-------------
Irl,
I get e-mail from plenty of people who disagree with me on any host of issues, and most of them are from just regular folks who disagree with me, saying basically, "Bob, I disagree with you and here's why". I'll level with you, I've never been able to understand the mindset of people like yourself who seem to be driven by hatred. I mean, it's obvious you hate me, and that's fine. I mean, I'm a big boy and I can certainly take it, but what causes you to have such hatred toward some talk show host you disagree with?
Just being honest with you, that's all.
Take care,
Bob
----------------
Bob,----------------
It's taken me some time to write back because I find your letter a bit incredulous. Honestly, I wasn't sure of what to say, and I've spent a good amount of time thinking about how to respond.
I could have not responded at all, because my instincts are that you are not sincere in seeking to understand me. It's not that you are incapable of understanding me, but you have already pigeonholed me into the "unsaved anti-Christian" and are convinced I am fated to hell.
I could respond by pointing out that you didn't actually deal with any of the points I raised, and observe that accusing me of hatred is avoiding the issue. I would still love to hear the scripture and verse where Jesus advocates the torturing of people. I've always thought Jesus was quite clear when he quoted Hillel, demanding his followers obey the dictum, "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others." But since you don't find torture hateful, you can easily slither around Christ's commandment.
So, in as few words as possible, I'll try to explain why I have such problems with you.
First, I find you arrogant. You assert that your show is from a "Christian" perspective, and that you are "Fearlessly Defending the Faith." More often than not, your show is from your perspective and you generalize your beliefs to be the proper, true "Christian" stance. This makes you the arbitrary governor of what is or isn't proper Christian dogma, and I don't recall you ever being appointed to the position.
Further, I find your arrogance unwarranted. The "arguments" you stake out are fueled by profound ignorance. What technical training do you have to opine on subjects like evolution, medicine or thermodynamics? You have a basic understanding of these subjects, yet act as if you have are expounding from a full and comprehensive education. It is clear that you are not!
But I want to keep this discussion grounded, so let us discuss an example: Evolution. You dismiss evolution as being unscientific, yet you have never spent any time deeply researching the subject at a accredited university! You can point to no scientific studies that conclusively disprove evolution, yet you act as if there are! Further, you dismiss evolution as being "un-biblical" and demand that every Christian fall in line behind you and do the same. Yet there are Christians who accept evolution without denigrating their beliefs. Catholics are the biggest example of this, when, in 1950, the Catholic Church took a neutral position on evolution and allowed Catholics to believe in evolution. Provided, of course, that their belief in evolution does not take away from God's revelation through Christ!
Now, I know what you're thinking at this moment. You're cranking up your arguments in your Top Ten CDs and preparing to state that you are simply following the dictates of the Bible and being a good Christian. But that doesn't solve the true problem I am pointing to: That you are unwilling to take on the established churches and hold them accountable. If dismissing evolution and accepting the "factual truth" of the story of Genesis is necessary to salvation, then you must denounce Catholics and demand that they repent. But you won't do this, will you? You really aren't willing to rock the boat when there are advertisers on the line, are you?
This letter is going on longer than I intended. My first few observations are but the beginning of my complaints, though I will bring this to a close by stating this: I think Christ's teaching are broader than your theology. Your theology makes God a cosmic blackmailer who holds a gun to my head and says "Believe in me or you will suffer forever." Your theology denies compassion, leading you to believe adherence to the Bible is more important than treating others well. This is evidenced by your willingness to deny abortions to rape victims, your willingness to deny marriage to homosexual couples, and by your continued stereotyping of all Muslims into terrorists.
In short, I find you loud, ignorant, and cruel.
But you're a big boy and can handle my opinion, right?
Irl
32 comments:
Hi, I love your blog. I tried to respond before but I don't think my comment got through. I think your letter is fantastic. I had a feeling Bob was checking in. You brought up some great points, but the kicker is- he's got too much time and money invested in playing the victim. It's a good gig. I've debated him before on the "gun to my head, believe in me or suffer forever" God. He goes round and round with this one, but there is no defense for a God that only loves you if... My understanding of God is that his love for us is unconditional. They God that Bob praises is through a belief in fear. This not only denies compassion as you say, but is the antithesis of compassion. Anyway, I'm glad you called him on his arrogance and his cruel hypocritical beliefs.
Keep up the good work.
Dean
I wonder would it be tolerated by the public for a white supremist to have a radio program and spew his brand of hate speak? I seriously doubt it, so why is Bob allowed to preach his hatred and lie's on public airwaves where young children could accidentally tune in. I think what Bob air's on his program is far more obscene than Janet Jackson's tit being flashed, or an occasional swear word on television.
What makes you think Catholics are Christian? For someone who thinks he is so smart you are really off on most of the basic tenants of Christianity. I was Catholic until I was born again and came to know the truth of who Jesus is. It is God that opened my eyes and no amount of intelligence on my part could ever do what He did. God does not hold a gun to anyone's head. What a ridiculous thing to think. But God does give us free will to choose to follow Him or not. If we admit we are born sinners, repent and accept the sacrifice of His son Jesus for our sins we are saved.
Are you born again? If you aren't your eyes have not been opened to the truth, so it is natural for you not to understand the things of God. You can't even read and understand the bible without God's help, so how in the world would you agree with anything Bob has to say? It is like light and dark. No offense to you, you really can't help it.
Man is born in sin and separated from God. Hard to understand isn't it? But that does not mean it is not true. I will be praying for you that you would come to know the truth.
The GOOD news is that God really does love you and wants to be reconciled to you. That is what He sent Jesus for, to be the sacrifice for our sins.
Your intellect is not going to save you, it will only push you further from the truth.
Suzanne, in a way you proved Irl's point.
You are saying that in order to be saved, you must agree with Bob Dutko.
I missed the Bible verse where it says that.
There's plenty of Christians, including the "born-again evangelicals" who disagree with Bob and see him as the hateful, petty individual that Irl describes.
To say that disagreeing with Bob means you're not saved is the height of blaspheme, and you should probably take a good, hard look at your own relationship with God if you're going to spew forth that garbage.
I'm sure you won't respond, just as you didn't last time.
irl,
Well said. Keep up the good work!
Gosh Suzanne,
I'd like to think that God gave me intellect to try to understand his creation, um... better?
Why isn't it possible that these ancient texts which have been handled and tailored and translated over and over and better and better, by MEN, yes MANKIND decided which books were in, which books were out. Why can't these things be subject to someone's interpretation? I always laugh about Jehovah's Witnesses naming their cult after someone's failed translation of Hebrew for God's name. You would think they would change the name of their cult by now, wouldn't you?
God created the Earth in 6 days and rested? Do you realize that a day is a spin of the Earth as we travel around the sun? A day hadn't been defined yet during creation, or had it? Who the heck knows? It didn't matter to God who populated the Earth with dinosaurs millions of years before we arrived? Genesis is an ancient book by an ancient people, trying to explain, without science, their world around them. Those early books try to teach people how to be civilized, don't they? Don't kill, don't steal, don't sleep with your neighbor's wife, etc.
The moral of the story is that the Bible is a special book and that a rigid interpretation is probably a BAD thing. I was raised in the Orthodox tradition, they don't seem to be as hung up on the time frames, and the little bits of minutia that the Protestant traditions seem to be. Not to offend any of my Protestant friends here, just sayin'.
So, go head and just accept that evolution might just be GOD'S MECHANISM FOR CREATION! You know, if you're a believer, all of these systems that our scientists are trying to understand are HIS rules. Why would he create rules, then promptly break them? Because he can? I don't know, doesn't make much sense to me.
I for one am angry with Bob out of pure jealousy. Here, he has figured out how to draw a salary capitalizing on people's willful ignorance and fear...spouting his litany of bullshit to eager wide-eyed dolts, and selling his "top ten" lists to people who are so intellectually lazy they would rather pay a deluded (yet emphatic) hack (Bob) for the privilege of listening to his medieval understanding of science than investigate for themselves.
Sorry about the drama...I'm just angry with Bob...because...well..I didn't think of this first!
Irl
Excellent post. I guess Bob hasn't had a chance to look over all the other posts on this blog that are reasoned,researched and documented replies to some of his statements ( the "here's why ") and merely has taken a shortcut to assume that this blog is just the fulminations of a cabal of Dutko-haters ( and not "regular folks" as he writes). Bob, there are times that you are just so full of BS that the only response of a rational person would be to blow one's cork. Take care to you to,Bob.
Dean and Irl,
From listening to Bob's show, I don not think that your views on Bob's beliefs are accurrate. Irl, you wrote, "Your[Bob's] theology makes God a cosmic blackmailer who holds a gun to my head and says "Believe in me or you will suffer forever."" Why do you think Bob believes that God is like this? I believe, and I'm almost certain Bob does also, that God's love for us is unconditional. Which is why Bob believes that a former terrorist can be saved. A more realistic analogy of God and man would be like man(us) running in darkness not knowing where we are going. God tells us, 'I sacrificed my Son for you so that you may see and be saved, believe in Me and I will show you the light!'. We can choose to walk in darkness until we fall off a cliff or we can accept God's gracious gift to us by believing in Him. He did not pull a gun to our heads, it was by the disobedience and sin of man that brought us to this state of death.
Maybe instead of "cosmic blackmailer" you should say "cosmic con-man". How many snake-oil salesmen does it take for us to realize that the old "make up a disease (sin/damnation)and sell the cure (fundamentalist Christianity)" is the time-tested unfailing tool of the con man and Munchausen sufferer.
Follow the money...
Hey Irl,
"Your theology denies compassion, leading you to believe adherence to the Bible is more important than treating others well. This is evidenced by your willingness to deny abortions to rape victims, your willingness to deny marriage to homosexual couples, and by your continued to stereotyping of all Muslims into terrorists."
I don't think that Bob's beliefs deny compassion. I think that it is right do deny a woman an abortion even if she was raped. This is in no means out of a lack of compassion for the woman. But this belief is with compassion to the baby that his life is worth something. Rape is obviously a very bad thing but it does not justify the death of the baby.
I also think that it is right to deny homosexuals the sacrament of marriage and the economic benefits of being married. By what basis is a couple married? If they are married by God's authority then they should follow God's principles or marriage, an important principle being that marriage is between a man and a woman. The government also gives economic benefits to married couples because they are more beneficial to the sociatal structrue of America. What benefit to the sociatal structure of America do homosexual couples have? I do not think that homosexual marriage is right, but that does not mean that I lack coompassion for people who practice homosexual behavior. Because God loved me I love them quite fervently, which is also why it is important to try and reach out to them, not out of hatred but out of love.
"your continued to stereotyping of all Muslims into terrorists". When did Bob stereotype "all Muslims" as terrorists?
"If dismissing evolution and accepting the "factual truth" of the story of Genesis is necessary to salvation...". I don't think Bob believes that denouncing the theory of evolution is an essential part of being a Christian. However he does believe that the theory of evolution CAN definitely be a stumbling block to a Christian's faith or a wall of disbelief to a non-Christian. I have personally seen both of these aspects of the theory of evolution which is why I also make an effort to question the theory.
-P.S. Sorry for posting such a long comment, I hope it is constructive.
@djtyg I did not say in order to be saved you have to agree with Bob.
I will respond anytime no problem. I did not notice anyone responding to my question of whether or not they were saved, so I guess I have my answer.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, I do pray that you will come to know the Lord in a personal way.
@Mule,
God didn't give you intellect to try to understand His creation. You never could. He is God, not a man and His ways are so much higher than ours that no one even the most "intellectual" person in the world could ever understand His ways. It is the intellectuals that have such a hard time believing in God because they are trusting in themselves instead of trusting in God. God uses the foolish to confound the wise.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, but since you are trying to figure out who and what, you will never see the purity, beauty, and truth of scripture. Those MEN as you put it were inspired by the Holy Spirit is what they wrote and it hasn't changed. I am not a bible scholar by any means, I just know what I believe and I know the change that God can make in a life.
I have seen it in my own life and two of my children, it is a miracle of God. I pray that one day you will experience that same miracle.
Who really cares about who is right and wrong about evolution? When Jesus comes back science and all the worldly things man has created are going to disappear anyways. Why not work on your relationship to the only person that matters or will ever matter...Jesus Christ.
If you disagree so much with Bob then so be it, don't let that turn you against Christianity. Look to Christ not Christians. We are not perfect, but He is!
IliveBcauseofJC said...
I don't think that Bob's beliefs deny compassion. I think that it is right do deny a woman an abortion even if she was raped. This is in no means out of a lack of compassion for the woman. But this belief is with compassion to the baby that his life is worth something. Rape is obviously a very bad thing but it does not justify the death of the baby.
A woman who is raped, along her her loved ones, may undergo severe physical and psychological trauma. The feeling of helplessness, violation of ones self, etc. is a hell I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. For many, the resulting pregnancy serves as a life long reminder of that trauma.
But despite this, you've elevated your "compassion" for the unborn "baby" to a high level than your "compassion" for the woman who was raped! To me this is unconscionable. I surely wouldn't want to use the power of the government to force all raped women to get abortions. But Bob, and you I presume, certainly want to outlaw all abortions, even if such an abortion could prevent untold pain and suffering of the woman.
I also think that it is right to deny homosexuals the sacrament of marriage and the economic benefits of being married. By what basis is a couple married? If they are married by God's authority then they should follow God's principles or marriage, an important principle being that marriage is between a man and a woman. The government also gives economic benefits to married couples because they are more beneficial to the sociatal structrue of America. What benefit to the sociatal structure of America do homosexual couples have?
First, when persons such as myself advocate for the freedom of same-sex couples to marry, we're talking about civil marriage, not any sort of "sacrement" done under "God's authority". Just like many religious groups would rightfully refuse to marry me based on their convictions, these same groups could (and do) refuse to marry same-sex couples.
More importantly, you argue that opposite-sex marriage somehow provides more benefit to society than same-sex marriage. However, you completely omit any explanation as to why you believe this! Your rationale might be that same-sex couples can have children and thus provide future taxpayers and workers. However, this rationale is clearly false, because having children really has nothing to do with being married. Furthermore, same-sex couples may elect not to have children while still reaping the multiple benefits provided by the government. Conversely, same-sex couples who have children are denied these benefits.
Suzanne said:
God didn't give you intellect to try to understand His creation.
This may be one of the silliest things you've written on this blog. (And that's quite an achievement!)
If not for human's intellect to understand nature (i.e., "His creation") you wouldn't recognize the world you live in. Without the ability to understand the conduction of electricity and the propagation of light, communications over the Internet would be impossible. Without the ability to understand the transmission of radio waves, you wouldn't be able to listen to Bob Dutko every day. Without the ability to understand thermodynamics, you wouldn't have transportation by car, train, or airplane. Without the ability to comprehend the nature of motion, we wouldn't realize why we have day and night, not to mention satellites orbiting the Earth and trips to the Moon. I could go on, but I trust you get the point.
Now, you may eschew science in favor of the imminent return of Jesus (2000 years and counting!), but the rest of us, including the vast majority of Christians (including Catholics), are going to continue to use our intellect to try to understand the Universe that exists around us.
Suzanne,
you said: "You can't even read and understand the bible without God's help, so how in the world would you agree with anything Bob has to say?"
You have equated Bob's words with God's.
I guess I'm still trying to get past that if all of this is God's creation, including the laws of physics, why would God violate his own laws creating things that would operate under those very same laws? I could go on and on, with all kinds of connundrums that make one pause. I object to Bob because of two things: (1) He's waaaay too political for a "man of the cloth" or someone who is trying to "minister" to God's "flock" and (2) He regularly plays games as irl and others on this blog have pointed out, trying to say that his brand of Christianity is being victimized by science. I don't think science is out to victimize anything, science is a method for obtaining empirical facts. Science questions it's own findings. REAL scientists come up with competing scientific ideas all the time and these are debated by people who devote their lives to this stuff, so I agree with the proprietors of this blog, Bob knows jack sh*t and jack left town about real science.
Oh and one other thing, Bob is all in favor of war against brown people in the Middle East. I think Jesus said a lot about war in his own words as recorded in the Gospels and mind you, I'm no Protestant quoting chapter and verse, but didn't Jesus say things like:
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of god.
And of course the "Golden Rule" of do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So, I guess I had 3 things after all.
Jeff,
"For many, the resulting pregnancy serves as a life long reminder of that trauma". I'm aware of this argument. However overall I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense. Firstly I have great doubt that "many" women would, in the long run, wish that their child was dead instead being alive to remind her of an incident that the child had no fault in. Secondly, the trauma that the woman experiences is can be based on perspective. She can choose to look at the baby as an evil reminder or as a blessing from God that He took such a terrible event and gave her something good from something evil.
"But despite this, you've elevated your "compassion" for the unborn "baby" to a high[er] level than your "compassion" for the woman who was raped! To me this is unconscionable".
I never said I did not have as much compassion for the woman as I did for her child. The thing is, I believe that an unborn baby's life is in essence of EQUAL value as any other person's because God made them both. I believe that the baby's life is worth as much as the mother's or my own life. If you have an equal compassion for two people, what is more important, one person's comfort or the other person's life? You believe that woman should not be required to have abortions but have a CHOICE. Where is the baby's choice? Perhaps we have a difference in world view and fundamental beliefs that causes my beliefs to seem "unconscionable" to you. But, if you believe in truth, how do we fgure out who's right?
1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Let's let the Word of God speak.
Until you admit your need of a savior you are lost and all your intelligence, reasoning and pride will result in your eternal separation from God.
That's right, when confronted with Jesus' words, use Paul against him.
Ilive,
I know that normally we're nice to you because unlike the trolls, you tend to be respectful. But you crossed the line here:
"The government also gives economic benefits to married couples because they are more beneficial to the sociatal structrue of America. What benefit to the sociatal structure of America do homosexual couples have? I do not think that homosexual marriage is right, but that does not mean that I lack coompassion for people who practice homosexual behavior. Because God loved me I love them quite fervently, which is also why it is important to try and reach out to them, not out of hatred but out of love."
For you to say that gay people have no societal benefit, when there's millions of straight marriages out there that could easily be shown to be a detriment to society, that's just beyond the pale. You say you have compassion for gay people, right before you say that they're not your equal.
Let's play that game, only with you in the spot that you're putting gay people. How about if a large portion of the population tells you: "I don't think you should have the same rights I do, but I care about you. You don't have the right to (fill in the blank) because I think it's wrong."
Feeling the love?
Either you don't realize that marriage in this country isn't strictly regulated to the Christian church, or you're a bigot. I'm hoping it's the former.
You also never answered my question on whether or not you're offended by Bob's defense of torture in the name of Jesus. You don't seem to have a problem with Bob saying that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are either terrorists or sympathetic to them. Given that logic, do you think all Christians should be accused of wanting to blow up abortion clinics?
Most of your posts have the phrase "I don't think". Maybe that's the problem.
Hey Irl,
You think Mystere will give us more free ad space with this post?:)
Suzanne,
I'm surprised that you would post a long bible verse here. After all, in this very thread, you said:
"You can't even read and understand the bible without God's help..."
If us "unsaved" people are unable to read and understand the bible, why would you post a passage from it? Are you just taunting us?
To Ilive beacause of JC
Belief is a funny thing. It's amazing how much control it has over people and how fervently they feel they need to defend it. What's funny about it is that it has nothing to do with reality. Belief is too small for reality. The universe is much bigger than the shoe box we try to put it in with our beliefs. Belief can never match up to reality because it deals in absolutes. It's a black and white opinion such as...you're either for America or against it, or in this case, you believe or you go to hell. As a father myself, there is nothing my son could do to keep me from loving him. My love for him is unconditional. This means that regardless of his belief in me, I will always love him and would never do anything that would keep him away from me. Especially not for eternity. I would like to think that God would at least have the same compassion and unconditional love for the people he created. As far as "disobedience of man" goes, of course people will disobey. I certainly don't want my son to obey every command given to him like a mindless robot. I know he will doubt me at times and rightly so. How else would he or anyone ever learn by always acting with obedience. I'd like to think if God created the universe he had the forsight(after all He is God)to know that we would disobey.
But I'm sure you believe otherwise. That's good too. Just try not to hurt anyone because of those beliefs because, regardless of "sin" we already seem to have our own moral compass. That's why if you treat someone like dirt, you usually feel like dirt.
Dean
The problem is that marriage is in the eyes of the state a business arrangement. I believe that same sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights under the law as anyone else. Same sex couples should be allowed to have a "civil union" where they enjoy all the legal benefits of a "married" couple. Let religion do what it wants in terms of sanctioning or not. It's really like the abortion debate, if you're against abortion, don't have one.
Dean,
"But I'm sure you believe otherwise". I actually see were your coming from and agree in part with what you believe.
"I certainly don't want my son to obey every command given to him like a mindless robot" I believe that God wants us to not be "like a midless robot" which is one of the strong reasons, I believe, that God gave us free will-even though we could choose sin and death over Him.
"...regardless of his belief in me, I will always love him and would never do anything that would keep him away from me. Especially not for eternity."
I believe that God does love us this way, that is why He sent us His only son to die in our place, even while we were living in sin against Him! God didn't cause us to die, we did. Yet "who[God] wants ALL men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. " (1 Timothy 2:4 NIV, brachets and emphasis added).
"I'd like to think if God created the universe he had the forsight(after all He is God)to know that we would disobey" God did know that we would disobey, but that doesn't make it right for us to do.
-Let me know if you disagree or if anything is unclear. I was a little confused what this meant, "Just try not to hurt anyone because of those beliefs because, regardless of "sin" we already seem to have our own moral compass".
-djtyg, Mule, and Jeff
I have read your very interesting comments and could respond on Monday (I have to go and I can usually only use the internet at my college)-Peace.
Nice work. I guess Bob is googling himself on a regular basis....isn't that a sin?
When Bob says he "doesn't understand people like you" he is breaking the ninth commandment. This liar knows exactly why we do it. It is our passion to show how wrong and dangerous people can be when "religion" is their motivation. Bob claims that evolution is a religion and his passion is trying to disprove it. Bob says that climate change is a religion, and he is trying to disprove it.
Well I think that aliens aren't demons trying to get me to believe in evolution. I think that bird shit on your windshield is not a sign from God that you should have started a career in Christian radio. And it is my passion to listen and laugh at a self righteous idiot and all of his followers, and try to disprove it.
Suzanne. Trying to teach us "sinners" how to be saved by using bible verses is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Try splashing some of the koolaid you're drinking on the fire instead.
Hey djtyg,
I do think that it would be unfair for a large population of our country to arbitrarily say that some other citizen doesn't have the same rights as they do or is not their equal. However homosexuals do have the same rights as we do. I do NOT have the *right* to be married to or have a civil union with someone of the same sex as me. In the same way, other people, even if they practice homosexual behavior, should not have the right to be married to someone of the same sex.
From an economic veiw of homosexual marriage there is not as much benefit as heterosexual marriage. Even disregarding any problems with homosexual practices itself, homosexual marriage does not encourage the same values the traditional marriage encourages. There is either two wives or two husbands, two moms or two dads. I think that men and women were meant for eachother and that they compliment eachother in marriage in a way that two men or two women would not. I also believe that it is important for their children to have both influences, to have a mom and a dad.
Response to Ilive,
Your statement that," homosexuals do have the same rights as we do. I do NOT have the *right* to be married to or have a civil union with someone of the same sex as me. In the same way, other people, even if they practice homosexual behavior, should not have the right to be married to someone of the same sex", is ridiculous. Since, marriage is entered into between two consenting adults, who love each other, and are at least in part sexually attracted to one another, why would heterosexuals ever want to enter into a marriage with a person of the same sex. That’s like saying that before desegregation, blacks had the same rights as whites because a black person couldn’t go to a white school and a white person couldn’t go to a black school. I understand your point, but it seems very disingenuous, unless what you’re saying is that the only reason you personally don’t enter into a marriage with a person of the same sex is because the law says you can’t. If that’s the case I question the sincerity of your heterosexuality.
You’re remaining points that “homosexual marriage does not encourage the same values the traditional marriage encourages”, “men and women were meant for each other and that they compliment each other in marriage in a way that two men or two women would not”, and “it is important for their children to have both influences, to have a mom and a dad” are simply statements of opinion based on your personal beliefs and are not factually based statements that can support your argument.
First, what “value” does heterosexual marriage encourage that homosexual marriage doesn’t? Love? Compassion? Emotional support? What? Please give us some specifics. Outside of heterosexual procreation what “value” or emotion can heterosexual couples experience that homosexual couples can’t? They are, after all, still human.
Secondly, if “procreation” is one of the economic values of heterosexual marriage that you are talking about then why do we allow couples who either cannot or choose not to have children marry? Why are childless couples not required to adopt at least one child in order to maintain their marriage license if that is what the states motivation is in promoting marriage?
Finally, if having a mom and a dad is so critical to the emotional and moral survival of a child, why do we still allow divorce in this country? It seems to me that many more children are left either fatherless or motherless because of divorce by heterosexuals than suffer the same fate because of same-sex marriage. Your position is based on emotion and a “because the Bible tells me so” mentality, not on any factual evidence that can be cited. So please tell us specifically what would be the disastrous outcome the bible thumpers are so afraid of if same-sex marriage were legalized nationwide. And be specific. No fair saying that morality would disappear, you have to tell us what specific moral failing would occur and why. No fair saying because it’s against God’s will because not everyone believes in your God but they are still U.S. citizens that should be granted the rights needed for the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the constitution. I think you get my point so please proceed to enlighten us.
response to gsc,
"That's like saying that before desegregation, blacks had the same rights as whites because a black person couldn't go to a white school and a white person couldn't go to a black school". I would disagree. In racial segregation we restricted people based on what they were born as and they had no choice in the matter. Traditional marriage does not do this, anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex. In terms of gender (male or female) no one is shown favoritism or special restriction as in racial segregation.
A key point is that no one HAS to practice homosexual behavior (unlike being born either black or white). It is true that some people may be more prone to homosexual temptation than others but that does not prove homosexual behavior to be 'just the way you were born' or unchangeable and it certainly doesn't mean that homosexual behavior is right.
"First, what "value" does heterosexual marriage encourage that homosexual marriage doesn't?".
I believe that marriage between a man a woman offers the value of contrast. Contrast (though it can sometimes be aggravating!) has a lot to give a marital relationship. If your going to spend the rest of your life on earth with this person, you not only learn all kinds of surprising/interesting things about the other person but you can also use them to balance and compliment your own character. For example, women are often much more relational then men and will take certain things more importantly than many men would. Men are often times more straight forward and can often be a little less caring/gentle than women. Not only is the different aspects of behavior important in a child's life (sometimes a child needs a caring mother or an encouraging father) but it is also valuable for the spouses themselves. Perhaps a man's wife will help him to be more patient and less competitive at a certain social event or perhaps a woman's husband will help her to be more confident in her work, etc. I'm not saying that it is impossible for homosexual couples to practice this value of contrast but I do believe that heterosexual couples are definitely much more equipped or geared towards this value. I also am aware that this is an opinion, but I think it is a pretty logical thing: men and women are different and if their differences are combined properly they compliment their relationship and their ability to raise a balanced family.
"Secondly, if “procreation” is one of the economic values of heterosexual marriage that you are talking about then why do we allow couples who either cannot or choose not to have children marry?"
I'm sure that the government appreciates the reproduction of its citizens that heterosexual marriage supports. But, as you pointed out, that must not be the sole deciding factor of every government supported marriage.
"So please tell us specifically what would be the disastrous outcome the bible thumpers are so afraid of if same-sex marriage were legalized nationwide".
If nothing else, it could very well make homosexual marriage and therefore homosexuality seem right. And I wouldn't appreciate that being taught to other Christians in school (even though it's already happening). It seems very logical from a 'bible thumper standpoint' that such a person would disagree with homosexual marriage being legalized nationwide. It would be contradictory to what they believe.
Post a Comment