Less Shouting, More Talking

What I hear you saying is that you're afraid of living in a world where being gay is o.k., where gay people get married, raise kids, and aren't bullied in school for being different. Because gay marriage would do a lot to "normalize" being gay in society, you oppose it.

This is a fair way to phrase your opposition, correct?

So you can see why people think you're hate-mongering. You're opposition to gay marriage rests on your opposition to being gay. You don't want your kids to think it's ok to be gay and decade (as if it were a choice) to be gay.

I think when you take a long look in the mirror you'll realize that what you believe comes down to an opposition to being black. You don't like black people so you want to punish them and deter future black behavior. I replace where gay should go with black to get something across--if you understand why those beliefs are offensive to black people you should see why gay people are equally angry with that being your motivation (and the beliefs you want to impose on them)?

I agree with Mr. Mouw on one thing and one thing only: we can discuss this in a civilized way. That being said, if I must shout to be heard, then I will shout.
Mr. Mouw mentioned a "slippery slope" of what people could be asked to tolerate. In my view, that argument works both ways. Now that the voting public has asserted its power to strip the rights of a minority, what other rights can be stripped from what other minorities when citizens cast their ballots. As a gay man, what other rights can I expect to be denied by my fellow citizens? That, my friend, is a slippery slope we ought to avoid but it is the slipper slope we find ourselves on as more and more evangelical groups push for a federal ban on gay marriage or for states to prohibit adoption by gay couples. .

Mr. Mouw also suggests that the children of evangelical families may suffer from the media's liberal bias against them. I ask Mr. Mouw to consider how traumatic it might be for a gay youth to grow up in a society that frequently, through popular votes, tells him that he is less valuable and less deserving of fundamental rights because he is gay. That is extremely frightening and disheartening.

While I respect Mr. Mouw's right to speak freely and openly about his religious beliefs, I also ask him to remember his history of the United States of America. Before this country had even been born, the people who emigrated from Europe were in search of freedom from religious persecution. For Mr. Mouw to suggest that, by voting yes on Proposition 8 he is not imposing his religious views on the rest of society, is blatantly and obviously false because that is exactly what has happened. This great nation has thrived on religious freedom, and, again, we would venture down a very slippery slope to allow laws to be passed based on the religious views of some, even if they are the views of the majority. Make no mistake, it is not infringing on anybody's religious freedom to allow gay marriage. Nobody would be forced to practice it or to see it in the aisles and pews of their own church if the law is interpreted correctly. We can all enjoy our full rights as citizens and still live side by side.

The establishment clause was written into the constitution to prevent the government from establishing a national religion. Why should we base policy on one religious group's values? Those aren't my values, they aren't the values of many people. If you really believe that same sex marriage is a danger to "the children", I'd like to see one valid secular reason. Why are "the children" so important anyway? They don't deserve any more or less consideration than an adult does on any matter; they're just the adults of the future. Teaching them to be accepting of other people is probably the best thing that a parent can do to make their lives easier, because this is a diverse country we find ourselves in. And what of the children who begin to realize they're gay? Religious banter directed at them will certainly cause severe psychological damage. Do you really care about them? Or are you trying to recruit more foot soldiers for your cause?

Part I
At Fuller, I have learned to view the Bible as errant, while it is infallible in that it does not fail to show us the Truth. Praise God for that! Your biggest concern is one that I shared not too long ago: the slippery slope argument. But this is a ground-of-meaning argument based in fear and not love.

If the Bible is full of errors, omissions and contextualization, why do we interpret the passages on marriage between man and woman so literally? If Fuller teaches "believing criticism" then why are we told not to apply this critical approach when it comes to texts on homosexuality? 1 Timothy is one of the most condemning books on this issue, and yet in this book, whose authorship is disputed, women are responsible for the fall of all humans and can only be saved through childbearing. Also, deacons must be male, and women should not speak in church. But most Protestants do not condone these things. We overlook them because they do not adhere to God's overriding principles of covenantal love, faithfulness, and God's salvation for all by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Are we defying the Bible's authority on slavery because we no longer condone the institution of slavery in the United States? Just the same, I believe homosexuals are in bondage and in social slavery, and we Christians shackle and demoralize homosexuals by denying them their God-given potential because of a few proof texts. If Fuller professors teach that sexual congruency is a byproduct of brain development and hormone production (biological, chemical reasons), then we can infer from this that people cannot choose their sexual orientation. I certainly did not choose. I just knew by the time I was 3 I liked playing with dolls more and by the time I was 11 or so I liked boys more. I had plenty of opportunities to play with my brother, and not once was I interested in his toys or playing in the sports that he engaged in.

Part II
Some gay students claim that Fuller is afraid of being accused of losing its soul because it is too liberal. But I challenge you again on this assumption: we have a professor at Fuller who no longer believes in the existence of the soul. I would say this is significantly more controversial theologically then accepting homosexuality as a post-fall condition of human nature. We keep wanting to go back to the Garden of Eden and Genesis 1-3. But this is erroneous and impossible. We cannot return to our true selves until we are fully judged and redeemed by Christ. In the meantime, why do we have transgendered individuals? I have been told that because they are such a small segment of society that we should not worry about it. Yet, does Christ not leave the 99 to go after the one? I believe that we will be judged by Christ for putting burdens on a segment of our society that we ourselves cannot bear. This act of the Pharisees angered Christ the most.

There is a culture war brewing right now because an extremely talented and very likable candidate on American Idol lost the competition because of the Christian sympathy vote, and because he is gay. Of course, this is just my opinion. I am just a sexually congruent, heterosexual mother, wife, volunteer, student, and Hispanic who is sensitive to liberation causes. I came with nothing into this world and will leave with nothing. I have nothing to lose but my reputation, my academic standing, my future. I will put my life and my family???s life on the line for something THIS important.

Will you be a social abolitionist, Dr. Mouw, and stand up for the oppressed? God will and does. It is only a matter of time before enough post-modernists stand up and say, ???Sexual orientation is the wrong question??? it is no longer relevant for life in the Spirit.???

At Fuller, I have learned to view the Bible as errant, while it is infallible in that it does not fail to show us the Truth. Praise God for that! Your biggest concern is one that I shared not too long ago: the slippery slope argument. But this is a ground-of-meaning argument based in fear and not love.

If the Bible is full of errors, omissions and contextualization, why do we interpret the passages on marriage between man and woman so literally? If Fuller teaches ???believing criticism??? then why are we told not to apply this critical approach when it comes to texts on homosexuality? 1 Timothy is one of the most condemning books on this issue, and yet in this book, whose authorship is disputed, women are responsible for the fall of all humans and can only be saved through childbearing. Also, deacons must be male, and women should not speak in church. But most Protestants do not condone these things. We overlook them because they do not adhere to God???s overriding principles of covenantal love, faithfulness, and God???s salvation for all by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Are we defying the Bible???s authority on slavery because we no longer condone the institution of slavery in the United States? Just the same, I believe homosexuals are in bondage and in social slavery, and we Christians shackle and demoralize homosexuals by denying them their God-given potential because of a few proof texts. If Fuller professors teach that sexual congruency is a byproduct of brain development and hormone production (biological, chemical reasons), then we can infer from this that people cannot choose their sexual orientation. I certainly did not choose. I just knew by the time I was 3 I liked playing with dolls more??? and by the time I was 11 or so I liked boys more. I had plenty of opportunities to play with my brother, and not once was I interested in his toys or playing in the sports that he engaged in.

(continued on next post)

Thanks Dudelove. First we need to deal with your name. If you hate gay people so much why do you call yourself Dude Love?

Sorry but that's just weird :D

:) hop deer geschriebt!

HM, you can reach me at my temporary e-mail address: bvgay@yahoo.de
I'll send you my genuine (permanent) e-mail address from there.
Take care!
Dean1955

Oh, here you are! Hi Homosexual Man, Chike, LT, et al.! So you've moved our little discussion from "Our Mutual Joy's" to this comment board? ;) Haven't been able to read any postings there for weeks, and don't understand why Newsweek hasn't long since gotten around to fixing it. A lot of on-line friendships were built (and traditional hostilities between us and our right-wing "Christian" adversaries firmly cemented) ;) across the months there.
Anyway, glad to see you're all out there alive and kicking.

"Will we even be allowed to counter these influences in our homes and churches without being accused of "hate speech"? ... What is it about people like me that frightens you so much?"

One problem is that the Bible unfortunately does contain an enormous amount of hate speech. The passage so often quoted from Leviticus calls for mass murder of gay people.

If you don't approve of mass murder of gay people, then you disagree with that passage.

If you agree with that verse, then *that* is what frightens me. You are teaching children in Sunday School to murder.

"What is it about people like me that frightens you so much? What would you need to hear from us that would reduce your anxiety? " How can we talk to you when you have to ask this question? How can there be any dialogue with someone who turns a blank, confused look to a demand for one's basic human rights and dignity? You say you are not 'the worst kind of Fundamentalist?' Okay, so your not Fred Phelps. And? All that means is that your not a complete screaming lunatic. But just because your 'only' mildly schizophrenic and not full-blown paranoid and lost in delusion does not make you sane.

You say you don't want to impose your personal convictions on other members of society, but that is exactly what you did. If that was really true and not an attempt to create empathy than I would feel as though you are an open minded individual. In fact though, you made a direct contradiction. Evangelists, feel the way they do about the issue due to their inability to recognize people for what they truly are. In a lonely prison cell, it was the evangelists that MLK had to write to, begging for support in their task for human equality. Time and time again this need to not see the progression of evangelical doctrine, keeps the church in the path of a moral evolution. Not allowing people to marry who they see fit is fundamentally unfounded. We are all human beings and if your faith is placed in a righteous God, than I cannot understand how you can justify in your mind that this supreme being of good would not allow and condone people to share in the gift of love. In this time of yelling and hate, why not allow people to find pure happiness in a place everyone should be able to? In the warming embrace of another, tears can be stopped and the world can seem a little less confusing. Imagine for a moment how it is that you would feel if the majority of the population, as prop. 8 just showed, are against you being able to love in the eyes of the state. Isn???t it in this time of disparity that you would most long for the hug of the one closest to you? I hope you keep this in mind when further meditating on the issue. I may not be able to change anyone???s mind, but if they can just feel for even a second as the people they preach about feel; then it is a start.

You say you don't want to impose your personal convictions on other members of society, but that is exactly what you did. If that was really true and not an attempt to create empathy than I would feel as though you are an open minded individual. In fact though, you made a direct contradiction. Evangelists, feel the way they do about the issue due to their inability to recognize people for what they truly are. In a lonely prison cell, it was the evangelists that MLK had to write to, begging for support in their task for human equality. Time and time again this need to not see the progression of evangelical doctrine, keeps the church in the path of a moral evolution. Not allowing people to marry who they see fit is fundamentally unfounded. We are all human beings and if your faith is placed in a righteous God, than I cannot understand how you can justify in your mind that this supreme being of good would not allow and condone people to share in the gift of love. In this time of yelling and hate, why not allow people to find pure happiness in a place everyone should be able to? In the warming embrace of another, tears can be stopped and the world can seem a little less confusing. Imagine for a moment how it is that you would feel if the majority of the population, as prop. 8 just showed, are against you being able to love in the eyes of the state. Isn???t it in this time of disparity that you would most long for the hug of the one closest to you? I hope you keep this in mind when further meditating on the issue. I may not be able to change anyone???s mind, but if they can just feel for even a second as the people they preach about feel; then it is a start.

What is up on this site with all the multiple question mark typos (???) in its comment postings? It appears they show up where the writer has placed quotes or an apostrophe. "?"

An open letter to Richard Mouw
Dear Mr Mouw,
In response to your article in Newsweek Feb 9 ???Less Shouting, More Talking???
Sure let???s talk, since you had asked about my vision of a ???flourishing pluralistic society.??? Let me share that with you. It would be a society in a transition- very much like the fad of cigarette smoking in this country- once a very popular pastime- which now has been regulated, and relegated, and become no longer socially acceptable. It is frowned upon, and even illegal in some places. Historically the transition took decades to reposition cigarette smoking in the mind of a society where it had once been considered the norm. But of course, we had very good reason to do this- public health was at risk. So laws were enacted by our government to protect the general public from cigarette smoke.
Similarly I envision a transition with the fad of heterosexual coupling- yes, a very popular pastime indeed- which now must become regulated, and relegated. But of course, we do not have to have any particularly good reason to do this. Oh, but wait, we do! There is a very good reason- human over-population. It is impacting our planet???s health and placing it, and ourselves, at severe peril. Therefore laws must be enacted by our government to protect the sanctity of our planet from heterosexual marriage. We need to make it NOT legal for heterosexual couples to well, couple. Therefore we need to make it no longer socially or sexually acceptable. It must be frowned upon, and yes, totally illegal. Plus now that the heterosexuals have been scapegoated you can imagine the ensuing animosity, derision, and persecution they will suffer simply because of being heterosexual.
But gee, doesn???t this scenario sound all too similar to what has actually been happening for decades, and without any particularly good reason to the fags? Um, I???m sorry I meant, to cigarettes.
So now, Richard, you had asked where you would ???fit into that kind of society.??? Tell us if you would be voting to ban heterosexual marriage for the sanctity of our planet? Or would you just let it all go up in smoke?? Or would you be thinking that the heterosexual marriage ban was in reality a smoke screen for hetero-phobia???
Sincerely,
JAB