Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Opening another can of worms...
Re: Prop 8 Haters
My friend wrote this and I thought that it was brilliant (long, but brilliant):
Dear Mr. Unenlightened Friend ______________ :
I have broken down my points into three points: (1) religious, (2) legal, and (3) scientific. I have numbered my points so that you may review them in case you get lost along the way. If I speak in tongues or I present my thoughts a bit apocryphally, these guideposts are there so that we may both understand each other.
Point #1: You are a *** idiot (religiously speaking).
I will preface my statements by saying I am a heterosexual Christian, born into the Protestant faith and in a 3+ year heterosexual relationship.
Perhaps the most fundamental Biblical statement against homosexuality stems from Leviticus, the third book of the Pentateuch. In Leviticus 18:22, it states, ?Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.? The verse is near the end of a long list of rules for sexuality, ones that mainly prohibit incestuous relationships.
The comment in Lev. 18:22 is clear, but the history of Leviticus itself presents some problems. Leviticus is part of the Pentateuch, but it is part of the Old Covenant. It is the promise between God and the Israelites and many of the rules contained in Leviticus are not part of Christian ritual. For example, in Leviticus 17:12, it states that, ?None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.? So if you?ve had a medium rare ribeye lately, by your conception of faith and the Bible, you are going to hell.
Or, if you happen to be a vegetarian or in case you eat only kosher food, there are many other laws, laws that even Judaic traditions do not strictly follow. Take, for example, Leviticus 15:25-31, ?When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean? When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting?In this way [the priest] will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanliness of her discharge.?
I hear that you are married. I hope that (a) you have many doves on hand, (b) your wife is menopausal, or (c) you realize that a lot of Levitican laws, including Leviticus 18:22, is contextually part of an older conception and understanding of God by man.
That in itself is subpoint in this section. Christianity, religion, is a God management system devised by God but operated by man. The whole of God is not in the Bible. Could the truth of God be limited to a mere few pages? The greater mystery of spirituality and God is so much greater than that. To think that to God, the sexual behavior of people is something of paramount importance is ludicrous. What matters is much, much more important.
Moving on. As Christians, we adhere to a New Covenant, which is embodied in Christ. So let us look to the New Testament. (That?s near the back of the Bible, in case it?s been awhile.) There is a statement that refers to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians, 16:9 which reads, ?Neither the sexual immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders?will inherit the kingdom of God.?
The problem with that verse in 1 Cor. 16:9 is that it?s not clear in any case that homosexuality in itself is immoral or whether homosexual offenders, an undefined term, are immoral. And this is another subpoint. Much of the comments against homosexuality in the Bible are about sexual perversion, about unhealthy sexual relations. Your assumption that all homosexual relationships are sexual perversions is another ignorant conclusion. The whole reason homosexuals want to get married is so they can have happy, healthy, legitimate relationships! And you helped deny them! You marginalized them! You seek to push them into dark corners. You are no different than a segregationist. But more on that later.
In any case, 1 Cor. 16:9 comes at the end of a chapter which is really talking about lawsuits. In the chapter, Paul counsels against taking up lawsuits or involving oneself in legal matters of the world. In 1 Cor. 6:7, Paul states, ?The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.?
So I ask you, why do you meddle in the legal affairs of the state of California? Do you not believe in divine judgment? Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Or rather, what is it about homosexual marriage that wrongs or cheats you? What harms you?
In any case, that is not the main point. Let me restate: As Christians, we adhere to the teachings of a new order embodied in Christ. There are other New Testament verses referring to homosexuality, but never did Christ think it important enough to speak out against homosexuality. Christ was much more about macroconceptions of the universe and sought out a truth greater and beyond sexuality between humans. And Jesus did give warning to those who could not see the truth and obtain a greater perspective. In Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus warns those cities who remained unrepentant even after Jesus performed miracles there: ?Woe to you Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!...And you Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than for you.? Let me tell you, I hear there was a lot of sodomy going on in? uh? Sodom. And Jesus warns that those who miss the whole point of his teachings will have a more difficult time than Sodom, a city apparently full of homosexuals!
So what is the truth? The truth is that Christ sought an upending of the status quo. His greatest commandments are found in Matthew 22:37-39, ?Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.? Jesus goes on to say, ?All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.? (Matt. 22:40).
And a final word on marriage and religion. Christ was once asked what will happen to those who were married when they go to heaven. Jesus responded, ?At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.? (Matt. 22:30). So marriage will not even matter in heaven... because it's a such a small thing compared to the greatness and wonder of all Creation.
Are you not ashamed? Why do you waste such perverse judgment and hate upon those who support equality in the law of man that has nothing to do with you? Why do you quibble so much on a law of man which would matter not to Christ? You belittle Christ?s teachings by limiting it to such a minor issue. The Law and Commandments of Christ seek greater ideals than the ones to which you so blindingly cling. Have a little grace. Get a little perspective. Espouse love, giving, and gracious equality, not spiteful judgment. Be, dare I say, Christ-like.
Point #2: You are a *** idiot (legally speaking).
So I hope the previous section made clear that this is more about the law of man than of God. If these are the laws of man, let us discuss them in the terms and principles man has fashioned.
Our federal constitution states:
"No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US Const. Amend. XIV.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." US Const. Amend. I.
Our California state constitution states:
"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty... and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Calif. Const. Art. I, Sec. I.
The European Convention on Human Rights states:
"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law." ECHR Art. 2.
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status." ECHR Art. 14.
The American Convention on the Rights and Duties of Mankind states:
"All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law." ACRDM, Art. 24.
UN Treaty, International Convention on the Civil and Political Rights states:
"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." ICCPR Art. 26.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."
The Supreme Court as recently in 2003 has stated:
"As a general rule [States and courts should not seek] to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003).
The same Court stated the relevancy of European human rights law:
"Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision [against homosexual rights] is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization."
========================
To support Proposition 8 may (at best) minimally support heterosexual marriage, but it will concurrently be a massive vote in support of discrimination. As minorities, we should support the rights of others minority groups like the homosexual community. Homosexual rights are guaranteed not only in our laws and our courts (both state and federal), but all around the world. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that Asian-Americans were interned legally in internment camps. Also recent were prohibitions against interracial marriage. Regardless of religious or ethical views, we must all uphold equality under the law. Also, allowing for gay marriage would never legally harm the right to marriage for religious groups, because the free exercise of religion is guaranteed under the First Amendment.
To address my earlier promise to explain my accusing you of being no different than a segregationist. Judge Waring, in his lengthy dissent in the Briggs case, stated that, ?There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for racial prejudice?It is all caused by unreasoning emotional reactions?? 98 F.Supp. 529, 547 (1951). J. Waring goes on to say, ?Segregation is per se inequality.? There is nothing different between the segregation of the past and the current discrimination supported by Prop 8. You have absolutely no legally reasonable explanation for denying the recognition of homosexual marriage before the law. Your support of this discrimination is per se unequal, which is in itself against numerous legal laws, rules, principles, and maxims.
Furthermore, there is a clear separation between church and state in our laws. Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145, 164 (1878). The separation exists so that the laws may not be used to infringe upon the free exercise of religion or be used to discriminate one group by espousing the religious beliefs of another group. (For additional reading, check Defending the Wall: Maintaining Church/State Separation in America, 18 Harvard J. of L. and Pub. Pol. 575 (1995)). By using the law to enforce your (really narrow) religious views, you open up the law to be potentially used against YOU for YOUR religious beliefs. This is precisely what is happening in the case of Prop 8 and it is discriminatory, illegal, unconstitutional, and unpatriotic, and actually threatens your exercise of free religion. Your actions, in two words, are dumb.
And I throw in a last point just to toss a verbal fragmentary grenade in your direction. Hitler also sought to eliminate homosexuals as a group because he viewed them as a scourge to the superiority of the German race. Your discriminatory views are in lockstep with Hitler. While I don't imagine you advocate cremating all the homosexuals we can find, there is either equality before the law or there is none.
Point #3: You are a *** idiot (scientifically speaking).
You said in your comments that homosexuality is a pure lifestyle choice. This is a categorically unfounded statement. You offer no support for this general statement and it is your argument that is on shaky ground.
The scientific truth is that sexuality is a complex human behavior that remains to a large degree unexplained by current research. We do know that at least in other organisms homosexual behavior is at least strongly influenced by genetic makeup.
?The team led by University of Illinois at Chicago researcher David Featherstone has discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. Armed with this knowledge, the researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours.?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm
Many homosexuals strongly feel that their sexuality is core to their being. I gather that you are not homosexual or you strongly repress your homosexual feelings. So you cannot just assume that this is a lifestyle choice. You do not understand it. Your statements to the effect that oh, it?s just a lifestyle choice, a free exercise in sexual immorality, are perhaps your most prejudiced and ignorant statements. On what science, knowledge, and philosophy do you base such statements? I suspect nothing but thinly veiled and groundless assumptions.
=====================================
I hear that you told ______ that you hope that by the time she has kids she changes her views so that her kids don?t inherit her perspectives. Shame on you. SHAME ON YOU. You go so far as that? As talking about her future children? How dare you? I will challenge you on your ideas, but I will never tell you how to raise your children. What do I know about the relationship between you and your kids? How could I even imagine to interfere in your relationship? And you make a flippant statement about ______?s future family?
Moreover, you seek to voice your discriminatory and degrading views on _______ in such a public manner? On a social networking website? What an improper forum for your narrow beliefs. What good would that do but incite a cursory discussion that wouldn?t benefit either side? Your comments are misguided and misdirected.
Do I seek to impugn religious leaders, learned scholars, or theologians by this note? Absolutely not. However, I do not perceive an ounce of religious depth in your considerations. Instead, I sense a discriminating, insecure, and prejudiced man using religion as a vehicle for your bigotry. Shame on you again.
I am incensed? incensed! Your incredible ignorance knows no bounds. It is nearly too much to bear.
Re: Opening another can of worms...
Well written!
Your friend is very brilliant.
Wow that was amazing.
Your friend should get involved with this.
I'm going to send this to mel.
I believe in science
(Those of you who've seen Nacho Libre know what I'm talking about)