Mark and my best friend from high school, Jeff, were a trio in my early college years. Since then, we've gone separate ways. Jeff was around our home town for a long time into my adulthood, but about a decade ago he moved to a small town on the other side of the state, and my only contact with him is via Facebook, and even that is rare. Mark moved to Chicago, and only recently moved back to a town about an hour away. I haven't seen him in nearly 30 years, but we talk on Facebook frequently.
Mark and Jeff are both FOX-style consevatives, and I'm... not. That makes for some good conversation, but only between Mark and me. I've learned from past experience that that Jeff is not so easy to engage, and that frustrates me. I'd like to be able to have an opposing opinion without being unfriended, but I'm afraid to test the boundaries for fear of never hearing from him again.
Today, Mark posted a link to an article about a pair of photographers who had declined to photograph a gay wedding based on their Christian beliefs, and were subsequently sued. The photographers were "found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines." The slant of the article was that the religious liberties of the photographers were being violated, and, y'know, dictatorships, coersion, authoritarianism, and other hyperbolic language. (Side note: the other point of view was presented without hyperbole. For an article with the other point of view, click here.)
The post got the following comments:
My first comment was a Biblical reference, to Luke 16:18. I'm sure Mark is familiar with the passage, but either he missed my point, or he was being deliberately obtuse to make his own point, which is acceptable. However, building it around the archaic idea of a "gay gene" is a bit odd, so I think his point failed. Also, one does not become an adulterer until one commits adultery, whereas one is gay or straight regardless of whether one has engaged in any sexual activity at all, so that comparison failed as well.My own point was that if the couple's refusal to work with a gay couple was really based in moral conviction, then they should also refuse to work with couples marrying a second spouse, and for that matter, any couple engaged in amarital sexual relations. Otherwise, they're just using their religion as an excuse to express a personal predjudice.
Jeff's last comment was the one that got in my head, however. What he said is something he fervently believes. I find it utterly ridiculous, and I was mentally trying to choose between a couple of snarky responses:
- Oh yes. The "L" word. I'd forgotten about that. That's terribly important.
- That's funny. That's exactly what liberals think of conservatives.
I've reached the conclusion that for me to be consistent, there is no way for me to refer questions of my stance concerning gay marriage to God. I have done this thinking that it was not a decision made by me to decide, and that it was the best way to handle it. However, now I think that refraining from sexual activity until I am married is also part of the package for me to be true to my beliefs, and therefore, able to legitimately say I adhere to them. People make mistakes, but planning on not making one is a different pinata. However, things are going swimmingly in the Failing to Show Up On The Woman Radar, so there is no immediate crisis. I do plan on being consistent, or abandoning Christianity. I can't do the latter, so now life is a little more interesting. I do think, in your post above, people demonstrate their failure to understand that God's interest in state affairs is pretty much non-existent, insofar that they affect his precepts. People are meandering, weaving, rudderless ships, and states are enormous fleets of them all trying to unite. It's a generous concession that He even acknowledges the concept.
ReplyDeleteWell, as an update, I stood my ground on another issue and lost Jeff again, tho this time he didn't delete his account.
ReplyDelete