A response to my response
Posted On Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at at 2:07 PM by Pastor MikeWhile I'm at conference, I will share a News Gazette Opinion writer that mentioned me.
The protest against gay rights by many respectful, decent Christians is unfortunate. There are widespread variations to the traditional family, including divorce (which Jesus denounced) and single parenthood. There are many practices prohibited by the Bible (adultery, eating pork, lying, wearing blended materials, idolatry, using the Lord's name in vain, working on Sabbath, coveting neighbors, dishonoring parents). Yet only gay marriage incites fervor for constitutional bans.
In response to my letter urging that we not legislate morality, Pastor Michael Jenkins noted in his Dec. 10 letter that all laws are rooted in morality. But there is a distinction between laws that protect safety or property and laws trying to save people from their own moral choices. Laws against reckless driving, embezzlement and assault help decrease the number of victims and offer victims legal recourse. However, I do not see how my interests are served by laws that prevent gay members of my community from sharing the same rights as me.
Denying on religious grounds full, equal rights for other adult, taxpaying citizens is inconsistent with our First Amendment and with the "blessings of liberty" toward which our Constitution aims. My marital status is relevant to civil law due to issues of taxation, inheritance, visitation and other secular matters. This is why in the eyes of our government a civil marriage conducted by a judge is as valid as a religious marriage conducted by a minister.
The selective focus on gays doesn't seem "Christian" to me.
SETH MENDELOWITZ
Champaign
.jpg)
You know, this is where I came in, replying to your comments in the letters column about gay rights.
Why is this an issue for you, PM?
Why do you insist on condemning gay people in print? You could be wrong, you know.
Take a new approach. Condemn divorce instead. There's a lot more evidence that divorce is unBiblical and destroying the family than same-sex couples who want to have someone to love in their lives.
Have mercy.
And here's the thing, PM, and Nate, and Loren, and Michael, and anybody else...
I think it's time for me to abandon following your blogs.
From this point on, it is just going to be vain repetitions of the same questions. There will be no change.
Before you write the Gazette again, PM, repeating the same calumnies as when I came in, you had promised to tell me what your view has to offer a young gay person, just starting to realize the nature of his or her sexuality. With other people you consider sexual sinners, you can offer the promise of monogamy and love if they give up their adultery or promiscuity or polygamy. For gay people, you can't offer them any sexuality at all. You can only offer celibacy and denial of sexuality, which is cruel, hopeless, and even unbiblical. You were going to answer that; you promised you'd think about it and address it. That was about a month ago.
Similarly, you said you would confront the question of literalness just last week, which to me is crucial. The Bible says we should not suffer a witch to live, but I don't see Christians organizing groups to go kill the Wiccans out there. Well, there WAS the Ku Klux Klan, but that's another story...
I'll stick around long enough to see if you can address these things.
Responding to that letter in tonight's paper is simply your pride getting the better of you, PM.