November 7, 2007
-
SIN
This may well be my most offensive post yet to some. And although I may sound angry, I’m not. I don’t get angry that easily. Anyway, you were warned…
So a “debate” is raging in response to one of the featured pots on the issue of gay marriage. I say debate quite loosely because it is quite a disturbing debacle to behold. 300+ posts, much of it so ridiculous that it is enough to make anyone rage in frustration.
When I first heard the issue of gay marriage come up in the news I was absolutely shocked! I think I may have blogged about it back then but I can’t remember. Anyway, the whole thing was just simply unbelievable to me. I could not comprehend the idea that people were even arguing about it. It never occurred to me that anyone would think that gay marriage was wrong. Well, I always knew that there would be some people, but surely they would be on the fringe, not the mainstream. Just like you wouldn’t expect most people to still say that black people or women ought to be denied the right to vote, or to argue that the world is flat. Not in this day and age, I thought.
Maybe it’s because I was raised to accept people and let them live their lives as they please. It isn’t a matter for others to impose their will upon anyone else about how they can and can’t lead their lives simply because we don’t like it. You need a damned good reason to stop someone from doing something, like when the health and well being of others is at stake.
And I just couldn’t and can’t see the argument for it. Where’s the harm that is done by being homosexual? Who is hurt by it? How does society suffer from giving them the same rights and recognitions as anybody else? I didn’t get it. I don’t get it still.
One argument, perhaps the core argument that frequently appeared in this blog argument is one that greatly repulses me. It is the argument that homosexuality is a SIN in accordance with the word of GOD. If you disagree that homosexuality is wrong then you are disagreeing with God Himself. That’s how the argument goes.
To which I just have to reply…
Yep!
I’m disagreeing with God. If God exists and that’s what God is saying I’ll happily disagree. I think He is quite incorrect and all my reasoning capacity and rationality and wit leads me to believe that he is wrong. In no way that I have been able to stretch my mind am I able to see how homosexuality is inherently wrong. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s ridiculous.
So if I say “I’ll be damned before I accept the notion that homosexuality is inherently wrong”, I mean that quite literally. And I’ve got no problem with that. I’ll sit there on Judgment day and after I get over my awe and shock at being in the presence of the awesome beauty and power of God. I’ll say something like this.
“Ummm… Sir. I’m honored to meet you and all and don’t think I’m ungrateful for your saving my immortal soul and all that. But can I ask you something? Were you really serious about all that anti-homosexuality garbage in the bible?”
Because unless I hear it out of the horse’s mouth there isn’t anything that I have yet been able to imagine that could convince me. Certainly all of the arguments I have ever heard have been really really really bad. I mean GOD AWFUL (pun intended).
And if He says to me that yes he was serious and that it is wrong, I’ll ask Him why. And I tell you, he’d better have a damn good argument. Maybe He will. Maybe he’ll have some killer argument that makes me say “Oh my God, I never thought about it that way! Now I see the error in my ways!” I’d be fine with that. If its an argument I can understand with my own heart and mind I’ll gladly accept it and recant my previous objections. A little part of me might wonder why he didn’t put that brilliant argument in his stupid book and save us all a lot of trouble. But fine, I’ll accept it.
But if the best he can come up with is “Because I said so”, I just won’t accept it. I don’t accept that kind of cheesy argument from my younger brother, from my friends, from strangers, or from anyone else. I’m certainly going to hold God to AT LEAST that high a standard. He’s got to have a reason why homosexuality is wrong. One that he can explain to me and that I can understand. None of that “I’m so beyond the minds of you puny mortals” garbage.
And He can smite me tomorrow for saying all this. And He can happily cast me down into the fiery pits of Hell and I’ll happily burn for all eternity for it believing that I am totally in the right. I’ll be laughing at the vindictive sonofabitch on the inside, in between the screams of eternal torment.Unless He can convince me, or somebody can, I’m not buying it. And no God who condemns me for trusting my own reasoning is a God that I want to believe in. If He’s real. Oh well. I’m still going to base my believe on reason and knowledge, not just because somebody, anybody, even God, says so.
Do you see what I’m saying? I’m not going to argue that the Bible is being misinterpreted or misread or mistranslated or anything like that, though it probably is all of those things. I’m arguing that even if it is dead on exactly word for word the exact literal truth that God wants to portray to mankind, I’d still reject it. And I think everybody else should too, if your reason tells you otherwise. I mean really, why would you believe God over yourself? Unless it is because you are afraid. And again, any God who rules by way of fear of fiery torment is no God I want any part of. To hell with Him, I say.
And not only that, I just think that the modern era has no place for those who put their faith over their reason. That’s something for a bygone era before we became the peoples that can travel through the sky and to the stars and change our genetic code and destroy the planet with our weaponry. We just don’t have time for it anymore. We have real problems. BIG problems. They need to be solved. God isn’t going to come down from on high any time soon and tell us how to get out of Iraq or stop global warming any more than he is likely to tell he how to get my dream job or a perfect mate. We have to do it ourselves. And that means open minds. Reasoning minds who think about the consequences of each principle we choose to adopt or reject on its merits, not because it coincides to some words in a dusty old book.
It’s high time we stopped being so polite and cordial about this issue. The argument that it is because it comes from God’s word is not a viable argument. It isn’t even entirely sane. We should reject it wholeheartedly. If a preacher starts preaching anti-homosexual rhetoric, the entire church should rise up and reject him or her for their hate speech. If a politician starts advocating laws that are biased against homosexuality, they should be booted out of office.
I’m not saying all this to be mean or rude to the people who disagree. I know how hard it is to change an opinion you’ve been raised under, a tradition that is ingrained in you. I’m just saying you need to have a better argument than “it’s a SIN, God said so”. And if you can’t come up with a better argument. Seriously reconsider your holding of that belief in the first place. Maybe its time you join the rest of humanity in living in the present and believing in ourselves rather than some book.
Don’t worry. At least we’ll all be burning together.
Comments (8)
before i touch on any of that, i think we can both agree at the least that the argument itself thrown aside, her argumentation was pretty poorly framed. to make some sort of stand towards either side, you have to set up certain standards. she sets up this muddled framework of equality and human rights, which are effectively very different things. under social contract theory, people are in societies because they gain access to things that they would otherwise lack in a state of nature. the implications of a marriage excluding that of civil union hold benefits that could very well exist without governmental involvement. so that thrown aside, you’re right, terminology does matter. note as i said, its a debate of semantics. terminology is very important. this was the basis of my argument. the difference between the situation you proposed lies in the actual definitions. as you said, anything that meets the requirements of a college in definition should be a college regardless of the demographic makeup. however, what if it doesn’t meet the requirements? what if a high school suddenly decided they wanted to be a college? if it succeeded, would it be anything more than a high school still? essentially, as of now, status quo, marriage is defined as a civil union between a man and a woman, its not as much as people wanting it to be changed to that as the other way around. also, in the way that ‘college’ or ‘university’ may add credibility to a school, does marriage do the same credibility, opposed to civil union? two homosexuals in love and in civil unity aren’t going to be seen as any less credible than a married couple. and ultimately, whats credibility matter? marriage is a personal issue.
and in no way am i making a value judgment that gay civil union would be any less deserving than straight civil union. different words exist for different things. there are separate words for men and women. men can denote all of mankind. is differentiating between the two with the word ‘woman’ saying that women are any less deserving? it has nothing to do with status and recognition, its all about categorization.
additionally, marriage isnt “effectively” civil union in even more states. under a general consensus, marriage is civil union between a man and a woman. just because a few activist judges interpret it as such doesnt mean it ought to be changed. as you said yourself, why bother to change it? its just a waste of time.
keep in mind this doesnt actually reflect my opinions on the matter, just my thought processes.
and additionally, for the most part, you make a reasonable point in this post. the only thing sadder than her actual post itself is the pages upon pages of “OH LAWD HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN.” whether you believe that or not, this shouldnt be the determining factor of how society dictates itself. religion is personal, its even often said, christianity is a relationship, not a religion. if doing something is against your beliefs, by all means dont do it, but dont force others the same way. the mandates of religion applies to followers of that religion. even if you are told to ‘make disciples of all men,’ this would be the equivalent of implementing a state religion. separation of church and state imo. im not saying that homosexuality is evil, im not saying that the government should act based on the bible… im just saying that jewelee makes a less than compelling argument and explained why
I’m not in the business of defending other peoples blog posts, but I don’t think her argument is as bad as you make it seem. This isn’t social and political philosophy class. No need to go into deep depth about the subtle differences between Rawls and Nozick. Her argument makes sense to people because it is quite intuitive. For most people really do believe that marriage is a thing that has value to them, that adds value to their lives. Just go ahead and ask them.
Yeah, yeah, it’s not the word “marriage” that creates that value. Believe me, everybody who has given it a moment’s thought understands that. That token is just a placeholder. It could have been called “blublagh” or “follywatzit” or whatever the heck you want. Nobody cares. So long as it provides people with the benefits wrought by the institution be they real or delusional.
Language changes over time. The fact is ‘marriage’ doesn’t mean the same thing today that it meant during its inception. What’s the big deal about expanding its definition today? All stubborn argumentation aside, the shift from marriage being a term used to describe a union between a man and a woman to a term used to describe any oath based monogamous relationship between two people as society becomes more and more accepting of homosexuality, is quite natural. It isn’t surprising at all. What is surprising is the vehement opposition to that shift in language. Really, at least I for one was totally surprised by it.
The State should not adjudicate language at all except insofar as it is necessary to keep clear legal mumbo jumbo at least give the illusion of coherence. It certainly should not tell people they can’t call their relationship marriage because that would screw with the current version of Merriam Webster. Nor should the State tell people that they must call their relationship marriage. That’s up to people. Really its entirely fine with me and with everybody else I think if we replace all references in all legal texts to marriage or civil unions with a term like “blaefial unirezigot”. It would probably save us all a lot of heartache if they were to just go ahead and do that tomorrow. As long as you do it universally. Well its ok if you describe certain blaefial unirezigot as homo-blaefial unirezigot as opposed to hetero-blaefial unirezigot just so long as you don’t actually make that distinction mean anything relevant legally.
So really what are we arguing about here? Sure, almost nobody thinks the rights protected by the state should differ. So what is the big issue? Here’s what I think it is.
People want to be able to talk with their parents and relate to them and explain to them their relationship in the same ways in which their parents talked to their grandparents. And they want to be able to talk to their friends and chat about their relationships using the same language and having the exact same implications
in most situations where it comes up. And they want to be able to relate with their children in the same way. They want access to the same or basically equivalent traditions and history that comes inherent in the terms that are used surrounding the existing institution of marriage.
Most people want this. The thing is, certain persons want to deny certain other peoples the use of their traditions. They want to say to them you can’t have our history. You can’t have our traditions. You can’t have our word. It’s our word. Go find your own. Go build your own traditions. This word we reserve for the relationships that we prefer.
There is just so much more to the word marriage than just its strict denotation. It implies a whole universe of concepts and ideas and traditions and notions. Its use has implications and carries with it certain expectations. And homosexuals want in on it. They want in on it all. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Anything that can within reason be applied to them.
And why not? Should they have to build up their own traditions separate and independent from those that already exist? Should they have to instill meaning into their own newly thought up term, a process that likely takes centuries? Why should they? They don’t feel as if they are a part of a different tradition. They were raised and grew up in a society that created special emphasis and meaning on the term ‘marriage’. They feel it is as much their term as it is anybody else’s. These aren’t outsiders remember. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. The things they grew up to believe in, we grew up to believe in too. So what gives anyone the right to tell them they can’t believe in what they believe in because they happened to not be wired the right way?
There is no such thing as separate but equal. You can’t take two things that are separate and make them the same. They will naturally diverge over time. This is just as true for language as it is for schools.
So yeah I think the language does matter.
in arimaic, the word “sin” certainly meant mother…as to be born of your mother…from a woman, I feel the Romans took advantage of their knowledge of wordsmithing to control the masses during the “Pax Romana” by integrating languages and key words with new definitions…how many cultures have they erased in the manner of making pure for the “kingdom of heaven”
just a great expression here.
I think in similar ways, too. If god gave me logic, will he punish me for using it? If he will, is god worth serving? A lot of people seem to think so, so what I had to do is just say that these people are wrong about their ideas about god. I’m not rejecting god exactly, just what most people attribute to him.
If a preacher starts preaching anti-homosexual rhetoric, the entire
church should rise up and reject him or her for their hate speech. – Well, no, isn’t it a preacher’s job to tell people about his beliefs?
No institution that does not work on the basis of at least some democratic principles should even exist, nor will continue to exist in a country like the United States where we value our independence and freedom so highly.
Most churches certainly do operate with some degree of internal democracy these days. The beliefs and principles of the populace attending the church has a huge impact on how the church conducts itself including the selection of the leadership. If you haven’t seen infighting and maneuvering within a church over who gets chosen to do what, you haven’t been to enough churches.
So yeah a preacher is chosen to tell people what he believes and that’s all the more reason why the people need to object strongly when said preacher ‘believes’ something that they know to be bullshit. The preacher will have to either change his or her beliefs (and I guarantee you you’ll be surprised how many things they were ‘certain’ about don’t seem so certain when their jobs are at stake) or go elsewhere to find a populace more accepting of them. Either way the church reflects the popular opinion, not the other way around.
It’s not like the preachers who believe that homosexuality is not an inherent sin don’t exist. It’s just that right now they aren’t in demand. We need to turn that around.
No, I haven’t been to too many churches, but based on a lot of christians I know, as well as the amount of new articles that report efforts to stop legalizing gay marriages, I’d say that preachers against homosexuality are in demand, at least by a lot of people.
Yes exactly. That’s what I meant and that’s what I think needs to change.