20% Friendly

The other day I went card shopping (yes, occasionally I have to be nice). After selecting the card that met the requisite balance of snarkiness, charm and humor, I noticed this on the back of the card:

"20% post-consumer friendly."

...20% post-consumer friendly? That seemed like a poor choice of words. I can appreciate a spin on a common phrase, but this was an improvement over '20% post-consumer product'? I think not. To demonstrate why, I decided to see what '20% ________ friendly' looked like in other applications.

Do you think they're all that friendly?

'20% Homework Friendly'

"This assignment only has pictures of stick figures and dinosaurs." "But I wrote the date and my name!"

'20%  Environmentally Friendly'

"Instead of 12mpg, you'll get a full 14.4 miles per gallon!"

'20%  Reality Friendly'

Transformers 3: "I've been slamming into this entirely metal robot for several minutes without a single bruise!"

'20% Gay Friendly'

'Michelle Bachmann, 2012 "I have gay friends."

Re: The Abortion Pledge

This is making rounds on the web (or, at least the parts of the internet I read). While I admire anyone who calls out the recent Republican push to sign any/all/lots of ridiculous/over the top/irrational/meaningless pledges, I do not admire the logic inherent in the pledge. I found it was a great example of how the 'pro-choice' ideology works. Instead of picking it apart, I thought I'd make a 'Pro-Life' Pledge. Here goes:

The 'Pro-Life' Pledge:

1. Women* should have access to abortion in cases of rape and health of the mother.

2. Women have the right to choose their sexual partners, to say no, and choose when they're ready to start having consensual sex.

3. Women should have access to contraceptives, and the information to properly use them.

4. Women should have the choice to, or not to, use contraceptives, and use them knowing they're not 100% effective.

5. 'Pro-life' means that 'personhood' begins at fertilization; or, personhood is the capacity to feel pain, think consciously, rationally, and live independently or have the expectation to do so in the future.

6. 'Pro-choice' is a misnomer; my 'pro-life' stance offers all the same choices as 'pro-choice' save one.

7. The 'pro-life' stance has merit without discussing God, religion, or imposing any but the most humanistic of morality on others.

8. While abortion is in most cases inexcusable, I will never win minds with poor rhetoric, offensive language, or attacks on others.

* I say 'women', but in reality I very much mean 'women and their sexual partners'. Since the abortion debate centers on women, that's the terminology I use. Reality is, men are just as responsible for the pregnancy as women. Don't let my language be some sort of cop-out for men, or a hang up on the 'pledge' itself.

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.

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.