Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

First of all, I respect crimsonace's ability to be both candid and civil about his views on the topic. You don't get a lot of that around here on a wedge issue.

Some very brief thoughts on some things that have come up here:

(1) The way I understand it, as well as a lot of religious scholars, the references to homosexuality in the Bible - the "clobber texts" - actually refer to things like sex with male prostitutes, within the context of a religious/Pagan ceremony, or with small boys as part of the sex trade. Admittedly, I have gone looking for a way to square my support of gay rights with my Catholicism, but a lot of the scholarship - which examines the original Hebrew text - is quite comprehensive and convincing. I feel a little bit guilty about turning the Bible into a Roarscharch test. On the other hand, I don't see it as the inerrant word of God the way fundamentalists do.

(2) It is more than possible to hate the sin and not the sinner. We don't like when people say that it relation to gay marriage or any gay sexual behavior. However, I feel that way about murderers, rapists, etc., etc. The whole lot of them. Our entire justice system - well, except for the part that barbarically puts citizens to death - is based upon the idea. Even convicted, hardened criminals have rights. We are punishing, or deterring, the action. It's not personal.

(3) Crimsonace, you make an impassioned case about why you cannot support gay marriage. However, you seem to know your way around a civics textbook as well as you know your way around the Good Book, so surely you understand why the Bible cannot be the source of our secular law. I understand the argument that a lot of our law is based on Judeo-Christian principles. But those principles are typically pretty universal in ordering a well-run society. A discussion of the link between morality and law could and has filled volumes, but I don't think that we have any other laws that are purely anchored in theology without secular backing regarding how a society can thrive. Your argument against gay marriage is purely moral and purely anchored in religious text. And that's foreclosed as a legal argument in support of your position in the United States.

 

So which is it?

 

Because getting married involves more than just the obvious spouse-to-spouse connection. There's also the concomitant recognition/legitimization conferred by the state, which evolved not to permit the right (among others) to form marital unions but to "secure" that right. In that role as a securer, the state can and often does compel recognition of marital unions. It does so with almost universal consent because the institution of marriage -- in the Western world one man and one woman -- preceded the state by thousands of years. For the state to treat same-sex marriages similarly, by necessity it has to compel respect/recognition of unions that clearly do not conform to conventions held for millennia.

That's the line of thought underpinning that perspective, which isn't necessarily mine. I have some friends who are in same-sex "unions," some who have even been able to marry, and personally I've never felt threatened in any way. On the other hand, I respect the viewpoints of some who say, "No, this union may be many things, but marriage it is not," and I am absolutely not comfortable with them being forced into acting as if it is.

 

The idea is that calling it "marriage" is like making a law that, from here on out, a "dog" is a "cat."

By definition, according to opponents, "marriage" does not encompass a same-sex union.

Other than religion, however, I see no reason why they shouldn't be in favor of recognizing a same-sex civil union conferring all of the same legal rights. To me, it's silly semantics/formalism, but I recognize that the distinction may be important to some.

 

To add to my post earlier this morning:

It is perfectly logically consistent to be against homosexual behavior while recognizing it is a Constitutional right or that it should be a legal, state-conferred right

Conversely, it is perfectly logically consistent to be in favor of homosexual relationships and not recognize gay marriage or civil unions as a Constitutional right. (I'm probably here, though I believe states should all recognize gay marriage.)

I am as guilty of this as anyone, but it is remarkable how the Constitution always lines up so perfectly with any single person's policy preferences. Remarkable.

 

OK. First of all Crimson, I appreciate that you're being civil in expressing your views on this issue. That said, the lumping of homosexuality as "behavior" is way off the mark. No, it's not on a par with race (which can be discerned by anyone just walking down the street; it's difficult, in most cases to tell at a glance whether someone is gay or straight), but neither is homosexuality a choice akin to picking a brand of laundry detergent. Being gay is a part of who someone is, as surely as you are attracted to women (that's why it's a sexual "orientation" not a "preference"). And equating it with alcoholism...ugh.

And, yeah, I've heard of people being "cured" of homosexuality. It rarely takes. Most of the time, the people who go through those wind up miserable and closeted. Not a happy life.

As to the main question, the dude shouldn't be fired (though the use of "cesspool" is a particularly nice touch), but the people who read it should damn sure let them know what they think of his opinion. Civilly, of course.

 

(4) To one more of crimsonace's opinions, he talks about gay people people being successfully "cured," or straight people turning to the gay "lifestyle." There is a simple, scientific explanation: Sexual orientation takes place on a continuum, no different than other personality traits. It's not binary, although it manifests itself that way.

I think Brad Pitt is an attractive man, though I'm not sexually attracted to him. Another man might not even be able to recognize that he's attractive. Another might be more sexually attracted to Brad Pitt than to Mila Kunis.

 

And yet the Bible was a very useful tool for the slaveowners of the 19th century, and the Jim Crow supporters of the 20th century, to justify their beliefs and actions. It remains so today in some corners, including that of Michele Bachmann's priest according to the New Yorker article.

 

We might need to Google "tyranny of the majority," too.

 

If he's not Catholic (or maybe Orthodox), I don't think Priest is the right term.

Absent any context, a reader is going to assume you're speaking of a Catholic Priest if you use that term.

I believe she attends a Lutheran Church. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) American Lutherans generally do not refer to their Clergy as Priests.

 

Noted political scientist Trace Adkins has some thoughts on this:

Trace Adkins More Of Us Lyrics

Seems like everytime I turn around
Another ten commandments is comin' down
As if this country revolves around
The people who hate my God

They want Him out of the courthouse
And out of the schools
Off the airways and under the pews
I think it's time we remind those fools
Of something that they forgot

That there's more of us
Than there are of them
Don't you think we've taken enough
Of all this givin' in
It's bout time for pushin' back
Watcha say we take a stand
I'm talkin to the Red, White, and Blue
Tried and through proud American friends
Remember there's more of us
Than there are of them
[ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/trace+adkins/more+of+us_20976317.html ]
Now listen
I know we've learned to talk the talk
But now it's time we walk the walk
With one voice we oughta call a halt
To the madness in D.C.
We gotta change the course they've got us on
Double check whose side they're really on
Seems to me they've got this country wrong
It belongs to you and me

That's right

Yeah there's more of us
Than there are of them
Don't you think we've taken enough
Of all this givin' in
It's bout time for pushin back
Watcha say we take a stand
I'm talkin to the Red, White, and Blue
Tried and through proud American friends
Remember there's more of us
Than there are of them

Yeah

I think it's that time for packin' back
Whatcha say we take a stand
I'm talkin to the Red, White, and Blue
Tried and through proud American friends
Remember there's more of us
There's a whole lot more of us
Than there are of them

 

I would like Trace Adkins to point me to somebody who wants God "off the airways."

Calling that pandering hilljack a flaming douchebag would be an insult to flaming douchebags everywhere.