lurking 7: how to tell a person of principle
Would you attend a gay marriage? What if you followed a religion with a holy rule book that doesn’t mention gay marriage? I can imagine the dilemma – flicking through the pages trying to conjure what the god god’s opinion would be on this matter. The Bible is a golden treasure of clear-cut rules that must be followed at all costs. Slavery is good, so we can keep all our slaves; if we’re raped and single, we should marry our rapist; and obviously we’ve all given up all our possessions, as instructed. So, what’s next? Judging our friends and family, and condescendingly sneering at their sinful lifestyle choices apparently.
God is not neutral on the subject of marriage, or the idea of gay marriage. … So neither am I. If it’s a “Christian” wedding, then my attendane would be blatantly lying about God’s opinion and by extension lying about God Himself. If it is a secular ceremony, then I would by lying about me. Even if my friends knew where I stood on the issue, to attend would certainly give the appearance of endorsement. As it should. Which is something we should consider when attending any wedding ceremony really.
After encouraging us to judge all our friends’ choices of life partners and RSVP accordingly, Ask The Bigot goes on to give us her rationale for financially supporting a coffee chain that vehemently supports gay marriage, while insulting her many gay close friends and family by refusing, on principle, to attend any potential same sex marriage ceremonies.
Starbucks has the best Frappuccinos on the planet because it’s their job to make great coffee. It’s not their job to live the gospel and represent the truth of God. That’s my story to tell.
I can see the logic. When it comes to principles, it’s more important to twist the judgement knife into the people closest to us than to deny our tastebuds or sting the profits of a multinational soft drug pedlar. Delightful. It’s like reading a post that the character Jesus may have penned.
Living according to one’s beliefs is difficult. Those that fail the hardest are those that adopt the beliefs of others over their own.
LikeLike
I’m baffled by her response. I’m a vegetarian. I don’t support businesses like McDonalds that perpetuate the human reliance animal murder (even thought their fries and milkshakes are kind of nice) but I do go to dinner parties where meat is served, and have even (shock!) attended the weddings of omnivores. Because people make up their own minds about life.
LikeLike
Clearly, as noted elsewhere here, she is a truechristian, so is probably a truevegetarian and only truegod himself knows what they get up to …. sheesh
LikeLike
You are a vegetarian. That dictates what you eat and how you treat animals. It doesn’t have any bearing on marriage. So you attending weddings where carnivores are marrying. But I wonder if your beliefs in vegetarianism would prevent you from participating in cow slaughterhouse activities?
LikeLike
My beliefs are based on observation and evidence. I don’t eat meat because I observe that animals suffer, there is evidence that animals suffer and I have no need to eat them beyond greed and self-satisfaction. Your beliefs are based on your interpretation of a book of dubious origin that says nothing explicitly about committed same sex relationships, and is full of contradictory statements and wildly swinging moral values. While you will claim that you also have evidence that gay marriage is harmful, almost every well-respected institution in the western world would disagree with you. No-one will disagree with me that animals suffer or that we only eat them for personal satisfaction. My belief is based on fact, yours is based on conjecture.
Furthermore, I am aware that my belief is my personal choice and I don’t insult my friends or family who do not share my belief. I will, however, choose not to give money to companies that encourage the slaughter of animals. You seem to prefer insulting friends and supporting companies that campaign against what appears to be one of your core and defining beliefs. It’s truly bizarre, but it’s your life, and it’s nice that you choose to justify your choice in public.
LikeLike
Basing your beliefs on observation and evidence is good. So a question: do you find it interesting that experts agree that divorce, surrogacy, sperm donation, and loss of birth parents prior to adoption all have negative impacts on children. Often serious impacts. And yet, some “studies” show that there are no adverse effects on children raised by same-sex couples, even though, without exception, they would have to obtain children through one of those four methods?
LikeLike
1. Same sex couples don’t ‘have to’ obtain children as part of their marriage.
2. If this is truly the crux of the logic of your argument, you should be campaigning to abolish surrogacy (although I seem to recall this has Biblical backing), divorce and sperm donation in general instead of concentrating on a historically victimised minority who I’m sure make no more use of these than heterosexual couples. If the evidence is on your side, time will see a shift in policy.
3. I have to assume you aren’t so cruel as to suggest adoption should be banned for kids whose birth parents, for whatever reason, are unable to raise them. In the event that you understand the benefits of adoption, there’s no evidence to suggest that children adopted by homosexual couples are more adversely affected than those adopted by heterosexual couples.
4. Do you really think that every non-religiously affiliated professional care organisation in the western world is part of a conspiracy to lie about this? That every doctor, social worker, psychologist working day in and day out with vulnerable children wouldn’t be shouting from the rooftops if they even suspected there is a problem with same sex parenting? You know, we all have different upbringings with things that weren’t ideal. Sensible parenting isn’t about two individuals fulfilling generic gender roles, and given the variety of successful family structures out there, and the disasters that happen in your chosen structure, it’s absurd to suggest it is.
LikeLike
Violet. The broad-based studies using participants who were selected at random have shown that divorce, surrogacy, sperm donation and separation from birth-parents prior to adoption have shown that children are negatively affected by those factors. There is no dispute of these findings among social science experts. So, if you are not looking through the lens of ideology, how do you account for “studies” (none of which meet rigorous standards for social science testing such as control groups, large sample groups and most importantly randomly-selected participants) which show that children who experience at least one of the above factors suffer no adverse effects when raised by a same-sex couple?
LikeLike
Are these the “studies” that every non-religious affiliated professional care body in the western world has based their opinion on? Are you suggesting they’re stupid or lying?
LikeLike
Yes. Those are the studies which rely on small groups of volunteer or recruited participants. And I want to hear how you reconcile their conclusions with the data (evidence) that has been compiled using large groups, randomly derived participants.
LikeLike
I think that deserves a post. In the meantime, I would be fascinated to know if you think every non-religious affiliated professional care body in the western world is stupid or lying for not agreeing with you. Just think, every stupid doctor, lying social worker and stupid lying psychologist telling us that same sex couples are fit parents …
LikeLike
The reality is that those who feel that children experience loss from not having a biological connection with one or both parents and who feel that men and women offer unique and complimentary roles in child development are not welcome to the discussion. They have been banned from a voice within media as well. (One example found here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/life_on_glaads_blacklist.html) There is great pressure on “researchers” to affirm gay parenting, as is evidenced by the funding sources of some of the studies.
LikeLike
I would attend the marriage of two Hairy Nosed wombats if it promised to be a good party 😉
LikeLike
Even same sex Hairy Nosed wombats?
LikeLike
The grog would be better, and the music, so yes, with bells on!
LikeLike
Seeing that Frappaccino is trademarked and, therefore, Starbucks is the only outlet on the planet that makes them, making the best should not be difficult. Perhaps if “True Christianity,” as the Bigot seems to refer to it on her “What is the purpose of this blog” page, had trademarked the work “Marriage” we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately for the Bigot, True Christianity failed to do that and all sorts of people engage in something they call “marriage” without wondering what True Christianity would think of it. The obvious solution is to coin a new term they can trademark, Marriaccino, perhaps. Then they could exert complete control over the way that it’s used.
I actually had to look up Frappaccino, which is how I found out about the trademark business. My own favorite place for espresso drinks is Caffe Reggio on Macdougal in the Village. I swear, I’d make such a great snob if I only had money.
LikeLike
That is an excellent suggestion! They can trademark Christianheterosexualmarriage! “My friends are getting christianheterosexualmarried tomorrow.” That should stop them getting upset. And they can ban divorcees as well.
LikeLike
Hi Violet. Hope all is well with you. Haven’t stopped by your blog for a while so thanks for the opportunity. I wonder if any of your commentors bothered to read my post to gain a little context. There are three that gave responses here and only two refers to my post from your site. I would love to hear their thoughts if they choose to read the entire thing.
LikeLike
I hope they pop over for further discussion, although I thought I summarised it pretty well. Fojap has a good suggestion about trademarking your particular style of ‘Christian marriage’, so that same sex couples and divorcees are clear they’re not welcome. I seem to remember the style of the character Jesus’ sermons being more inclusive, although I could be wrong. I wonder if he did a sexual background check at that wedding where he kindly provided extra wine …
LikeLike
A scene from, Incident at Cana – the Movie strong>
Directed by Martin Scoredhotly and Liberace’s straight cousin.
Scene two.
Jesus the gay barman.
“Here we are, darlings, fizzy for the poofters, still for the straights.Okay?”
LikeLike
If I deleted comments, this one would go straight in the bucket.
LikeLike
Meany….
LikeLike
Nah, I’m just glad you stopped by. Even if your comment added nothing to the discussion and lowered the tone. 🙂
LikeLike
But this is my hallmark.
I am but a god in bandages after all….
Here’s a fun place to stop by. Lots’ of intelligent stimulating conversation.
It too has sort of gone down the crapper since I stopped by and added my six penneth. 😉
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/william-lane-craigs-case-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-2/#comment-97089
LikeLike
Oh your favourite topic/man! I’ll pop over to see what you’ve been up to after my tea.
LikeLike
I fear my presence may not be tolerated for much longer. I see somebody has already been sent to fetch the kindling and matches. 😉
LikeLike
Interesting that you think man/woman marriage is a Christian brand. Natural marriage is an institution so fundamental to the human experience that, seeing the obvious benefits that marriage brings to children and society, every major religion has endorsed it. The five major religions of the world disagree about the nature of God, the nature of man, the problem with this world, what the afterlife is, and how to get there, among other items. And yet they all have something that resembles natural marriage. Is it because they are all operating out of phobia or animus? Or is it because there is something foundational to the human experience that despite these significant differences in worldview, the major religions recognize heterosexual marriage as the natural family unit?
In terms of inclusiveness, Jesus was quite exclusive in His claim that He is the only way to God. But inclusive in that anyone can come to Him for salvation. Indeed, heaven will not be complete without a representative of “every, nation, tribe, and language.”
LikeLike
“Is it because they are all operating out of phobia or animus? Or is it because there is something foundational to the human experience that despite these significant differences in worldview, the major religions recognize heterosexual marriage as the natural family unit?”
No, it’s just that the major world religions were conceived in a time of relative ignorance. Every animal society at it’s most basic is about reproduction. It’s not amazing that basic religions tend to recognise this. As humans, we have developed a more sophisticated communication tool and with it a more complex social structure, and we have realised through observation that life doesn’t have to be as simplistic as it once appeared. We know understand that gay people actually exist. Being homosexual isn’t just a sinful lust of naturally heterosexual people, and their differences from the majority heterosexual population need not be feared (observation and evidence). They have the right to choose a life partner if they wish, even if primitive societies were unable to see this.
LikeLike
You are right about reproduction. Biology, specifically the fact that male and female must come together for the purpose of making new life, is the driving factor behind the definition of marriage in all of the major religions and cultures of the world.
LikeLike
Because if everyone is doing it must be right!! Said no moral person ever.
LikeLike
I think they are right those who said if we love gods so much, there will be none left for our brothers and sisters.
I hope these Paulines are also consistent on the other laws of the OT
LikeLike
Oh yes, in my experience they don’t eat pigs and they are generally on a mission to wipe out the descendants of Amalek. Apart from that, we need to remember there’s no OT law about same sex marriage, it’s one of there ‘I guess my god thinks this’ pronouncements so that they can feel self-satisfied about persecuting minorities. 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed! It is, for lack of a better word, very annoying and the height of hypocrisy!
LikeLike
I like your stuff, Violet. I’m a frequent debater of AskMe, because I completely disagree with her on most things. Over the year or two I’ve known her, I’ve come to respect her as a person even though her opinions are quite lame. Just wanted to stop by. Keep making that crazy Frau lady mad.
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by! You should keep posting on your blog, I’d love to have a dog blog coming up on my reader, much less stressful than the painful things Askme writes. Her brand of love/rejection is messed up and makes my blood boil, but unfortunately I don’t have the time to embroil myself in all her posts. I’ve yet to come to respect her, as I have a nagging feeling she’s playing some sort of game. But I could be wrong. Anyway, I’m glad there’s still someone else getting the alternative point of view in there – it’s too much to bear when everyone agrees with her.
LikeLike
Pingback: how safe are our children? | violetwisp