Date: Sun Nov 30 21:49:34 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Follow Up
At 04:18 PM 11/30/97 0600, you wrote:
You mentioned that there were more homosexuals around than we know of. You mentioned about relatives, etc. I mentioned a couple that I knew. You mentioned some you knew. You are right, they have been around for a long time and contributing measurably to our society. Their "little secret" was not a secret, but those who knew them ignored it. You might say they exercised tolerance. What you are seeing today, is a backlash from the right because all the "glorification" (for lack of a better word) of the homosexual and his lifestyle. It is the in your face taunting by groups such a Queer Nation that has elicited, in part, the response.
I can appreciate that, certainly. But that kind of stuff is such a small segment of the homosexual community. Just like Rabbi Kahane and the radicals don't speak for all Jews, let alone anything close to a sizeable percentage, the flaming queers and drag queens are still a small, small, small part of the whole. I'd agree you're entitled to not have a drag queen throw it in your face, but I don't agree the rest of them all need to go back to the closet, or that we were necessarily a better world when they stayed in the closet. It's just a risk in cultural diversity I'm more inclined to take.
The second aspect is the push for legitimizing the relationship of a homosexual couple under the banner of "marriage." The concept of marriage is Bible based. I am opposed to an employer recognizing a homosexual partner as "spouse." If they did that, why not a "live in" of the opposite sex. Such rights should be reserved for legitimately married couples.
I don't have a problem here either. To me, a life partner is a life partner. Homosexuals are just as capable of commitment as heterosexuals. Giving "partners" the same benefits as a spouse of the opposite sex in the employment scenario is just a perk. But that's me. And I don't have a religious based view of marriage as I'm sure you do.
Back years ago, when homosexuals were discrete with their activity, there was no "fear" of them. There still isn't. "Homophobia" is simply a product of that crowd trying to engender sympathy for them as being persecuted.
Well, I think the logic here is backwards, forgive me. They were discrete, because if they weren't they were persecuted. To me, the logic flows that if we want the government to put them back in the closet, we're ultimately asking permission or license to persecute. That is the evil I see. That's why Pastor Neimoller's quote is so on point.
Personally, what homosexuals do in their sexual activity, (besides being repulsive to even think about) is of little concern to me. Unless it affects me or my family in some way I see it simply as sinful activity.
Glad to hear (sort of). Making that statement work in the marketplace of political ideas without resort to biblical prohibition can be problematic, as you've seen.
I hesitate to be a spokesman for God, but I'm not sure he sees sinful acts on an analog scale. If that is true, homosexual activity is just as bad as adultery, being a thief, cheat, or liar. The proper Christian attitude is to accept the person, but reject the sinful activities. After all, it's in the genes. Examined closely, we are all SIN positive.
This is SO funny that you talk in these terms, since I just made up an algebra example without benefit of your analog scale in the last reply, as I tried to show that I thought I could understand where you're coming from.
So, how do you think we are doing overall in our attempts to get closer to agreement? I find it easier to openly share my feelings and opinions with you. And I can absorb a lot of hits without being offended. You might say I am becoming more tolerant. ; ) How about you?
Oh, I think we're doing GREAT! And I think you've done extraordinarily well meeting me on my playing field through most of our dialog. I do think you display an increasing tolerance. Thanks for what you said about the marriage analogy. Your willingness to work toward that higher goal of communication is outstanding. We continue to have "definitional" issues, but we're recognizing them when they occur. I flash a little anger from time to time, and snap and snarl occasionally, but you handle it well and for the most part don't take what I'm saying personally as I try and smash home a point when the blood gets going.
I'm not particularly enthused about going off too far on the homosexuality promotion tangent, because there's just so much ground to cover on the religion and government question. I don't think it at all imperative that one side ultimately convince the other. I think we'd have made progress toward 3/4 of the resolution if we can get each side to articulate the other's views.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment