A reader replies

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This comment was posted outside Blogspot. The writer has given me permission to post it here.

The writer references this column: http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2011/08/demanding-is-not-accepting.html



An interesting post, and I find I agree partially.

It's true, that to request for someone to change their method of thought to be accommodating is a big request, and one that can't be easily done. It's also true that, honestly, people are allowed to have their opinions, and religions are allowed to follow their dogma... to a degree.

The problem is, when this oversteps the boundaries as well; I have no problems with someone hating me. Go ahead and hate me. Loathe me for absolutely no reason and detest me simply because I was born. It's your prerogative, and I've no issues with that. Hell, I'll even fight to defend your RIGHT to hate me.

However... as soon as you step over the line and stop just "hating", and start actively attacking? Ah, that's when your right to hate disappears. You can't attack, harm, murder, or restrict employment based on birth circumstances... this is where things get messy.

To state that a religion has the right to hate gays or whatever, is to also state that it's alright to hate them. This then gets twisted into the belief that it's also okay to do other things that the religion states to do, such as "stone them to death". Which... is not okay.

The biggest issue, is that if a gay person wants to go to church, they generally want to go for the sake of praising the lord and, more or less, just to be a christian in most cases. Technically, as long as they don't have gay sex, they're not even committing a sin, either. They can cuddle and kiss and love each other and all that so long as gay sex isn't involved, and the bible's pretty clear on that, though some choose to interpret things as being beyond that point.

Conversely, however, if a christian hates a gay person, there's a chance they'll actually try to kill or physical, emotionally, or financially harm the gay person in return, since they've been told it's okay to do that, when it really isn't.
So... what do we do about the problem? If you allow such thinking to continue, and encourage it, then it causes other unfortunate implications, and far, far worse sins to be committed. Should we not choose the lesser of two evils? It's a tricky question, and not so easily answered.

Do I think gays should be allowed to be married in terms of a christian or other religious wedding in the sense of being bound under god's law? Nupe, not really. Do I think they should be allowed to say "I love this person and want to be married to them and get full legal standings and benefits for such"? Yes, yes I do.

Marriage is not really related to religion, and should not be mistaken for such. It is, however, a church's decision to state that it is not within their dogma to permit the religious binding of two individuals for sins committed, or because they simply believe it does not follow their scripture.

However, I also believe that marriage should be specifically separated as being non-religious. You can be married by virtually anyone with any kind of ranking. You can be married by a town leader, a military officer, and a fat guy in an Elvis suit in Las Vegas. You can be married if muslim, just as you can be married if hindu, and can be married if christian.

People have got to stop thinking that their religion is the ONLY one which exists, and that their interpretation is the ONLY one which counts.

Now, with that being as it is, gays should be allowed to marry and have full entitlement to such, and they should be allowed to call it marriage, because, contrary to the christians' idiotic belief, they don't actually hold any kind of claim to the word, and it has nothing to do with their religion in the slightest.

I do, however, also believe that they can say no to marrying gay people in their church. That is fine, if not quite perfect, as it does still state that it's alright to hate other people or discriminate against them, but really, that's what the religion's all about. For being a religion which preaches peace and loving of ones' neighbours, there's an awful lot of suggestion to harm or kill each other in it over the most trite and trivial of things.

Personally, I consider this to be kind of bizarre that we encourage this sort of a mindset, and I believe it to be exceedingly unhealthy for everyone involved. However, that is merely my opinion, and I equally do not believe I have any right to force my opinions upon others, and therefore will not do anything about it, except state my opinion and why I feel that way.

If we could all just agree to disagree, and not blow each other up, it wouldn't be a problem. As that doesn't seem to be the case, however, I would suggest that the churches, mosques, and so on, who preach love and understanding, to also accept that it is also their responsibility to teach people that, while you can have your own opinions, you do not have the right to force those opinions on others at gunpoint, and you do not have the right to use the bible as an excuse to kill people.

After the fact, it is often "oh such terrible people, they're not true christians, or muslims, or whatevers", but it really is the responsibility of the church, who controls the dogma, to explicitly explain to their membership that, just because it says you should kill people, doesn't mean you should REALLY go out and kill people in god's name.

As this really isn't done in a preemptive measure, and the encouragement to hate people is still not only allowed, but often encouraged, I would suggest that the religion might want to consider rethinking their role as a morality role model, because they're doing a pretty piss poor job of it.

If it requires you to suck in your gut and accept a gay marriage in your church, in order to keep your idiot congregation from murdering gays and transgendered people, or to not blow up abortion clinics, then perhaps that's what you're going to have to do, because the current method of "preach peace on one hand, and hatred on the other" just doesn't seem to be cutting it.

It's been shown time and again, with consistent, repeated evidence, that people will still kill in god's name, because they think it's the right thing to do. So long as this occurs, I don't think it's really possible to claim the moral high ground when your opposition doesn't do the same thing back.

Yes, you have the legal right to not let gays marry in church, and I agree with you, that if all things were equal, that you would be allowed to do so. All things are not, however, equal, and considering the message it sends, I would suggest that people start thinking about their actions, or lack thereof, in a larger, broader sense, of what these can do on a large scale.

Remember, no single rain drop thinks it is to blame for the flood, but it doesn't mean you're any less guilty for letting it happen.