Annoyed and pissed off, so ranty. Don't expect 'fair.'

[demiurgent]

One of the things I hear from Christian friends -- meant entirely seriously, and I do not deride them for this -- is "hey, [x] doesn't speak for me. That kind of prejudiced garbage has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ." This is particularly something I hear from folks about the organized and intentional persecution of homosexuals.

(And yes, when the Mormon church, as an example, rallies to get something like Prop 8 passed, overwhelmingly from a different state, that there's organized persecution, and one day it will be written about in the same sympathetic tones we write about Jim Crow laws and whipping slaves. But this is not about Mormans at the moment.)

I'm generally willing to accept that. I really am. I know Fred Phelps doesn't speak for anyone but his own deranged cult made up of family members. I know that fewer and fewer evangelical Christians are willing to accept what their 'leaders' declaim in their name.

Yeah, that won't fly this time. Not for Roman Catholics. Because the Pope does speak for them. The Pope by definition speaks for them. So when the Pope uses his End of the Year Christmas Message, celebrating the birth of savior of Mankind (in their view), a time that we have been told unceasingly is a time of love, of peace, of joy, of brotherhood, of hope and of compassion, to directly attack homosexuals and transsexuals, comparing their existence to ecological disaster? He's speaking for the Catholics.

If you're a Catholic? He's speaking for you. He's speaking for you. And repudiation of that message of hate will take more than just disavowing him. You can't disavow the Pope and still take Communion next week. It doesn't work like that.

If you're a believer, and if you're a Catholic, then -- and I mean this sincerely, without irony -- God help you. Good luck with all this, because you're going to need it.

Comments

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

I guess there's no point of continuing the discussion really. You won't convince me that marrying a person of the same sex is a basic human right that comes from a transcendent, but not divine source. I am apparently unable to convince you that it's possible to disagree on this issue without being a hate-filled bigot.

As an aside, your position reminds me more of those people that denounced anyone who refused to support the invasion of Iraq as unpatriotic. You're denouncing the opposition ad hominem while not feeling the need to explain the grounds of your position since it is obvious and only bigots would disagree.

All that's left to say, and I mean this sincerely, without irony -- God help us both.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

The one thing I will say in response to this is this:

You won't convince me that marrying a person of the same sex is a basic human right that comes from a transcendent, but not divine source.

The core difference between our positions, it seems to me, is that you see rights as deriving and devolving from the divine, whereas I see them as innate. I think, more than anything else, that what two people who aren't me do with each other, when it makes them happy and they both consent, is none of my fucking business. And I think that if I am given certain rights and privileges when I enter into a romantic, intimate and personal partnership with the person I love, then those folks deserve the same rights and privileges that I get, even if my love is a woman and they're both men.

These are peoples' lives we're talking about. This is their very pursuit of happiness. And it doesn't take anything away from you to let them pursue it.

I said it above, and I'll say it here. We are discussing an innately mean concept. It is, to put a direct word to it, cruel. And yeah, I'm saying it's not possible to take the opposite view from mine on this issue without being cruel to people who just want to live their own lives, their own way, without taking a thing away from you.

If the God you venerate requires this, then that God is cruel. If your religious leader puts forth that said God requires this, than that leader is, in fact, cruel. We're not talking about a theory, here. We're talking about millions upon millions of your fellow man.

And that's the thing. My position makes many, many people uncomfortable, because Homosexuality scares them. But my position doesn't invalidate their relationships or take away their rights or make their lives worse in any way. Your position ghettoizes people and leads to pain and despair.

It's hard to agree to disagree in situations like that.

I hope only the best for you. I really do, and I mean it as sincerely as you meant your closing invocation for both of us. But let me leave you with this. Luke 6:30-31 (KJV) reads "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Consider what is being asked of all of us, and consider what we as a society have given and taken away as a result. And consider how you would want others to treat you and your rights in this situation.

Peace.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

Last reply on this thread, I promise.

I think we both see rights coming from the nature of humanity, though I see them as God-given and you don't. The disagreement, I think, is actually a more deep-seated a philosophical one.

I think you are looking at it from the starting point of the human person. I'm getting this from your phrasing, it's very personal. Things are "cruel" and you place the main motivation of people down to what makes people comfortable or happy.

The Church's understanding of the world, on the other hand, is mitigated realism. This starts from outside the person, in the reality of things. Everything has a purpose, it strives fulfil its nature. A tree is fulfilled by growing and maturing, a person is fulfilled by growing in virtue. These, for the Church, are not personal opinions, they're real truths.

The Church isn't against homosexual marriage because she is scared of homosexuals, rather she's against it for the same reason that she's against premarital sex. She holds that human sexuality is a good given for a particular purpose (growth of mutual love in spouses and the procreation of children). The Church isn't trying to legally ban the use of that gift in other ways, but she is obliged to remind the faithful that certain actions go against a person's calling in life. Furthermore she is called to speak truth on issues and hope to convince the majority.

The pope does not speak on things based on his personal feelings, he speaks based on a scholarly understanding of the truth developed by the Church over centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He can no more come out in favor of gay marriage than a chemist can come out and declare that carbon monoxide should stop killing people because that would be nicer.

That's where the analogy of the rain forest actually works. Some people might think it's cruel to prevent a poor farmer from burning some forest to have land to feed his family. But it's not being done because somebody doesn't like farmers, it's done because we hold the forest as worth protecting. Same for the Church, she doesn't fear homosexuals, she just holds a definition of marriage as genuinely true, and therefore worth protecting.

I don't expect you to agree with any of this. I think you have reached your position in good faith and are committed to it since you believe it right. Nor do I expect you to not get angry when you think others are doing wrong, that's a human reaction. I am merely trying to suggest that the whole thing isn't a clear division between common decency and evil gay-bashers. There are good intentioned people on both sides, following to the conclusions based on different premises.

Peace to you as well.