My Letter to the Editor 2009-Jun-05 on gay rights

[steveyo]

There's a heated debate on gay marriage going on in NY state these days. A couple days ago I read the following letter to our local newspaper:


Homosexuality goes against God

I read Daniel Fairchild's May 20 letter, "Gay marriage objections bigoted," and had to respond. My dictionary defines a bigot as someone who is intolerant of any creed, belief or race that is not his own. I am a fundamentalist minister. My positions are the positions I take not because of politics or emotions, but of what I read in the Bible.

My calling puts me in the sometimes difficult position of having to say things that are not popular or politically correct. Unfortunately, the Bible has teachings that are not always pleasing to us.

Mr. Fairchild is right. Jesus never asked people to tolerate his views. Neither did he water down the word. Jewish law forbade homosexuality (Deu. 23:17). God wiped out the city of Sodom. I cannot teach other than the things the Bible teaches. I cannot wink at homosexuality and pass it off as an alternate lifestyle. I cannot go against God's word. That does not make me a bigot. I welcome any gay or lesbian to come to our church. They will be treated lovingly and with compassion. But I will not compromise the word or what I preach.

But please, Mr. Fairchild, don't call me a bigot because I follow what the word of God and 2,000 years of Christianity teaches.

Pastor Bud Davis
Safe Harbor Christian Fellowship


Of course, I had to respond, and my response (http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=807233&category=LETTER&BCCode=OPINION&newsdate=6/5/2009) got published this morning. I've included the text of my response below.

In a June 2 letter, Pastor Bud Davis objects to being called a bigot for opposing same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general.

Pastor Davis includes the dictionary definition of a bigot in his letter: one who is intolerant of any creed, belief or race that is not his own. He then claims he isn't bigoted, because his fundamentalist, "word of God" beliefs instruct him that homosexuals are somehow not equal to those of us with heterosexual preferences.

Where does Pastor Davis stand on the biblical references to having multiple wives, concubines and slaves, and stoning people to death for various minor crimes?

In any case, by explaining that his beliefs on homosexuality come from his Christian fundamentalism, Pastor Davis may feel he has demonstrated that he's not a bigot. He hasn't; he's merely pointed out the root of his bigotry.

Steve Relles
Delmar

[Into the blue]

...

[JJuggle]

Steve, that is a fine letter, concise and to the point. Anyone who insists on a strict interpretation of the bible exposes himself readily to such an argument.

Gay rights are moving along, but the struggle is slightly different than previous ones. No one could ever argue that it is "unnatural" or "contrary to God's will" to be black or a woman. Until the argument that being homosexual is unnatural is without footing, the march will be uphill.

[Pseudonym]

^^ Uh what? People argued that just fine, woman were seem as lesser beings, so worthy or fewer rights and those of other races were seen as Godless.

Gay rights are just as important as, but they're not all that different.

Good work on the letter Steveyo, I'd like to think he'll open his mind a little after reading it, but I - being a huge cynic - doubt it.

I assume you've read Lars Clausen's Straight into gay America - LINK (http://www.straightintogayamerica.com/). If not, give it a read.

[GILD]

I'll see the applause and raise you an Edmund Burke.

Good job Steve.

[MrBoogiejuice]

Sock it to 'em.

[BillyTheMountain]

Until the argument that being homosexual is unnatural is without footing, the march will be uphill.

unicyclists are discriminated against based on the same argument, that it's unnatural for men to ride on one wheel. monogamy too! they act as if monogamy is so easy, you can do it standing on one foot. but one-footed unicycling is hardly natural, you'd have to agree.

But what u said is quite quote-worthy: "without footing, the march will be uphill.":D

[unibikeling]

since i cant find anymore words to say that havent been said, i'll add a number.

+100


props man for that letter.

[phlegm]

While I am in favor of same-sex marriage (in a civil sense--I don't think the government should force religious organizations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies), I think there is too much of this meaningless back-and-forth. What does establishing the pastor's bigotry have to do with same-sex marriage?

I think, if we want real change, key figures on both sides need to sit down and reason with each other instead of just turning inwardly while calling each other names. So far, all I hear about is rallies, marches, celebrations, and other attempts to shove one's view down the other's throat.

When are the two sides going to get together and talk reasonably as fellow citizens? Or, maybe the two sides are already talking, and I should just continue to ignore what all the "activists" are doing.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

You rock Steve!

[steveyo]

What does establishing the pastor's bigotry have to do with same-sex marriage?
Kev, I was more taking exception to the Pastor excusing his bigotry by claiming it's source was his fund. beliefs in the bible, as if that made his prejudice OK. My intent was not to show him as a bigot (OK, I guess that was part of my intent), but more to say that belief in some book's teachings, which may or may not be true (subj for another thread), by no means excuses bigotry.

[johnfoss]

While I am in favor of same-sex marriage (in a civil sense--I don't think the government should force religious organizations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies), I think there is too much of this meaningless back-and-forth. What does establishing the pastor's bigotry have to do with same-sex marriage?Steve pointed out the fallacy in the pastor's argument. "I'm not a bigot but..." should be "Call me a bigot but..." Then it would be accurate. Then, brought out into the open, is the added burden of the "bigot" label when using the religious argument against gay marriage.

And is there anything beyond the religious argument? I guess people can be against the idea based on the California wording, the one man, one woman thing, but then why that?

The point is, it doesn't matter why that, if someone believes that way. They can vote for what they believe in. On the religious side, most of the people are voting to impose a subset of biblical values on people who obviously don't share those values. That is also their right. Most major religions seem to prefer that the whole world do stuff the way they do it, and given the chance will encourage people to vote that way. That doesn't make it "right" for people with different beliefs.
So far, all I hear about is rallies, marches, celebrations, and other attempts to shove one's view down the other's throat. That is how you make your point in a political way. Usually it's designed to make an impression on legislators, while at the same time showing strength in numbers (assuming you've done your P.R. homework well). When we protest (cuts to developmental services (http://unicycling.smugmug.com/gallery/7620788_v94na#492878060_3H2St)) at the capitol, we want Arnold to hear us. On Tuesday he did, and even mentioned it in his speech. We want to be on the minds of the decision-makers.
When are the two sides going to get together and talk reasonably as fellow citizens?They probably aren't. The religious crowd is not going to accept the idea of something that goes against the teachings. Did white supremacists sit down with black leaders during the civil rights movement? Do pro-choice activists (or women with unwanted pregnancies) sit down with clergy? Maybe they do, but it usually doens't go anywhere. People will just have to agree to disagree.

The pendulum of public acceptance, or whatever you'd like to call it, is swinging slowly over toward acceptance of same-sex marriage. It will take however long it takes, but it'll probably happen in this country before atheists are "accepted", or the right to choose an abortion will feel secure. That doesn't mean people will think it's okay. There's a lot of stuff that most people don't consider okay, but that isn't illegal or limiting of one's civil rights either...

Good for you, Steveyo!

[phlegm]

Steve,
I generally agree with what you're saying, and my critique certainly isn't only directed at your letter or the Pastor's letter. My main concern is that there must be a point where we stop all this bickering and reason together. Or, will we really need another civil war to get through this?

John,
Protesting cuts made by our government is one thing, but this issue isn't about legislators above us. It's about how other voters are voting. We are only against ourselves in this case. You speak as if there is no middle ground that can be reached by a significant majority--why are you so pessimistic? Sure, there will always be extremists that will disagree with any kind of perceived "compromise," but it seems to me that, while there has been plenty of public display of one's own opinion, I haven't heard of any attempts to publicly bring the two sides together to talk.

The need for connecting with others with different views is expressed in this article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grllk_nt63q2NPIotyM9xpL4hwkwD98GPKIG0), but where is the action?
"We aren't here to impose our beliefs on anyone. We are here to begin a dialogue on civil rights," said Cleve Jones, a veteran activist and protege of Harvey Milk, San Francisco's first openly gay leader who was slain in 1978. "We can't win unless we open up our hearts to connecting with people who appear to be very different from us."

(I'm feeling pretty ironic in this case, being a religious person promoting reason while surrounded by many left-leaning, non-religious people. ;) )

[Gilby]

I have to ask permission to get married, from someone other than the person I am marrying?

People are so caught up on this idea that they need permission to do so many things, yet they somehow think they are still free? This problem (and many others) will only be solved once people realize they do not need permission from the masses, king, or whatever the current authoritarian of the day is. Needing to ask permission to do something that would otherwise be voluntary for all those involved is a way to divide and conquer the peasants.

[peleschramm]

I have to ask permission to get married, from someone other than the person I am marrying?

People are so caught up on this idea that they need permission to do so many things, yet they somehow think they are still free? This problem (and many others) will only be solved once people realize they do not need permission from the masses, king, or whatever the current authoritarian of the day is. Needing to ask permission to do something that would otherwise be voluntary for all those involved is a way to divide and conquer the peasants.

As long as there is still society, absolute freedom is unachievable. Actually, there are two ways that people commonly define freedom, and if you use the other definition, then you are always absolutely free no matter what. Therefore, anyone that claims freedom is either lying, or making a meaningless statement.

As long as you are a member of a society of sorts (which all of you are), all that can be achieved are different levels of "freedom". You can have the option of doing many things with very little consequence from others, and you can have very many consequences from others for your actions, but you can never say that you are free.

[steveyo]

I have to ask permission to get married, from someone other than the person I am marrying?

Even more basically, why get married at all? Why not just be with a person, or persons, and mutually decide to make it long-term and/or familial?

[maestro8]

Pastor Davis may feel he has demonstrated that he's not a bigot. He hasn't; he's merely pointed out the root of his bigotry.

http://smartassery.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Cat-YouJustGotServed.jpg

[steveyo]

Well, Kev, as John said:
...On the religious side, most of the people are voting to impose a subset of biblical values on people who obviously don't share those values....
That leaves me thinking that maybe there is no middle ground. I certainly don’t feel that churches/temples/mosques should be forced to perform gay marriages. I do believe people should have the right to choose their own life partners without any penalties such as hospital visitation/taxation/death benefit restrictions that currently exist. Maybe that's the middlest ground we can have. If someone is fighting against that "legal" side of gay marriage, well they're simply foisting their religious views on an unwilling recipient, and trying to restrict his/her rights. That's a big no-no in my mind.

[phlegm]

That leaves me thinking that maybe there is no middle ground.

Maybe there isn't, but why aren't we at least trying? Simply hurling words back and forth is a distraction. I want to see Rick Warren, Cleve Jones, and others get together and talk in a public forum.

[steveyo]

Maybe there isn't, but why aren't we at least trying? Simply hurling words back and forth is a distraction. I want to see Rick Warren, Cleve Jones, and others get together and talk in a public forum.

Maybe if they all had a big orgy?

[steveyo]

I actually just got an email (very nice and polite, really) from the Pastor himself, so we're discussing things.

[phlegm]

Maybe if they all had a big orgy?

I was going for the other Greek idea--democracy. ;)


Good to hear that you're dialoging.

[maestro8]

Maybe there isn't, but why aren't we at least trying?

This debate is a zero-sum game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum), as far as many see it.

I'm having a hard time seeing how it can be anything else.

If only there were a way to separate church and state...

[BillyTheMountain]

While I am in favor of same-sex marriage (in a civil sense--I don't think the government should force religious organizations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies), I think there is too much of this meaningless back-and-forth. What does establishing the pastor's bigotry have to do with same-sex marriage?

It proves that he is bad and we are good!

I have to ask permission to get married, from someone other than the person I am marrying?

People are so caught up on this idea that they need permission to do so many things, yet they somehow think they are still free? This problem (and many others) will only be solved once people realize they do not need permission from the masses, king, or whatever the current authoritarian of the day is. Needing to ask permission to do something that would otherwise be voluntary for all those involved is a way to divide and conquer the peasants.

Gilby,

u took the words right out of my mouth!

unicyclists are discriminated against based on the same argument, that it's unnatural for men to ride on one wheel. monogamy too! they act as if monogamy is so easy, you can do it standing on one foot. but one-footed unicycling is hardly natural, you'd have to agree.

But what u said is quite quote-worthy: "without footing, the march will be uphill.":D

Yes! We have a consensus!

Billy

[uni57]

I actually just got an email (very nice and polite, really) from the Pastor himself, so we're discussing things.Your respect for his privacy is noted and appreciated.

[BillyTheMountain]

If only there were a way to separate church and state...

There is.

You must choose between your loyalty to the Church or your loyalty to the State.

Those loyal to the Church cannot vote.

Can you think of another way?

[uni57]

You must choose between your loyalty to the Church or your loyalty to the State.

Those loyal to the Church cannot vote.

Can you think of another way?I was thinking that it is or should be unconstitutional to vote a particular way solely because of a religious view. The constitution is supposed to protect against the imposition of any particular religion, isn't it?

[Gilby]

As long as there is still society, absolute freedom is unachievable. Actually, there are two ways that people commonly define freedom, and if you use the other definition, then you are always absolutely free no matter what. Therefore, anyone that claims freedom is either lying, or making a meaningless statement.

As long as you are a member of a society of sorts (which all of you are), all that can be achieved are different levels of "freedom". You can have the option of doing many things with very little consequence from others, and you can have very many consequences from others for your actions, but you can never say that you are free.

This thread is referring to allowing the government to issue licenses or permits for people to enter a contract known as marriage. My use of the term free or freedom is used in that sense. In a political sense, freedom means that there is an absence of coercion or use of force against a sovereign individual.

When it comes to marriage, government uses coercion to force other entities to honor or not honor what would otherwise be a voluntary contract between sovereign individuals. Remove the coercion and let people voluntarily contract with each other, and this whole gay marriage issue is no longer an issue.

[JJuggle]

Remove the coercion and let people voluntarily contract with each other
How are voluntary contracts enforced?

For example, this is a thread about a) whether, given the current state of the law, gays should be allowed to marry and b) what constitutes bigotry. Yet you, the moderator of this website who, more than anyone else, should understand the importance of respecting that conversation, is unable to voluntarily keep it on topic.

How then, with much more at stake such as property, the well being of children, and healthcare decisions, can people be expected to voluntarily respect contracts?

[Gilby]

How are voluntary contracts enforced?

For example, this is a thread about a) whether, given the current state of the law, gays should be allowed to marry and b) what constitutes bigotry. Yet you, the moderator of this website who, more than anyone else, should understand the importance of respecting that conversation, is unable to voluntarily keep it on topic.

How then, with much more at stake such as property, the well being of children, and healthcare decisions, can people be expected to voluntarily respect contracts?

You lost me, I reread my posts and they were my viewpoint on the current law and the ability of gays to marry. I apologize if you couldn't grasp that it was within the topic of this thread. My point was that the current laws do not allow certain people to enter into voluntary contracts and further hinder certain people by using coercion to make many entities not honor contracts.

Enforcement of a contract isn't a whole lot different if it is voluntary. Contracts usually have clauses that lay out how that is done for that contract.

[JJuggle]

Enforcement of a contract isn't a whole lot different if it is voluntary. Contracts usually have clauses that lay out how that is done for that contract.
Can you provide a concrete example of a voluntary contract and how a party that violates that contract is punished?

[nannerdw]

If/when I get married, I am planning to follow the traditional Christian definition of marriage: A man and a woman making a commitment to each other and to God.

The definition of a legal marriage in our culture is really not the same thing. Marriage in today's society can just be two people committing to each other. Nobody seems to make a big fuss about two atheists getting married, so I really see no difference in two gay people wanting to get married. I may not agree with their decision, but if two men or women want to be together, that's up to them. They will still be together whether or not their status as a couple is legally recognized, so they may as well be given the privileges of any other married couple.

[Gilby]

Can you provide a concrete example of a voluntary contract and how a party that violates that contract is punished? You wouldn't be trying to make this thread go off topic now, would you? If you want to know how court systems, arbitration, and stuff like that works, try Googling it as it is beyond the scope of this thread.

[fluxusmaximus]

There's been a very similar debate raging here recently that involved, among other matters, how homosexuality is put forth as a neutral term as part of sex education in schools. The conclusion was that it's inconsistent with the Government's pro-family stance and hence needs to be reworded or restructured to remove the offending terms. I can't comment on the changes since the before and after treatment was not made known publicly.

Steve, I like your succinct reply. At the heart of it, people believe what they want to believe. Religion appeals greatly to one's emotions; when your personal beliefs are being backed up by the teachings in some important text, it's easy to take it as fact without question.

I've posed this question before to people who strongly believe that homosexuals can be rehabed. Would you marry someone who has lived most of his/her adult life gay and happy and who suddenly decides to 'repent'?

[BillyTheMountain]

Religion appeals greatly to one's emotions; when your personal beliefs are being backed up by the teachings in some important text, it's easy to take it as fact without question.


THe second part of your statement has a LOT more strength than the first. Every major religion has huge groups of GLBTQs who worship together and adhere to their faith, except atheists.

Many of these religious groups march together in the GLBTQ pride parade.

Of course, until the 1970s, those Faithful to Science used "science" to claim something was wrong with being GLBTQ, and some still do.

As you said, when your personal beliefs are being backed up by the teachings in some important scientific text, it's easy to take it as fact without question.

Billy