Ignore the Minority
I am not prejudiced. If you are a different color or ethnicity than me, cool. Let's learn from each other, not hate each other. And I believe in free choice. If you want to live differently from me or do something that I think is a sin (note: not illegal), then hey, that's your right. That's what this country is all about. And I do not believe that just because a majority believes something that it is automatically right. But majority exists for a reason. We don't elect leaders based on what a minority thinks. If someone wants to be elected, he or she has to convince over half the voting population that they are the right person for the job. If most people believe something should be done, then it is. Minorities keep the majority accountable, and I am not advocating a rule where those in power believe a certain way and all other opinions are shot down. I'm just saying that the majority, in general, should be listened to. Otherwise, nothing would get done.
Sop why is it, on a certain hot-button issue all over the world, the loud minority is being pandered to despite a majority population's opposition? Yes, I'm talking about gay marriage. I do not believe homosexuals should be persecuted. And I did not choose to abandon someone who has been a close friend to me just because she decided she was gay (and please do not attack me for that choice of words, it's a complicated situation that is not mine to share). But when a majority of Americans believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, shouldn't they be listened to? I'm sure worldwide activists are celebrating this week as the lower house of Spain overruled the Senate and legalized gay marriage. The Netherlands and Belgium already had it. (Although in Belgium, homosexual couples cannot adopt children. Hey, isn't that favoring lesbian couples over gay men since women have other ways of having children?) And Canada seems set to legalize it for the whole country despite its opposition.
So what about us, America? Massachusetts is currently the only state to allow actual marriage, although others have civil unions. Both support and opposition exist for an effort to constitutionally ban gay marriage nationwide. So which is it going to be? I am a Christian conservative. I believe it is fundamentally and biblically wrong. But I am not the only one. If the majority speaks out, I believe people will listen. We are not pawns to idly stand by and watch our country slide farther away from what we believe it should be. Our votes and our voices can make a difference. So get loud, America!
Look beyond what you see...
posted by Nettie @ 6/30/2005 03:00:00 PM
34 Comments:
Hey,
Thanks for posting on my blog. I hope you enjoyed reading it. I'm a bit short on time at the moment, but I'll come back and read your blog later.
God Bless S.C.!!
-Reb
I agree that gay marriage is wrong, but I have mixed feelings about making it a Federal issue. I would probably go along with it though, because I'm definitely against gay couples adopting children. And if you allow gay marriage, they're gonna cry out that they want to adopt children.
And thanks Nettie for volunteering for the meme I had on my blog.
we just had the gay pride week here in toronto, people come from all over the world for it, there were like a million people. both my husband and i are catholic, ur kids are being raised as catholics, catholics don't believe in gays, but i don't understand what anyone's sexual preference has to do with anything. i don't become friends with someone because there are hetrosexual and i don't not become friends with someone because they are gay. i look at the person, what they do behind closed doors is up to them and as far as i'm concerned, it's up to god to judge them, not me, so i don't. that's how i feel anyway.
Amigo, it becomes a federal issue when gay couples start asserting a right to tax status and benefits allowed to married persons. Thus, it truly cannot be avoided, becoming a federal issue. Traditionally, the feds have accepted whatever the states said was a marriage--with the notable exception of Utah and the polygamous Mormons; but since the homosexual politicos are pushing this issue, the feds have to get involved. Thus, it becomes an issue for all of us to take a stand on--preferably against. Think of the costs to the government if suddenly there is an influx of married gay couples. Even assuming the (most likely correct) low figure of 2% to 5% of the population being gay, that's nothing to sneeze at.
Also, as many bloggers have noted in the recent past, if gay marriage is to be considered truly legal, then there is no logical barrier to polygamy. Expect that issue to follow hot on the heels of any wide spread legalization of gay marriage.
God's says it's wrong and that makes it wrong, period! Next it will be people marrying animals or family members!
Amen, Paula.
It troubles me somewhat that "better safe" says she's catholic, but doesn't seem to think homosexuality is any big problem. Yes, what people do "behind closed doors" is their business--as long as it isn't illegal or immoral. And the Bible (I assume Catholics still believe the Bible, right?) makes clear that homosexuality is indeed a sin. And there is actually much research (which never sees the light of day in the mainstream media or educational circles) indicating that the vast majority of homosexuals are not "born that way" but rather in some way make a choice to "behave that way". And in the perspective that Nettie is talking about, the government does, indeed, have both a right and a vested interest in setting limits on marriage and the benefits thereof.
jeff, i don't believe i said homosexuality isn't any big problem. i'm catholic, i do believe it is a sin. homosexuals cannot marry in the cathollic church, however, i'm not about to start to push my beliefs on anyone, i think people should be free to make their own choices. i believe what i said is that it's not up to me to judge anyone, i believe it's up to god. i'm not going to treat anyone differently because they are homosexuals, just as i wouldn't treat any that isn't the same colour as me differently.
Touchy subject, kind of like abortion. I recently had a dear friend confide in me that she had a desire for the same sex. I've known her for a long time and it never crossed my mind. She is also a 28 year-old virgin. She knows that homosexuality is not God's plan for her life and has chosen to refrain from sex. Her heart yearns for a husband and children but she often grows weary in her fight. I might anger someone here but, no to gay marriage, period. Civil unions however, I'm inclined to accept. Only because of an equal rights issue. Being American does not equate to being part of a religious sect. I sometimes try and seperate my religious beliefs from my American beliefs and feel that not allowing civil unions is discrimination. My only concern with that is-that it's simply the first step to legalizing gay marriage just like Canada has now done. And if we allow civil unions it will not be good enough. And that they will continue to badger legislators and voters to give them the same rights. Oh, well, did that make any sense?
OK, I agreed to the Federal banning of gay marriage. My reasoning is to block gays adopting.
Regarding polygamy, I don't think that is something the Bible ruled against. It's not represented as the best way, but I don't believe it is prohibited.
Of course all the guys in the Bible who married more than one wife had problems from it.
Hey, if some of y'all want to believe in an imaginary friend in the sky, all the power to you, just don't make me.
In so far as majority rule, you have to ask yourself if what the minority group is asking for is a fundemental human right. Remember that blacks were denied numerious rights by white majorities in the American South. If, as I believe, the right to decide whom you should share your life with, provided they are also a concenting adult, and that non-descrimination unless there is sufficient reason to do so is a basic human right then you must support gay marriage...even if you believe it to be a sin.
-Rye
Better: I believe you said "i don't understand what anyone's sexual preference has to do with anything". Well, at least you later admitted it can have something to do with sin. That's good to hear.
And the issue of "not judging" is perhaps the most misunderstood teaching of Jesus. Yes, we are not to judge the soul of another person, since we can't see what's really in the heart and mind of another, plus we aren't the ones with either the authority, power or skill to determine the eternal disposition of another.
But we are in fact commanded to judge the behavior of others. How else to determine if someone needs loving correction? How else to weed out the heretic teaching falsehoods? That is judgement, plain and simple. It must be informed by the spiritual gift of discernment, yet it must not be neglected, and certainly not out of some misplaced belief that we are not to judge others.
Homosexuality is a sin. Is it somehow worse in God's eyes than any other particular sin? I don't frankly know. I don't remember any stories from the Old Testament of God destroying an entire city for cursing or even murdering. Yet, in the New Testament, God struck dead two believers who withheld offerings and lied about it. God gets to decide His reaction to sins, collectively and individually. A sin is a sin, in my theology. By the same token as I opposed homosexuals pushing for acceptance and official sanction for their "peculiar behavior/life-style choice/genetic make up", I also oppose any other group of sinners pushing for the same response to their particular brand of offending God's sensibilities.
Rant over for now.
You really made some good points Nettie, I enjoyed your writing and your wisdom today.
Rye (is it bread?), thanks for "allowing" us to believe in God. Maybe some day you'll see the light.
The right to offend God and be given specific sanction by the state to do so is not a "fundamental human right". No one is claiming the state should break up gay couple, or stop them from practicing their particular sexual deviant behavior. There is no fundamental human right to a state sanctioned marriage. There is clearly a difference here, but it seems to be escaping you.
In this case, it is not a matter of judgement. The judgement has already been made by God when he declared it as sin. In fact he labelled it as an abomination.
We should not judge a person's heart or intention, but saying that an act is wrong is quite plain and simple. God condemned it, so whether they do it in the open or behind closed doors, it's the same crime.
Why is it that we don't allow people to murder their wives behind closed doors? When it is something the majority stands for, we are willing to fight for our rights, but when it's not politically correct, we sweep it under the rug.
Amigo, I wonder why guys seem to accept polygamy faster than woman. You're too cute.
Thanks for the platform, Cutie Pa Tootie.
“Rights are not given, they are taken”
- A. Huxley
1. First off, I appreciate your concern for my salvation. One never knows what the future might hold.
2. “Rye” are my initials. Any issues you have with this must be taken up with my parents.
3. Perhaps I was careless with my earlier in my original statement. I was not “allowing” you to believe in God. Religious practice are an individuals right, I was simply acknowledging this. That being said I also believe that a person has a right not to have religiously based “values” forced on them based upon the legitimacy of the state’s fundamentals right of coercion. This is true even if these “values” represent the will of the majority.
Religious conservatives often decry that an individual has the “freedom of religion” but not the “freedom from religion”. I believe this is true is we are talking about private religion. After all, I can’t demand the removal of all churches in my town simply because I don’t like looking at them (and between you and me I wouldn’t want to). However, I do believe, whether the Constitution and laws acknowledge it or not, that I have a natural right from state sponsored religion and religiously based laws.
4. I actually agree with you that state sanction of marriage may not be a “fundamental right”. This goes for heterosexual as well as homosexual marriage. It may be that we should relegate all marriages to the private world of religion outside the state, so that people/religions can decide for themselves whether they accept any marriage as legitimate.
My contention is that non-discrimination in absence of good reason to do so IS a right. The arguments for “externalities” such as the destruction of the family, etc… I find less than compelling. Beyond that, the sources for these laws are generally based on religion, which I discussed above. My point is that if the state allows for heterosexual marriage it needs to do the same homosexual marriage unless a strong, non-religious case can be made based upon externalities of such a sort that we require just discrimination. Despite the fact that I personally find it repugnant, I believe that polygamy between consensual adults is also protected, though the government may place restrictions on it based on efficiency and resource allocations. (As an aside, there is good reason to think polygamy hurts men more than women – see Robert Wright “The Moral Animal”). For the record, because someone mentioned it above, people do not have a right to marry animals or minors because they don’t have the right to consent.
5. Per se, I do have the right to offend your God (if he/she exists). A person who says “I hate your God” is protected by their right to free speech. A person who assaults another may offend your God and in this case would not be protected, but not because they offend your God, but because they violated someone else’s rights.
I add my thanks for the forum,
-Rye
jeff, i still don't understand what someone's sexual preference has to do with anything? why is it so important to know what someone's sexual orientation is. is that the first thing you ask someone when you meet them? that's not a question i would personally ask anyone, ever, it's none of my business.
"Better": No, I don't ask anyone their sexual orientation. And I don't want anyone forcing their political agenda down my throat, based on their sexual orientation. And it does matter--unless you're now claiming sin doesn't matter. Is pedophilia a sin? It's at least as much a "sexual orientation" as homosexuality. Do you ask anyone upon first meeting them whether or not they're a pedophile? No, probably not. But that has nothing to do with the importance of their "peculiar behavior/orientation". My lack of knowledge of someone's sexual orientation/behavior/proclivities does not define whether or not it is of importance; rather, God's Word defines whether or not it is important. And it clearly states it is a sin. I don't understand how you're not seeing that.
Rye: no offense on the initials. Other than that, though, quoting Huxley buys you no cache in here. Quote me some Jesus, I'll be more inclined to trust you know what you're talking about. You make the common cannard about "religious conservatives"--that they're all trying to force religion down your throat. Get over it--it ain't happenin'. You have every right not to participate in any religion (though even the government and the ACLU seem to recognize atheism as a religion); and those of us who DO participate in a religion have every right to speak our minds, en masse, and to use our rights as citizens of the United States of America to persuade our fellow citizens and directly impact the laws of our nation via the voting booth. I find it far more dangerous that people like you want a nation devoid of the civilizing effects of organized religion, and choose to condemn those of us who participate in a religion and wish us diminished rights of political participation.
I must say I am impressed. It seems some passions were inflamed. But I'm glad this is a place where everyone feels free to express their opinions even if I or others may disagree. Keep on keeping on!
jeff, i'm not sure if i can express myself properly or not, but here goes.
i'm not changing my mind on homosexuals, i do believe it is a sin, i do believe it is up to god to judge them, not me.
as for pedophiles, that is something entirely different. these children are used for pleasure by an adult, they are not consenting, they are not of an age to be able to consent.
what about hetrosexual married couples that engage in acts that are sins (don't want to get into specifics here) they are consenting adults, they engage in deviant behaviour, do they not also need saving? these couples have children, adopt children, and because they are hetrosexual there is not a public outcry. what about adultery? is that not a sin, how many people committ adultery, it's a huge percentage.
i guess my point here is, that you seem to be picking and choosing who you thinks needs saving, merely because these hetrosexuals are not making known their sexual preferences. you can't ask anyone what their sexual preferences are, and because you have a group that makes them known, why do you now think you can judge them.
that's just my opinion, don't know if you'll be able to follow what i'm thinking on this issue
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have something to say, but's it's not clean and it's definately NOT respectful.
So I won't say it.
"Better": you're wandering a bit, but you seem to be more agreeable to my position than even you realize.
Sin is sin. Humans should not flaunt their sins--that's basically slapping God in the face. No one--and I mean no one--among the conservatives/Christians I know is advocating the government intruding on the privacy of individuals in their homes. No one. Have I made that clear? Good.
It is the public political agenda of the homosexual lobby that grates on my moral sensibilities and it should grate on the sensibilities of anyone who actually believes what the Bible says. There can be no compromising on that, as far as I can see. If homosexuals want to continue having sex with consenting, like-minded individuals of the same sex and of consenting age, fine. Do it in private. They have no basic fundamental human right to a state sanctioned marriage. And as Rye pointed out, neither does anyone else. However, the government--of the people, by the people and for the people--has the right to determine that some individuals, by consent of the majority, have a human-granted right to such a legally sanctioned marriage, for the good of society.
So, I have always opposed, now oppose, and will forever oppose the political agenda of the homosexual lobby to carve out for themselves either special rights/privileges or even extension of specific benefits accorded those whose behavior remains within the norm.
jeff, i had to actually go back and re-read what nettie wrote. i'm in canada, when we have an election, traditionally, we have a very low turnout, so the government that is elected does not necessarily represent what the majority of people think. i have no idea what percentage of your population turns out. i do believe that homosexuality is a sin, i think i've made that point already, but does your american government actually represent the majority of americans? i might be wandering, but maybe you're more agreeable to my position than you realize as well.
anyway, i'm off to a canada day celebration, have a great weekend everyone!
Typical national election turnout is between 55% and 60%. I'd say our elected government is a fair, if sometimes skewed on particular issues, representation of our populace.
Boy Miss Nettie, you struck a nerve on a hot topic. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I have nothing against Gay people. I have several friends that are gay and they are human beings needless to say, but I don't believe that they should follow the same marriage vows as a heterosexual couple. I believe everyone of us are children of God. We are taught to tolerate, but that does not mean we have to embrace. Thanks for a great post.
Lucy, it's age old saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
Jeff, One more comment. The Mormons did away with pologamy over 100 years ago. Anyone practicing pologamy is excommunitated from the church. No further comment on that.
"Excommunicado" or not, it is well documented that some polygamist still practice that "forbidden art". And really, the only reason the Mormons changed their official position on that matter was out of fear of being trounced by the military. I suspect there would eventually be a major shift in their church doctrine on the issue if gay marriage became legal on a widespread basis.
Yes, some polygamist do still practice that art, but it is not sanctioned by the church. I very seriously doubt that there would be a shift in church doctrine if the gay issue were to come to light. Polygamy was only practiced for a short time, a time when the women in the church way outnumbered the men. There were times in the Bible where men had wives and compubines. (Not sure I spelled that right.) Once again, polygamy has not been practiced in our church in over 100 years.
6. “quoting Huxley buys you no cache in here.”
I believe that something is either right or wrong irrespective of the individual who said it. My point is quoting Huxley was to establish an idea. My point is citing him was to avoid criticisms of plagiarism.
7. “it far more dangerous that people like you want a nation devoid of the civilizing effects of organized religion, and choose to condemn those of us who participate in a religion and wish us diminished rights of political participation.”
I went over my earlier posts and at no point did I say that someone did not have the RIGHT to vote for or participate in support of whom they want as far as representation (whether I hold them ethically culpable is a different matter). Actually, this touches on a paradox…that liberal democracy can produce illiberal outcomes. Take my earlier example of black civil rights in the South.
a. Did racists have the right to vote for racists legislators? Yes
b. Did racists legislators have the power to pass racists laws? Yes
c. Did the enactment and enforcement of racist laws violate the rights of blacks in the South? YES
d. Was a separate entity, in this case the courts, correct in defying the will of the majority by (eventually) voiding racist laws? Yes. They would have been correct in doing so, even if they had not.
Majorities are afforded a great deal of power (resource allocation, whether to go to war, ect…). The unjustified discrimination against a minority group is not one of them. The Founding Fathers did not want or seek unchecked majority rule. This is why they set up our government as a republic rather than a direct democracy, and why they developed a system of checks and balances inherent in our system. Of course, something is not necessarily correct because the Founding Fathers did so, but I believe in this case they were correct.
In so far as the civilizing effects of religion, I find it at best a mixed bag. Religious extravagance has given us everything from the Spanish Inquisition to extremist violence in the Middle East. That’s not to say that “hard” atheism (i.e. there is no God) with its association to Stalinism has gone unscathed (though I would argue that this, at least in it’s infancy, was yet another example of an utopian idea imposed on a society instead of allowing individuals to derive their own conclusions). In general, I see the progress that has been made in statecraft and ethics since the Renaissance as a movement away from the religious, economic, and political homogeny of the Middle Ages and towards reason, science, and individual rights.
8. “You make the common cannard about ‘religious conservatives’--that they're all trying to force religion down your throat. Get over it--it ain't happenin'. You have every right not to participate in any religion”
True, no government agents has yet come to my door and demanded that I attend a particular church. Nor do I see a noticeable movement demanding the establishment of a national church. That being said, I stand by my earlier inference that “religious conservatives” are attempting to impose on the state religiously based rules and laws. In fact, I don’t believe that many of them would argue this point with me; we would disagree on whether it’s justified or not. In this case, I see a religiously based limitation on my ability to choose a marriage partner of the same sex, when that option is open to heterosexuals, resulting in non-justified discrimination (the fact that I’m not homosexual, and thus choose not to exercise that option, is not germane). Few here have attempted to portray homosexuality as a sin without a religious basis (Natural law is one attempt – though there are others) suggesting, at least to me, that religion is the ultimate motive. Were it not the case, that I believe there are individuals presently seeking to pass rules based, at their core, on religion, I wouldn’t have made comments on this board. Public condemnation of homosexuality by individuals is one thing, state sponsored discrimination based on religion entirely another.
As an aside, I find the height of hypocrisy on the other side. The heroic efforts of apologist aside, most people recognize, for good reason, that religion at its core is based upon faith. Faith it is often said is “belief in the absence of reason”. Whatever the legitimacy of faith in private religion may be and its usefulness in finding the truth, to deprive another consenting adult of liberties to which he has in common with his fellow citizens based upon faith is highly problematic.
If you will permit me another quote, especially from someone I’m sure many of you disagree with….
“I don’t want to make people make people feel uncomfortable. I want people to think, even if that makes them uncomfortable.” – Patricia Ireland
I’m sure I ruffled more feathers here. I look forward to a response. Thanks,
-Rye
Hi Rye, not sure how you found me, but I am glad you did. I don't wnat my blog to be only about people who think the same way. I do agree with you that our Founding Fathers did not intend for this to be a country where the majority controls everything. The problem I have with your arguements is that I do not believe homosexuals constitute a minority in the same sense that African-Amrericans, for example, would be. I do not believe homosexuality is something that is inborn or unchangeable. I would lean towards it being a choice, a choice to sin.
That is one of the great things about this country, that we have the freedom to live as we choose. But within the limits of our country's laws. Jsut as we would frown on, say, animal sacrifice, even if it's part of one's religion, I believe marriage is a sacred institution, both of this country and to God. You have freedom only so far as it does not impinge on others' freedoms. If gay marriage is granted, it is the beginning of a slippery slope four the U.S. and indeed, the world. In the end, it isn't really about majorities. It's about truly defending the founding principles.
Nice site!
http://outtfukz.com/bgpw/kwry.html | http://nebdmxff.com/enir/gfst.html
churchil
l car insurance
car accident insurance
car insurance n
allstate car insurance
infinity car insurance
new york car insurance
car insurance canada
car insurance rats
washington car insurance
car insurance for mexico
car insurance cost
admiral car insurance
best car insurance
car insurance quote online uk
car insurance dallas
agent car company home insurance life quote rate
car insurance rate
car insurance quote
car insurance for woman
car insurance for mexico
teen car insurance
compare car insurance quote
norwich union car insurance
car insurance coverage
instant car insurance quote
car insurance quote
diamond car insurance
car insurance in new jersey
young driver car insurance
antique car insurance
http://cheap-car-insurance.quickfreehost.com
Random Keyword: :)
auto insurance company
[url=http://fradalitassociates.co.uk/logs/disney-cruise-panama-canal.html]disney cruise panama canal[/url]
Post a Comment
Cleverly Disguised As A Responsible Adult!
<< Home