Yup. And I luff this quote: "Baboon psychology has been memorably summarized: see the stranger, fear the stranger, hate the stranger, kill the stranger." Sounds like lots of people I know. Ooo-oo-ooo-ah-ah-aah!!! :P
Yes, the fundamentalists often do act exactly like the evolutionary forebears which they deny. Thankfully, not all of humanity acts like neanderthal's. If they did, I would scream. Still and all, I completely agree with the letter.
wow, congrats on posting that! of course.. not all religious people are like that, but speaking as someone who has a gay brother, everything in that article was sooooooo familiar i can't even believe it. I hate people like that. If being gay is a sin it's not for other people to judge .. if there is a god its his job and no one on this earth has the right to be so judgemental of something they can't even begin to understand.
Reading that article I definitely feel for that woman. Many children are picked on, abused and made to feel worthless regardless of their sexual orientation. Although I can certainly feel for her as a mother, watching her son suffer, I can't agree with her conclusions which seem to be aimed at and blaming the religious for her misery.
Sadly intolerance for the religious is growing and becoming more and more acceptable and vocal day by day. It amazes me that this emerging trend seems to be ok, even payback for perceived wrongs. Sure, bigots will hide behind whatever they can find to shield themselves from blame for their own bigotry. Blame the bigot, not the religion or the group he is "claiming" to follow.
Hate crimes and abuse of homosexuals is against my religion and most others that I am familiar with. But that does not mean we are required to abandon our beliefs to appease those who have been hurt wrongly. A common thread seems to be "love us, love our agenda". There is no use pretending there are no agendas. I believe marriage is a sacred institution meant to be between a man and a woman. Does that make me hateful? I don't think so.
Simply "being gay" is not a sin. Further, I don't consider any gay who succumbs to his desires any more of a sinner than me. But let's face it. I sin; I call it sin; I have remorse; I try to do better. Each of us is blessed with many gifts and shouldered with many burdens. They are not the same for everyone, but we all have them.
No, it doesn't make you hateful. It just means your perspective is different from mine. What the letter-writer and I both are sick of is those people who do harass GLBTs, the companies who fire their best employees after they come out, for the world's Marilyn Musgraves and Aaron McKinneys and Laura Schlessingers, for the people who believe homosexuality is a big lie designed to attract attention. As I have said before, I do not believe that all Christians are hateful. I can't stand it when people hold that attitude. What I hate is seeing people corrupt a religion based on love and hope and sacrifice in order to justify hate.
And for all the talk I hear about the "gay agenda," I have yet to hear a solid definition of it. Perhaps you could enlighten me? "Love us, love our 'agenda'" is not what I want. It's not what most of us want. We want people to accept us as human beings with the same rights and priveleges that would be accorded us if we were straight. We want to be known as strong and weak, foolish and wise, generous and stingy, thinking, feeling, loving, individuals. If I fall in love with a woman and am lucky enough for the feeling to be mutual, I want to be able to hold hands in public without being shouted at on the street. If our feelings run deep enough, I want to be able to pay taxes jointly, to adopt children, to live as a couple. I want the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes commited against GLBTs. And even the last one seems too much to ask in the current political environment.
Like I said, people hide behind religion to justify their hatreds. They are not truly following the religion nor do they speak for it. So I don't believe that it fair to say that they "corrupt the religion". The religion isn't corrupt.
As far as "gay agenda" goes. To say that a group that is lobbying heavily for gay marriage doesn't have an agenda is plainly false. Agendas change constantly depending on circumstances.
Basically, what "love us, love our agenda" means is that people who disagree with gays views are portrayed as bigots, homophobes, etc.
I don't agree with the current "agenda" to have gay marriage legalized and accepted. That is not to say that some of the rights, like visiting your partner in the hospital, being allowed to speak for a person who has requested you to do so and other rights, priviledges, etc, shouldn't be looked at for unmarried individuals both straight and gay who are seeking them.
We have clearly different views and that is not how I base my friendship with you. I see you as a strong, wise, generous, smart, thinking, feeling, loving individual and I wish you much happiness in your life.
Thank you Hally. It's good to see that someone can disagree with my views without calling me... what was it? Oh, it's not worth repeating. (Got into a rather heated arguement a few months ago because someone said that the FMA if enacted wouldn't be discriminatory because it allows GLBTs to marry, just not each other.) It's also good to see that you favor allowing couples hospital visitation and the like.
Yeah, I see what you mean by the "agenda" part now. Thanks for clarifying. :) And I agree that in the US, that is currently the gay agenda. What ticks me off is the idea of "The Gay Agenda" in which "the queers will take over the world." (direct quote from my mom's cousin... and he's infinitely more open-minded than his father).
I'm sorry if I came across as angry at you earlier, because I'm not. *hugs Hally*
BTW, methinks we had another minor miscommunication. When I talk of people who have corrupted their religion, I don't mean people who make the religion as a whole corrupt. I mean it on a more personal level: people who claim to follow a religion but use said religion to circumvent the actual teachings of the religion. Muslim extremists are a good example.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hopefulnebula
no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 05:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 06:24 pm (UTC)Re: forebears
Date: 2004-06-11 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 09:38 pm (UTC)Re: :D
Date: 2004-06-11 10:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 10:54 pm (UTC)Sadly intolerance for the religious is growing and becoming more and more acceptable and vocal day by day. It amazes me that this emerging trend seems to be ok, even payback for perceived wrongs. Sure, bigots will hide behind whatever they can find to shield themselves from blame for their own bigotry. Blame the bigot, not the religion or the group he is "claiming" to follow.
Hate crimes and abuse of homosexuals is against my religion and most others that I am familiar with. But that does not mean we are required to abandon our beliefs to appease those who have been hurt wrongly. A common thread seems to be "love us, love our agenda". There is no use pretending there are no agendas. I believe marriage is a sacred institution meant to be between a man and a woman. Does that make me hateful? I don't think so.
Simply "being gay" is not a sin. Further, I don't consider any gay who succumbs to his desires any more of a sinner than me. But let's face it. I sin; I call it sin; I have remorse; I try to do better. Each of us is blessed with many gifts and shouldered with many burdens. They are not the same for everyone, but we all have them.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 11:18 pm (UTC)And for all the talk I hear about the "gay agenda," I have yet to hear a solid definition of it. Perhaps you could enlighten me? "Love us, love our 'agenda'" is not what I want. It's not what most of us want. We want people to accept us as human beings with the same rights and priveleges that would be accorded us if we were straight. We want to be known as strong and weak, foolish and wise, generous and stingy, thinking, feeling, loving, individuals. If I fall in love with a woman and am lucky enough for the feeling to be mutual, I want to be able to hold hands in public without being shouted at on the street. If our feelings run deep enough, I want to be able to pay taxes jointly, to adopt children, to live as a couple. I want the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes commited against GLBTs. And even the last one seems too much to ask in the current political environment.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 11:51 pm (UTC)As far as "gay agenda" goes. To say that a group that is lobbying heavily for gay marriage doesn't have an agenda is plainly false. Agendas change constantly depending on circumstances.
Basically, what "love us, love our agenda" means is that people who disagree with gays views are portrayed as bigots, homophobes, etc.
I don't agree with the current "agenda" to have gay marriage legalized and accepted. That is not to say that some of the rights, like visiting your partner in the hospital, being allowed to speak for a person who has requested you to do so and other rights, priviledges, etc, shouldn't be looked at for unmarried individuals both straight and gay who are seeking them.
We have clearly different views and that is not how I base my friendship with you. I see you as a strong, wise, generous, smart, thinking, feeling, loving individual and I wish you much happiness in your life.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-12 12:01 am (UTC)Yeah, I see what you mean by the "agenda" part now. Thanks for clarifying. :) And I agree that in the US, that is currently the gay agenda. What ticks me off is the idea of "The Gay Agenda" in which "the queers will take over the world." (direct quote from my mom's cousin... and he's infinitely more open-minded than his father).
I'm sorry if I came across as angry at you earlier, because I'm not. *hugs Hally*
no subject
Date: 2004-06-13 02:28 pm (UTC)