Why are gay people so villified by so many Christians? I mean, I understand that most Christians think that homosexuality is a sin because it says it is in the Bible. Whether I want to believe that or not is irrevelant. God is the one who gets to decide what is a sin, and the Bible is clear on this issue. It calls homosexuality an abomination. (But then again, the word abomination is all over the old testament and it also says that it’s an abomination to eat shellfish, but, whatever). My point is that it’s just one sin. One sin of MANY. Why is it seen as the worst sin of all? It doesn’t say that it is anywhere in the Bible. In fact, what it says is that all sins are equal in God’s eyes. So that means that if you lie or commit adultery or commit murder or have a homosexual relationship… they are all weighted the same to God. That little white lie you told this morning that made your wife think those grey slacks didn’t make her look fat? Yeah, that’s the same as homosexuality to Jesus.
The Bible does lump all sexual sin together. Sexual sin is against your own body and your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. But whenever homosexuality is mentioned, adultery is also mentioned, and Jesus said that if you lust after a woman that’s the same as commiting adultery! Mind blowing, huh? “Thou shalt not commit homosexual acts” is not one of the 10 commandments, but ”Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” IS. Heck, homosexuality didn’t even make the top 10! (That was a joke, by the way…)
It says in the Bible that ALL fall short of the glory of God. No one can get to heaven except through Jesus. That our very best is just rags to God. It doesn’t say that everyone is a sinner, yes, but that God ESPECIALLY hates fags so you should too.
I am a heterosexual. In my life that fact is really low down on my “subjects to discuss with people at cocktail parties” list. On a scale of 1-100, it’s probably about a 3 on the scale of how I am rated or perceived. So why are gay people perceived as if their sexuality is about 98% of who they are? I’m not saying this well… Ok, many Christians judge homosexuals solely by their sin. Oh, they are a homosexual. They’re SINNERS, therefore they don’t deserve the same rights we enjoy. Meanwhile, this same Christian is having an affair on his wife, he’s lusting after his secretary, he’s perusing porn on the internet every night (but it’s hetero porn so it’s ok), they lie, they cheat, they abuse their kids, they steal… why are they not judged by their sins too?
Imagine if we all had to wear our sins for the world to see. Adulterer. Addict. Deviant. Liar. I wouldn’t enjoy being known only by my sin and having the entire rest of my life ignored as if it didn’t matter. You might love children and animals. You might have a kind heart and a willing spirit, but I’m afraid you can’t be around my family and we really don’t want you in our church, and you don’t deserve to get married because of (fill in the blank…). Sorry. SUCKS to be you, eh?
Is it because we try to hide our sins and homosexuals either can’t or don’t? That the very fact that they are having a homosexual relationship kind of shoves it in our faces? I don’t know. (But I have no problem givin’ you my theory!) I think it’s entirely possible that judgmental Christians are up in arms because many of these homosexual SINNERS won’t even admit, in fact don’t seem to have the slightest inkling or care that they ARE sinning in the first place! Nor will they listen when we try to tell them they’re damned! And do they have to be so… flamboyant? Honestly…
I am not really bringing this subject up out of the blue. I have had this post mostly written since election day. I’ve discussed my thoughts with people far smarter and more pious and Biblically smart than me just to make sure I wasn’t going off half cocked in a completely wrong direction. I’m fairly sure I’m standing on firm Biblical ground when I say, “Come on, Christians! Walk the walk here!”
I was appalled about what happened in California and Florida (and Arizona?) on election day. Here in Florida a horrible proposition passed that takes away the rights of gay couples (and hetero couples who aren’t married) to have their relationship recognized. It says marriage is one man to one woman, and no other partnership of any kind will have recognized rights. It got me to thinking. Why is this country gleefully and systematically denying gay couples the right to get married? How does it harm me if my gay friends marry? How does it harm society? How does it harm anyone? How does it make our society better to write bigotry into the state constitution? (or, God forbid, the federal one!) I think it makes it so much worse. When you are willing to take away the rights of a minority because they are small in number and you don’t agree with their lifestyle, then you set yourselves up for the same kind of treatment someday when YOU’RE the minority on an issue.
I do think it’s okay for churches to refuse to marry gay couples if it’s against the tenents of their faith. As long as the pastor also refuses to marry heterosexual couples who are living together before marriage (hey, sexual sin is sexual sin. Why recognize one and not the other?) But I don’t think it’s ok for a Justice of the Peace to refuse to marry a gay couple because their jobs aren’t faith based. There will always be churches who won’t marry gay couples, but there will also be churches who will. If getting married in a church is important to a gay couple, it’s definitely possible to find one who will perform it. But it has to be legalized first!
Diversity is what makes this country so great. When did gay people become this country’s moral scapegoats?
The Bible says not to judge. That we are to leave the judging to God. It’s VERY clear about this. Instead of being afraid of gay people, I think churches should embrace them. God loves gay people the same as he does heterosexuals. If I was the only person left on earth, Jesus would have still died on the cross for my sins. And if your gay neighbor was the only person left on earth, Jesus would have died on the cross to save him too. If a gay person is saved, I believe that he is going to heaven even if he is a practicing homosexual for his entire life. Because we are ALL sinners. It is our very nature, and Jesus paid the price for that sin. Yes, we are supposed to repent, but everyone has sin in their lives that they cannot overcome and if you are saved, you are saved in spite of it.
If you leave the judging to God, you are free to make friends with all kinds of people. You are free to bring folks to Christianity, and they are more receptive to it because they don’t sense that you have an agenda to change them. If God wants folks to change, then HE’S perfectly capable of changing them. HE can convict them. It is not up to us to judge their behavior. As Christians, it’s up to us to love people and to bring them the gospel.
Then let God sort ‘em out.
34 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 24, 2008 at 9:26 am
Shari
I don’t have an answer to your question, but this was a good post to read. I doubt the people that need to read it will.
A couple of weeks ago, Keith Obermann did a really good closing statement about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY). He didn’t rant like he usually does, just calmly asked the same things you did.
One comment I saw on another comic was that government should stay out of marriage, just issue civil unions and let the religious institutions decide what they want to sanctify.
November 24, 2008 at 10:36 am
Lyle Gentry
Great post! I pretty much agree with you 100%.
I think the reason so many Christians are up in arms over the gay thing is because they see that lifestyle as a direct affront to “God’s Plan” or as being “unnatural”. The fact that it’s mentioned specifically in the Bible as a no-no just adds fuel to the fire.
A lot of folks believe that God wants us to pair up with a member of the opposite sex (incidently, the Bible doesn’t say one word about polygamy being a sin–go ahead and check, it’s completely silent on the subject), get married and be fruitful and multiply. Not only does this arrangement please God, but it also has all kinds of benefits for maintaining a stable society.
So, there you go. Many people see homosexuals as being in a state of rebellion against God’s will AND also a threat to tradtional societal structure.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with gays and lesbians getting married–but obviously a lot of people do. I think they feel their values are threatened or under siege. They’re afraid the government is going to come into their place of worship and force them to conform to the state’s values instead of their own.
It may not be a rational fear but that doesn’t make it any less real.
November 24, 2008 at 10:42 am
Leslie
I have a theory about homosexuality or maybe just a ponderment. I wonder if God originally created gay people as a means of natural species control. That homosexuality is not a case of some errant gene or defect as some so-called advocates like to say, but that God had a specific reason. And the reason why it became an “abomination,” was during the Exodus of the Jews out of Egypt God wanted the Jews to maintain their numbers as they entered hostile territory and since the Ancient Jews were a lot like my two year old, God could not ask them nicely to keep their numbers up, he had to make homosexuality a sin. This continued throughout the centuries until Christ. Now I go through the liturgy and print it in the bulletins for my pastor and congregationand I have read the Gospels many many times and do you know that I do not recall Jesus saying anything against the gay people, I bet he had some in his posse.
Under the age of grace I beleive the rules changed. Remember in Acts when Peter was going to meet the Roman Centurian Cornelius? He had a vision of God offering him all kinds of food forbidden by Jewish law. When he reufsed God rather indignantly repeated, “Do not call unclean what I have made clean.” God made us clean through Jesus’s grace. Under the age of grace we have no right to judge. As long as they are following the two greatest commandments “Love thy God” and “Love thy neighbor,” we can’t touch them. We shouldn’t not want to either. That is just my little theory. There is no way to know until we die what is for sure, but the point is, we should not call God’a creation junk, what he made clean, we should not call “dirty.”
November 24, 2008 at 10:51 am
Leslie
Of course that works for Judeo-Christians, but I have been told that not just Christians hate homosexuals, and a lot of that has to do with human rights. Anywhere a woman can get shot for accidentally showing ankle, I would bet would be a place that lesbianism is very much outlawed. It is about control, controlling the masses.
There is also the pack mentality. In the animal world anything out of the standard norm would be either killed or exiled from the pack. Homosexuality is not “normal,” and therfore whether we realize it or not, we act the same way as the animals do. We can’t kill when we want so we do the next best thing, ostracize, intimidate, and belittle. We have come so far haven’t we?
November 24, 2008 at 10:52 am
Leslie
My first one I accidentally did a double negative what I meant was We should not want to either. FRaudian slip!
November 24, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Libertarian
The simple reason many supposed Christians get so up in arms over homosexuality is, because it is not a sin they are tempted to do. People don’t like to talk about pride or gossip or overeating, because those are sins they are guilty of it, and it hurts their false pride to admit they are a horrible sinner. Sure they will say they know they are sinners, but they certainly don’t want to talk about their particular, individual sins. So instead they pick sins that they are tempted about, like homosexuality, and try to falsely build themselves up by pretending like they are better because they are tempted to that sin.
I think many people who call themselves Christian, are clueless about what the Bible teaches.
But there are true & knowledgable Christians, who understand, who don’t consider homosexuality any worse than their own sins.
–As long as the pastor also refuses to marry heterosexual couples who are living together before marriage (hey, sexual sin is sexual sin. Why recognize one and not the other?)–
Well, the idea is the pastor is getting them to stop sinning by marrying them (although many pastors won’t.)
November 24, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Ted Seeber
For me, there are at LEAST four worse sins related to sexuality than homosexuality: Adultery, Divorce, pre-marital sex, and failing to treat sex as primarily for procreation.
All of these are about HETEROsexual couples.
Homosexuality is related to that last bit however. Loosely, anyway.
Oh, and what I’m really against in all the gay marriage laws is putting property before procreation. Same thing I’m against in pro-choice laws. So I guess, in my mind, I put the active homosexual on the same level as I do the abortionist, slightly better reasons for sin than the divorced.
And I’m all for Courage, the young homosexual Catholic group that encourages celebacy, and I’m almost as equally for Dignity, the young homosexual Catholic group that encourages monogamy. Both enjoy some support from the Vatican.
November 24, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Ted Seeber
Leslie: On your theory- Jesus may not have had any gay people in his original crowd, but he had at least one among his followers after his death in the New Testament: Saul of Tarsus, renamed Paul. I’m a Catholic, so I can’t quote you the exact verse, but Paul did claim he remained unmarried due to certain “unnatural” tendencies that plagued him, and so choose to stay celebate. Well, that and he expected the return of Christ a LOT earlier than 2000 years later, so the question was with the world ending so soon, what was the reason to continue to procreate?
November 24, 2008 at 1:46 pm
norm
I’ve been wondering about a thing….
Has gay marriage in Canada destroyed the sanctity of marriage throughout the world ? Are straight marriages in the U.S. falling apart as a result?
If not…maybe it’s because it’s in Canada and not here.
But, then would a gay marriage in California destroy marriage in Utah?
If not, then would a gay marriage down the block destroy a hetero marriage next door?
How can someone else’s marriage have anything to do with yours?
If I had to run around checking on “The State of Marriage” to see how my wife and I were getting along….I think we’d have bigger problems than weather or not Bob and Phil were tying the knot.
November 24, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Kate
Or maybe Paul chose to keep himself celibate because he believed God’s word when it said homosexuality was a sin and he wanted to not sin. It may not have had anything to do with procreation and if Paul had “unnatural” tendencies, procreation wouldn’t have had anything to do with his choice to remain celibate, anyhow. I believe that if Paul had homosexual desires, he chose to not indulge them out of a choice to not sin.
Regarding polygamy, it IS brought up in the bible repeatedly in the Old Testament where there is extensive discussion about men and their multiple wives & children conceived through those multiple wives. Lyle is correct ~ there is no mention of polygamy being a sin in the Old Testament. However, God was very clear in the New Testament in his directive that a man & a woman should cleave unto one another ~ and to cleave is to become one. I don’t believe a man can cleave (become one) with 4 women or that a woman can give herself wholeheartedly to 3 men. So while the bible doesn’t state polygamy is a sin, I do think God made it clear that His desire is for a man and a woman to be united together and not a man with many women (or vice versa).
Karen, you know I agree with what you wrote. A person’s sexuality shouldn’t be what defines them any more than the color of their skin. I also think it’s possible to love a person without approving of what they do. As a parent, I love my children, but I don’t always approve of what they choose to do. That doesn’t mean I shun them or humiliate them or put them down. Love doesn’t equal acceptance.
And yes, I do think it’s a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, but I am not going to hate a person because they’re gay, nor am I going to shun them and say they’re going to hell. Only God knows a person’s heart & only He can judge the contents thereof. I feel I can judge insofar as stating what God has said is wrong/right, but ultimately we all are called to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and that is what I try to do. As you said, sin is sin… and like you, I don’t understand why homosexuality is considered THE worst sin out there.
Really good, thought-provoking post.
November 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Karen
I think one of the reasons homosexuality is such a high profile sin is that, well, there are gay activists who pretty much push homosexuality in others’ faces, so to speak. I once had a coworker who was homosexual. He liked to relate his “wild nights” partying, with graphic details, and when I said, “You know, I really don’t need to hear about this,” he’d get offended and tell me to “lighten up”. The reality is I don’t want to hear about ANYBODY’s sex life, straight or gay. Most of the gay people I have met just adore telling me about how wonderful their sex lives are. Because they are not mainstream, I think they identify themselves by their sexual orientation, in a reaction against the mainstream.
Then there are the Gay Pride parades, with the transvestites and other wonderfully dressed individuals. I wouldn’t want to see that in my town, just as I wouldn’t want to see a bunch of straight people dressed weirdly and flaunting sexuality in public. To me sex is a private issue, straight or gay.
Personally I believe homosexual sex acts are a sin, just as heterosexual sex acts out of wedlock are a sin. I have had friends who were living together with their fiances, or boyfriends, and I never shunned them, but they knew I believed their behavior was sinful. We are still good friends.
November 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Kate
Good point, Norm. I agree with you.
And Libertarian, I agree with you, too, that people get haughty about sins that they, themselves, are not tempted by. It’s easy to judge someone as a total loser for their excessive drinking habits when you, yourself, can’t stand the taste of alcohol & have never understood the urge to drink.
November 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm
norm
…And another thing.
I’m afraid the “no on 8″ people here in CA made a tactical error in trying to focus on the defence gay marriage.
I think it’s absurd (or worse) to tell gay people they can’t get married, but to motivate the voters, I think the bigger picture should have been presented.
This was a proposition that allowed one group of people to take away established rights from another group of people….just because group “A” was bigger than group “B”
That sets an insanely scary precedent…
November 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Kate
Karen, you hit the nail on the head for me, too ~ sex is a private issue, regardless of orientation, and I don’t need to hear about ANYONE’s sex life (well, except for yours, of course! ROTFL ~~~ KIDDING!!! Don’t smack me! LOL).
Seriously, I do think that’s a big part of the reason people are uncomfortable about homosexuality. Because a person’s sexuality shouldn’t be THE defining “thing” about them… and with gay people, it often is. Instead of being a “tall, blond, tennis-playing, computer-programming, sushi-eating man”, it’s a “tall, blond, tennis-playing, computer-programming, sushi-eating homosexual”. Why does the sexual orientation need to be part of the description? I guess I might be missing something important since I’m not gay, but that’s the question that I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer to.
November 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm
norm
Sorry….another thing (sorry, I get worked up about this)
Karen, I know everyone’s experiences are different, but none of my gay friends or co-workers (quite a few over the years) have ever talked much, if at all, about their sex lives.
But my hereto co-workers…will go on and on about the girl down the hall and what she’s like in bed and what she looks like naked and……well…you get the point.
And, if a gay person goes over the top and starts dancing in a g-string in a parade…Imagine being repressed…all pent up, dealing with fear, hatred and denying who you are to others and even to yourself and then imagine feeling free enough to come out and be who you are….or feeling like you’ve had enough, and you refuse to hide any more.
Either way, I could see it.
But, as I said, most gay people I know are pretty low key…..but that’s just my personal experience.
November 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Ted Seeber
Norm- a part of the “California vs Utah” and “Canada vs the United States” thing is that the Supreme Court of the United States has been *extremely* liberal in it’s interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and full faith and credit between the states in the past. The fear is that if a state can’t unilaterally cut off trade with Burma out of protest of their civil rights violations due to the interstate commerce clause, they’ll be forced to accept a Californicator gay marriage license into their community as well.
A baseless fear, I should think, but, it is a fear nonetheless. Similar to this is the fear of Catholic Bishops that they’d be personally *forced* by state law to officiate at gay marriages- thus the giving of $2 million out of church coffers to California’s Yes on Prop 8 committee.
November 24, 2008 at 3:06 pm
norm
Karen,
Ooops, I know you said “too much information” is too much be it straight or gay….so, sorry If I went off as if you hadn’t made that point.
Ted,
I was moreso trying to say a gay marriage shouldn’t affect a straight marriage weather it’s in another country or down the street…but maybe I tried to be too cute or clever in the way I tried to make my point.
November 24, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Ted Seeber
Norm- you’re right on that one. But the point is, gays already had the right to marry- just not the right of *civil* marriage, which is a different beast than *sacramental* marriage to begin with.
Civil marriage is about getting a bunch of economic and tax benefits by combining economic households.
Sacaramental marriage is about love, honor, and combining two souls.
Completely different things.
Both were created to encourage procreation- and stability in raising children, but from different standpoints (economic/spiritual).
A HUGE part of the gay marriage issue is the fear of combining the two- of forcing the state to accept just anybody’s idea of a sacramental marriage (and there are some very strange ideas out there- weddings to pets or inanimate objects or whatever), and of the State forcing their views on religion (which I think the first amendment should handle just fine, without having to write a given definition of marriage into the constitution).
November 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Karen
Norm–
Thanks for noticing that yes, I think too much information applies to straight people as well.
As for the hypothetical woman who finally feels free enough to dance in a g-string in front of God and everybody….well, then she should not complain when she is “defined” by her sexuality, because she’s putting it out there in public. There is a way to “come out” to your friends and family without standing half-naked on a float.
I think common decency applies to everyone. I honestly don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, as long as there are only willing adults involved. I don’t need to hear about it. I don’t want my kids to be hearing about it, or seeing it on the streets.
November 24, 2008 at 5:19 pm
norm
Karen,
Fair enough.
Ted, I may be the wrong one to talk about this…I figure, anything between consenting adults is their business (which rules out dogs, children, drugged people…etc.)
And if it’s all for kids and the family…can infertile people marry?
Or really old people?
It’s legal for a gay man to marry a woman isn’t it?
November 24, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Ted Seeber
Norm:
Ted, I may be the wrong one to talk about this…I figure, anything between consenting adults is their business (which rules out dogs, children, drugged people…etc.)
We’ll see if that HTML tag works here. Agreed, but that’s NOT what gay marriage is asking for. Gay marriage is asking for their private business between consenting adults to be rubber stamped by the GOVERNMENT and given certain privileges that have historically been used by the government to encourage child raising. That’s something entirely different.
And if it’s all for kids and the family…can infertile people marry?
Or really old people?
It’s legal for a gay man to marry a woman isn’t it?
Now here’s the hard part- are you talking sacramental or civil marriage? For instance, really old people have a significant problem with second marriages in the United States, where they can lose part of their retirement benefits by getting a civil marriage. They can, however, have a sacramental wedding, if they can find somebody to perform it- and that person just might be them if they’ve got a theological degree from the Church of the Subgenius. It’s perfectly legal to have any kind of sacramental marriage that you want.
But if you want the benefits of CIVIL marriage, well, the requirements of that vary from state to state- and in some states, if an infertile couple marries, the marriage can be annulled for “lack of consumation”. Same with a gay man marrying a woman. Same with really old people, but once again, those retirement benefits get in the way (my non-Catholic father-in-law is a good instance; he’s “living in sin” at the moment, due to a combination of Social Security benefits, being a widower, and his significant other having gone through a really bad divorce that could and likely would attach his savings).
So like Karen said- keeping it in their bedroom is one thing, flaunting it in our faces by asking ALL the rest of society to give them a tax break for it is something else.
Now having said that, I see infertile couples marrying and divorces as being a MUCH bigger problem than homosexuals marrying, but it’s all part of the same slippery slope.
November 24, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Ted Seeber
Ok, “Quote” tags don’t work. Hope you can all understand my above post.
November 24, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Lyle Gentry
Being raised a hard-core protestant (American Baptist), I never believed in that line about “sex is for procreation only”.
In my mind, sex is a gift from God bestowed upon married people. If the Good Lord happens to bless your sexual union with a child then great! If not, well you can always try again and see what happens.
November 25, 2008 at 2:46 am
clearbluewatercomic
Wow… what an interesting bunch of comments. Let me see if I can catch up.
Shari, I’ll have to watch the Keith Olberman thing. I agree with your last paragraph. That might work best so that things are fair in this country.
Lyle, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s an irrational fear, but maybe people don’t see it that way. Which is so sad.
Leslie, that is an interesting theory. One I haven’t heard before and one I’ll have to give some thought to. Thanks! And when you talk about the pack mentality, I got chills at the truth of that statement.
Libertarian, Great point! I wish I’d thought of it. Yes, it’s very easy to be smug about sins that you aren’t tempted by. Our pastor was saying a few weeks ago that there’s a verse in the bible that forbids eating bats. He’s living in victory! That’s a sin that he will NEVER need to worry about. Funny, but it makes a good point.
Ted, I will get to you in a seperate post. But I did want to mention that I’d never heard that Paul might be gay. THAT is an interesting theory and I want to look into that a bit more.
Norm, all good points. I too don’t how anyone else’s marriage (whether a gay or a straight couple) has ANY bearing on the state of MY marriage.
Kate, I agree. I know you are supposed to love the sinner hate the sin, and I hear that all the time in regard to gay people. But what folks forget to take into account, is that the gay person can love the sinner, hate the sin (whatever your sin is or my sin is) right back at us. This wasn’t directed right at you, but I wanted to make this point. Oh, and you DO realize that you were not talking to me when you were talking to Karen, right? I come up as clearbluewatercomic, and I thought you were getting awfully friendly with Karen (a stranger to you) about her sex life!
Just teasing, (but it really wasn’t me!)
Karen, I agree with you that sex, whether gay or straight, should be a private matter. If your sex life is good or bad, plentiful or sad, I don’t really want to hear about it, but, I LOVE the gay pride parades. We lived in the bay area for years and it’s a wonderful celebration, and I understand the need for it. I think it’s letting people who are oppressed feel like they are okay and normal, and it bothers the very people who oppress them. Win/win! I don’t think that’s probably the majority opinion here, but it’s how I feel. I think children can understand a lot of things about a lot of topics without being wounded for life and without it changing thier own morals. At least I’ve found that to be the truth with my own kids.
Norm, I just wanted you to know (in case you didn’t) that Karen is not me, though I agree with some of what she wrote. Your last three questions? Yes, yes and yes!
Lyle: AMEN!
November 25, 2008 at 2:56 am
clearbluewatercomic
Ted, Ted, Ted… where to start?
I’ve never heard of either Courage or Dignity (though I’m not Catholic) but they both sound nice.
…I was planning on commenting more, but I just read through all of your comments and I don’t think we hold the same views on marriage. I don’t think marriage and sex are mostly for procreation. I think that’s a big benefit, but not the number one rule. It’s ok to have a difference of opinion though, and as always, thanks for sharing your perspective.
November 25, 2008 at 3:19 am
Kate
Oops! Karen (not CBW Karen), I’m sorry! I saw the name & thought I was teasing my best friend, not a complete stranger!
All right… I will endeavor to remember that “my” Karen is “clearbluewatercomic”.
Again, sorry for my mistake!
Oh, and clearbluewater Karen? You’re so right that homosexuals can hate my sins while still loving me. It’s definitely a 2-way street there.
November 25, 2008 at 4:03 am
Colleen Sheehy
A lot of the so-called “homosexual agenda”, at least here in New Jersey, has more to do with property rights, and privileges, than it has to do with sexuality. As a sinner myself, I figure I don’t have any right to go calling names, and sex between consenting adults belongs in the bedroom where it’s no one else’s business! I’m more concerned with protecting kids from pedophiles right now (Incidentally, the majority of pedophiles self-identify as straight!)
The whole privilege and property thing is another matter – some folks could benefit from a simplification of inheritance law, so long as proper safeguards were in place to protect the innocent from con artists and scammers. It should not be a “gay”issue only – think about single elderly straights, adopted people, foster kids, etc. Same holds true for things like hospital and prison visiting rights.
I will draw the line at insurance and benefit coverage, however, and purely for economic reasons. Do we know of many people who are overjoyed with their current benefits package? How many people do we know who have NO benefits? I can’t get my 26-year old schizophrenic son covered by my husband’s benefits, and I have a good argument that the need there is genuine. Two working adults should be able to pay their own way. One working adult supporting another who cares for the home should, ideally, be able to struggle thru somehow and and pay for both – my family does it!
Marriage is a privilege, NOT a right – it’s earned by mutual commitment to bringing new life into the world and nurturing the children to adulthood. Pity that most people don’t understand that, which is why the divorce rate is so high…
November 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Ted Seeber
I’ll just do one last post to point out that MOST Americans have a vastly different definition of marriage than I do- if they didn’t, the divorce courts would be empty, because there would be no reason left for divorce.
It’s my belief that the abortion clinics would be largely empty too- for only .5% of abortions are done for “triage” reasons.
OTOH, where would we find living wages for those who can’t make it through high school without getting pregnant?
November 25, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Ted Seeber
More discussion on this, though, from the weird point of view of a Catholic who due to autism simply doesn’t see the sins of others, @ http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com
November 26, 2008 at 5:07 am
Jenni
Karen,
I think your post was very well said. I have many thoughts about this subject & boy it ticked me off when prop 8 was passed in CA. Anyone who would listen got an earful about it. Where does the Bible state that we Christians are to force our beliefs or morals on the rest of the world? Why should we have any say in it at all if two people of the same sex want to be married? I have a close family member who is gay & she’s being told by the government that she doesn’t deserve the same right to marry that I have, simply because I’m heterosexual & she isn’t. That is just wrong on so many levels. It is up to God to judge peoples sins, not us. Christians are far from perfect, some of the most judgmental & hurtful people I’ve ever known were sitting in church with me every Sunday. This is a subject I feel very strongly about & I could sit here & go on and on. I won’t subject you to that though.
I started coming to your site because I love your comic but I’ve come to really enjoy reading your blog as well.
November 26, 2008 at 5:17 am
Jenni
After reading through all the comments I just wanted to clarify that I was addressing CBW Karen in my comment.
November 26, 2008 at 4:48 pm
kp
“Why are gay people so villified by so many Christians?”
You seem to be equating the votes to clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman in CA, AZ, and FL to Christians vilifying gays. I see these decisions made in the most democratic of manners as both preserving a very long standing tradition and preventing another tyranny of an oh-so-oppressed minority.
Tell me exactly what rights (if any exist in this topic of discussion) are being denied to gays? They can live together, be as intimate as they want, open up bank accounts, co-sign loans, etc, and with civil unions, everything else is lumped in.
Ms. Sheehy – With all do respect, it’s a bit naive to believe that there isn’t a homosexual agenda. Any time there is a chance to gain prominence and power under the guise of leading the poor and oppressed, there will be someone there to take advantage (see Jackson, Jesse; Sharpton, Al, La Raza, ACORN, etc.).
Which gets to my point, which I’ve heard more than once in this thread. Gays: you already have all of the rights that your straight friends have through civil unions. Arguably you have more protections than they do, because you are and oh-so-oppressed minority. And you don’t get blackballed and hammered unfairly in the press, in Hollywood, or on Comic writer’s websites like straight Christian Conservatives do. So shut up already and live your life. We’ve got bigger fish to fry right now.
December 2, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Shirah
I’ve always loved this strip. Now I feel brilliant, because I’m reading all this cool, calm brilliance from other folk. Thus, I must be in the right place. LOL…
First… I was appalled that we even had to put something like that on our California ballot. It should be an obvious gimme, imnsho. Stay out of my bedroom, and I’ll stay out of yours (and you really don’t want to be in mine, unless you’re fearless and limber). Having said that, I don’t need to know with whom someone is sleeping, and/or what they’re doing. I agree with the blog: We’d BEST not be judging, since Heaven knows we couldn’t take the backlash.
A lesbian couple I know have been together 20 years and adopted 9 kids. NINE KIDS. The family is not rich, and everyone helps. Each of the kids will go to college. I have a plant that won’t flower. Who is doing more for the country, the world? (Jewish religion explains the concept of “Tikkun olam,” “repairing the world.”)
Oh puh-leeze. There is no homosexual agenda. Gayness is not contagious, though Happiness is.
It IS however, fiscally responsible to allow gays and lesbians to marry. Weddings = money. Married people buy homes and cars, and adopt kids.
On the other hand, perhaps MAKING kids should be a right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY
kp = it’s “due respect” (as in the respect due).
December 23, 2008 at 4:48 am
Colleen Sheehy
I never said there isn’t a Homosexual/Gay agenda – there definitely IS one! My comment was meant to bring out that many items on the “agenda” are not strictly “gay” concerns. What worries me is when folks define themselves strictly by their sexual preferences, when there’s so much more to being human than that!
I remember when my friend “W” came out to me. I think I shocked him when my reply to his statement, “I’m gay” was “SO?” He asked me to clarify, and I told him, “Unless you suddenly morphed into someone other than my friend W, who is funny and a great cook, and tells wonderful stories, and designs beautiful floral pieces, and can sell refrigerators in the Arctic Circle in February, I don’t give a hoot who you want to sleep with!”
By the bye, there’s a “Catholic Agenda” too – we want everyone to be in Heaven, but we realize it’s God’s choice as to who gets to enter! Our main task is to make sure we’re worthy to enter ourselves, sinners that we are…