Why Do I Have To Change?

cheesThere have been some great posts and articles around the web which show (in very simple terms for people like me) why I should not force a Vegetarian to eat meat.  Similarly, I don’t believe that I should force an Orthodox Jewish or Muslim person  to eat pork.  So, why should I change how I believe? 

Gay Marriage is not something I believe in.  So, why should I have to accept it?  I don’t accept torturing dogs for pleasure either (Yes, Michael Vick, I am talking about you), nor do I accept pedophilia as “something we must all just accept as society is changing.”

I know that many people will say that I am stretching too far here, but is it really so far?  Is Gay Marriage the edge of the cliff for society?  BIshop Harry Jackson seems to think so.  I watched him on CNN tonight (gasp, yes, right wing friends, I do watch CNN, even with Glenn Beck gone) and he was very emphatic that civilizations crumble with the decay of morals.

Guess what? He’s right.  So, keep your cheeseburger!  I live in California and I’m eating a Veggie Pita!

Advertisements

10 responses to “Why Do I Have To Change?

  1. Gay Marriage is not something I believe in. So, why should I have to accept it?

    For the same reason as you should accept that Jews eat Kosher and Muslims eat halal meat – and that a vegetarian friend will not take kindly to being given a plate of meat and told “it’s that or nothing”.

    Telling lesbians and gays they can only get married if they agree to marry someone of the other gender – and that’s “equality” – is exactly like serving everyone at the dinner table roast beef, and telling the hungry vegetarian guest “Eat what everyone else is eating. That’s equality – I don’t accept vegetarianism, why are you trying to force it on me?” – when all the vegetarian wants is to be able to have a decent meal that doesn’t include meat.

    I find this reaction from non-vegetarians quite a lot, in fact: they order a meat meal, I order the vegetable pasta, they ask why, I say “I’m vegetarian” and they spend the next ten minutes lecturing me about what’s wrong with being vegetarian and how they’ll never be vegetarian and telling me that I’d like meat if I just tried it.

    Exactly so with the opponents of same-sex marriage.

  2. I guess that’s at the heart of it. It’s not just including new morals, it’s taking over old ones and replacing them with the new morals. People can live side by side peacefully with all kinds of differences, skin colors, nose shapes, dress and custom, but morals are the fabric of society, you can’t live side by side with people of different moral fabric indefinitely. Sooner or later they will clash and one will supersede another until the morality of the majority is replaced by the minority.

    In the case of gay marriage, I just keep getting the feeling that it has nothing to do with the word and everything to do with the blessing of religion. If they can have the word, then the blessing goes automatically with it. That’s not something religion can stand for. Love the sinner, but not the sin. love the sinner AND the sin? such a subtle change.

    Glenn Beck is right.

  3. californiacrusader

    Well put. I’m so tired of being called a bigot for standing up for my personal beliefs. Those who support same-sex marriage need to understand that we can disagree with them without hating them. I tolerate their lifestyle. I only ask that they tolerate mine. Don’t teach my children your beliefs, and I won’t teach my beliefs to your children. And when it comes to school children (I happen to be an elementary school teacher), let’s allow PARENTS to be their own childrens’ moral compass. It’s not my place as their teacher to contradict a family’s personal or religious beliefs, even if it goes against my own. But, not everyone agrees! You won’t believe the comments I’m getting on my blog about what we should and should not teach in schools! Here’s a typical comment:
    “Once Prop 8 is overturned, I think that we should propose a proposition that would make it MANDATORY to teach gay marriage in schools.” See more at:
    http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/same-sex-marriage-in-schools-should-i-be-worried/#comments

  4. Sooner or later they will clash and one will supersede another until the morality of the majority is replaced by the minority.

    I agree. Sooner or later, the position that says some families are legally unequal, and some children deserve to be bullied and disrespected and made to hate themselves, will (I hope) be superceded by the belief that human rights are for everyone, that no child deserves to be bullied and disrespected in school, neither for themselves nor for their parents.

    Don’t teach my children your beliefs, and I won’t teach my beliefs to your children.

    Unfortunately, there’s a clash there. You want to teach some children that they’re inferior, you want to teach the other children that those children are inferior, and you want to teach all the children that some families are inferior. You can’t do that without clashing with the belief of some parents that all children should be respected, that no child should fear hearing their parents disrespected by their teacher or their classmates, and that all families should be supported by the school.

    So you have to decide whether you’re going to support equality and respect for all children and families. It’s as simple as that.

  5. standingfortruth2008

    Jes –

    I’m not sure if I follow your logic here. How is Religion teaching that some children are unequal?

    I guess we should start with the basics – do you believe in a God? Allah, Vishnu, Budha, Jesus, anything?

    If not, then I think I may have a glimmer of where you are going with this and we probably will have to agree we are on separate planes. If so, you must hope the Southpark episode is wrong. 🙂

    If you do have a belief in a Supreme Being, then I am back to being confused over your logic.

  6. I’m not sure if I follow your logic here. How is Religion teaching that some children are unequal?

    I didn’t say “Religion” was teaching anything. I said that californiacrusader seemed determined to teach children that some children, and some parents, are unequal.

    I guess we should start with the basics – do you believe in a God? Allah, Vishnu, Budha, Jesus, anything?

    No, I’m an atheist (brought up a Christian, quit believing in God about 20+ years ago).

    But what does that have to do with believing that teachers shouldn’t teach any children that they’re inferior, nor allow any children to be made to feel inferior because of their parents? Surely you don’t think a person must be an atheist to believe that teachers have no business discriminating against their students, either because of their students’ sexual orientation, or because of their parents’ sexual orientation?

    If so, you’re just wrong: I know many teachers who believe in a Supreme Being who believe otherwise. This doesn’t just apply to kids who are gay, or whose parents are gay: indeed, I know Christians who regard it as even more important to educate straight kids/kids with straight parents that being gay is normal, because if they’re allowed to believe that being gay is immoral/inferior, this tends to lead these kids into bullying/harassing the kids they’ve been taught are inferior. These Christians use a text about “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea”, arguing that it is certainly a cause to “stumble” if a kid is brought up with bigoted prejudices against their classmates and friends… whether on grounds of religion, race, sexual orientation, or anything else.

    That’s why all children need to be taught that gay or bi or straight is just normal.

  7. standingfortruth2008

    well, thanks for answering my question. So many Gay Supporters on these just ramble on about religion, bigotry, yada, yada and don’t want to actually converse.

    So, this is where I wanted to talk to. Does Gay Sex and Gay Relationships exist? Yes. Do I agree with them? No.

    Just as I do not agree with Pedophiles. ANd I hope you do as well. However, society agrees with us that Pedophiles are committing crimes.

    I hope we agree so far.

    Now, going back to Gayness. It is not illegal, however, my religion question was whether you believe in God. You do not (now, but did).

    So, we will have to disagree here, because I believe that families are the reason who life, the universe and our time here on earth.

    I will venture to say you believe that when we die, that is it, the end. Nothing more.

    In both cases, we have our own beliefs and so while yuo may advocate Gay Marriage as OK, I do not.

    What if our mutual friend Bob (made up) advocated Pedophila and you and I do not. What makes us right and him wrong?

    I hope we can continue thsi discussion in a good manner, so please don’t take offense at the wording.

    Thanks!

  8. This stance that Prop. 8 is about hate and inequality just doesn’t make sense. This isn’t about rights, it is about the definition of a word. That word doesn’t apply to same sex unions, since they are, by definition, different. They should have their own name.

    An example:If I approached a gay man and told him that we wanted to change the definition of the word gay to include pedophiles and people in incestuous relationships, he would have an issue with that. No, gay only means a man who loves a man! But what about those poor pedophiles and people in incestuous relationships? Don’t they deserve equal status with gay men? Don’t they deserve equal rights? Well, no. Because gay means gay, not pedophiliac or incestuous. And pedophiles and people in incestuous relationships have their own words already that describe their types of relationships.

    Same thing with marriage. It means a union between a man and a woman. Same sex unions are same sex unions, or domestic partnerships, if you will. As for rights, they already have the same rights as married heterosexuals. They even have more rights than heterosexuals who have cohabitated for longer than a year – just ask the couple who recently tried to get coverage on the same medical insurance in my place of business. DENIED! Same sex couple? ACCEPTED, without a single question.

    So don’t talk to me about rights. It is a scare-tactic to get people emotionally charged. Make an intelligent choice – educate yourself about the real rights that CA same sex couples have. Read up on the CA Domestic Partnership Law of 2005.

  9. So, we will have to disagree here, because I believe that families are the reason who life, the universe and our time here on earth.

    And yet, you’re for discriminating against some families, and I’m not.

    What if our mutual friend Bob (made up) advocated Pedophila and you and I do not. What makes us right and him wrong?

    I can’t accept as valid any analogy that tries to equate pedophilia or cannibalism or murder with being gay. I do find such analogies deeply offensive: what if I were to make an analogy equating believing in God with being a pedophile, and asked you how you could defend the one with not the other? I think you would find even explaining why you didn’t consider that analogy valid deeply offensive, and me a jerk for proposing it, wouldn’t you? So, if you don’t want to come across as an offensive jerk, take back that analogy and use something inoffensive.

    “What if our mutual friend Bob (made up) advocated voting for John McCain and you and I do not. What makes us right and him wrong?”

    “What if our mutual friend Jean (made up) advocated vegetarianism and you and I do not. What makes us right and him wrong?”

    “What if our mutual friend Chris (made up) advocated Livejournal and you and I do not. What makes us right and him wrong?”

  10. standingfortruth2008

    I guess you are going to have to offend yourself then. Why can’t you follow the logic? Do you agree that Pedofilia is horrible, or ar you standing up for it?

    If so, I will have to ban you, because that is truly sick. If not, then we can continue.

    Here is the logic, please follow.

    You are gay and you want 2 gay men to be able to have a relationship, including homosexual intercourse and marriage.

    You state that this is OK. Is it OK then to have open relationships in a Gay “Marriage” whereby each person can also have sex and emotional relationships with another person?

    If so, then we have a real problem. If not, why?

    Simply as possible, you seem to decide what is OK and what is not, but not give any credence to anyone else’s thougths. To you, it is hatred and intolerance if they do not agree with you.

    Another example, do you advocate ploygamy? If not, then you are intolerant.

    Let me know if you follow this.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s