A Christian Defense for Gay Marriage, Part III

(This is Part Three of the series. To start from the beginning, click here)


III. The Church's Response to Homosexuality (Is the Church Responding to Sin Correctly?)


Let's assume, for a moment, that the Evangelical outlook on homosexuality is incontestable. That the Bible unambiguously condemns gay rights. If the Church's current approach of restricting gay rights is aimed at making a more Christian nation, I believe it's failing-- and the reason is consistency.


My favorite way to demonstrate this is to talk of gluttony. In terms of sin, both gluttony and homosexuality are exchangeable by Biblical standards. Both are considered a 'choice'. Both sins affect the soul and the body. Both sins are on the rise in America, and arguably affect marriage (certainly the effects of obesity affect marriage-- unhealthy parents that die prematurely aren't around for the sanctity of their marriages). 


In fact, the Bible is clear as day in how to handle gluttony: 
Proverbs 23:2, put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony


It doesn't get any clearer than that. Yet the church has remained mostly silent on the growing obesity epidemic in America. Pastors do not keep obese church members from leading choirs. Church membership does not include a waist line analysis. Schools do not prevent overweight kids from forming groups like they have LGBT kids. Why is this? How are two very similar sins treated so dissimilar? 


Therein lies the issue. Even if the Evangelical outlook on homosexuality was correct, their treatment of it has destroyed their authority on it. If a sin is a sin, as Evangelicals fall back on, how can they discuss gay rights over a high-calorie church luncheon?

IV. The Church and the Law (Will You Please Not Bring Up Separation of Church and State Again?)


My final argument for gay marriage rests in how we make laws. Note that I won't bring up the 'separation of church and state'. While there's certainly merit to the argument, telling a Christian that their religious views aren't relevant to lawmaking isn't particularly compelling. That said, there certainly is danger to codifying religious beliefs.


Evangelicals fear gay marriage will destroy the 'sanctity of marriage'. We've already broken down how that simply isn't the case, but let's discuss the logic of DOMA and state constitutional bans. 


Christians fundamentally believe that only Jesus can bring salvation. If this is the case, then no other religion is true. So why aren't Christians relegating the rights of other religions? Certainly a gay couple (who, by definition can't reproduce), will spawn less non-Christians than the Jewish couple down the street. Yet we do not prevent Jews from getting married. We do not prevent Muslims from visiting each other in the hospital. Why? Because the rights of others trumps the religious views of the majority. And certainly a country where people choose to be Christian produces more faithful followers.


That's why, even if homosexuality is Biblically wrong, Christians have no place preventing their marriages. We cannot become a theocracy. We do so at our peril. If Muslims became a majority, would Christians defend their right to instill Sharia law? I certainly hope not.


Conclusion


My goal with these posts is to encourage Christians to rethink their position on gay marriage. We are picking a losing fight in these nonsensical 'culture wars', and our hypocrisy is being exposed. Regardless of one's personal opinions of gay rights, restricting the real and tangible rights of others is resulting in a backlash the church cannot handle.

A Christian Defense for Gay Marriage, Part II

I. The Bible and Homosexuality (Is the Bible That Clear About Homosexuality?)


Let me start with a question to Evangelicals. Where can I find in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong? You know the Bible talks about it, but tell me the verses. No, don't google it. Off the top of your head.


Sodom and Gomorrah, maybe? Anything?


That should be the first concern Evangelicals have. If you're willing to restrict the real and tangible rights of others because the Bible says so, then you ought to have a mental list on cue of why. Not knowing is an embarrassment. 


Let's take it a step further: look up the verses, and ask yourself, "Is this really talking about two men or women desiring marriage? Or something else?" Lots of Evangelicals point to Sodom for proof of God's wrath towards gays. I question if a town's worth of men breaking into a house to gang rape angels is fundamentally the same as two women spending decades of life together.  And most verses break down the same way. Many sites, books and articles analyze these passages better than I do here, so I won't. Here's a great link. 


The challenge I'm posting here is a rather simple one: does the Bible damn homosexuality as easily as NOM says it does? I don't think so. Evangelicals simply cannot assume the Bible is so clear. And if the Bible isn't so clear on homosexuality, are Evangelicals willing to set policy on it?




II. 'The Sanctity of Marriage' (Marriage Has Always Been One Man and One Woman?)

As a Christian, I struggle with the 'sanctity of marriage'. It was a term developed to combat gay marriage, but what the heck does it mean?! And how does enabling gay marriage denigrate it? As far as I can tell, the 'sanctity of marriage' means marriage between one man, and one woman.


The typical response I've heard looks something like this: "Britney Spears got a 72 hour marriage. Rush Limbaugh has had several. Straight people are destroying marriage, why can't we have it?" While the question posted is rational, it's always felt hollow to me. Making a broken system... broker... doesn't justify gay marriage.


So let's go back to the Bible. Jesus married a woman, right? David, the man after God's own heart, didn't he only had one wife too? Of course there is Solomon, the wisest man ever. Didn't he only have one wife? Obviously the answers are no, no, and no. Major characters in the Bible did not adhere to 'one man, one woman'. So how is this definition Biblical?


Straight people have expanded the definition of marriage throughout history. Women were once property, but are now treated as equals in marriage. Isn't this a fundamental shift? Marriage used to be arranged, following the logic that marriage was for mutual benefit and child rearing. Yet we consider love to be an integral aspect of marriage now. Sounds like a fundamental shift in definition to me. The argument that gays are fundamentally altering marriage is false.


One final thought. If Evangelicals are truly concerned about the 'sanctity of marriage', then keeping gays out is a queer (pun!) place to start. It's truly damaging to the sanctity argument that constitutional bans against gay marriage pass, but ones banning divorce are never proposed.

A Christian Defense for Gay Marriage, Part I

INTRODUCTION

Earlier today an Evangelical friend questioned my support of gay marriage as a Christian. This came at the end of a rather long facebook dialog about Christian anti-gay activities, gay rights activists  and the role the church has played in gay rights.

 The part of the dialog that troubled me the most was seeing how the Christians and gay activists addressed each other. My Christian friends defended themselves against accusations of supporting hate groups. I can easily see the gay rights' remarks coming off as self-righteous. At the same time, these are a disenfranchised group. They cannot marry the person they love (and enjoy the thousands of federal and state benefits attached to marriage), largely in part of Evangelical America. How could they not be angry?

Unfortunately, I bet both sides simply end more resolute in their beliefs. This is a loosing fight for both parties. An opportunity missed.

This is the motivation behind explaining why I support gay marriage. We need to change the dialog. The Christians fall back to Bible verses that activists' simply don't believe in. The activists's respond with mockery and decrying 'hate'. This isn't productive.

Here's the plan. I've got a four-prong defense of gay marriage tailor suited to Christians:

I. The Bible and Homosexuality (Is the Bible That Clear About Homosexuality?) (I and II here)
II. 'The Sanctity of Marriage' (Marriage Has Always Been One Man and One Woman?)
III. The Church's Response to Homosexuality (Is the Church Responding to Sin Correctly?)
IV. The Church and the Law (Will You Please Not Bring Up Separation of Church and State Again?) (III and IV here)

If you think I'm relevant, pass my blog around to your friends. The self-righteousness of both groups (yes, both) needs to end. While unfair, changing hearts and minds of Christians requires patience on the part of gay rights activists. It requires challenging basic assumptions and creating dialog, not insults, hate, and martyrdom. There is room for both gay marriage and faithful Christians.

Tales of Villany: An Introduction

I working on a new project. It's called Tales of Villainy.

Extremists fascinate me. How do people who exist outside of society see themselves? How do those who perform extreme acts understand their actions? When these people become villains, they make for the most entertaining stories. Joker, not Batman, created the most compelling comic book movie. American History X. Silence of the Lambs. The Princess and the Frog.

I'm eliminating the hero altogether to tell the story of the villain. Rest assured, I don't believe myself some newfangled sociologist with a deep understanding of humanity. These stories are goofy, awkward, and (hopefully) fun.

The first Tales of Villainy tells the story of Sound Check. He was once a middle school teacher and family man. However, he's had too much of the music industry. The Black Eyed Peas. Kesha. Pitbull. He's tired of hearing the heaps of lyrical garbage being produced, and he's going to stop it.

Over the next few days, expect the first few chapters of Sound Check's story to pop up here.

A Defense for Wisconsin Republicans

It seems everyone is up-in-arms about Wisconsin.

The Republicans aren't playing fair (but ignore the runaway Democrats hiding out of state). The Governor is destroying the middle class (but ignore the multi-billion dollar deficit). The Unions are the only protections these people have (except the results of decades of union activity are questionable at best).

I'm sticking up for the Governor. I'm sticking up for the Wisconsin Republicans. The real issue here is questioning the validity of public employees having unions. Do these employees need protection? Are unions the only recourse they have? Won't we simply go back to the era of 'The Jungle' where the rich dominate and use an unprotected poor population?

No. No to all the above. Here's an excerpt of a facebook dialog I've been having:

I will challenge you on your views of which bargaining rights fall into the 'fiscal' category. Every expense that pubic employees acquire is an expense to tax payers. So any 'right' essentially does become a fiscal one. That's why the bargaining rights are limited to public employees, not unions of the entire state (we'll return to this thought in a second).

I'd also challenge you on the outcomes of this law. A lack of union power doesn't remove existing benefits (those are codified). And the state still has to fund those things that they are legally responsible for. Money cannot be taken away from school desks, because the state has laws protecting the x amount of dollars that go towards each student. Similar laws protect everything else that you're worried about. I can't overstate how important that is.

And finally to why I defend the Republicans: if you think your governor is spending too much on capitol buildings, and not enough on school desks, you can elect someone new. Don't think your public employees make enough? Elect someone new! Want to collect more taxes for schooling? Elect someone new!

The people (taxpayers!) now have the direct ability to control where their money goes, instead of a union (which, by definition, is self serving). That's why the Republicans passed this bill. That's why it's limited to public employee unions. And that's why it's a good thing.

I'm tired of the defense of unions that people adhere to. Civil employees shouldn't have them. There's no balancing mechanism with them that private companies have access to. When I went to Air Traffic Controller school, many of my teachers were current controllers on the cusp of retirement.

I was shocked to learn that by playing their cards right, many of these controllers were making pensions of $80,000 or more. They would make more in retirement than most people see working full time. And while I'm all about taking care of people who have jobs that are insanely stressful, the effect of a powerful union can be seen in all it's glory.

There's no justification for pensions like that. It's one more justification for stripping civic employee unions of their power.

Angry Birds Origins

Angry Birds: The Story.

by Monte Zerbe

Travis and Monte were on a long road trip. Travis was getting tired driving, and asked Monte to tell him a story. Monte had just pulled out his HTC Evo, and loaded up the game ‘Angry Birds’.

“Tell you a story?” Monte asked. “Alright.”

…..

Once upon a time, there was the King Pig. He was King Pig because he wore a crown, and for no other reason than he wore a crown. King Pig had many pigs in his Pigdom, whom he gave two orders: steal the birds’ eggs, and build forts.

King pig turned to the Engineer pigs and gave them the order to build four hundred twenty three forts. The Engineer pigs were not very smart, and had no formal education. They were Engineer pigs because they wore hard hats, and for no other reason than they wore hard hats.

“You will make the forts out of cement, and wood, and glass alone.” ordered King Pig. Even though the Engineer pigs weren’t very smart, they wondered the wisdom of making a fort with these materials. King Pig didn’t want them to use nails, or glue, or metal.

“King pig,” the Engineer pigs asked, “Are you sure you want us to only use cement, and wood, and glass? That doesn’t seem very stable. Besides, glass ceilings are limiting to minorities.”

“I do not care, for I am King Pig. And I am King Pig because I wear the crown, and for no other reason than I wear the crown!” So the Engineer Pigs went to work building forts of cement, and wood, and glass.

In the meantime, the other pigs stole all of the birds’ eggs. Most of the eggs were regular ones, but occasionally the pigs found gold eggs. They hid those eggs where only the most adventurous, brave, and suicidal birds would find them.

When the birds realized what all of their eggs were stolen, they became very angry. The Angry Birds formed lobbyist groups, and political action committees. The Angry Birds went to the government wanting their eggs back.

But the government was no help. Due to a complex tax code that the Angry Birds had originally voted for, the pigs used loopholes to legally steal the Angry Birds’ eggs. So the Angry Birds formed a coalition  called the Many Angry Ballish Birds, or MABB.

With the help of facebook and twitter and slingshots, the newly organized Angry Birds organized themselves to take down the pigs. At first it was just the red birds, but as other birds saw their success, they too joined the Angry Birds. Soon the yellow birds joined, then the blue birds! Even the old codger big red birds came to help out.

The Angry Birds destroyed fort after fort. Glass shattered. Hard hats flew. Cement and wood crumbled down on pig after pig. Eventually the Angry Birds destroyed all four hundred twenty three forts. They surrounded King Pig, demanding justice.

Little red birds suggested they show mercy on the fallen king. The yellow birds wanted to cook King Pig. The white birds wanted to incarcerate him, but the blue birds were split on all three. Eventually all the Angry Birds concluded only one solution would work: a government with pork is bad, so the Pig King must forever be silenced.

Unfortunately for the Angry Birds, they didn’t understand that the king was only king because he wore the crown, and for no other reason than he wore the crown. While they ate bacon and ribs, the crown sat idly next to them…