Firstly, check out Obama's new website "change.gov". I think it an especially good idea to continue his innovative on-line approach to communicating with the American people.
I think watching election night was one of the most amazing things, as far as being an American, I have ever seen. The only other big American event I've experienced on this scale was September 11th but that was more of a shivering on the couch and watching the sky as it was empty of plane trails sort of event. Looking at pictures across the world of happy celebrating people as we rejected the legacy of President Bush and it's terror scale, torture and Guantanamo Bay made me feel proud to be an American. Rarely have I been proud to be an American. Michelle Obama stated a similar sentiment and was ripped apart for it, but I do understand what she meant. That's not to say that I don't feel lucky living here, as opposed to the landmine infested hills of Cambodia or a place where I would not be let out doors unveiled because I am a woman. It's just the idea of America and our freedoms has not been apparent of late. We have been lied to by our government, friends and family have been shipped overseas to fight in a publicly unsupported and unnecessary war, we know good and well there are people locked up without due process in Cuba by our government (whether or not they be terrorists!) and our local economy is falling apart before our eyes. In the last 8 years we have been asked to support our country only by spending money or calling in our neighbors if we suspect them of terrorist activities. I think both candidates knew this and McCain couldn't shake the spectre of our national disgust towards this culture of fear.
Unfortunately for McCain, who probably would have done a fine job, a vote for him was a vote for the status quo. It said to the rest of the world, we are perfectly happy continuing our role as the "world police" and don't view any of the injustices we've perpetrated as worth changing. We like our military mind. If McCain had won would there have been celebrations on the streets of countries across the world? Instead of nation-building we are leading by example. I don't think it is our job to topple unfair dictatorships across the world (stopping genocide, with the United Nations is a different beast in my opinion) but, by proving that it is possible to live in a country that can "vote for a change" we can inspire those nations to topple their own dictatorships and lead by example.
Meanwhile I am very sad about California's vote to ban gay marriage. As a married person I do not feel that gay marriage at all devalues my own. I know the bible has several verses that say being gay is wrong "Man shall not lie down with another man. In the lord's eyes, it is an abomination" Leviticus 18:22.
But it troubles me, in this land of "separation of church and state" could the hate speech of one religious book be written into law. I do not believe the bible is infallible. If anything it is an interesting historical reference and a guide to living during the time it was written. It also suggests that people not eat "beasts of cloven hoof" or shellfish, yet obviously we are not banning pig farming or clam bakes. In the context of living thousands of years ago anal sex was probably very risky and lead to the spread of disease. Similarly eating clams and pigs would make people sick. Better to ban it than risk early death.
The bible even advocates slaves obey their masters! "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)
I, however, think slavery is wrong (as does most everyone). If the Bible was a guide to living in today's world hopefully this verse would read "Slavery is evil, no person is born a slave" instead.
There is plenty of arguing with the bible. If using the bible as a reason to take away the rights of a section of people you should not be able to pick and choose which verses you believe are right. I am not a biblical expert and expect my mother to rip up my argument into shreds. The fact remains I do not believe the bible is a realistic guide to living today. (The love your neighbor parts still have weight, yes). Separation of church and state allows the state to make choices you religious folk find "an abomination". The state is not making you marry gays in your churches. The state will not arrest you for hate speech against gay people. The word "marriage" should apply to everyone with the same rights, privileges and foibles that straight folks are allowed.
It is my hope that my children will look at this generations bigotry against gays the same way as I view racism in my grandparents.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
a couple of notes. "Slavery" in the NT was used in the same way that "employment" is today.
And, if gay marriage is ok, why not marriage between 3 people? why not marriage between a person and their faithful companion dog? why not marriage with a 12 year old? And, why can't i go and get the tool out of my neighbor's garage? who says that i shouldn't "end the suffering" of my terminally ill patients? who says I shouldn't "end the suffering" of my psychotic patients? and, while we are at it, what about those folks who read a different religious text than i do? who says they have a right to exist? If you are wise enough to make all the rules-go for it. I don't think any of us are.
we can exigete the Levitical text at another time.
Glad you are proud of our country, though. I am thankful that we haven't had another attack on our soil since 9/11.
Mum
It's ironic that the Mormon church, originally proponents of polygamy and underage marriage were the biggest donors towards "Yes on 8".
My point is that the government shouldn't cater to any religious books... the Bible, the book of Mormon, the Koran etc. When you subtract the religion from the argument there is no reason to think gay marriage is wrong. I'm not arguing that your church should have to sanction marriages it finds inappropriate, just that the government shouldn't get to.
I'm pretty sure using a "slippery slope argument" such as "gay marriage = underage marriage = marriage to a dog" is a classical logical fallacious argument.
First the easy ones:
Person and Dog: Dog is not a human being. Gay people, on the other hand, are.
Person and 12 year-old: 12 year-old is not a legal consenting adult. We have well established system of denying rights and privileges to those under 18 (and 16, and 21), which is applied evenly no matter the persons gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.
Tool from neighbor's garage: This is a property crime. You are depriving your neighbor of his property. Of what does a gay couple getting married in San Francisco deprive you?
Ending patient suffering: Again, taking your patient's life violates their right to life. Which right of yours is violated by a gay couple that marries?
Not sure what you mean by the people who read a different religious text.
As for marriage between three or more people: Marriage is currently denied to a subset of the population (homosexuals) due to a personal characteristic of the people involved, not a characteristic of the marriage. This is like saying that two apples make a 'pair', while two oranges are not a 'pair' (which obviously is absurd). No one is trying to redefine a 'pair' as three or more objects, they are trying to allow two oranges to be called a 'pair'.
(Although from a purely abstract perspective, it is curious that we don't allow group marriage. After all, we allow more than two people to form a general partnership, which is somewhat similar in the sense of ownership and liability. I imagine the divorce proceedings would be horrendous though.)
The irony is that the side that is actually 'redefining marriage' is the anti-gay-marriage side. The pro-gay-marriage side is just trying to apply the current definition evenly to all kinds of consenting adults, regardless of their personal characteristics.
The amusing thing about the slippery slope argument is the idea that marriage has an unchanging definition. As recently as the 1960s, a black person could not marry a white person in 16 states.
No one is trying to redefine or influence the Christian definition of marriage, no more than they are trying to change the Hindu or Muslim definitions, whatever they may be. They are only trying to apply the legal definition consistently.
If the problem is truly that the word 'marriage' is inseparable from the Christian faith, then we should probably change our tax/legal/beneficiary forms to refer to all unions between two adults recognized by the state as Civil Unions. In this way, Christian couples can be both 'married' and in a 'civil union' on their tax forms, and non-Christian couples can simply be in a civil union.
This seems like a silly work-around, but so does the idea of a civil union to begin with. I only suggest it because it seems like the whole argument is between two groups that view the word 'marriage' in different contexts. One in a religious sense, the other in a legal sense.
as always drew, you comment much more succinctly than I.
And I mean succinct as in "to the point" rather than "briefly" as obviously your answer is longer than mine. : )
Haha, yeah I definitely have a problem with being brief. I think it's mostly because I'm convincing myself as I write, so you get the whole train of thought, not just the conclusions.
well done sir.
Post a Comment