Monday, June 30, 2008

It is Much Harder to Disagree with a respected friend

Long term readers know my respect for Justin and Rob whom I consider friends. The same readers also know my deep respect for deeply religious Christians. This is a respectful dissent unlike the more familiar back hand treatment given to communists.

Rob and Justin are valued friends who just happen to be gay. In NYC one meets many people of this type and it is a reality of daily life. Several times I have been mistaken for gay by Vermonters
whose sole contact with gays is a rerun of Will and Grace. I do not consider such an error to be an insult as I know many decent people who are gay. However, I got more offended by lefties who assume that as a NYer I share their idiotic views.

I want to preface my remarks by stating homophobia is very real. One should not even bother trying to deal with confirmed bigots. I do not waste time with rabid anti-semites. A disagrement with a Rob or Jams is another matter. One can respect those sorts as decent people one disagrees with. This is simply not possible with commies who are pariahs.

I disagree with Justin and Rob on Gay marriage. For me, marriage is a religious term and all religions have strict rules about who may marry. I want black robed Marxist freaks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg as far away from a House of Worship as possible. Justin sees the matter differently and I respect that.

I certainly disagree with the bunker mentality radicalism that fails to reach out to individual Christians. Gay rights will never progress by creating a bogeyman out of evangelicals. We have held many discussions on this issue and I have never heard anyone advocate genocide for gays.
About the worst form of torture I ever heard was forcing someone to watch the Detroit Lions. I have never met any evangelical goofy enough to want to place America under theological law. Nor have I ever encountered anti -semitism from a real Christian, any form of Liberation theology is a communist peversion of Christianity. The claim that Nazis were Christian and that evangelicals are of a similar stripe is absurd. The quotes from individual lunatics may be true, but as a whole this is dead wrong.

In general most of the religious Christians I encounter are of the same opinion that they respect
the division between Civil and theological law. Most of these same people with rare exceptions favor Civil Unions. Moreover, the dominant religious position is love the sinner and hate the sin.
Similarly, I am as likely to get a chiding over out of wedlock relations as a gay would receive. Homosexuality is not the sum of all sin in anyones definition.

I find myself in the odd position of defending Christians as a non Christian against the inflamed rhetoric of disgruntled Christians.

1) There is no "dark side of Christianity" . The Crusaders commited crimes against jews but otherwise these were defensive responses to Muslim agression that lasted hundreds of years.
2) The crimes committed against Indians were the product of what inevitably happens in the past. The notion that aboriginal people have rights and should be respected is a by product of Christian thought
3) The demise of slavery is largely due to Christianity.
4) Nazis in no way are Christian. They were a progressive movement that was Utopian in nature
and one of many that turned up around the turn of the century along with the equally as obnoxious communism.
A person that has as many written words as Hitler said many things. What we see in Hitler is often more a projection of one's own bugaboos than the content of Nazism. The action of Nazis were evil, but the source of the malady is the notion that an enlightened elite could create Utopia
on earth.
5) The gay community like any other is best served by reaching out to individual evangelicals. Demonizing themwill set back the cause of gay rights ala the act up crowd's failures.

14 comments:

Steve Harkonnen said...

I agree with you on marriage being sacred and that it's for a man and a woman ONLY.

Even if one of the gays decides to have his penis cut in half and then stuffed into his body cavity.

However Beak, what the heck is this dude:

About the worst form of torture I ever heard was forcing someone to watch the Detroit Lions.

Leave my Lions alone! LOL!

Beamish said...

Gay rights?

WTF are gay rights?

Gays can get married. Look at Governor Jim McGreevey. That faggot was married to a woman.

Oh, you mean changing the meaning of the word "marriage."

Ducky's here said...

"I disagree with Justin and Rob on Gay marriage. For me, marriage is a religious term and all religions have strict rules about who may marry. I want black robed Marxist freaks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg as far away from a House of Worship as possible."

Once again let's point out to Beak (who sometimes doesn't learn good) that marriage is a CIVIL contract. We are FREE to define that contract as we wish. There is absolutely no need to get married in a church. NONE. So the whole thing evaporates and we see this as Beaks fear of anything that smacks of social equality.

Justin said...

Beak:

You may not publish this and it does not matter to me at this point. This post of yours has been nothing more than a total distortion of what I posted. My post has absolutely nothing to do with Gay Marriage it has to do with the misuse of Christianity by a select group of people against others. I am not condeming all christianity as you elude to in this post I am speaking of those who use Christianity to try and destroy other people. If you truely do not think that there are or ever were people who used it to the worst end then I do feel sorry for you brother.

You are so caught up in seeing commies behind every door that you can not accept historical proof.

In my post I am showing where the misuse of Christianity to promote ones cause which Hitler did and look what it led to.

Have you ever heard of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones and Jones town? Im sure you will say well they were commies not christianity gone bad. Beak personally I find your post offensive and a attack on my integrety personally. I will not waste my time reading any further post that you make.

Good luck

The Merry Widow said...

Since when is sin treated as 'good'?
When society has lost it's bearings by tossing G*D out.
ducky-The ORIGINAL MARRIAGE was when G*D HIMSELF gave Eve to Adam as his compleator. Not Steve!
So by Judeo/Christian standards, marriage is ONLY for a man and a woman, go read Genesis 2:18-24...G*D said it, not man.
And before you take off on a tear about David and Solomon, remember that G*D reported the WHOLE TRUTH about people, including when they did it wrong!
Like abraham, Sarah and Hagar...

tmw
And not being able to marry does NOT reduce a person's humanity or dignity...they are throwing it away by not doing it G*D's Way, but rather by worshipping the CREATION rather than the CREATOR! Romans 1!

The Pagan Temple said...

Personally, I don't know why anybody would be stupid enough to want to get married to begin with, but hey-if they want it, more power to them.

I agree with Justin, Rob, and Duck. No one is saying churches will be forced to conduct gay marriage. Only that a church that wants to offer that service to its gay parishioners should be allowed to do so and it should be recognized by law, and that gays should have the option to be married in civil ceremonies and that marriage be recognized.

Even now, after all, civil ceremonies are recognized now as MARRIAGES between a man and a woman, and there is little if any truly religious component involved.

This idea that it's going to hurt traditional marriage is pure nuttiness. Where is the evidence of that? I got married once, and gay marriage being illegal didn't keep my shitty marriage from falling apart. I strongly suspect that if it had been legal, it wouldn't have changed things one iota.

Now I concede there might be some problems, and we can have a legitimate debate on those. For example, if gay marriage is legalized nationwide, then would the rights of a gay couple to adopt a child be protected under the equal protection clause? Now that's a serious matter for debate.

Will it really be beneficial to gays, or will it just over time be something that will add to the already crowded court dockets in matters of divorce and division of property, etc? Another legitimate topic for debate.

Will it increase domestic violence? Another serious possibility.

Those are the things that should be addressed. What God allegedly wants or does not want is frankly irrelevant. God doesn't get a vote in the matter. He's not a constituent, and so has no representation in the halls of Congress. The rest of us have to foot the bill or pay the price, and we have to decide, and should do so based on sensible criterion.

The adoption thing is easily remedied. A child is not responsible, and so the state has the perfect right to look out for his or her best interests over those of adults. Under that criterion, most gays would not make proper parents for most children. Even if they are in some individual cases, the courts are well within their rights to err on the side of caution where the welfare of the child is at stake.

The other problems might not be so easily solved, but might at the same time encourage a streamlining of our judicial system. Most of the time, courts get way too involved in the personal affairs of married litigants, and should back off except in cases of provable or obvious abuse or where, again, the welfare of children is involved.

Have a law where all divorces are automatically no fault aside from those cases, and you probably solve most of the problem.

Steve Harkonnen said...

Duck,

You can define marriage as a civil contract if you'd like. But marriage's roots run much deeper than "contracts" or "unions." When two men or two women marry and adopt children, do you know what that does to their minds? It is WARPED. SICK.

Beamish is right. Gay rights my Aunt fucking Sarah. If she had balls, she'd be my uncle.

When a man sticks his penis inside another man's gaping asshole or mouth for pleasure, sorry, there ain't nothing natural about that. These "Friends of Dorothy" fags need to have their asses kicked.

And what do two women do? Scissor each other like on South Park? That's frikkin' BIZARRE. one of them always looks like the man, too. What's natural about that? The best feeling in the world is when you have a jealous bull dyke because you've been hitting on her bitch. That happened to me in the navy. I dated a lesbian, but she was too pretty for me to pass up; besides, she enjoyed herself.

Gays are warped, creeped-out individuals. They do not deserve to be married, period, because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Why can't they accept this and just move on?

Most gay men were raised in families where the mother was the dominating figure. Male homosexuals actually partake in corprophelia. Maybe not all of them, but most do. As for females that become Butch, I have no idea, but it's all sick to me.

SICK SICK SICK.

The Pagan Temple said...

Homosexuality, in my opinion, is nature's way of preventing certain DNA types from procreating. It might look reactive to certain kinds of stimuli, but in most cases the individual probably subconsciously goes about seeking out that stimuli to begin with. Thus, in one such example you have the "domineering mother" who strangely might in the meantime have given birth to three or four other perfectly heterosexual children.

Nevertheless, there is some genetic factor in the one child that is not present, or not as dominant, as in the others, or vice versa.

Some research suggests that the more male children a woman has, the more likely that younger male child is to become homosexual. This has something to do with the woman's chromosomes naturally attempting to destroy the male chromosomes of a male child in the womb, which the woman's immune system senses as a foreign invader.

Over time, the natural rejections become stronger, whereby the younger male children adapt by becomming more submissive to the dominating female hormone in order to survive, thus becomming more like the mother in certain respects.

Presto change-o, a gay male is born.

Z said...

pagan temple: Yes, BIG Biker-looking gay men came into a Catholic church of an elderly congregation and an elderly priest, up near San Francisco, in nuns costumes with KISS type makeup and demanded the little priest give them communion while they were necking on the altar.
If he turns them away, you can be damned sure the priest could get in trouble.
Our church's congregants Sunday were talking about it and what we can do when it comes to us.

Wait for it; the BIG OPEN MINDED liberals will INSIST they can do anything they want in a church; nothing's sacrosanct and, if it is, it's evil and noninclusive. Trust me..it's coming. No privacy, BIG LIBERAL BROTHER making sure we ALL live like THEM...we have no right to a different kind of thinking. typical left.

The Pagan Temple said...

Z-I think you're letting your imagination run away with you. Churches can believe and teach what they want, within understandably reasonable limits. No, they can't promote or engage in murder, robbery, violence, etc., or child or spousal abuse of any kind, but no one is going to force a church to conduct gay marriages.

The Merry Widow said...

Watch and see, pt. Starting in California and Colorado...

tmw

The Pagan Temple said...

Merry Widow-

The danger to churches does not now or will not come from the government telling churches they are required to marry gays. That will never happen, in my opinion.

What is much more likely to happen is a situation like you have with the American Episcopal Church, where you have large numbers of gays and/or gay sympathizers getting into positions of power and influence within the church, and then using that power and influence to change the laws of the church to suit them.

That is a legitimate issue and cause for concern. The government will not do that. The most the government might do is withhold funds from religious organizations that practice discrimination against homosexuals. Even here, we are not referring to the churches but to faith based charities that receive funding from the government.

Even then, this would have nothing to do with church doctrine or teachings, but with the specific charity that church runs and how it deal with gays or other minorities.

To begin with, Congress would never dare pass a law to force churches to marry gays, and in the second place, if someone tried to bring a lawsuit to force them to do that, it would not hold up in even the most liberal courts. That is even assuming a court even agreed to hear such a case to begin with. More than likely, the case would be dismissed and not even given a hearing.

The Pagan Temple said...

Merry Widow-

The danger to churches does not now or will not come from the government telling churches they are required to marry gays. That will never happen, in my opinion.

What is much more likely to happen is a situation like you have with the American Episcopal Church, where you have large numbers of gays and/or gay sympathizers getting into positions of power and influence within the church, and then using that power and influence to change the laws of the church to suit them.

That is a legitimate issue and cause for concern. The government will not do that. The most the government might do is withhold funds from religious organizations that practice discrimination against homosexuals. Even here, we are not referring to the churches but to faith based charities that receive funding from the government.

Even then, this would have nothing to do with church doctrine or teachings, but with the specific charity that church runs and how it deal with gays or other minorities.

To begin with, Congress would never dare pass a law to force churches to marry gays, and in the second place, if someone tried to bring a lawsuit to force them to do that, it would not hold up in even the most liberal courts. That is even assuming a court even agreed to hear such a case to begin with. More than likely, the case would be dismissed and not even given a hearing.

Steve Harkonnen said...

Still waiting on the beak to tell me whassup with my Detroit Lions!!!!!