Apologies for any redundancy.

[nendil]

I wrote this to address the religious concerns re: gay marriage from a friend-of-a-friend on Facebook, and I thought I'd post it here in case any of you needed any help with persuading people you know (or yourself, for that matter!)

I think the gap of understanding that needs to be bridged between the pro- and anti- people is that to those with religious convictions, it feels like they are being forced to accept sinful behavior which is a painful thing for a faithful person. However I would argue that this is a flawed belief for several reasons:

1) Why would God create a certain kind of people just to condemn them? Most gay people cannot and did not *choose* to be attracted to the same sex just as much as you did not *choose* to be attracted to the opposite sex. It is such a natural and biological thing that it is found in just about every culture no matter how remote, and even many animals have been found to form homosexual pairs.

2) The same section of the Bible that condemns homosexual behavior also condemns eating shellfish and getting tattoos, among other things. Why are we no longer agonizing over people who commit these other "sins"?

3) Even if gay marriage is not accepted in the church, it should not affect its standing as a legal right that is available to two consenting adults. I am perfectly within my rights to start a church where I refuse to perform the marriage ceremony for atheists and left-handed people, but that doesn't mean the state should ban legally- recognized marriages to those people solely to accommodate my religious belief.

4) I'm no Biblical scholar, but did not Jesus advise his followers to be compassionate equally to everyone (Matthew 25:40-45), even those whom you oppose (Matthew 5:43-48), and leave the judging of others' sins to God (Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 7:1-5)? Heck, he even supports the separation of church and state ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.") Why don't we leave the judging of what is sinful to the one who has the authority to determine that, and support the laws of the United States with consideration to the basis upon which they are created - the Constitution, and specifically, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Comments

[summercomfort]

Good points. But the prerequisite for this argument is that homosexuality is biological and not a social choice, and that homosexuality is a civil right. Which is still being debated by some.

[nendil.livejournal.com]

...Isn't that what my first point addresses? Granted it's not a thorough argument backed up with scientific theses but if they want me to quote them I'm sure I can pull some up within 5 minutes.

[summercomfort]

Well, I'm just saying that you make it sound so straightforward. Whereas if I were to attempt this conversation with someone, I might get stuck on the very first point as I try to convince them that homosexuality is not a choice. So for a person to support gay marriage, they need to agree that:

a) homosexuality is genetic, and not a choice (ie: Their Church is Wrong)
b) marriage is a civil right to be legislated by the government, not a moral right legislated by the church but protected by the government. (ie: The Government Protects My Beliefs?)
c) this is a civil right that cannot be guaranteed through equal rights via civil unions, but need to be dubbed "marriage" (ie: Separate cannot be equal)

[nendil.livejournal.com]

Well yeah, this is just a bullet points list for the back-and-forth rhetoric of Teh Intarwebs. If the opponent wants to delve deeper on those points, there's certainly a ton more I've got to say/write on the matter.

Regardless of the other parts, I feel that #4 is the thing that needs to be pointed out to the most people, though. :>

[ling84.livejournal.com]

The irony about the "give to Caesar" line is that some Christians have used it to justify the influence of church on state - Jesus as a religious authority is speaking of one's civic obligations, so the church's business is the state's business. >.< I guess if you view your whole life as religious business and civic duties as just a subset of them, it'd be hard to see voting and politics and whatnot in a non-religious context.

The first point you brought up (about a loving, kind God creating people that are flawed on purpose to condemn) is one half of my own belief in equality.

The other half is based on what Jesus told the folks who were ready to stone an adulteress they'd caught to death - "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (Luke 8:7, NIV) This passage is somewhat controversial since it doesn't appear in any of the other gospels of Jesus, but it's still in the Bible, so it counts. :)

[nendil.livejournal.com]

That's John 8:7 :) Took me a few minutes to track down.

I prefer the wording in Matthew 6:14-15 (you gonna controversy the Sermon on the Mount, bitch? XP): "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Your passage is awesome in that the part of the story right before it directly addresses the Mosaic Laws, but I'd be concerned that too many self-righteous people would consider themselves sufficiently "without sin". Yeah, right.

P.S. come hang out and karaoke with us next Friday! :)

[ling84.livejournal.com]

*doh* Looks like I need to sleep more/read my Bible more.

The "Golden Rule" is such a universal fundamental of every world religion that I'm always surprised at how people can find convenient religious loopholes for it.

Karaoke? When? I think I'll be back in SJ for Thanksgiving. :)