Response to a Friend
I understand your point of view, but the only way conservatives are "affecting" their lives are by their opposition to gay marriage - and even in that case it's becoming more of a state's rights issue. I think gays should enjoy full "married" rights, and a lot of their demands are economically driven - insurance, health care, etc. In addition to the social dynamics in play, however, marriage is a traditional man-woman institution and should stay that way; civil unions are fine as it gives them the same rights as married couples.
Also, I know of no conservatives who are calling for the death of gays. Other than the wackos out of Kansas. Most conservatives I know are quite tolerant of gays. That said, they may not agree with what they consider the sin of homosexuality, but they also follow "hate the sin, love the sinner." As you are aware, a number of people close to me are gay - I don't love them any less and feel that my life would be a lot emptier without their presence in it.
The point I wanted to make it that those organizations make very pointed accusations about conservatives, and especially evangelicals in the US and get a lot of attention. Now think of how much attention they would get, how much influence on public opinion they could have, if they sounded the alarm about minority groups being discriminated against and killed around the world.
A case in point - remember the outrage a few years ago about female genital mutilation in Africa. It brought unwanted attention to those who were practicing it and raised public consciousness - the same could happen here. These organizations demand what they consider universal human rights - but they essentially ignore what is happening "universally," i.e. globally. It is important that people speak out about injustice and intolerance anywhere it occurs but, unfortunately, our country is so polarized at the moment it is hard for that to happen.
I also have one last thing to say. President Bush, as an evangelical, represents ALL that many of these organizations hate. Because of their hatred for the president and his values, anyone else holding these values is fair game and open for criticism and attack. This is unfortunate, because it takes away from the debate over substantive issues - it has turned this election cycle, indeed the last several years, into a competition as to who can yell at the other side the loudest, rather than a real debate on the merits of the issues.
Anyway, that's my two cents! Great seeing you on Saturday - the kids sure do adore you. Take care of yourself and I'll talk to you later.
An Update:
A story of an "honor killing" (murder) in Italy.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's latest on women and Islam.
Both very good, give them a read.
Also, I know of no conservatives who are calling for the death of gays. Other than the wackos out of Kansas. Most conservatives I know are quite tolerant of gays. That said, they may not agree with what they consider the sin of homosexuality, but they also follow "hate the sin, love the sinner." As you are aware, a number of people close to me are gay - I don't love them any less and feel that my life would be a lot emptier without their presence in it.
The point I wanted to make it that those organizations make very pointed accusations about conservatives, and especially evangelicals in the US and get a lot of attention. Now think of how much attention they would get, how much influence on public opinion they could have, if they sounded the alarm about minority groups being discriminated against and killed around the world.
A case in point - remember the outrage a few years ago about female genital mutilation in Africa. It brought unwanted attention to those who were practicing it and raised public consciousness - the same could happen here. These organizations demand what they consider universal human rights - but they essentially ignore what is happening "universally," i.e. globally. It is important that people speak out about injustice and intolerance anywhere it occurs but, unfortunately, our country is so polarized at the moment it is hard for that to happen.
I also have one last thing to say. President Bush, as an evangelical, represents ALL that many of these organizations hate. Because of their hatred for the president and his values, anyone else holding these values is fair game and open for criticism and attack. This is unfortunate, because it takes away from the debate over substantive issues - it has turned this election cycle, indeed the last several years, into a competition as to who can yell at the other side the loudest, rather than a real debate on the merits of the issues.
Anyway, that's my two cents! Great seeing you on Saturday - the kids sure do adore you. Take care of yourself and I'll talk to you later.
An Update:
A story of an "honor killing" (murder) in Italy.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's latest on women and Islam.
Both very good, give them a read.
posted by Unknown at 7:05 AM
3 Comments:
Can't argue with you there. Yet another reason for my cynicism is the widespread shirking of social responsibility. Although, I do have to say that the tension between the gay/lesbian groups and the evangelicals is far from a new one. President Bush just offers these groups a frontman to attack. Not to mention his vocal position on the subject begs for reactions. I don't think it is all evangelicals or all homosexuals, though, that are involved in this public tug-of-war. They are the vocal minorities, and, of course, the crazies that protest at funerals.
My problem with the marriage issue is that I don't think it needs defending. That is has become such an hotbuttin topic is because it paving the way for marriage in a religious sense to be marriage in a legal sense. My solution is this, take marriage out of the equation. It is a church issue. Civil unions should be the legal status of all "marriages" and all civil unions should carry the same benefits and disadvantages. Marriage should be left to the churches. As I see it, you have a civil union for the legal side of it, and you left a preacher or whatever that will marry you in front of God, if you feel like that is necessary (which I would imagine some don't since they either don't believe in God or believe God is with them always, knows what is in their hearts and wouldn't let them feel love that is wrong).
This could lead to many issues I won't discuss here, because this is already getting too long for a comment. But I would like it noted that I take serious issue with the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality. I also think that homosexuality catches a bad rap in this society because when we think of a homosexual relationship we think only of the type of sexual intercourse in which they engage. We don't do this with heterosexual relationships. We can see a non-sexualized heterosexual family, despite the fact that there are kids, right there, in the picture. The concern should be about the emotion, the love, the security, the happiness, not the sex. But what do I know. (I am beginning to think I think too much.)
Anywho, I end by saying, you are right. There is no comparison. There is bigotry and legal disadvantage, and there is brutal murders and mutilation. So, yes, you are right. We need to focus on that and make people aware of it. Too bad I don't comtrol the world. (=
Wow, if you controlled the world - PARTY TIME!!!!
Seriously, I agree with you regarding the "sexualization" of gays - many people only see that, rather than what are often long-term, deep commitments and true respect for each other. I don't even mention the sexual aspect of the relationship in the book I spoke to you about, the characters are dealing with the loss of a twenty-year relationship.
As far as "love the sinner - hate the sin," I understand the idea of it, growing up in an evangelical environment, but it seems to me that to "love the sinner" you have to accept them for who they are, or not at all - and there is certainly a hypocrisy there, which is why I try to look at who a person is, not what they are.
Anyway, your idea about marriage and civil unions is dead on and, I think, a very legitimate idea. It has become too polarizing, unfortunately, and often causes a backlash which polarizes the issue even more. James Pinkerton had a good column on that today.
You and I think a lot alike, though we are very different people, but hey - I've always had a fondness for you artsy-fartsy types!!!! Love ya
Me
HAHAHA! Oh man, I love you, and not even just for your family. (= We are a lot alike in our thought-processes, and I consider that mutually complimentary (but I do have a big head, too). (=
Post a Comment
<< Home