RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/13/2008

Wherein AFA violates own criteria

by Jeremy Hooper

When the American Family Association first launched their boycott of McDonald's, they put out these stipulations (which can still be found on their "Boycott McDonald's" website):

What the boycott of McDonald's IS NOT about
* This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals.
* It is not about homosexuals eating at McDonald's.
* It is not about how homosexual employees are treated.

However, their boycott has been a complete and utter failure. McDonald's stock has risen steadily since the day the boycott began, and the mainstream media has mostly ignored the entire thing. So what does the AFA do to try and ratchet up their initiative? Well, apparently throw out their own criteria!

This from a new AFA email that's making the rounds:

McDonald’s has done it again. First, the company paid $20,000 to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and to have a seat on the board of directors. Next, McDonald’s refused a request to remain neutral in the culture war by choosing to promote the gay agenda. Then McDonald’s accused those opposing the gay agenda, including same-sex marriage, of being motivated by hate.

Now we learn that McDonald’s sponsors training for homosexuals on how to promote their agenda among corporations from the inside. Out & Equal™ Workplace Advocates is a national organization devoted to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the workplace. One of its primary purposes is to train employees how to aggressively promote homosexuality within the company they work for, all the way to the corporate boardroom. Part of last year’s Out & Equal Summit in Washington, DC, (sponsored by McDonald’s) was an organized march into congressional offices demanding same-sex marriage laws be passed.

At the bottom of McDonald’s half-page ad in the Out & Equal Summit booklet is this statement: “From neighborhood to neighborhood, coast to coast and around the world, McDonald’s is proud to celebrate diversity” (homosexuality).

So now they are gunning for the company because they are dedicated to Out & Equal, an organization that is wholly dedicated to "equal policies, opportunities, practices, and benefits in the workplace regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, expression, or characteristics." This includes the hiring, retention, and fair treatment of LGBT people. So when the AFA goes apesh*t because the company has dared to support diversity, they are ABSOLUTELY making this about not only "hiring homosexuals" (bullet point one), but also with "how homosexuals are treated" (bullet point three).

As far as we know, they have yet to lash out at Mickey D's for allowing gays to eat under the Golden Arches (bullet point two). But should McD's stock climbs any higher, we fully expect an "Lesbian seen enjoying a McMuffin -- CALL AND COMPLAIN!" action alert to hit our Inbox.

McDonald's does it again [AFA email uploaded to our server]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

It must be horrible for these people. Their views are being challenged by having the "gay agenda" imposed on them. Gays are really disrespectful.

It reminds me of my racist friend. He refused to work with black people and accept them as a different yet completely equal race... society has made his life very difficult. Where have the traditional American values gone?

Society needs to stop persecuting homophobes and racists! It's an unjust violation of their civil liberties or something.

Posted by: | Aug 13, 2008 5:26:51 PM

Anon: Is your comment satirical?

I'm not being snarky -- I really can't tell.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 13, 2008 5:40:54 PM

Oh, yes, it's satirical. But the fact that homophobes really do feel their civil liberties (or something) are being violated and that THEY'RE in fact being discriminated against... I always feel incredibly dumbfounded every single time I encounter anyone who feels this way. It's hard to even respond to them. Because it's EXACTLY like a racist complaining.

Posted by: | Aug 13, 2008 6:33:31 PM

If they make themselves seem like the victims, then people will be on their side. If they outright say that they hate gay people, less people will find that palatable. If they pretend like they're the "live and let live" side, then they seem more reasonable. That is why they try and paint us as the militant nutjobs and themselves as family-oriented "good people." If they out and out began taking pages out of WBC's or the KKK's books and burned crosses or persecuted gays every time there was a natural disaster or act of terrorism (which - gasp - happen even in places of the world where gays ARE jailed or put to death just for being gay), then more "average" xtians would not follow along. Yep, pretty much exactly like a racist saying that his civil liberties are being trod upon if he can't scream the "N" word at every African American person he sees. But these people are CHRISTIANS! Weren't they persecuted a couple of millenia ago by the Romans before Constantine came along?? They are the real victims! And everyone knows that civil liberties should only apply to things that can be proved with genetics to be something you're born with - like religion. Everyone knows there is a Catholic gene, and a Protestant gene, and a born again gene...

Posted by: Wren | Aug 13, 2008 7:51:52 PM

this reminds me of Jon Stewart's remark on the Daily Show in reference to the DADT hearings:

"Yes, shame on Jackie Robinson...forcing the racists out of baseball! How many awesome racist baseball players did we loose out on because of Jackie Robinson!"

I've said it before...I'm sure there were plenty of "nice people" who didn't have "a problem" with black folks, they just didn't want their daughter marrying one. I'm sure there were plenty of people "just concerned about the children" of interracial marriage. There are nice bigots, and there are mean bigots. The mean ones are at least honest about their thoughts. The "nice" ones have to reconcile their good-person status with being a bigot, so they come up with some sort of rationalization like "protecting marriage from activist judges" or "protecting children" in order to keep their nice person cred, and also...I suspect...in order to be able to look themselves in the mirror.
It's so tragic too, because now that Prop 8 has accurate, honest wording, they are freaking out. Must be even harder to sleep at night being forced to confront your bigotry like that. They're so much in denial, they don't even want to admit that gay marriage actually exists in CA. Sad sad sad.

Posted by: Jason D | Aug 13, 2008 9:03:56 PM

I'm one of "them". I'm really sorry that we generally do not see eye to eye. And even though you may not be able to see this issue from my perspective, I want you to know I don't feel like I'm what you describe. At all. I understand that most of the LGBT community does not believe same-sex marriage should be subject to any moral ruler--separation of church and state and all that. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and even the founding fathers said that "this nation could not be ruled without the moral guidance of the Bible and God." (George Washington)

And this country is still primarily a Christian people. We are taught by God, the scriptures, and living prophets that a homosexual marriage is not part of God's divine plan for His children. And most of our laws are still based on Christian principles. Since we do believe with all our hearts that God wants what is best for His children, we believe His laws should be higher than man's. We don't always understand and we certainly aren't very good with explaining how deeply we feel we should obey God.

But when we choose to protest against McDonalds, for example, it is only so that our money will not be spent on something we don't approve of. Honoring and obeying our beliefs/knowledge does not mean that we are prejudiced or bigots or just plain mean and cruel. I don't see it as religion forcing its creed down the throats of those who don't believe. We live in a world with all kinds of influences and problems. Is it so bad to aim for a better world? To strive for the world that would be best for all of God's children?

By the way, I do have a sincere question. Are all homosexuals NOT Christians? Because it sure feels like a constant "us against them" thing.

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 15, 2008 12:20:54 PM

Hi, all

Can I do a shout out in the defense of decency and restraint.

It amazes me how the devil fools people with there own selfish desire to please themselves.Can we get to the true nitty gritty of what this whole so called man to man, women to women thing it's just about (SEX).

And can someone tell me what's normal and healthy about a man sticking his penis in another man's butt where waste products are excreted, I want to know?

Thats like licking someones butt crack just because you think "doukie" tastes good, you just aren't supposed to do it I don't care how clean you say the butt crack is. That's how you get disease and pass disease. Get it?. This is not about equality and rights its just "filthness of the mind".Secondly how is it they don't want to act like a real woman like they were made, but want to be with a so called he/she. That's contradiction at it's greatest.

I'm sorry thats just not normal and it's not clean and if someone says it is they are liars.

Chow
Rwig3

Posted by: Rwig3 | Aug 15, 2008 12:28:26 PM

*"I want you to know I don't feel like I'm what you describe."

Most of us would truly believe this, tamara. I for one wholeheartedly believe that most on your "side" do not "fee like" they are hurting gay people. But you are.

*"And this country is still primarily a Christian people."

Irrelevant to the issues of civil freedom. When a majority faith gets to set the tone for an entire democracy, we are into dangerous territory.

*"Is it so bad to aim for a better world? To strive for the world that would be best for all of God's children?"

When you are using your personal view of what is "best" to hamper the civil freedoms of a certain sect, then yes.

*Are all homosexuals NOT Christians? Because it sure feels like a constant "us against them" thing.

Even having to ask that question is an example of why there is an "us against them" mentality at all. We gays, part of every faith an culture known to man, did not start the American "culture war." We are simply responding to it.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 15, 2008 12:33:54 PM

Okay. What exactly is "culture war"? In my apparent ignorance, I am not even sure what you mean by that...

So if there are Christian gays, as you so kindly pointed out to me, what are their feelings about what the scriptures say about homosexual behavior? Do Christian gays support same-sex marriage, for example?

And it's one thing to have homosexual feelings and entirely different thing to participate in homosexual behavior. One cannot be helped; the other is a choice. What do the Christian gays say about that? I am just looking for some common ground here.

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 15, 2008 1:05:05 PM

"I understand that most of the LGBT community does not believe same-sex marriage should be subject to any moral ruler--separation of church and state and all that. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and even the founding fathers said that "this nation could not be ruled without the moral guidance of the Bible and God." (George Washington)"

-The founding fathers also believed and upheld laws that sanctioned slavery and prevented women from voting until 1920. Laws, rules, and times change. How would you feel if Jews decided to push laws based on the Torah? If it were illegal for you, a non-jew, to walk into a deli and buy a ham and cheese sandwich, or a bacon egg and cheese? Hey, Judeo-Christian morals apparently are the foundation of this country right? Well, no mixing meat and dairy and no eating pork are Judeo values that can be found in the Christian bible as well.

"And this country is still primarily a Christian people. We are taught by God, the scriptures, and living prophets that a homosexual marriage is not part of God's divine plan for His children. And most of our laws are still based on Christian principles. Since we do believe with all our hearts that God wants what is best for His children, we believe His laws should be higher than man's. We don't always understand and we certainly aren't very good with explaining how deeply we feel we should obey God.

-If you want to follow the Bible in its entirerty to govern a country, be my guest. But be sure to tell your sister it's "what God wants" when you sell her into slavery to a man who raped her, and explain to the nice police office who arrests you for stoning to death your neighbor who does not rest on the sabbath that "God's law" means more than his badge. The problem with your argument about the Bible inspiring laws, is that not everything in the Bible is good. You can't pick and choose. Either follow it all (including the shitty parts), or don't use it at all to sanction laws. Seeing as we don't live in a Christian Theocracy, it shouldn't even be an argument. I am agnostic and "your god" does not make the rules for me.


"But when we choose to protest against McDonalds, for example, it is only so that our money will not be spent on something we don't approve of. Honoring and obeying our beliefs/knowledge does not mean that we are prejudiced or bigots or just plain mean and cruel. I don't see it as religion forcing its creed down the throats of those who don't believe. We live in a world with all kinds of influences and problems. Is it so bad to aim for a better world? To strive for the world that would be best for all of God's children?"

-You can choose to protest McDonald's all you like. As Jeremy here at G-A-Y has shown, it hasn't done much to the effect of "hurting" McDonalds. But I don't eat and White Castle, so to each there own. I agree with you - honoring your beliefs isn't biggoted at all. Assuming that all other people, including the ones who aren't the same faith as you, should put THEMSELVES out in order for you to honor your faith, is ridiculous. I don't care if you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or a Scientologist. Pray to whatever God you want to pray to in your home and your family church and maybe your private school. Creating laws that mirror your faith that takes away the rights of others to practice something that is NOT HARMFUL in any way shape or form simply because YOUR book of faith says so, is ridiculous. The Bible also speaks out against adultery, divorce and clothing of 2 fabrics, but you don't seem to be protesting the legality of divorce or any company owned by a known adulterer. As for "creating a better world for our children", segregating and degrading gay people, creating laws that limits their lives, will do no good for my children, particularly if any of my children turn out to be gay.

"By the way, I do have a sincere question. Are all homosexuals NOT Christians? Because it sure feels like a constant "us against them" thing."

-Many gays are very Christian and have a strong relationship with God/Christ. The (straight anti-gay) Christians choose to ignore them, oust them, and insult them. You expect gays to want to be on their side? Again, the hypocrisy is outstanding. So many churches "excommunicate" gay parishoners, yet allow divorced people into their services without trying to "heal" them or convince them to "repent" for their "sin". Christians tend to be way more forgiving when it comes to "sinful situations" many of them will likely find themselves in at some point in their life.

Posted by: Stef | Aug 15, 2008 1:21:42 PM


So if there are Christian gays, as you so kindly pointed out to me, what are their feelings about what the scriptures say about homosexual behavior? Do Christian gays support same-sex marriage, for example?

-I'm not gay, but the Bible is open to interpretation. What do divorced Christians think about it being considered a sin in the Bible?

Do you support the concept of a woman who was raped behing "sold" by her father to the man who raped her so he can marry her?

No? Didn't think so.

Well tell me, how does a "Christian" like yourself feel about going against one of God's very vocal Biblical wishes?


"And it's one thing to have homosexual feelings and entirely different thing to participate in homosexual behavior. One cannot be helped; the other is a choice. What do the Christian gays say about that? I am just looking for some common ground here."

- You said it, not me. One CAN NOT BE HELPED. That says something, doesn't it? That it is innate? You want gay people to suffer a life of loneliness without love, intimacy, relationship, and yes, dare I say it, sex? How ridiculous and selfish of you. Would you have stayed a virgin your entire life had you not gotten married (assuming you are married)? Would you have no kissed or touched or loved someone intimiately? If so, I thank God daily I'm not a Christian :)

Posted by: Stef | Aug 15, 2008 1:27:21 PM

tamarasw said: "So if there are Christian gays, as you so kindly pointed out to me, what are their feelings about what the scriptures say about homosexual behavior? Do Christian gays support same-sex marriage, for example?"

We're not an autonomous collective, but I do support gay marriage. I know several couples who have married either legally, in a religious ceremony, or both. As for what the Bible says about gays, for one interpretation go here: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian . Not that it'll change your mind or anything, but the information's there.

-----

And Rwig3, you're really good at the dirty talk. Like, really, really good.

Srsly. Call me.

Posted by: Matt Algren | Aug 15, 2008 2:18:25 PM

There are many many gay Christians. There are even more gay people who come from a Christian background and who, because of a very common conflict that arises between their childhood Christian faith and their sexual awakening and coming out experience, are more in the spiritual/agnostic category.

The "us vs them" mentality is really sort of...well, at least as I see it, against the huge numbers of evangelical Christians who, no offense intended, are largely ignorant of homosexual issues. They go to church, listen to their pastors tell them that "homosexuality is a sin" (a completely vague and under-detailed statement), and they read translations of bibles that just as vaguely say homosexuality is a sin, when the very concept of homosexuality didn't even exist until the late 1800's. They're a large group, strongly conservative, very vocal, and they're a huge voting power. That is the "them" in the "us vs them" mentality, as I see it.

gaychristian.net is a good place to find information on the gay christian community. They've started a nomenclature of the "side a" and "side b" to describe the two camps that gay Christians fall in to: the group that feels that the bible does not condemn homosexuality in and of itself and that many modern day translations are incorrect, and the side that feels that the bible does condemn it, and that gay Christians are called to live lives of celibacy.

Posted by: zortnac | Aug 15, 2008 2:43:05 PM

Ah, the great religious debates continue, with geniuses (genii?) like Rwig3 chiming in with their dubious clutch on reality, and tamarasw, who, while being very polite and I assume well-intentioned, doesn't seem to get the idea that we not only have freedom OF religion in this country, but freedom FROM religion. "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

Posted by: MirrorMan | Aug 15, 2008 2:45:41 PM

I'm one of "them". I'm really sorry that we generally do not see eye to eye."

I am too.

"And even though you may not be able to see this issue from my perspective, I want you to know I don't feel like I'm what you describe. At all. I understand that most of the LGBT community does not believe same-sex marriage should be subject to any moral ruler--separation of church and state and all that. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and even the founding fathers said that "this nation could not be ruled without the moral guidance of the Bible and God." (George Washington)"

Here's the thing about that, nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is there any mention of Jesus or God. In the Declaration of independence there's "creator" but that is fairly vague. Historians say that the founding fathers were deists, not Christians, but let's presume they were Christians. So why isn't Jesus in the Constitution? Considering the religious climate of the time I doubt anyone would've been upset if they had used "God" or "The Lord" or "Jesus Christ" instead of Creator. I don't think that it was an accident. I think it was intentional, these men were meticulous in their wording. If they were Christians, as your quote suggests, the intentional omission of Christ from our ruling documents is a clear indication that they weren't establishing a Judeo-Christian Government, even if the people governed were Judeo-Christians.

"And this country is still primarily a Christian people. We are taught by God, the scriptures, and living prophets that a homosexual marriage is not part of God's divine plan for His children. And most of our laws are still based on Christian principles. Since we do believe with all our hearts that God wants what is best for His children, we believe His laws should be higher than man's. We don't always understand and we certainly aren't very good with explaining how deeply we feel we should obey God."

There's nothing wrong with your feelings, and certianly nothing wrong with your wanting to live YOUR life in accordance with these principles, but there is no reason to force me or my family to do the same. There's virtually no difference between declaring Christianity the Official US Religion, and just putting all of the Christian values into law --- they both have the same outcome: Theocracy.

"But when we choose to protest against McDonalds, for example, it is only so that our money will not be spent on something we don't approve of. Honoring and obeying our beliefs/knowledge does not mean that we are prejudiced or bigots or just plain mean and cruel. I don't see it as religion forcing its creed down the throats of those who don't believe. We live in a world with all kinds of influences and problems. Is it so bad to aim for a better world? To strive for the world that would be best for all of God's children?"

Nothing wrong with voting with your wallet, I do the same thing. Nothing wrong with wanting a better world for our children, I want the same thing, too. But you and I disagree on what would be best. I think our government should do what's best for all people, including me and my family. And I don't see any harm with me being allowed to marry my partner. There are several countries in which gays can marry and it hasn't destroyed any of those countries at all.

"By the way, I do have a sincere question. Are all homosexuals NOT Christians? Because it sure feels like a constant "us against them" thing."

There are gay Christians, and to answer your next question, that would be for them to answer.

Posted by: Jason D | Aug 15, 2008 3:06:54 PM

Tamara,

I'm not Mormon and I don't have to believe as divine the opinions of "living prophets". I am a Christian and my faith teaches about justice and equality. We don't believe in coerced religion and, in fact, believe that passing laws to force others to follow the dictates of our faith is immoral and evil and contrary to the will of God.

I am also an American. And as such, I don't believe that God's laws should govern nations. I believe that when you start insisting that your interpretation of God's laws should trump man's laws you end up with cultures like that in Iran and Afganistan. Further, when you claim that you know how God want some law to be, you commit a most grevious sin - taking God's name in vain. You usurp God's authority and claim it as your own and God has made it VERY clear in scripture that He is jealous of his authority.

We gay Christians take our faith very seriously. We have actually studied the handful of verses that you suppose address homosexuality. Have you? I mean seriously studied them looking at culture, context, meaning?

Did you know, for example, that the scripture that you think condemn gay persons in the New Testament is a translation of a word that DIDN'T EVEN EXIST before Paul made it up. No one really knows what he meant.

And do we support same-sex marriage? Emphatically yes. As do the United Methodists in California, the United Church of Christ, the Quakers, many Episcopals, and some Lutherans and Presbyterians. And as do some non-Christians such as the Unitarian Universalist and the Reform Jews.

You see, Tamara, we believe in covenants before God and vows before man to unite in Holy Union those persons who He has brought together. And let me caution you, it is a most dangerous thing to seek to take away marriage. Scripture warns that what God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Posted by: Timothy | Aug 15, 2008 4:32:31 PM

Timothy,
I really do appreciate your response. You were kind enough to take seriously my questions and comments.

I just wanted to clarify a few things. I, too, believe that every person has a right to choose to worship (or not worship)as he desires. I would never force anyone to believe the same as I do, and God would also not force anyone.

I do believe in absolute truth, although things get pretty mixed up in our imperfect world. Some things are true, no matter what we believe about them. The apple's going to fall down, not up, no matter how much one wishes it would fly. In that light, and because I do believe there is a living prophet speaking by inspiration from God, I believe there are certain truths that are undeniable. Not because I presume to speak for God (and I am not using God's name in vain), but because I DO believe that GOD CONTINUES TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY to speak to His children. He actually wants us to share with others what He has revealed. Okay, so I know you didn't ask for that, so I'm not trying to convince you, just explaining where I'm coming from.

You see, if God were to just show up on the earth, and start telling us in person what He wanted us to know and to do, we would then KNOW without any shadow of a doubt. He doesn't do that because it takes away our gift of free agency--the ability to choose and act for ourselves. That is the greatest gift He has given us. Instead, He speaks to a man, chosen to be His spokesman, so that it still requires some faith on our part, to pray and learn for ourselves whether it is the word of God. That way, it allows us to continue to enjoy free agency.

So, although I often refer to the Bible, I don't believe it to be the only source of scripture or revelation from God. And current prophets have been much more clear on the subject of homosexuality than the Bible ever was.

Excuse me for the length of this comment, but following is an excerpt from an interview of one of the leaders of our Church:

Elder Wickman was asked, 'What of those who might say, “Okay. Latter-day Saints are entitled to believe whatever they like. If you don’t believe in same-gender marriages, then it’s fine for you. But why try to regulate the behavior of other people who have nothing to do with your faith, especially when some nations in Europe have legally sanctioned that kind of marriage? Why not just say, ‘We don’t agree with it doctrinally for our own people’ and leave it at that. Why fight to get a Constitutional amendment [in the United States], for example?'

ELDER WICKMAN: We’re not trying to regulate people, but this notion that ‘what happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage.
Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.
A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.

Also, the scripture you reference is: "Jesus said that “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” (Jesus was clearly speaking about marriage between a man and a woman.)

All I'm trying to do, 'though I'm probably really botching it up, is explain why at least some Christians are trying so hard to protect the definition of marriage. Sometimes, truth is very difficult to hear. In fact, for everyone, there must be at least one or truths that are hard to bear. But that doesn't change what is true.

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 15, 2008 6:22:34 PM

Aha. So, when presented with well reasoned arguments, tamarasw reverts to the old back-up plan: Tossin' bible quotes as if that makes any difference where rational discussion is concerned.

Posted by: Shin Gallon | Aug 16, 2008 12:08:09 AM

I only used the scripture because Timothy referenced it in his comment, and I was including the whole reference so as not to take it out of context.

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 16, 2008 4:50:17 PM

Good Day, Tamarasw:

Normally I don’t find myself in these debates, simply because people will believe what they will believe, and very little that I or anyone could say, will change those beliefs. However your stance struck me, and I felt the need for this short reply.

In your post, you said;

"Also, the scripture you reference is: "Jesus said that “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” (Jesus was clearly speaking about marriage between a man and a woman.)

All I'm trying to do, 'though I'm probably really botching it up, is explain why at least some Christians are trying so hard to protect the definition of marriage. Sometimes, truth is very difficult to hear. In fact, for everyone, there must be at least one or truths that are hard to bear. But that doesn't change what is true."

I have no problem what so ever, in believing that marriage, as defined by your beliefs (religion) should be between a man and a woman. And in your church, I have no issues with that staying the case. If your church does not want to make legal a marriage between my partner and myself (who have been together for over a decade at this point,) I see absolutely no point in forcing them to participate.

However it’s not a simple matter of faith in this country. A marriage, in the United States, is a legal contract between two people; a legal contract that comes with many legal obligations and implications – one that has nothing to do with religion as far as the government is concerned.

I can already here the arguments, but let’s look at it. In this country, the only thing that says you are married is a little slip of paper that comes from the state government. It does not come from a church, a synagogue, a mosque, a coven, or any religious organization. That contract allows for multiple rights and obligations, and has many legal implications as far as the tax system, medical rights, and many other things are concerned; all things well beyond the control of any religious organization. This is where I have an issue.

We both are hard working people who pay our taxes, worry over bills, and the everyday things that you and your family deal with. We participate in community events, and volunteer our time and skills when we can, to help organizations who may need it. We, in essence, do the exact same things, daily, that you may do, however, in the eyes of the government we are second class citizens. This is where I have an issue.

In the United States, all citizens have the right of equality under the law, or that’s the way it is supposed to work anyhow. This right has been and is being denied those of us who happened to fall in love with someone of the same gender, simply on the grounds of a religious bias. While the founding principles of the law in this country were grounded in religious principles, there was no religion defined as ‘the one to rule them all,’ (you’ll pardon a movie reference I trust.) If that were the case, our country could just as easily have laws in place, founded not on a Judeo-Christian believe, but an Islamic one, or a strictly Jewish mindset, or even, yes, a Pagan system of belief. What would happen then to our mostly Christian society?

My basic point is this. If the federal and state government is going to have jurisdiction over the legal ramifications of ‘marriage’, then there should be no constraints placed upon it by a religious belief. If ‘marriage’ did not infer any of the multitudes of legal rights and obligations and was simply a ‘religious thing,’ I don’t think this debate would be happening at all. However, as this is not the case, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon, all citizens of this, the United States of America, should have equal rights and obligations under the law of the land, and not just those of a particular religion.

Peace to you and yours.


Posted by: Marc | Aug 17, 2008 9:51:29 AM

Elder Wickman can go f@ck himself...And my great great grandfather was 1st couselor to Brigham Young.

Posted by: Tex... | Aug 17, 2008 4:32:47 PM

Marc, I'm glad you did make a comment; I appreciated your response, and it does help to understand your viewpoint.

Marriage has become an institution of interest to federal and state government and therefore laws have been enacted to give financial and legal rights/benefits. Why? I believe it is because marriages/families are recognized as the foundation of our culture and thus worthy of protection. I don't think that just any legal contract between two people is of interest to the government except where laws can help mediate disputes.

Marriage began as a union between a man and a woman. Whether you call this a religious definition or not, it WAS established by the Creator of our physical bodies, because it was designed for procreation and the formation of family units. No other union is designed for that purpose. So...if people want to enter into different kinds of unions, if the government is interested in protecting those unions, then laws can be enacted for them. But why call it marriage?

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 18, 2008 11:45:30 AM

Tamarasw said: "But why call it marriage?"

Because that's what it is.

Also, in the passage you're interpreting as a hard-and-fast definition of marriage (Matthew 19), Jesus was responding to a very specific question that had absolutely nothing to do with gender in marriage. Rather, the questioners were trying to get him to contradict the scriptures on the subject of divorce and whether divorce should be permitted under any circumstance. God says no, but later (through Moses) says yes in certain situations.

I repeat, Jesus was NOT giving a hard-and-fast definition of marriage. He was revealing as fools the people who would cherry-pick scripture references in order to judge others more harshly.

Which, oddly enough, is germane, but not in the way you thought.

Posted by: Matt Algren | Aug 18, 2008 7:21:17 PM

A union between same genders is not a marriage.

You can't just start calling apples oranges because the apples want to be oranges. They're just not the same thing.

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 18, 2008 7:49:08 PM

Tamarasw continues: "A union between same genders is not a marriage."

Yes it is.

I reject the notion that an absolute defining characteristic of marriage is differently gendered partners, just as I reject the previously held defining characteristics of identical races, identical socio-economic backgrounds, identical heritage, and dowry size.

Your analogy of apples and oranges in not suited for this discussion. It's more like you're Granny Smith apples and we're Golden Delicious apples.

The definition of marriage has not been immovable throughout the ages. We've advanced past old practices and prejudices before. Now is the time to make another advance.

Posted by: Matt Algren | Aug 19, 2008 12:26:03 PM

Matt,
A marriage was initially, and has been, throughout the history of mankind, a covenant between a man and a woman who promise to love, protect, and be faithful to each other and the children they produce, for the rest of their lives.

It became the best interest of governments to protect this marriage because it is the foundation of society. It is what produces stable family units, which in turn provide a secure nation. The strength of a nation or people cannot be stronger than its family units. Governments have passed laws that give tax breaks to married couples supporting children...as well as other benefits, to help promote and encourage such marriages and families. A modern-day example is the country of Spain, which actually pays money to couples who bear children to help with their financial obligations to provide for and nurture their children.

You cannot deny that you are striving to CHANGE the definition of marriage and the institution as it has been historically. Two men cannot produce a child or family. A relationship between two men is not the same as between a man and a woman. They can have a relationship, but is it one that the government would be interested in promoting or encouraging? Why?

Besides, you paint the picture as if every homosexual male has a partner he is just waiting to marry and commit to forever. But what is the truth? What do most homosexuals really want? Because I have read many articles about the promiscuousness of homosexual males...100's of partners?! Why push for a re-write of the definition of marriage for the rest of society when a large percentage of homosexuals don't even want it? I, for one, am so offended that something I've held dear all of my life might be changed and corrupted in this way.

But we're slightly off the original topic of this thread, aren't we? It was really about whether people should or should not boycott McDonalds for giving money to promote a lifestyle that is less than family-oriented. It really bothers me that family-oriented businesses are getting into the "colorful" topic of homosexuality. Why not just sell hamburgers and give the profits to their employees and stockholders?

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 19, 2008 7:14:45 PM

Tamarasw has an incorrect history book: "A marriage was initially, and has been, throughout the history of mankind, a covenant between a man and a woman who promise to love, protect, and be faithful to each other and the children they produce, for the rest of their lives."

No it hasn't.

Tamarasw makes me wipe my glasses and read it again: "Besides, you paint the picture as if every homosexual male has a partner he is just waiting to marry and commit to forever. But what is the truth? What do most homosexuals really want?"

Wha...I don't even know how to respond to this. That's like saying that most black people don't want to use that drinking fountain anyway, so go ahead and make it whites only. On top of which, yes, I'd love to have a partner to marry and commit to forever. I'd ADORE that. And if the reports I'm hearing from California and Massachusetts are correct, so do a lot of gays. All? Probably not, just as not all straight folks don't want the same thing in their lives. We're like people that way.

She continues: "Because I have read many articles about the promiscuousness of homosexual males...100's of partners?! Why push for a re-write of the definition of marriage for the rest of society when a large percentage of homosexuals don't even want it?"

Prove it. You don't get to quote numbers like that and not back it up. Show me the data that suggests that us homos have 100s of sexual partners. (I've got a lot of [super awesome please tell me she's right] catching up to do if you're right.)

That aside, you know what? If even one person's rights are being curtailed, it's wrong. "Majority rules" doesn't work in the arena of civil rights.

Tamara wraps up with: "I, for one, am so offended that something I've held dear all of my life might be changed and corrupted in this way."

You poor dear. Let me get you a hanky.

Posted by: Matt Algren | Aug 19, 2008 7:57:32 PM

Well, here's just one of many references you might like to read:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.

The extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.

And everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the right to marry is not written into any constitution in any state or the United States--it is NOT a civil right.

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 20, 2008 6:51:09 PM

And while you're at it, how about a hanky for the Christian doctor who can no longer practice or must deny his beliefs because his religious beliefs have been absolutely quelched by the desires of a lesbian woman to be impregnated artificially. Last I noticed, the right to practice one's own religion and to not have laws passed that would discriminate against one because of his/her religion WAS a civil right.

Posted by: tamarasw | Aug 20, 2008 6:56:29 PM

HAHAHAHA!!! I can't believe you actually used the FRC as a source! This one in particular has been ripped to SHREDS!

Apologies to our host, but there are several links:
Footnote 12: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm
Footnote 13: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,009/000,002.htm
#14: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n4_v34/ai_20536043/pg_5 and http://someguysarenormal.blogspot.com/2006/04/tomorrow-is-national-day-of-silence.html

The Reader's Digest version: All examples of studies of straight folks were reputable studies done specifically in the United States. For the studies of gays, however...

--Monogamous homosexual couples were irrelevant to the study, which is why they were explicitly excluded from #12.

--The authors of the study (#13), went on record saying that their study was not indicative of all gay couples. The study included homosexual men in other countries.

--In #14, respondents for this study were recruited at the following places: "sections of the organised gay community (radio, venues, gyms, businesses, publications); places of sexual contact within, outside, and marginal to organised gay communities (gay brothels, sex shops, beats, saunas); health centres frequented by gay men; and pornography outlets." Additionally, less than 2% were of men in the United States, making its results irrelevant.

--The Genre survey is irrelevant because it's unscientific.

To sum up, your AFA article is bigoted garbage. He started with the desired result and worked backward, making do with whatever the bigots would accept regardless of the information's actual worth.

As for whether marriage is a civil right, civil marriage absolutely is. My entering into a contract with someone shouldn't be restrained because of the other party's gender. The only restraint should be, and in other areas of contract law is, that both parties consent to the contract.

Posted by: Matt Algren | Aug 21, 2008 5:35:25 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails