By that reasoning serial killers and rapists, also "created by God", should be accepted and invited over for Sunday dinner. Hopefully, you won't become dinner.
I'm a "cut the cr*p and get to the point" type of person. My friend Terry, over at Abbey-Roads, does a much more thorough and well reasoned job of explaining why some of us may have objections to Mr. Simon's statement - and we thank him.
[...]To his credit Rep. Simon was calm and civil in his comments, refraining from any invective or accusations of bigotry often heard in response to religious leaders asking the state to refrain from legalizing same sex marriage. Likewise, Minnesota's religious leaders were just as calm and civil in their appeal. They were not banner waving scare mongers railing against homosexuality. To the contrary, one of Minnesota's best Catholic bishops addressed the issue calmly, reasonably and compassionately in his testimony before the Committee in the Minnesota Legislature. read it all - it's excellent
13 comments:
Good point, Adrienne. (made me smile, too)
I'm a libertarian who personally has no judgment of gays for or against (I have a number of gay friends, btw), but the statement troubles me deeply. At its core it's a theologiocal statement, and essentially the senator feels he has a right to impose his religious views on others. [sound of libertarian hackles going up]
I have a cartoon that expresses the libertarian political view of same sex marriage. One man has on a shirt that says "Marriage is between a man and a woman." The other's shirt says: Gay, married and proud." Both are holding a sign that states: Vote libertarian.
I'm not trying to convince you to be libertarian (I suspect you disagree), but I thought I'd note that I'm also troubled by the kind of statement Simon made, even if we disagree in our personal and political views on homosexuality.
I think the Catholic Church's stand on these issues is intelligent and fair. I wouldn't vote for same-sex marriages, but I wouldn't deprive gays of their constitutional rights, nor treat them hatefully. Also, I don't think gays (liaisons between consenting adults) are analogous to pedophiles or rapists, where the interaction is not between consenting adults.
Fuzzy - glad I made you smile...
Stogie - I don't think gays, serial killers, and rapists are analogous either. But if you take Simon's statement at face value, that's exactly what he's saying.
County Thinker - I really don't care if Bob and Frank want to live together and do whatever. I do object to homosexuals wanting to change the definition of marriage.
Funny - both of us object to Simon's statement, but for different reasons.
As for discussing Libertarianism - it'll have wait until I become better educated on the subject.
My friend Mark, over at Ordered Liberty, has been directing my reading on the subject.
http://markinspokane.blogspot.com/
As for having gay friends? I've worked in two businesses that were gay dominated and used to count my gay friends in the hundreds. I say "used to" because all but one or two are gone. They died from AIDS and my very best gay friend committed suicide. I miss them all very much and keep them in my prayers.
Thank you for your comment and giving us something more to ponder.
First, there is a difference between a socially tolerant attitude towards homosexuality and an attitude that leads towards gay marriage. I believe quite strongly that the fundamental natural rights of life, liberty and property apply to all human beings regardless of their actions, lifestyles, sexual orientations, etc. A gay person has just as much right to be free of violence, of overt bigotry, than a heterosexual person. The right not to be assaulted without just cause, for example, is a human right -- it applies to all people.
But when we speak about marriage -- things get more complicated. First, the State does not create marriage, it recognizes it. Marriage as an institution pre-dates the State, and is dependent not on the State's authority, but on custom, tradition, religious belief and ritual. The State does not have the authority to change the definition of marriage because it does not create the definition, it receives it.
Hmm...I just realized that I had two "firsts" in my last comment. That's part of the problem when one is drafting a comment on a blog -- editing is often sacrificed for efficiency!
So, here's my next point: the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) is a valid one because of the necessary link between marriage and stable family formation centered around children. Marriage exists for two purposes: to provide a stable relationship between two people AND to provide a venue for the stable creation & raising of children. Both purposes of marriage can only be fulfilled within the context of a traditional marriage. While same-sex marriage can arguably meet the first purpose (although that is subject for debate), it cannot meet the second.
"How many STUPID PEOPLE must God create before we accept that he wants them around?” In my opinion stupid religious people should be locked up or deported out to this country. These are people who like being stupid and are complete followers. They add no value. And just as stupid as the followers, are the priest and minsters. These people follow a book written by MEN 2000+ years. America should stand up and fight for justice and innovation and change. That is how we got to become a great nation. Stupid religious people should be deported. Just saying!
Dear Helen,
Please take your meds.
Have a nice day.
Blue
Adrienne: I'm not willing to buy that the government has the "power" or authority to define marriage. I don't know any gays who think they're "changing" anything other than a definition of marriage supplied by government. Yes, I know the origins are theological, but there are those who disagree. The Presbyterian church is one, for example.
Mark - very well said.
The State does not have the authority to change the definition of marriage because it does not create the definition, it receives it.
Well there's something that never entered my little pea brain, but it makes perfect sense.
Country T. - if the origins are theological than it is what it is. Someone disagreeing with it doesn't change the truth.
As Mark said: The State does not have the authority to change the definition of marriage because it does not create the definition, it receives it.
Why is it so important for homosexuals to call whatever it is they do "marriage"?
Post a Comment