I must speak up on the Chik-Fil-A debate which is an incredibly hot topic in the media right now. I must speak up to get some things off my chest as my chest is feeling the weight of this big debate. Feel free to comment back, but please be kind, and please sign your name. If I am posting under my name, it is only fair if you comment back boldly as well.
So let me say this is as succinctly as I can.
Firstly, I think it is incredibly important that we not start fighting the issue of homosexuality or marriage equality coupled with Dan Cathy's comment regarding homosexual marriage. You can read about my views on homosexuality (and the bullying that often accompanies it) by clicking here. However, we must keep in focus that marriage equality is not what this debate is about.
This debate is about the fact that no one should be punished for their words. That is what Freedom of Speech is all about. I grow incredibly concerned -- downright nervous -- when the words of a Christian are squashed down so severely. When mayors say that Chik-Fil-A is not welcome in their city, I become fearful for what may happen to me as a Christian in years to come. There are so many businesses doing things in cities across America that I do not agree with. And yet, they have not been forced out of their community. Christians shouldn't be either.
I was incredibly relieved when the senior attorney for the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) supported Chik-Fil-A and that basic American freedom. The fact that the ACLU strongly supports sam-sex marriage and spoke up against cities outlawing Chik-Fil-A's presence speaks volumes.
"The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination."
Here's the facts. Chik-Fil-A President Dan Cathy spoke out against sam-sex marriage. And thank goodness legal experts said the cities’ push to stop Chick-fil-A doesn’t stand a chance because barring Chick-fil-A over the personal views of its owner is an “open and shut” discrimination case.
The reason ACLU is in support of Chik-Fil-A in this instance? Well, the ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, but they also said that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage. I agree wholeheartedly!
“... we also support the First Amendment,” Schwartz went on to say. “We don’t think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”
There are many organizations who support things I don't want to support. Sears was selling hard core pornography. I don't want that in my neighborhood. But the truth is, Freedom of Speech means that they can say what they want. And I, in return, can not shop there.
If you disagree with Danny Cathy, you have the right to not eat at Chik-Fil-A. However, for a Mayor to say that organization is not welcome in their town is scary when it apperas it is only Christianity that is facing this type of discrimination.
Hostility toward religion is a the forefront of our world. In January new rules requiring faith-based service ministries and charities to offer their employees health insurance covering contraception and abortion-inducing drugs was introduced.
The Hosanna-Tabor case, which was shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0, stood to force churches to not discriminate who they hired as preachers. Can you imagine being forced to hire a minister who isn't even a Christian simply because they can't discriminate.
And, of course, it is imperative we remember that we have the right to vote. We have the right to vhoice our opinions. However, we never have the right to bully or to hate -- ever. As I mentioned in my previous post on this topic, I believe homosexuality is outside of God's intent for our lives. However, I have had many friends who are homosexual -- and two different friends who took the time to sit down and talk with JB and me about it because they knew we would always love them. Chrsitians who spew hate are sinners. It needs to stop.
And so does the attack on Christians.
Thanks for listening. Again, it is okay if you do not agree with me, but please be kind in your responses as I have attempted to be in my post.
28 comments:
Aside from everything else you stated, the thing that gets me is that:
1) Dan Cathy didn't stand at a podium and declare his views upon everyone, he was asked a question and responded with his viewpoints.
and
2) Everyone is construing his viewpoints as "hating homosexuals" when he never once said anything hateful. Chick-fil-a does not discriminate against patrons who eat in the restaurants nor against employees who work there. He simply stated he did not support same-sex marriage. I'm not sure how that translated to hating homosexuals, but somehow it did.
I agree! The whole thing about "oh, you don't support same-sex marriage? Then you are a bigot!" response is terribly annoying and hateful.
This is on a tangent, but I would love to hear more about loving the sinner and hating the sin. For example if one of your good friends was homosexual and invited you to his/her wedding, what would you do? How would you respond?
I also wonder what I would do/how I would respond if one of my children were gay. It would be so hard to support and love that child the way he would need while still hating the sinful lifestyle.
Thanks do much for sharing your thoughts! It is so hard to have discussions with people nowadays because it seems many are quick to judge and label and not actually have a mature discussion!
Marie
To be a bit more specific, he said that he supported "traditional" marriage. I never saw him state his views in a negative way whatsoever. He said - I support this opinion. He didn't say that he didn't support an opinion, he didn't say that any group of people were going to hell, and he certainly didn't say that he hated anyone. And he was answering a question intended for a Baptist audience. The whole context of an issue is not to be dismissed.
That said, I doubt that his comments would have been any different if he were asked the same question on the street. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Chick-fil-A. I think the reaction of the Jim Henson Company had more ill-will and negativity to it. If they disagree with Chick-fil-A and want to end their business relationship because of an issue, the right and rational thing to do was to simply give the money back to Chick-fil-A and say "thanks anyway." Instead, they chose to go the negative route and publicly give that money to a group they know Chick-fil-A would not approve of.
I wish that showing support for an issue didn't automatically equate to hatred of the opposite view. Ironically, George Bush was ridiculed for saying "If you're not with us, you're against us." Without using the same words, the same folks that ridiculed Bush only a few years ago are now using that same logic to claim hatred where it doesn't appear to exist. Frustrating.
Marie,
My very brief thought on your question is this:
"It is the kindness of God that leads to repentance"
If we shun and withhold love and affection, how will that ever draw a loved one to God?
I know that was very brief. There is so much to be said.
What I don't understand (in this broader debate, not with regards to chicken) is why the religious right cares about whether gay people are allowed to get married. Even if some people think that homosexuals are sinners or are going to hell or whatever else, why do they care if the state legally recognizes same sex marriage? I don't really buy the argument that it somehow devalues the institution of marriage, since I don't think something's value is defined the by its legal definition. Surely the value of marriage doesn't come from the way the state defines it, but rather from the values that people place on their marriage (ie their respect for the level of committment it entails, the views on trusting and respecting their partner, etc).
Lisa, this is a very good question, and I really like how "mature" we are all discussing. For me, the issue the value on family. Research shows that children do better in a home with one mom and one dad. I don't feel it is devaluing my marriage at all. What I believe is that it is sliding down a slippery slope that you can't reverse.
An example: when abortion was first "allowed" no one would have dreamed that partial birth abortion would one day be acceptable. But now, in the DC, people can have an abortion up to 40 weeks for ANY reason.
It is my belief that if we allow homosexual marriage, we will eventually allow other forms of mariage until marriage is no longer an institution at all.
As to hating the sin and Marie -- I can't say what I would do exactly until in that situation but any child of mine would be loved UNCONDITIONALLY. I could tell them that I disagree with their lifestyle and I could ask that when they come into my house (especially if children are present) they not sleep in the same room, etc. (Just like I would do if they were bringing a girlfriend or boyfriend into the house) but I would never not welcome them or their partner into my home. I believe we can say, "I disagree with your behavior" without having to go any farther. My thought would always be "What would Jesus do?" I believe Jesus would love the couple while not condoning the couple.
That may be true that children do better in a home with one mom and one dad (although I would suggest that perhaps those studies may have been conducted with some methodological bias). However, people are also more likely to abuse their children if they themselves were abused. Should those people also not be allowed to get married, lest they have children? Children also emulate the dietary habits of their parents. Should fat people not be allowed to get married, lest they have children?
Even if one accepts that the state has a legitimate role in protecting the hypothetical children that may result from a marriage, why wouldn't they just prohibit homosexual couples from adopting? I am obviously against this, but if the concern is on protecting hypothetical children then it would seem less restrictive to prohibit homosexuals from having children rather than from marrying.
I'm not sure what other forms of marriage you are envisioning when you say that if we allow homosexual marriage, we will allow other forms until it isn't an institution at all. However, this was my earlier point, that the institution of marriage comes from how the parties to the marriage define it, rather than how the state defines it. If someone else was legally allowed to marry a cookie or their couch or whatever, would that really change how you feel about your marriage or the way that you treated marriage? Does it really matter to you how other people in society view marriage (subject to the concerns of hypothetical children)?
I am not trying to pick on you, I am genuinely curious about your views. I live in Canada where, by and large, this topic isn't debated much as our conservative politicians are generally closer in ideology to your democrats. Also, I don't have any conservative friends or friends that attend church at all, aside from going out of guilt with their aging grandmothers on Christmas and Easter :).
I don't really think this is an issue of free speech, at it's core. I fully agree that Dan Cathy exerted his rightful right to free speech, and also that we can exert our own free speech in disagreeing with him. Some mayors' responses went a bit too far, in my opinion, but the media firestorm is one of the welcome results of free speech - let's embrace it!
Now, of course any business owner has a right to his own personal views. My problem is that Chik-Fil-A as a business promotes institutionalized discrimination by contributing (as a business) over $5million to anti-gay organizations.
I don't think Cathy can be accused of 'hating homosexuals', but I do criticize him for encouraging institutionalized discrimination through his business.
Thank goodness I live in a state (New Mexico) that legally forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is unfortunately not the case for many states.
In terms of family values, I think it's a slippery slope regardless of your position. Unfortunately many heterosexual households are not healthy (or worse), which to me is so much more negative for children than a happy, homosexual household. Let's be real here.
There are basic rights afforded to married couples, and I don't think there's any valid legal argument to prevent homosexual marriage. Any church can make their own determination, but not civilly.
I come with this perspective as a practicing Catholic in a heterosexual, happy family home. I just think sometimes, with both gay marriage and abortion if you're going there, that there is a difference between what is legal and what is your religious belief.
I sincerely appreciate how kind everyone is being in this debate. It makes it much more "fun" to take part in.
First to Lisa:
1) Households: I have strong feelings about kids that grow up in households with parents who are abusive, overweight, etc. etc. I concur. The fact is though, we can't control people DECIDING to have those children. If they adopt though, they have to go through a rigorous interviewing process where they could be prevented from adopting. However, homosexual couples could (if it was genetically possible) choose to have their own children without us stopping them. They can also choose IUI or IVF where there is no interview process. But if they want to adopt, they can only adopt through an interview process. I have concerns with children who are deprived of a male and female parent. This is a personal feeling.
2) As far how marriage is "seen" this is precisely my point. If we are allowed to marry whatever we want (an animal for example) than that animal is provided the same rights as other spouses. And this is where the concern (for me) comes into play. If my husband owns a business, he would then be required to provide the animal with all the rights he would another spouse. This is where I am concerned. I do believe that years from now, we will be seeing marriage in many forms and this is concerning to me. Not for what it does to my own marriage, but what it does to our society and that concerns me.
Overall, as a Christian, I believe we should love everyone no matter what. If my child was a homosexual, it would not change the extreme love I have for them whatsoever. However, I want to protect the value system that we have. I believe wholeheartedly that the slippery slope is very real and that we need to protect our value system.
I am incredibly pained to see that abortions are allowed past 20 weeks, when research has shown that babies feel pain. I find it a terrible thing. This happened because of a slippery slope and that is what I worry about.
Thanks for the thoughtful questions written in a kind way!
Personally, my feelings about homosexual couples marrying is not incredibly strong. But we are asked to vote about it, and I entertain the rite to vote.
Bonnie, I agree that the media fire storm is also free speech. Right on! What concerns me is that no mayor would EVER say "let's not welcome this organization to town" for other viewpoints but attacking Christians is seen as "okay." This concerns me. I believe that someday, we as Christians won't be allowed to say or do anything. For example, Christianity is not included in "hate crimes." If someone does something to a Christian, it is not included in the hate crimes list. But if the person is muslim, it is. And that concerns me.
Yes, Chik-Fil-A supports other institutions that people may disagree with. I would have to argue that these are "hate groups." Exodus International helps individuals who want to leave the gay community. This is not a hate group. It is run by former homosexuals. However, that aside, any person has the rite to not eat at Chik-Fil-A because of this.
There are MANY organizations who support Planned Parenthood who I VEHEMENTLY despise. I can then choose not to support those groups.
Also you say that "any church can make their own determination." I worry that that will not always be the case. They are already trying to force military ministers to provide teachings for religions contrary to Christianity. I believe that at some point, because homosexuals are allowed to marry, churches will be forced to allow them to marry in THEIR church. I believe that that is the slippery slope I worry about.
Catholic organizations have already been forced to stop providing adoption services becasue ... if their marriage is recognized, they have to allow them to adopt. I disagree with this. I believe an adoption organization should be about to choose who they will or will not help adopt based on what they believe is best for children.
Again, great debate folks. You made some valid points. Like I said, it isn't homosexual marriage that I am against per say. It isn't my big concern. Free speech and a slippery slope are what greatly concern me.
Hmm, I have many responses to your points.
1. Your point to Lisa regarding household, you say that we can't control people 'deciding' not to have kids if they're overweight, etc. But here is an example of the slippery slope going both ways. If society and laws are made that prevent homosexuals from having/adopting kids, what's to stop a law in the future preventing overweight parents from having kids?
It's important to recognize that just as free speech goes both ways, the 'slippery slope' goes both ways too.
2. I think Lisa's point is, why should it matter to YOU how marriage is seen, other than your own? As long as you have faith in how your own marriage, and live it out according to your beliefs, what does it matter what others do? And not only that, but why does your marriage being defined as 'traditional' have to specifically exclude other people being married to the person they love? And not just that, but specifically excluding them from enjoying the same rights that you have, only because the subscribe to a different belief system?
In your response to me, I think that your viewpoint of 'Christianity being attacked is seen as okay' is only your viewpoint, because you are more senstive to it since you yourself are Christian. But I don't think it's universally true. I think a lot of groups would say and feel that they are attacked unnecessarily. The gay community being one of them! And Islam, with post-Patriot Act discrimination.
Because we have freedom of religion, people are free to choose to practice their respective religions. And Churches can determine their teachings. Sometimes there are limitations only in that churches, like people, must follow laws as well. I would say that military ministers are acting in the context of the military, and so should have to follow the laws of the country and military. I think it's just as easy to have a slippery slope when you say that certain organizations/churches/businesses are exempt from the law because they choose to disagree with it. Then where would we be?
As you could probably guess, I disagree with MANY things in the Catholic Church, but that doesn't make me any less Catholic (although some people like to say so). And if Catholic organizations are violating the law by discriminating agains certain couples wanting to adopt, then that's a problem. Just like I agree that a church that says marijuana use is part of its teachings and should therefore be exempt from the law, is a problem.
Wendi, you say that you are not against gay marriage 'per se', so I guess I'm confused why you keep arguing against it. Especially when it means that you are specifically excluding some people from obtaining the same rights you have, just because they don't believe the exact same as you? For example, having visiting rights at a hospital if you're not 'family' or a 'spouse'. And having access to your spouse's social security/disability/pension. This is what I mean by a civil marriage can be different from a religious marriage. I just think that ALL people should be treated equally, at the very least with regard to the law.
Thanks for responding and the good discussion!
Bonnie Leigh
Thanks again, Wendi, for the open discussion. I always appreciate that about your blog. I thought the following two blog posts are worth reading regarding this issue. I felt they really summarized some good points, but in a civil, open, honest way. I would be curious to hear what you think about them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conor-gaughan/chick-fil-a-homophobia_b_1711566.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288
Bonnie Leigh
Bonnie, you made some good points.
As for the articles in huffingtonpost, I do agree that it is okay to decide not to buy a product if you disagree with where that product's money is being spent. Totally a-ok.
I disagree, however, in the author's discussion of the organizations that Chik-Fil-A is supporting. I think this is what is "up for discussion." I believe that Exodus International, for example, helps homosexuals come out of that lifestyle. And therefore I do not see this as a "negative" organization as the author does. I hope I wrote that correctly. They see Dan Cathy's money to go to fostering "hate." I disagree. (However, I admit I have not done extensive research on this and perhaps some of his money does go to groups that actually promote HATE. I however believe that Dan Cathy is NOT promoting hate.)
Secondly, when I say I don't have an issue with homosexual marriage per say, what I mean is ... if I am allowed to vote, I will vote for keeping marriage between a man and a woman. As a Christian, I believe God did not intend for homosexuality. I believe it is a sin. Just like I believe pre-marital sex is a sin. If I was asked to vote that living together unmarried is okay, I would have to say "no" I am not okay with that. I have to vote based on my morals and values. This does NOT however, in anyway effect my love for all people.
If asked to vote in the other direction, I believe that would be going against what the Lord would want me to do. I agreed with the the Huffington post author that just because I am against homosexual marriage does NOT mean I am homophobic. I am friends with homosexuals, and I love them just as I love anyone else. They are welcome in my home. They are welcome in my life. I disagree with their sin, but I have sin in my life that I disagree with too.
So I suppose I would have to say, yes, I am against homosexual marriage but when I use "per say" I mean that it is not the "big" issue for me. The "big" issue is the fact that I believe we as a society are sliding down a slippery slope. That we are allowing behaviors that were not designed by our Father to be the "norm" and completely accepted. And I just get can't get past that. I realize that this is a "faith" issue.
On another note: People ARE told they can't be adoptive parents because of weight or health issues or financial status every day. And while these are hard things, I don't necessarily disagree. Children need to be put in families with parents who are able to care for them. The question is: what is correct and what isn't? Who makes that decision?
It is my feeling that the more behaviors that we accept as "okay", the farther we get from the society we are supposed to be. 100 years ago NO ONE could have forseen that today, abortions would be legal up to 40 weeks. That even though it has been proven babies feel pain after 20 weeks, it is okay. And yet approximately half (maybe more) of Americans vote that abortion is okay. How can they do that? I don't know. But I believe it is because slowly we started breaking down what was and what wasn't okay. I want to try to protect that.
Again, thank you ladies for discussing this so kindly. My mind has been opened by some points that both of you had made. Having discussions calmly realizing that truly, we all have the same goal -- a morally strong society -- is vital.
People, I appreciate all these viewpoints. So many of them are spot on when it comes to The Constitution of the United States. I love it when both sides of a debate are solely interested in upholding its tenets.
However, the deeper issue is not how we feel about it; the issue is how God feels about it. This is the thing that one side of this debate HATES. Jesus said, "If they hate me they will hate you." One side of this issue will never sit still until they can obliterate what God has said. Think carefully, is this true? Homosexuality is a sin. True or False? And think carefully again, what happens when Christians just stand back and allow the truth to be suppressed? The reason why free speech is the FIRST amendment is because this country was founded on the principle of people being ALLOWED to speak what they perceive to be truth. One side is of this debate (and I am not just talking about the gay issue; I'm talking about any issue involving Christianity) is DESPERATE to shut Christians up, particularly when it comes to just mentioning the name of Jesus. Why so desperate? I believe the answer is clear...to suppress the truth!
George,
It is unfair to generalize those of us who don't practice Christianity as "DESPERATE to shut Christians up." I am an atheist, and I am happy to let Christians (or anyone else) exercise their right to free speech (subject to limits such as hate speech), as are most of the other atheists that I know. The concern is not with supressing Christianity, but rather with protecting the equal rights of groups that religion has historically been (and in some circumstances continues to be) used to supress certain groups (ie homosexuals). I am referring to the broader debate you raise, not the chicken issue, as I agree with much of the ACLU's view.
If you read much of the discourse on this issue (and I have...I am an attorney that is also a professor teaching human rights law), it is not anti-Christian, but rather pro-rights of marginalized groups. Even if, by definition, the rights they seek to have exercised go against what Christians view as sin, their purpose in advocating for these rights is not a desparation to shut anyone up.
Also, I don't think it makes sense to say that people are desparate because we want to suppress the truth. As an atheist, I don't think Jesus or God exists, and thus I don't think that homosexuality (or anything else for that matter) is a "sin". Obviously I think things like murder are morally wrong, but these beliefs are not grounded in religion. I advocate for rights like gay marriage and access to abortion not to suppress what you suggest is universally known to be true, but rather to protect the rights of those groups.
Claudia
Wendi, I noticed that you said that if Hossana-Tabor had gone the other way, churches could have been forced to hire non-Christian ministers. That is not correct. Anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit all differentiation on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination (or else, for example, blind people could say that they have a right to become school bus drivers or a 100 year old airline pilot could argue that he couldn't be forced to retire). Prohibitions on discrimination are not absolute, and one of the exceptions is bona fide occupational qualifications. The example that I give my students is that Victoria's Secret can refuse to hire male models without being in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Similarly, a church could refuse to hire a non-Christian minister on the basis that being a Christian is a requirement of the job. There have actually been cases on this specific issue (which Hossana-Tabor would have had no bearing on).
Claudia, I am far from a lawyer and actually very "stupid" when it comes to it so forgive me if I am confused. Maybe you could help me understand better.
As I understand it: in a constitutional democracy like ours, secular governments lack the power to resolve religious disputes, to answer religious questions, or to select religious ministers. However, if this case would have gone the other way before our supreme court, this could have changed. Am I misunderstanding the reason that this case was so highly publicized?
You aren't stupid at all! The law is complicated...if it were easy, we wouldn't need so many lawyers!
Your general statement that if the case had gone the other way, governments would have had much more power to intervene in church business is 100% correct. This would certainly have been something to be concerned about, depending on your religious viewpoint, so you weren't misunderstanding why the case was so widely publicized at all.
My point was just that even if the case had gone the other way, in the particular example you gave (a church being forced to hire a non-Christian minister), the church would have had other legal avenues to prevent that from happening.
Okay Claudia. Thanks for explaining. But what concerns me is, IF this had gone the other way, you are saying that we would not be "forced" to hire a non-Christian. But let's say the person was a CHRISTIAN but had something in their lifestyle I disagreed with -- say they were having sex outside of marriage or were a homosexual -- would THAT mean we were discriminating?
What concerns me is that sex outside of marriage, alcoholism, or homosexuality would all be considered "out of line" for a minister of a Christian church. But it seems like we might be told that we are discriminating for homosexuality if it had gone the other way.
Am I understanding this correctly? (And thank you for your patience with my ignorance!)
I would just caution, Wendi, that we all have sin, and we all have forgiveness if we ask of it. And what you consider 'out of line' may not be what the next Christian considers 'out of line'. In your example above, as long as the church is clear about the qualifications for the position, then they can hire whomever they feel best matches those qualifications.
Thanks again for hosting this open discussion and keeping it kind.
I guess what it comes down to for me, in the bigger picture, is that regardless of my or your beliefs, I don't feel we have the right to force them on anyone. Particularly not by the laws of our country. We also have freedom of religion for a reason (that goes both ways - government can't force a religion on individuals, and individuals can't force a single religion on government). You feel homosexuality is a sin. I do not. We can both think that, and discuss it, even try to convince others if we want. But I don't think we can force anyone to believe that, nor enact laws that force our beliefs on others. Especially laws based on those beliefs that in turn deny basic civil rights to entire groups of people.
I think it's always a better approach to show by example what we believe to be good and true, rather than criminalizing something that others choose to do. Whether that's gay marriage, or abortion, or a war, or anything else. I think Jesus would agree - rather than say something is illegal, show by your example of love and kindness that there's another way, without judgement. And you don't have to be Christian to do that. I absolutely vote for access to abortion, not because I agree with it necessarily, but because I don't presume to make that decision for someone else when I don't know their own particular situation. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's 'ok' - just that each individual can make that determination based on their own values and beliefs. Who are we to stop them?
Whatever the particular issue, I think we should act in our own good conscience, show by example, and vote according to our beliefs but NOT infringe on the rights of others. As Christians, we know that a positive, loving example is much stronger witness than a military or political crusade. And again, you don't need to be Christian to know or do that.
If we focused our energies not on criminalizing gay marriage or abortion, but on alternatives or true support in a kind way, our world and country would be much better for it. Winning hearts and minds, while affirming the rights of others, is ALWAYS a better strategy than "No, you can't do that!"
Bonnie, I apprecitae how well thought out and kind your previous comment was. However, I see where we disagree.
Firstly, I believe as citizens we are given the right to vote, and I need to vote what I believe is right.
I believe abortion is murder. And if I believe it is murder, than I believe "who am I to put my view on others" goes against the great commision to "preach the gospel" and share my faith. Jesus went into the temple, angry with the people defiling his temple. He preached about loving everyone but also doing what is right. And I believe to turn the other way is not what He would have me do.
I do agree with you, without a doubt, that Christians are the WORST at loving the sinner. I choose not to focus my energy on fighting homosexuality and abortion and other things I may disagree with because I DO NOT believe that is what Jesus would do. I believe he would be focusing HIS energy on loving the people involved. And that's what I want to do. I want to love everyone, support everyone, encourage everyone.
But while doing that, I do believe I am given the right to vote and stand up for what I believe to be right. I believe that we are "wrestling not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers." I believe that this is a spiritual battle, and I believe that our world is a sinful place. I believe that Christians may one day face a world much like the Jews faced in Germany and throughout Europe -- especially if I don't stand up and stick up for what is right.
Like I said in an earlier comment, research has PROVEN that babies feel pain after 20 weeks in the womb. And yet we allow abortions, in DC for example, AT ANY POINT of a pregnancy (not just for health of a mother.) This is an atrocity and I just have to fight to stop this.
In the case oh homosexual marriage, I do not feel that Jesus would, in any way be mean. I don't feel he would be hateful or spiteful or show anything but love. And so that is what all of my homosexual friends are met with. But when I am given the opportunity to vote, I believe I must vote appropriately. I do not feel the need to convince anyone that my way is right. I simply believe it and must vote that way. I respect opposing viewpoints but do thing they are wrong. :)
Thank you everyone for a healthy place to discourse and for everyone being so kind.
See here's the thing that, for me, 'undoes' your argument...you talked about 'a world much like the Jews faced in Germany.' The reason the Jews (and HOMOSEXUALS, I might add) faced that world, was because the German government instituted discriminatory laws that denied Jewish people their civil rights. They had to carry papers, they had to wear yellow stars, they had to go to camps (see the slippery slope here?), just because they believed differently than the majority within that government. Because they practiced a different religion than the majority.
I think it's dangerous for the U.S. to institute discriminatory laws on ANYONE, just because they believe differently. And if Christians voted to do that in our country, then I see the 'slippery slope' becoming much more eerily similar to what happened in Germany.
That's why I think, even if I might or might not disagree personally, I cannot vote for a policy that discriminates against anyone who thinks differently than you or me.
I believe that that IS happening to Christians as we speak. I think our discussion is at an impass here because I believe there is a spiritual battle occurring that will eventually not allow me as a Christian to speak about morality at all. So I must cling to my beliefs. I do not believe homosexuals are entitled to anything less than heterosexuals. I simply believe that the institution of marriage s designed for males and females as it was created and that god formed the marriage unity in the garden of Eden. So I must cling to what marriage is. Outside of that one thing, I do not believe homosexuals are entitled to anything less. Again, great discussion.
Thanks for your post, Wendi. Honestly. I actually agree with much of it. I would hate to see any group, Christian or otherwise, feel that they do not have equal rights.
I think what concerns me about denying gay marriage, is that there are really two issues. First, is the ideological institution of marriage, which is what you are defending and wanting to keep as man/woman. I think this is the Church's place to do that, if it wishes - and your place as well.
Then there is the civil piece, and the civil benefits from the state/government for married couples. These are the rights that are currently being denied to gay couples, and I think it's wrong that gay couples then ARE entitled to less than heterosexual couples, at least in terms of CIVIL rights. These are rights such as: visiting rights in a hospital (since partners are not considered 'family' if they are not 'married'), access to social security benefits of a disabled or deceased spouse, tax status, etc. These are completely unrelated to the Church, and when gay marriage is forbidden by law then these couples are forced to accept that they do not have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.
I agree with you that as individuals we should uphold what we believe is right, and that our chosen Church/religion/lack thereof should also be able to do that. But within the state, in terms of government, all couples should be treated equally.
It's not about hating anyone. I appreciate that you genuinely try to 'love' rather than hate or judge. It's just about equal rights, to me and many other people. I think in a country with separation of Church and State, we owe our citizens at least equal civil rights.
Bonnie, you have given me something to think about. I have never really thought of it in regards to the church's views and the state's view on what marriage is.
I think that, truthfully, as a Christian, I believe that there is a spiritual battle occurring. I believe that all these little steps will eventually lead to something far different for us. I believe that the church will be forced to perform these marriage, forced to hire etc. That's what really worries me.
Sorry Bonnie...kids cut me off. I wanted to say thanks for the intelligent conversation and get back to my original thought which was that as a Christian I feel that we can't speak our minds like anyone else can. To be pushed out of a city goes totally against freedom of speech... Thanks for making me think.
Wendi and BL, I have been following your conversation and thinking a lot about it. Thanks for the great insights and discussion. It has been good for me because as Bonnie Leigh pointed out, there is a separation of church and state and the church's definition of marriage does not equal that of the state's, of course. I think I needed to be reminded of that. For example you can become qualified online to marry people nowadays, but of course in the church only a priest can do it. And the church has annulments vs the state's divorce, and those are not necessarily the same either. A good friend of mine was denied marriage in the Catholic church because her husband was unable to get his first marriage annulled.
I am just for the sake of hearing your thoughts going to throw another question out there - what if three people wanted to marry each other? What if a brother wanted to marry his sister? Should the state allow that? Are polygamous and incestuous people being denied their civil rights? (Or maybe these are already legal? I don't know....)
Marie
Sorry for a late response to a very interesting question! I had taken a break from the discussion and just now saw it. That's a very good question, and I don't really have a good answer for it.
I decided to consult the best attorney I know - my husband! He explained to me that there are different classes of determining discrimination. The first is 'strict scrutiny' - which evaluates discrimination in a very strict sense based on specific categories mentioned by law (such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation in some states but not all). An example he gave is that 95% of sickle cell anemia is in African Americans, so testing all AA's for that disease holds up to strict scrutiny because of this. The next class is 'compelling government interest' - if there is a compelling government interest in a situation, then it can possibly be argued to evaulate discrimination based on it. The last, most flexible class of determining discrimination is 'rational basis'. So if an action doesn't hold up against strict scrutiny or compelling government interest - then what is rational according to the law? I hope I understood and explained that correctly.
I haven't looked up current laws on polygamy and incest, so I don't know for sure what they say and the reasons it may be illegal. With incest, there are adverse health effects, so that's perhaps a more clear situation. With polygamy, I guess it would come down to whether there's a rational basis to allow or not allow it, and whether than constitutes discrimination.
I started thinking about it in terms of interest in marriage. In a marriage between two people, each individual has a 50% interest in it. Between 3 people, there would be a 50%, 25%, 25% or 33%, 33%, 33% interest (depending on whether it's a triangle marriage or one man/woman with two women/men). So this would be my reasoning against it - it decreases the interest that each individual would have in a marriage. But these are just my musings and I'm not sure how it would hold up to law.
My husband said that there is a growing number of people who support 'no state-recognized marriage', as a way to equalize among couples. So basically, you can be married in your Church/religion/belief system according to what you and your church/beliefs determine, but in the eyes of the government everyone is individual. So no particular benefit/penalty to being married, at least in the civil sense. I haven't thought through that idea, but it's an interesting one.
I guess when I really think about it, I would support marriage between two people who love each other and are committed to each other, to have equal rights according to the state, and freedom to follow their belief and value system. I would stop short of supporting polygamy, but I don't have as strong an argument to do that, except perhaps the 'rational basis' of where then would it stop? Could at some point every person in the country be in one marriage of X billion people? I guess this is the slippery slope argument that Wendi brought up.
Post a Comment