A battle not of our choosing
33.2 million people in the world are living with HIV/AIDS.
25 million have died as a result of AIDS or complications thereof.
12 million children in Africa are orphans after losing parents to the disease.
AIDS is the leading cause of death for African-American women aged 25-34, and has been for 7 years.
Every two minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted
Nearly 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2 per day.
The gross domestic product of the poorest 48 nations is less than the combined wealth of the world's 3 richest individuals.
The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion.
According to http://www.biblegateway.org/:
the number of times "poor" is mentioned in the NIV bible: 178
"widow": 106
"orphan": 6
"sick": 72
"love": 692
All told, there are 2,703 verses in the bible that refer to caring for the less fortunate.
There are 7 that are translated to refer to homosexual behavior.
Yet, "Christian" radio speaks endlessly about the dangers of the "homosexual agenda".
The Religious Right are spewing such venomous hatred toward LGBT people that many of us who consider ourselves progressive christians are forced into fighting a battle not of our own choosing; the constant battle for full inclusion and acceptance of all people regardless of orientation.
No offense to my LGBT brothers and sisters, but I am tired of fighting this battle when there are people starving to death, sexually abused or dying of some wretched disease.
But unfortunately I don't get to choose the battle ground. That has been chosen for me. Because of the venomous hatred constantly spewed by "the right" I have no choice but to speak out in defense of the dignity of all regardless of race, social status or orientation. To remain silent would mean that I would also be complicit. As a result, I and others like me have less time to devote to society's more pressing issues. There are people suffering and dying and we are forced to fight a battle over who is screwing who.
Meanwhile, God cries....
And Satan laughs his ass off.
(2 votes)
- Rev_Roger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
re: thousands of years
You are correct historically regarding marriages between multiples. Money and power were certainly major considerations along with premature deaths during childbirth in combination with shorter lifespans.
Care of the young is difficult at best today, so imagine what it must have been like then. If there were several young ones especially infants, someone would have been there to care for them in the event of premature death. The preceeding remark will probably provoke sexist responses, but we must look at historical context of each occurance in the Bible and try to piece together a picture of life then. We will likely never understand all of it.
There were provisions in the Bible if a man didn't want to marry his brother's wife in the event of his brother's death. Interestingly the woman was allowed to spit in the brother-in-law's face in the presence of the Elders.
I have no objections whatsoever to laws preventing marriages between multiple partners, though I am curious why you assumed the group would consist of one man and multiple women. It could easily be any combination. Yet the same reasoning applied to same-sex marriage will be applied here as well because the claim will be made that rights are being denied. If the burden is on those limiting others rights and in this case you don't seem to support this extension of rights, then explain why a loving, committed group of partners (again the makeup of the group is undefined), shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Your wording in the last sentence above, is quite intriquing as you used the phrase "rights of same-sex couples" and a few words later you said "privileges afforded heterosexual couples". I'm not sure how to interpret this.
Once again, even if we limit the historical context to the the laws here in the US, one group is asking for new rights under the law. One group is asking the others to completely reverse direction. I fail to understand how the burden is on those being asked to change.
Re: Re: Re: Rich Men
Rev Rog - you must be a hoot in the pulpit. Those are some very compelling numbers about the priority of what is spoken of in the Bible. However, does God have to repeat Himself multiple times before we take Him seriously?
The next question I have is - How do you preach against what the Bible teaches as sin without sounding judgmental or as you suggest, without spewing venomous hatred? There are standards that the Bible sets that is part of the Christian living experience and as a pastor, it is your duty to teach about these standards. So how is it done without sounding judgmental?
Agreed, some preachers do a poor job at it and do come across as very mean spirited. Some also forget their place and try to preach or teach the standards of Christian living to people who are outside the church, or as many of the right would call them, the lost. But there are some preachers that never even mention sin, and that does not seem to fall in line with Scripture either. Jesus called sin sin when He saw it in the face of the Pharisees. Paul was very clear that we should not continue to sin in order for more extension of grace. I John encourages us to progress in our sanctification so that we will sin less and less.
So there is a balance somewhere, but the question is where. How do you preach about sin without sounding judgmental? I am not sure I have an answer because it is a question that I have been bouncing around for a long time.
I think pshepherd has hit it right on when he suggested that helping people includes providing countless jobs for countless people. In fact, I think this type of help is very Biblical. How many times does the Proverbs tell us that a lazy man will not eat? Would some of the poverty in Africa be eradicated if there were companies moving down there and establishing jobs where people could earn money to buy food and shelter? I know the practicalness of this is not readily available for an immediate assistance, but providing jobs is a very honorable way to help the downtrodden.
I have seen and heard about many on what you would consider the "religious right" becoming more active in progressive causes, especially fighting poverty, AIDS, and global warning. This article from the CS Monitor talks about just that.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0318/p14s02-bogn.html?page=1
And have you seen the new Pat Robinson and Al Sharpton commercial - it is great fun.
http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/unlikelyalliance
Angelo and I were talking about this on another blog post, I do believe that the mindset is changing within the Christian right. Though I do believe there is something that the progressive left, especially the Christian progressive left can do to speed this change up. But it will require a change on the progressive side as well. Rev Rog you seem to like numbers so here is a few more numbers for you:
Since 1973, there have been over 47,000,000 abortions in the United States.
That's 1,300,000 babies every year
That's 108,333 babies every month
That's 27,083 babies every week
That's 3,735 babies every day
That's 155 babies every hour
That's 2.6 babies every minute
That's 1 baby every 25 seconds!
If Christian progressives can begin to fight for life in all areas, even for the least of these that cannot fight for themselves, you will find more of the Christian right coming over to help. And I would be first in line.
I for one am looking forward to seeing these changes take place in our society.
Ben
Emerging Church
In an effort to get more points for the month, I feel compelled to answer a post.
Benj, you wrote of an emerging church where collaboration is possible between progressive Christians and conservative Christians. It's good that this is taking place. I'm just curious as to the characteristics of this emerging church.
In a previous post, you wrote that it would be hard for Southern Baptists to collaborate with liberal denominations on a national level in the forseeable future. I would like to see more of a collaboration in this area, but it seems like it would take time. And it would take an attitude of realisticly acknowledging our differences and working on common ground. I think on certain issues, like abortion or gay rights, progressive and conservative Christians are just going to disagree. But it doesn't preclude them from collaborating on issues that they do agree on, issues involving helping the poor, helping outcasts and minorities and illegal immigrants. I think that's one of the points Pope Benedict has been trying to make: interdenominational dialogue and interfaith dialogue doesn't mean glossing over differences, it means agreeing to disagree about certain things and focusing on issues where there is common ground.
I look at Christian history and there has always been disagreements, there has always been debate. From the earliest times, in the debates between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, to the debates between Augustine and Pelagius, the debates between Martin Luther and Erasmus, there has been debate. I love American history and there is a history of individuals who have been friends even though they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (the Republcian and the Federalist), Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch, Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil.
I think Progressive Christians and Conservative Christians can collaborate on poverty issues, as long as they realize that on abortion, on gay rights, on other issues they'll be on opposite sides of the picket line. How then do churches work on poverty and issues where they agree on?
Re: Emerging Church
From what I have seen about the Emerging Church, it and the people involved in it are largely silent on the abortion issue. This obviously is an area of criticism of the emerging church from the evangelical right.
I guess to answer your larger question, it depends on what you envision this cooperation to look like. Is it just a joining of manpower in like-minded ministries that have the same goals? Is it a joining of financial resources? Is it Evangelicals working to elect the same candidates that Progressives want elected or vice versa? Is it the (for instance) IPC and SBC (or any other progressive/conservative organizations) beginning a joint venture to raise 1 million dollars to buy mosquito nets for Africa to prevent the spread of malaria?
I am not quite sure how you envision it. And how far the joint venture needs to go to be effective.
Can you share more specific thoughts?
Ben
Re: re: Emerging Church
I guess I was wondering if this emerging church is an evangelical phenomena among more moderate evangelicals. In a previous post you mentioned a spirit of elitism that has prevented evangelicals and Southern Baptists from collaborating with more liberal denominations like perhaps Quakers or Methodists or Episcopalians or such. You mentioned before how you feel the church should be in charge of efforts to resolve poverty rather than government, but that it isn't in the condition right now because of its lack of cooperation. I personally don't think churches have the resources to take on that responsibility from the government, but I do think it can do its part to alleviate poverty, and I agree with previous posts where you diagnos the problem of church disunity. I guess from personal experience I'm wary of this emerging church if it defines Christianity from an evangelical prism. I have no model that I see cooperation between denominations as being, I only think it's good that they cooperate in whatever fashion in areas of common interest, like poverty or perhaps helping illegal immigrants. I was investigating how different churches have tackled issues of poverty and have found the Baptist Global Response (http://www.baptistglobalresponse.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&t...), the American Friends Service Committee (http://www.afsc.org/africa-debt/learn-about-debt/debt-faq.htm), Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/8020_59906_ENG_HTM.htm), Catholic Relief Services (http://crs.org/about/), the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) World Hunger/Poverty program (http://gbgm-umc.org/Umcor/hunger.stm), Lutheran World Relief (http://www.lwr.org/), the Presbyterian Hunger Program (http://www.pcusa.org/hunger/what.htm), and I'm sure there are various other Christian groups out there that I haven't yet found on the web. With these groups already established to combat poverty, I'm always wondering why constantly reinvent the wheel, perhaps these groups would be more effective if they coordinate their efforts rather than stay within their own denominations because of doctrinal issues or such. I found an article in the Christian Science Monitor about poverty efforts (http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/5974) and the author found that one of the things that have hindered efforts is a lack of coordination among various relief agencies.
I think church cooperation is a laudable goal, but I also think we should be realistic about efforts to achieve cooperation. Churches will always have their differences, and in today's climate, issues like abortion and gay rights will always be tinderbox issues. I see cooperation between liberal and conservative denominations only when they agree to disagree on those issues and work on issues like poverty. It may be pooling their collective resources. It may be using a rotating homeless shelter situation, where churches in an area take turns housing the homeless. I'm not really sure. I picked poverty as an issue because that seems to be something that is becoming an area of common interest. Realistically speaking, liberal and conservative denominations can work side by side on poverty issues, while realizing that on other social issues, they may find themselves on opposite sides of a protest.
I'm not sure if I'm describing this well. I may be trying to define a couple of different thoughts at one time. Does anyone see where I'm getting at?
A Hoot
Thanks, I think. ;-)
Regarding my particular homiletic style (and more accutely, my writing style) I personally find great value in posing questions or alternative views. It is in searching that we find God, and in our certainty we negin to lose sight of God. My blogs, particularly are intended to foster discussion and occasionally a little controversy so that we all can wrestle with our beliefs and understandings, hopefully gaining a better understanding and a glimpse of God in the process.
As regarding sin: I am a firm proponent of contextual criticism. When using scripture, I try to compare it to the greater context of scripture. Therefore, it often comes down to either: 1) does it interfere with your relationship to God?, and 2) does it harm your fellow man?
Oftentimes, it is sufficient to pose the question, and allow the Holy Spirit to convict wherever needed.
A lesson I learned from a fellow pastor from South Africa:
when the conversation turned to how pastors should lead their flock, he shared an unexpected insight. As a literal shepherd in his country, this pastor knew the answer.
"Some would say a shepherd leads from the front; others say it's from the back or the side. In my country, none of this is true.
"A shepherd must lead from within the flock."
I make no pretension about holding a monopoly on truth. I am with my flock, traveling with them, guiding them from within, and learning all the while.
Roger
Monopoly on Truth
Sure you can know that you hold a monopoly on the truth. Do you follow the One who said, "I am the way and the TRUTH"? Maybe what you cannot hold to is that you have complete monopoly of the understanding of the meaning and applications of His teachings.
But I am sure that is a much longer discussion...
The method of how you lead your flock is commendable. I find it revolting to sit under pastors that claim to have it all figured out and have no questions in their mind about the things/methods of God. I find it encouraging when pastors realize they have just as much to learn as I do. Guiding from within is a good thing.
Ben
Sin - "to miss the mark"
Rev. Roger,
I pointed out sometime back that the word "sin" originally meant simply "to miss the mark", or "to err in judgment". Only in more recent times as it been used to mean some great unpardonable offense against God that requires intervention by a priestly class to gain pardon. Thus the Church established itself as the arbiter, assuming unholy powers of fear over human beings in the process.
Now talk about sinning---?
Rich
Preistly Class
You said, "Only in more recent times as it been used to mean some great unpardonable offense against God that requires intervention by a priestly class to gain pardon." I agree that the church throughout history has used sin as a way to hold its parishioners captive requiring many legalistic things from them. And that has been a downfall of the church.
However, the Bible clearly teaches that it is sin (whether you want to define it as missing the mark or something much worse) that separates us from God. And that is the whole reason for the cross - to restore that relationship through an embrace of Christ. Once the embrace has taken place, all sins are wiped clean and there is no longer condemnation in Christ. But that does not give us the freedom to continue in sin. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? May it never be! God forbid!
There is a responsibility to strive to live a godly and holy life and sometimes that may include a pastor chastising his flock just as a literal shepherd will hit the sheep when they wonder too far off.
The balance is knowing how to chastise in love versus spewing venomous hate speech, as Rev Rog put it. And recognizing that not everyone is your sheep.
Ben
Good Point!
As such, we all miss the mark, and being intimately familiar with and painfully aware of my own shortcomings, I try to err on the side of patience and love as much as possible.
re: Battle
Is "battle" the correct term? Isn't it a battle only if you choose to fight it?
If God really is crying, would the cause, at least in part, be the battle between believers? One of the major reasons Jesus wept as he approached Jerusalem was simply the treatment believers would sadly extend to others in His name.
Your numbers are interesting but there is more to the story. The number one richest man in the world has pledged most of his riches to the charitable foundation founded by the #3 richest man. A bit more digging will reveal astounding amounts of money going to "good" causes. Most of which are Liberal/Progressive causes.
I will on occasion listen to some of those "Christian" radio stations and the number of appeals for funding to global missions far outnumbers the incidents of "venomous hatred. Water wells, health care including aids, food, schools, clothing, housing to the poorest of the poor in the poorest nations. The list of needs and those attempting to fullfill those needs far exceeds the available space here.
Please pardon my ignorance but are there any Progressive Christian radio stations. In my travels across this country, I haven't run across any. If there are none, then why?
I am left wondering why you would accuse one group of unnacceptable behavior and then resort to that same type of behavior?
re: "battle" as the correct term
Peter,
I think that "battle" is a correct term in this context, as in the analogy put forth in Ephesians 6:10-18:
"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power.
"Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
"For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
"Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
"Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness.
"As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace.
"With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
"Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
"Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints."
The battle in this case is simply speaking out in defense of the dignity of all. I see that as a battle against "the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" and as a battle which is right to choose to fight.
The sword in the "full armor of God" is a short dagger-like defensive one, not a long broadsword as used by soldiers in wars. The "full armor" includes none of the other offensive weapons used by a Roman soldier. Thus, the "sword of the Spirit" is not aggressive: the "battle between believers" is, in this case, not a reason why "God cries" -- unless one or both sides do battle with aggressive weapons, not using the "sword of the Spirit". The criterion is the degree of respect with which one seeks to defend perceived truths rather than to impose victory.
John Howard Yoder has a paragraph in his book "He Came Preaching Peace" (page 20) that refers to actual war, but which I think is applicable to the kind of strife that Roger is talking about:
“No one created in God’s image and for whom Christ died can be for me an enemy, whose life I am willing to threaten or to take, unless I am more devoted to something else—to a political theory, to a nation, to the defense of certain privileges, or to my own personal welfare—than I am to God’s cause: his loving invasion of this world in his prophets, his Son, and his church.”
In that spirit, doing battle in the defense of the dignity of all is a fine and ultimately peacemaking thing. Even the dignity of one's opponent is defended.
Bill
Rich men, philanthropy and media
Your comments bring up an interesting constellation of issues around wealth. I don't know the numbers on Bill Gates' percentage of wealth given to charity, but I'm guessing that although the amount is great the percentage is low. And by low, I mean anything below half. Seriously, how much wealth does one person need. In my entire lifetime my family's total earnings will be a measly percentage of what Gates is worth yet I will live comfortably on that amount. I'll even grant him the luxury of having 5 or 10 times that amount for himself, but then I want him to give every last penny of what is left away to those in need. If you can cite numbers that can persuade me otherwise please do.
As for Progressive radio stations (Christian or otherwise) I contend that since they would be challenging the status quo they won't find the financial backing to make them happen. Pat Robertson makes over $400 million a year. He can finance his message very easily that way, but if he were to take a more serious view of the Biblical view of wealth (imho) he would be giving so much away to fight poverty that we couldn't support his media enterprises. And that's just one Christian. Why would corporations spend money to put out a progressive message that challenges their right to profit at any cost?
re: Rich Men
The #1 richest man, at least according to Forbes Magazine is Warren Buffet, who is giving most of his fortune to Bill Gates' foundation. I'm not certain about Gates' giving habits, but if it is published it shouldn't be hard to find.
I've always been fascinated by radio, both the technical and business sides. Commercial radio as a business naturally relies on advertising. Large corporate entities with mega advertising budgets buy time from the large media conglomerates with hundreds of stations. Time doesn't permit discussion of the deals with "music" industry, though they are quite lucrative.
Christian radio is a different animal and for the most part is operated as loose knit group of non-profit organizations. The majority of the stations are privately owned though there are a few groups that own larger numbers of stations.
You probably have heard the term "listener supported", so if the station remains on the air, then there are enough listeners and donors giving to the station(s) to keep it on the air. Many stations will also sell time for "Christian" commercials and the final method of funding comes as ministries buy air time to broadcast their message. The majority of "Christian" radio is funded in this manner.
If the message resonates with the listeners, the listeners give and the station continues operation. This is one of the few remaining areas where secular corporate interests have little effect. Has anyone researched the feasibility of "Listener Supported Progressive Radio"?
With advance of satellite radio, Progressives could get on the air with their message without the large expense of normal radio broadcast systems. Streaming is another way Progressives could "broadcast" their message, again with a far lower startup cost.
Like you brother I'm not rich by any stretch of the word and likely never will be. The statistics elude me now, but the numbers of people across the globe whose livelyhood comes directly through Gates' companies or indirectly through related industries is absolutely astounding. This point seems to be overlooked in many wealth discussions. Without resorting to semantics could providing a large number jobs be considered helping others?
One thing I will never do is question another's givng habits, whether it's Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or you.
re:re:Rich Men
You made a good point about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and the large amounts of money that they contribute to charity. It's a very noble use of money for them, and it's in the same spirit of the old millionaires of the late 1800s, like Andrew Carnegie or Nelson Rockefeller. I didn't agree with the way they accumulated wealth, but they did a lot of good in donating to create museums, parks, civic buildings. Andrew Carnegie wrote an essay called Wealth that I read in college that seems similar to the philosophy that Buffett and Gates holds on to. I think the main argument against such obscene accumulation of wealth is the power it gives to a few people while many people are trapped in subsistence living. It's the disparity between the few rich and the many poor that bothers me and many other progressives. The charity that Buffett and Gates do is commendable, but it's not enough to eradicate the poverty of so many people.
You make a good suggestion about Progressive radio and media. A few months ago, Rungavagai, Bill and I had a few posts asking about Progressive outlets to reach mainstream audiences. It seems to me that most of the successful Progressive outlets tend to be either newspapers like the Progressive Populist or the Catholic Worker, or magazines like Z Magazine or the Nation. I'm not sure why conservatives are so much more successful with radio, but you gave some reasons as to possibly why. I don't agree with conservative politics, but I do admire how conservative activists have worked from the grassroots level to affect change and push their ideas.
Progressive Radio or Progressive Christian Radio?
Do you both mean progressive radio or progressive Christian radio? If you mean progressive radio we already have that, it's called National Public Radio, or as conservatives like to refer to it, National Progressive Radio. That's why conservatives try every now and again to either cut or elimniate it's Congressional funding.
If you seek progressive Christain radio, tune into Interfaith Voices on NPR, hosted by Christa Tippett.
As for Buffett and Gates, they better get on the Carnegie/Rockfeller bandagon soon, especially Buffett at his advanced age. As the Bible says, "It is easier for a rope to got thru the eye of a needle that for a rich man to enter into Heaven".
BTW the word is "rope" not "camel". As the Aramaic language (that spoken by Jesus) has a rather small vocabulary, it used dots over or under words to change their meaning. Somewhere along the way some transcriber added a dot either to high or too low in the sentence structure and it got changed to camel (either that or some ancient fly made an unfortunate deposit at an inappropraite time and place!)
This is why I use as my preferred version of the Bible, the "Holy Bible: From The Ancient Eastern Text: George Lamsa's Translation From the Aramaic of the Peshitta", available from Harper & Row, Publishers, San Francisco. Dr. Lamsa devoted 35 years of his life to translating Aramaic into English. At the time of his life, early in the 20th century, there were about 250,000 people in the middle east, mostly in present day Kurdistan and Syria, living in remote mountain villages, that still spoke Aramaic as Jesus spoke it. Hence we hear Jesus' words much more like He spoke them.
Rich
Battle
I concede your point that there are many, even among the more conservative crowd who do try to address some of the larger societal issues. I also concede that many of the world's richest give veritable fortunes to charitable organizations. What I was trying to draw attention to is that fact that in many cases, people (even myself at times) get to wrapped up in causes and situations that are of little importance in the grand scheme, while neglecting the greater issues of importance.
This blog was written after several mornings of listening to a local Christian radio station preaching in support the proposed defense of marriage act, and frankly I iwas ashamed that so much air time was spent on an issue that was frankly of little importance when compared to the greater issues.
I will also admit that the tone of my blog was a bit incendiary, and intentionally so; but I fail to see where I resorted to the same type of behavior I was admitedly railing against...
Feel free to correct me if you feel that I did so...
Peace,
Roger
its about priorities
pshepherd,
there are many evangelical leaders who have come around and have adjusted their priorities to include a larger scope (and more valid, frankly) to what they consider moral values.
its about priorities though. and still, too often we hear leader from the religious right harp on why two people of the same sex who lover each other should not be able to get married and why we should vote for candidates who are likewise against gay marriage and abortion over any other considerations. The Religious Right to a large degree has supported a war-mongering, torture-sponsoring President because of his opposition to gay marriage and abortion. A number of years ago, Bush pledged a few billion for the AIDS fight in Africa, which pales in comparision to our 500 billion for war. Its about priorities and the Religious Right and this President have them terribly wrong.
As for progressive Christianity, there may not be a lot radio stations, but there are tons of organizations, most of which are through the denominations that do anti-poverty work. Indeed, these organizations are some of the largest in the world.
re: priorities
Stephen,
I spend a great deal of time pondering much of what you have outlined above. For whatever reason, though I haven't heard anyone give voice or simply lay out the case for the priorities you hold dear without resorting to negativity.
In your discourse above you effectively labeled a very large number of people that hold to beliefs passed down for thousands of years. Beliefs taught by some of the most respected people of all walks of life. If you truly believe marriage should include combinations other than male-female, then positively lay it out. Is this something that has been discussed at other points in history? Did other civilizations exist that embraced this issue? Do they still exist?
When researching federal spending, the figures vary by source and are dependent on what is included in the various categories. Spending on Social Security and other mandatory social programs is within a 3-5 percentage points either way of military spending including Iraq and Afghanistan. I do need to locate some current figures on aid to other countries and other social related expenditures.
With all this said, please accept my apology in advance for any offense. I simply want to hear someone lay it out in positive terms, with verifiable facts why they believe what they believe. In other words, tell me why you are right, not why I'm wrong.
the burden
As for gay marriage, I do not accept your challenge. I think the burden is upon those who think it should be outlawed to demonstrate what harm it does to society for two loving, committed adults to enjoy the benefits and shoulder the responsibilities of marriage. Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage and the sky has not fallen. Similarly for Vermont who has accept civil unions. New Jersey and other states are following suit. If you are attempting to take away freedom from people, than you better have a good reason for it. I have yet to hear any reasons of any substance. The burden is on the opponents of gay marraige to make such a case. All that I have heard to date is that somehow heterosexual marriage will be undermined by homosexual marriage. What evidence or proof has been provided? What problems will there be? The burden is on others.
Here's a positive portrayal of a realignment of federal budget priorities that would meet more closely withour values.
http://www.truemajority.com/oreos/
PS. The $400 Billion doesn't include the $200 Billion we spend on Iraq and Afghanistan.
re: the burden
Take a moment to consider what you are asking: you expect, yes expect, those with opposite views to reverse direction and put aside everything they have been taught and what was taught long before you and I graced planet earth. The legal precedents which are ancient history would be overturned as well.
A group is seeking fundamental societal change and are unwilling to explain why???
Today, technically everyone has the same rights under the law regarding marriage. The laws make no mention of love. Why is that? Some of the legal eagles might step in here, but revisions providing new rights, privileges or protections are what is really sought.
Maybe I'm a backwards thinker, but I was under the assumption that it was the burden of those seeking change to convince everyone else that they should change.
What then happens once this door is open? Why should these provisions be limited to two persons? Are the freedoms of those that desire marriage between more than two parties being limited? If love and commitment are the defining parameters shouldn't the same argument apply to these people as well? I believe you can envision where this could go.
PS: I'll go check out the link later.
fundamental societal change?
I don't think gay marriage is fundamental societal change. It may be for the fundamentalists, but not for most people. If two people of the same gender have lived together for years, been in a commited relationship, etc. why should they not have the same privileges and responsibilities of marriage? The burden is on you to show what harm is done. I can say that the fact that there are homosexuals getting married where I currently live, has absolutely no bearing on the heterosexual marriage in which I am about to engage.
As Ian rightly notes, your biblical or even historical conception of marriage doesn't seem to hold much water. Even if it did, assuming that because society did something historically, it is a reason for continuation is wrong. As Ian notes, women were considered property in a marriage up until quite recently. Slavery is historical and Biblical, we don't do that anymore.
Yes, the burden is on the opponents of gay marriage to say what harm done. You are entitled to disagree within your religion, but if you are going to abridge personal freedom in our democracy, than you need to demonstrate the societal harm in non-religous terms. I have yet to any argument that does so.
Thousands of years
Yes, the law does not mention love because historically marriage was not about love. In fact, it was about arrangements between families involving money and power. Thousands of years of marriage were about women as possessions, does the longevity of that position argue in favor of keeping it that way? Men were not always compelled to have only one wife. The biblical standard (if there is such a thing) allowed for concubines and multiple wives. It also compelled a man to marry his brother's wife if his brother died with the specific intent of having offspring. That law was in effect for a long time, but I doubt any of us object to it having been changed.
I must agree with Stephen here that the burden needs to be on those who would limit the rights of same-sex couples to marry and thus enjoy the privileges afforded heterosexual couples.