Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

It sounds like you're conflating definitions. What you're describing is acceptance, not tolerance.

If I'm seated next to a screaming infant for a cross-country flight but keep my mouth shut and be cool instead of casting accusatory glances at said infant's parents, am I accepting that situation or merely tolerating it?

 

It used to be acceptable to hate blacks. Heck, it used to be acceptable to own them as property.

It used to be acceptable to hate Jews. They killed Our Lord And Savior after all, so what's a millennium or two of persecution?

It used to be acceptable to hate the Irish/Italians/Chinese/etc. Buncha dirty immigrants, soiling our American shores and taking American jobs!

It used to be acceptable to hate Native Americans. How dare they fight against Manifest Destiny, which was given to us by Divine Providence? This land is rightfully ours!

As you'll notice, it's not really acceptable to hate those groups anymore, despite what you might read on the Interwebs. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, it's not actually OK to hate after all? Of all the values we try to pass on to future generations, I fail to see why hate is one people feel needs to be preserved.

 

Not saying hate is acceptable, nor am I saying it makes a lot of difference, but I'd like to point out that Trooper's lists are all ethnic groups, not lifestyle groups.
I still pretty much hate the terrorist group that planned Sept. 11. Do I have to be tolerant of them? If you want to love them go ahead.

 

I keep forgetting there are actually people who believe being gay is a "lifestyle" or a choice. That is going to look so funny in 20 years, like when we read old newspaper clippings about the Negro.

Terrorist groups = people who choose to kill other people
Gays = people who are trying to be themselves

Perfect analogy, schmoe.

 

So gays are an ethnic group?

My main point is that Trooper is saying maybe it's not okay to hate anymore (as in hate anyone). I'm just saying that's as dumb as anyone who hate gay people just because they are gay.

 

Opposition to gay marriage is not hatred of gays.

It is possible to see human beings as people created in God's image. It is also possible to disagree with certain aspects of their behavior, especially those that same book calls sinful, immoral and unnatural in multiple places, both Old and New Testaments. That is not "hatred." It is loving the sinner, but hating the sin. And Christianity does also teach that everyone sins, so it's not like anyone else has the high road there. But don't call someone hateful if he refuses to endorse a behavior that my holy book -- the holy book of the faith claimed by more of this world's population than any other -- pretty clearly says is wrong. It's the behavior, not the person, that people don't like.

 

Hate is wrong.

But race and behavior are two different things. One cannot change one's race. One can change one's behavior. Just ask those who were once sexually active as teens who have stopped being so ... those who were once alcoholics (also a trait that some scientists believe can be inborn) who have given up on it. I know ex-gays who are now married to someone of the opposite sex and are raising families. I've witnessed people divorcing their spouse and entering gay relationships. It's about the *behavior* not the person. And, as pointed out above, gay marriage -- to quite a few -- is a slap in the face of something considered a sacrament throughout every denomination of Christendom. What you do in your own bedroom on your own time is none of my business. But that doesn't mean I have to approve of it ... and it also doesn't mean that my children have to be taught *they* have to approve of it (and if someone refuses to teach them that, or has a viewpoint that would not allow him to teach them that, he should be fired).

 

This line of reasoning baffles me. How is it possible to hate the sin and not the sinner? No, really, I want to know.

If you make it out that you hate gay marriage (And, in my opinion that's what this guy did here. It was hateful) and you hate the behavior of homosexuality (Which others do on a daily basis) how is it possible to say that you're "not hating the people" actively engaging in that behavior?

Maybe what this comes down to is the choice vs. born gay argument, I suppose. To me, being gay is a part of the very identity of these people and I can't see how you can say on one hand "Well, God opposes this and they're going to burn in Hell for all eternity because they dare defy my superior all-knowing being" and on the other be like "But they're swell people other than that!"

Saying hate the sin, not the sinner fails to take into account that being gay and engaging in homosexual behavior isn't a part-time choir. It's not a hobby.

This isn't saying "I hate people who cut me off in traffic" because, for gay people, they're always going to be gay; 100% of the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It stands to reason then that, if you are of the "This behavior is a super-duper mega ultra sin" and you oppose gay behavior and gay marriage and everything the gay culture stands for, then what you're really saying is you oppose gay people because, like it or not, you can't separate the person from their behavior.

It's who they are. If you oppose gay behavior, you oppose gay people.

And, again, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with gay marriage. There's nothing wrong with believing homosexuality is a sin. Those are your beliefs. But this guy, in this case, made it abundantly clear where he stands on this issue and, in my opinion, his opinion is one of hatred hidden behind a manipulated view of religion.

 

You're right, crimsonace, the opposition of gay marriage doesn't equate to the hatred of gays.

But just as some can't separate the two, you seem unable to separate marriage as a legal bond and religious sacrament.

I've never heard anybody that's for gay marriage say that they want part of the legislation to include a clause mandating that every church has to perform gay marriage services. They simply want the legal rights, just as those that were born straight do.

I also don't think that gay marriage proponents are demanding that everybody approve of their cause. You are free to be against it, and that doesn't necessarily make you a bigot.

But if you are a public school teacher that almost certainly has taught gay students and will for as long as you teach, then you can't make vitriolic public statements against gay marriage and expect people not to suspect you harbor an anti-gay bias. And if that happens, I don't know how you can expect the administration not to look into it.

 

"Refuses to endorse" is quite a bit different from "openly vilifies." He doesn't like it? Nobody's asking, he doesn't need to broadcast it to the world. And yes, that is what posting on Facebook is. I gather your students wouldn't know a thing about your opposition, which is as it should be. If a teacher feels the need to get confrontational about this, there are consequences.

And the whole "because my Bible tells me so" is the weakest defense there is, and should run completely against what you profess to believe and teach about opening people's minds. I'm sure we don't need to catalog (again) the ways the Bible has been used to promote slavery and war and deny basic human rights.

 

The Bible has no place in the functioning of a competent and fair government. It shouldn't be used as a litmus test to what behaviors are right and wrong any more than we would base our foreign policy on the lessons learned from the invasion of Mordor in the Lord of the Rings.

 

Oh yes, the old "The Bible promotes slavery and war" standby.

Slavery in the first century and before was different than the slavery most people think of when they think of the word today. Often it became a way of paying back at debt, sometimes people even sold themselves into slavery to have their needs taken care of. It was a convention of that society. What is deemed promotion of slavery in the Bible are actually guidelines on proper and humane treatment of slaves. The slavery most people think of is very much condemned in the Bible:
Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." In fact it was a devout Christian in England -- William Wilberforce -- that spearheaded the abolishonist movement to end slavery in the British Empire in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

As far as war goes, yes war was very much part of the old testament -- which by the way forms the base for Jewish and Muslim faiths as well. Back then religion was very much a national thing and war often meant the survival and growth of a faith. That was the old testament. And that's certainly not to say the New Testament is fully against war either. In the world we live in, that is as filled with as much evil and sin that it is, sometimes war is necessary, like in stopping dictators like Hitler or even, yes, the Civil War which ended Slavery in the states. In fact Jesus' second coming will be exceedingly bloody and violent, it will be the end of time. But no war is desired or encourage, in fact we are told to seek peace, to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. We were sent out into the world to spread the word of God and Jesus Christ the, ahem, Prince of Peace.