The following is from a letter to the editor in my local newspaper:
Bible clear in opposition to homosexuality
Re May 7 letter, “Don’t use Bible to oppose gay marriage”: Mr. Hunt’s ideology is exactly what is wrong with our country today.
First and foremost, our country was built on Christian values. Second, Mr. Hunt mentions how we should keep the Bible out of our lawmaking. This is where our country has been misguided in the worst way. Without God in our lives, there are no laws, morals or family values. What we would then have is a type of society in which there are no consequences.
Whether or not Mr. Hunt or Bill Maher want to accept it, there is a God, and there are rules he wants us to follow. One may interpret some things differently, but without any reasonable doubt, in no way is gay marriage an acceptable lifestyle. It is not normal or acceptable behavior for two of the same sex to be engaged in a sexual relationship. To be honest, it is flat-out disgusting.
This does not make me a bigot, hatemonger or bad person.
The opposition for gay marriage is a force to be reckoned with. I, for one, strongly support a normal marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
Sean Dufresne
Amsterdam
Mr. Dufresne is, of course, entirely wrong. Let me explain how.
First and foremost, our country was built on Christian values.
Our country was not built on Christian values. It was built on thoroughly secular values, which is why, despite much debate on the subject, no mention of God, the Bible, Jesus, or Christianity exists in our Constitution, the founding document of our nation which laid out the framework for our democracy. This platitude is nothing more than an appeal to the popularity of Christianity among Americans. The personal faith of many of our founders is not relevant - the Constitution is.
Second, Mr. Hunt mentions how we should keep the Bible out of our lawmaking. This is where our country has been misguided in the worst way.
I'm afraid you're going to have to demonstrate how this is true. The Bible has not been in our lawmaking except in the dumbest of our laws (e.g. the infamous "blue laws" which provided religion-based limitations on the ability to buy things like alcohol or pornography). The Bible is far from a good source of morality or laws anyways, considering its excessive inclination towards the death penalty and its apparent love of slavery.
Without God in our lives, there are no laws, morals or family values. What we would then have is a type of society in which there are no consequences.
On the contrary, Mr. Dufresne, if you base your morality not on reason, logic, and the common good but instead on the dictates of a being whose moral authority comes from being the biggest, baddest kid on the block, and you obey them not out of true moral discernment but instead merely out of fear of his terrible, overeager wrath, your morality is shaky at best and juvenile at worst. Law, as well, does not come from God; it comes from the secular investigation and judgment of what is best for society, and how we should deal with those who violate our rights and safety. As for the nonsense about family values, to which god should we attribute them? To your god? Why? Why not Zeus? Family values come out of the kin bonds we evolved over millions of years, not a deity who capriciously orders the murders of millions because they're in the way of his favored people. Certainly not from a deity who murdered all of mankind in favor of a drunkard who so embarrassed his sons that they couldn't bear to look at him as they covered up his naked, passed-out body.
Whether or not Mr. Hunt or Bill Maher want to accept it, there is a God, and there are rules he wants us to follow.
The assertion that there is a god is not evidence that there is. It is simply your (poorly-thought-out) opinion. As for god... oddly enough, of course, his rules just so happen to coincide with your personal preferences, right? Assuming that we are discussing the Biblical god, you're promoting the ideals of a group of bronze age shepherds. Not only are the rules your god gave them puerile and simplistic, they are often conveniently waved off as “not applicable” because of some obscure point of doctrine – poorly interpreted doctrine, if I may say so, as it is instantly contradicted in the next verse of the text.
One may interpret some things differently,
This, of course, is true. And one person may interpret different parts of the Bible differently, even going so far as to hold two mutually exclusive positions on the same subject based on different parts of the book.
but without any reasonable doubt, in no way is gay marriage an acceptable lifestyle.
Millions of Christians (whom you so gladly welcome into your fold for the purposes of head counts) would vastly differ with you on this subject.
It is not normal or acceptable behavior for two of the same sex to be engaged in a sexual relationship.
Based on whose authority? That of your holy book? Clearly not. The book itself could be used to argue either way. This is simply a reflection of your personal position, and can be dismissed as such.
To be honest, it is flat-out disgusting.
And here we get to the true purpose behind your position: The ick factor. Your theological hand-waving is nothing but a paltry smokescreen for the truth: Homosexuality disturbs your fragile concept of 'normal' and makes you uncomfortable, and you think you should be able to legislate your discomfort on the rest of the world.
This does not make me a bigot, hatemonger or bad person.
To put it bluntly, yes, it does. You are saying that people whose behavior makes you squirm with distaste should not be able to have the same legal rights that you do in a loving, committed relationship.
The opposition for gay marriage is a force to be reckoned with. I, for one, strongly support a normal marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
“Normal marriage” in that Bible you hold so dear was, more often than not, polygamous. And if we're going to go by what's “normal” (i.e. most popular worldwide) today, arranged marriage would be the rule. You're so terrified of people “redefining marriage” that you're oblivious to the fact that your church did it already.
Mr. Dufresne, if you are so intimately worried with the defense of marriage, perhaps you could take steps toward encouraging others to work through their difficulties rather than seek a divorce, and leave gay people alone. Unless you can provide evidence that their right to get married somehow infringes upon your rights or detriments your marriage, kindly keep your Biblical nonsense out of public policy decisions.
