and the conversation continues
I appreciate you taking the time to respond Matt. I understand all the points you are making, and I agree that homophobia and prejudice unfortunately still exist and work needs to be done to fix this (thankfully in this country there is legal recourse for such ignorance). However, the heart of the issue for me is how literal one interprets God’s Word – and it is clearly defined as an institution between a man and a woman (whereas there was no biblical support to ban interracial marriages). Don’t take this as a lack of love or blind dogma on my part – I have friends that are gay (as was my old roommate) – so this is a difficult stance for me to take, but at the end of the day I feel a need to be obedient to God (of course this is a daily, hourly struggle). I know that the current state of marriages isn’t anything to cheer about (clearly ppl take it for granted), but I do believe that this issue is a bit of a slippery slope (e.g. polygamy). Having said all that, I consider myself a pretty open-minded guy and I will definitely give this more thought before tomorrow’s voting.
Hey [_______]! I'm running out the door, but just have one further thought in response. I don't think churches should have to do anything they don't want to, and I don't think same sex marriage threatens anybody's interpretation of the Bible. We have separation of church and state to protect both the church and the state from each other. Churches should be able to marry, or not marry, anybody they want, and call it whatever they want.
But the subject of Prop 8 is a CIVIL institution, and I think they should be treated separately. Priests shouldn't be able to create a legal bond between people any more than they should be able to send people to jail or raise their taxes. And no law can or should try to create a spiritual bond between people. I suppose it would achieve the same purpose if NO civil marriage were called marriage. Let's just call it all civil partnership or something, and then if people choose to, they can go to church and get it consecrated as a marriage.
The reality is, no matter what happens tomorrow, gay people can call themselves "married" if they want to. It's just a word, and religious people can ignore them. But if Prop 8 passes, they will NOT have the same rights. Nobody thinks the church will ever give gay people the right to be married in a spiritual way. But if people think, as you do, that gay people should be able to have the same LEGAL rights, the only way to do that is to give them the same thing as everybody else, whether we call it "marriage" or "civil union" or "a ball and chain".
As much as I want to, I definitely don't have time to get into Biblical interpretation at the moment! Suffice it to say, people DID find a (convincing, to them) way to interpret the Bible against interracial marriage (and for slavery and for the crusades and for genocide etc). With the benefit of hindsight, you and I would agree they were absolutely wrong. What I meant by "today is tomorrow's yesterday" is that I'm convinced that someday people will realize that the Bible isn't as clear cut as some might think on this subject. After all, not many people are stoning their wives or selling their daughters into slavery these days. Interpretations do change. (I know, I know. That's overly simplistic, but it makes the point. The words don't change, but the holy spirit moves to help us understand them in light of Jesus' overriding message of love.)
I am happy to hear you remain open minded. I hope that if you remain at all conflicted when you get into the voting booth, you will err on the side of legal equality, since it's a civil act to vote, and encourage your church to continue to deny same-sex marriages if that's your interpretation of the Bible. Keep church and state separate. If I'm wrong, I have no doubt God will forgive me for erring on the side of allowing my brothers and sisters to dignify their love and enjoy equality under the law. It's always better to err on the side of love rather than discrimination, particularly if your motivation is to follow Christ.
Hey [_______]! I'm running out the door, but just have one further thought in response. I don't think churches should have to do anything they don't want to, and I don't think same sex marriage threatens anybody's interpretation of the Bible. We have separation of church and state to protect both the church and the state from each other. Churches should be able to marry, or not marry, anybody they want, and call it whatever they want.
But the subject of Prop 8 is a CIVIL institution, and I think they should be treated separately. Priests shouldn't be able to create a legal bond between people any more than they should be able to send people to jail or raise their taxes. And no law can or should try to create a spiritual bond between people. I suppose it would achieve the same purpose if NO civil marriage were called marriage. Let's just call it all civil partnership or something, and then if people choose to, they can go to church and get it consecrated as a marriage.
The reality is, no matter what happens tomorrow, gay people can call themselves "married" if they want to. It's just a word, and religious people can ignore them. But if Prop 8 passes, they will NOT have the same rights. Nobody thinks the church will ever give gay people the right to be married in a spiritual way. But if people think, as you do, that gay people should be able to have the same LEGAL rights, the only way to do that is to give them the same thing as everybody else, whether we call it "marriage" or "civil union" or "a ball and chain".
As much as I want to, I definitely don't have time to get into Biblical interpretation at the moment! Suffice it to say, people DID find a (convincing, to them) way to interpret the Bible against interracial marriage (and for slavery and for the crusades and for genocide etc). With the benefit of hindsight, you and I would agree they were absolutely wrong. What I meant by "today is tomorrow's yesterday" is that I'm convinced that someday people will realize that the Bible isn't as clear cut as some might think on this subject. After all, not many people are stoning their wives or selling their daughters into slavery these days. Interpretations do change. (I know, I know. That's overly simplistic, but it makes the point. The words don't change, but the holy spirit moves to help us understand them in light of Jesus' overriding message of love.)
I am happy to hear you remain open minded. I hope that if you remain at all conflicted when you get into the voting booth, you will err on the side of legal equality, since it's a civil act to vote, and encourage your church to continue to deny same-sex marriages if that's your interpretation of the Bible. Keep church and state separate. If I'm wrong, I have no doubt God will forgive me for erring on the side of allowing my brothers and sisters to dignify their love and enjoy equality under the law. It's always better to err on the side of love rather than discrimination, particularly if your motivation is to follow Christ.
posted by Matt at 4:17 PM
11 Comments:
Thanks, Matt, for posting your correspondence with this person. You've made great, clear, persuasive arguments without devolving into the lesser-informed, dogmatic, nonsensical, and emotional responses typically found on both sides of this issue. You've done a fantastic job of getting the word out about the true nature of Prop 8, and in turn helped me do the same. I truly hope that Californians make the right decision and stand up against this tragic example of discrimination at the polls. Best of luck, to all of us.
I am nitpicking here, but I particularly take issue when people use the Bible as justification and evidently have not even read or understood a good part of it. For instance, in this example he says it is a slippery slope towards polygamy. I hate to break it to you, but polygamy is all over the Bible. Abraham ringing any bells?
You know, to take the bible as the literal word of God, when reality is man has been very instrumental in writing, editing, and translating the bible over the last few thousand years....and then when you realize that much of the writing, translating, and editing was done for political and or "other than religious" reasons...
Before you can take the bible literally you must first ask if one is talking the Old Testament or the New Testament and then one must ask why some text was included and others were not...
But then again that argument is a waste of oxygen when someone claims that they take the bible literally....
Hope he hasn't wasted any seed....
Well written, as usual. This case is relatively easy though, as your friend admits that his concerns are based on his religious beliefs. For one of the commenters to your previous post, admitting that is the main issue.
Just wanted to chime in to agree with the earlier commenter, re: recognizing the religious basis. Guys like the one writing to Matt don't bother me nearly as much--I get that their religion is important to them, however they interpret it. But I think what really raises my hackles is when people frame it as a semantic issue, when it's really one about discrimination--it's one thing to say you think discrimination is appropriate, and it's another to say discrimination isn't happening (and I find the latter much more offensive).
And to the extent people are able to frame this as a semantics issue, LGBT supporters have failed. Honestly, it's like split infinitives and dangling prepositions. I could see disfavoring them if you have good reason (e.g. clarity), but not when good reason actually runs to the other side. On one side of the marriage issue is people wanting equal treatment of their relationships, of their families, under the law (which one would argue couldn't occur under a separate-but-equal regime), and on the other side is what? Support for status quo? Aversion to change? To the extent one is willing to admit it's because he/she doesn't believe same-sex couples are on par with opposite-sex couples: fine, you're being honest.
But don't let people stop at the surface--the semantic argument--merely because they aren't willing to admit to others or to themselves that they believe in discrimination.
Matt, While I agree with much of what you say, you deeply offend me with your simplistic understand of the Church in America. I happen to be a gay American and a minister in the United Church of Christ, which also happens to be the denomination Obama was baptized into and still belongs. The UCC National Convention voted in FAVOR of gay marriage three years ago.
So where do you get off saying that "nobody thinks the church will give gay people the right to be married in a spiritual way?" As a minister in Connecticut, I will be marrying couples next week, officially, legally, and spiritually.
It's about time you opened your eyes. Not all Christians and not all Churches in this country are homophobic. Maybe yours was, but your church is not the only representative of Christ on Earth. And the last time I looked, in the US we each have the right to pick which church we wish to attend, just as we have the right to attend no church at all.
But please stop talking about the Church as though it is only one institution with one position. Just as different people can reasonably differ about what the Bible may say, so do different denominations differ in their positions on gay marriage and how the love of God should be made manifest in the world. Fred
I was a member of a UCC Church, back in my younger days, and now that the town I currently live in has a UCC congregation I will once again be a member of a church.
I remember one sermon in particular, we were asked, "..what if God does not exist? What if the bible is not the word of God?"
The point is that if you understand the New Testament it is a way of living that makes logical sense regardless of a belief in a higner power...
Jesus was a radical, and he taught love....
I came away from that sermon in absolute awe...as a 19 year old closeted gay and as a human being in general. Of course I also wandered how long the minister was going to keep his job after sermons like that....and I am proud to announce that he retired recently and was still with the congregation.
Some people do not have the confidence in themselves to truly believe the word of God; thus they have to believe there are those who do not enjoy God's love. It makes them feel special. Just as there are those who want to withhold marriage to gays because it makes them feel superior.
What man does to the Word of God should not be held against the true word of God...
Great exchange - wouldn't it be awesome if we could have these conversations to bring about understanding versus plarization.
Anyway, good luck, and I'll be watching the returns in California tonight.
I think its great that you have this back and forth with your friend but at this late time in the game, he is still "conflicted," chances are he/she is going to vote yes on H8TE
Lets face it the three biggest civil rights fights over the last century and a half have all been fought against the "church". The bible has numerous passages in support of slavery, as well as numerous passages stating women are chattel and inferior to man, as well as homosexuality is an abomination. In each, case the groups struggling for equal right had to fight against the church, the bible, God's "word".
This is no secret. The Church, and the "Word" of God is the biggest societal discriminator of equal rights based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
However, even with that said, as what occurred with slavery and women's rights, the church will eventually backdown on discriminating on sexual orientation. Some churches already have. It takes time and perseverance, but it will happen.
"History doesn't repeat it's self but it rhymes."
Well, I thought USA was supposed to be a secular society that allowed religion to be expressed freely, but not at the expense of the inalienable freedoms ... or has this English bloke got it completely wrong?
Re:
I suppose it would achieve the same purpose if NO civil marriage were called marriage. Let's just call it all civil partnership or something, and then if people choose to, they can go to church and get it consecrated as a marriage.
I think this is spot on. We got hitched at a council register office (good at the time for tax, supporting the kids, housing, etc), but it was 10 years before we did the church thing.
For the biblical types out there, in Timothy you will find something along the lines of "I give you a new commandment: Love God and love your neighbour." If I read this Prop 8 thing right, there seems to be a lack of love being shown.
And as for your new Commander in Chief - yay! Maybe we can see some real change - soon!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home