2) If a homosexual asks you if they would have to give up homosexuality to make it to heaven, what would you tell them? Would the same apply to a black man? Yes, no.

I don't see how this affects the arguments at hand though. I'm not talking about whether homosexuality is wrong or not. I'm talking about marriage, whether highjacked by the governement or not, as a rights granting institution (on the civic level).
 

Quote:

"I don't see how this affects the arguments at hand though. I'm not talking about whether homosexuality is wrong or not. I'm talking about marriage, whether highjacked by the governement or not, as a rights granting institution (on the civic level)."

Thanks for your response. I don't agree with your assessment of the relevance of my questions, but hey. That's why we're one here.

Have a good one. I've said all I can say without redundancy, and so I'll spare everyone the onslaught :)

-R