I waste too much time on the computer. What I should mean by that is that I should be using the time that I'm reading Facebook to use the treadmill. What I actually mean is that I spend the time on the computer slumped down in my chair just reading and watching instead of writing, and my blog has suffered for it. Once in a while, though, my Facebook also suffers for it. Case in point, I missed out on what could have been a lively conversation just because I didn't get back to it, and the moment passed.
On the other hand, there was the problem of just trying to choose which direction the conversation could have gone.
My friend M, who I've known since I was 19, posted a link to an article that a gay man had written about Rick Perry's comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism. He introduced the article by saying, "Like global warming, the 'gay gene' remains more an article of liberal faith than scientific reality." I could have started a conversation based around the words "global warming," "gay gene," "liberal," or "faith." Each would have been a distinctly different conversation.
I would normally assume that M, being a committed Christian, would be using the Biblical definition of faith --trust and/or confidence-- rather than the more secular definition that my brother uses, which is "belief without proof," but the context confused me. In either case, the issue of trust is certainly there regardless of what one might think of the issues. Since neither of us is a climatologist nor a biologist, we have to trust in the information given to us by other sources. He, for instance, trusts politicians, and political pundits, and something called The Daily Mail. I have found these sources to be highly suspect.
Curious that he considers the idea of a gay gene to be an article of "liberal faith" when I've only heard about such a thing from skeptical conservative sources. Certainly none of my gay friends, who are largely self-described liberals, have ever mentioned it, nor have I read about it in any gay publications. All the scientific research I've happened across seems to be going in an entirely different direction. Maybe I just missed it.
Ultimately, I didn't comment about any of those things. Instead, there was something in the Rick Perry article that reminded me of something else. In a comment, I posted a link to an article written by a woman in India whose son is gay. It had been posted on Facebook by a young friend of mine who had been living in India up until just a few days previous.
M responded thusly: "I have no interest in criminalizing homosexuality, and find that appalling. But, on the other hand, I am deeply concerned that my faith will be criminalized because it teaches that homosexuality is a sin. The recent court cases forcing bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, even though it violates their religions beliefs, is a case in point." In other words, he's worried that his First Amendment rights would be taken away if my Fourteenth Amendment rights are upheld.
There was a meme that was posted by one of my Facebook friends that showed a photo of a civil rights sit-in from back in the late fifties or early sixties, and had the caption, "Dear America, We've already had this discussion." I wish I had saved it, because it perfectly illustrates how I see this issue. The 1964 Civil Rights Act banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations. M's religious liberties are and have been protected Federally for half a century so far. But having those liberties protected doesn't mean he can use them to break the law. The bakers (and the photographers) in question cannot by law refuse service to atheists, Muslims, or even Satanists even though they may have strong beliefs about worshipping other gods or no god at all. Once upon a time, there were people in the South (maybe there still are) who had strong religious beliefs about the separation of the races. It doesn't make any difference. The law is the law.
However, sexual orientation is not on that list of protected minorities, at least not on a national level, so many cities and states have filled in the gap with laws of their own. Those places where the bakers and photographers operated their businesses had such laws, and they were called out for disobeying them. But for the most part, across the country LGBT people have no legal protections. In Oklahoma, for instance, there is no laws prohibiting my boss from firing me, or my landlord kicking me out of my residence for being gay. And, yes, a baker can refuse me service if he wants to.
Personally, I don't believe that this is as much about religious liberty as it is about using religion as an excuse to express one's personal prejudices, but that's just my opinion.
M says, "Doc, you are my friend. You have been for over 30 years now. And I would never tell you that your lifestyle choices aren't yours to make. But I am very concerned that the gay agenda in this country will cause a direct conflict with my orthodox, historical Christianity."
Yeah, I know. But as long as you're comfortable using words like "choice" and "lifestyle" to describe me, you're just not going to get it.
