I am really sorry,I had to delete you from my lj,and I don’t think I can really continue reading your posts. I try to keep our friendship but this has got beyond of my beliefs,and simply because I respect you and your beliefs and your life,I think the best is to go separate ways. I try to work it out,I really did,but I simply cannot accept some of your beliefs and before hurting you or fighting or saying what I think,I better back off,I hope you understand.
And so that you know (although you already know),I have no problem with you being in a L relationship,I wish you the best,the part I really,really cannot accept or will never accept and I rather get killed than accept it,is the baby part. If it makes me a bad Christian then,I will be but I really hope you don’t make the mistake and are so selfish to bring a kid to the world into a non traditional family. Really pray (I have to be honest I am so sorry) that you and every other non traditional couple is unable to do that. Conception is sacred,and a baby is not a toy,think of all the harm you will bring to the child,when you aren’t accepted, you are making the child get born in the middle of that? Too selfish human being for me. I am sorry I cannot sit and see that happen. I can’t.
Hope you have a good life.
& Take care.
While I sometimes believe that it’s not worth the effort spent trying to convince bigots of their inherent bigotry,I do enjoy writing.
"Think of all the harm you will bring to the child,when you aren’t accepted, you are making the child get born in the middle of that?"
The argument here being that you raising a child in a society that won’t accept you is bad for the child,and therefore she thinks you are making a mistake. Given that reason,then a society that accepted you would not be harmful to the child. She neglects to point out that she is an active participant in the society that does not accept you. Therefore, she would be harming your child. In fact,she so strongly believes in harming your child that she would "rather get killed than accept it." And she takes part in suppressing an entire social group in stating that "you and every other non traditional couple [should be] unable to do that." In the same breath,she ironically says this is "too selfish [for a] human being for me."
People all over the world look to the United States as an imperfect beacon of Democracy and Freedom – indeed,these are the principles that are touted as the keys to an enlightened civilization. I agree with these principles. People are and should be free. There are other people in the world who do not believe in those principles. They believe in a different set,ones that dictate a righteous,subservient life bound by the rules of religion. These rules do not give equal rights,they do not provide for women as equals as men,they do not believe in freedom for all equally. As she points out, she can never accept your non-traditional beliefs.
You are part of the former. She is part of the latter.
While Christians feel they are especially significant and excepted from these rules,so exactly do the Taliban or militant al Queda Muslims. History clearly lays out the story of what the rules of every religion are twisted and abused into when they are accepted as part of a governmental or tyrranical rule over people. Violence,abuse,corruption. Before she condemns your beliefs on the merits of her tyranny,she must condemn her own by allowing for the freedom for all,whether she believes in it or not.
The real terror she promotes is that she is not passively accepting and respecting your rights as a human being. While she makes one face labeled "respect",she turns the other cheek to promote her own agenda that is decidedly not free nor respectful.
She must ask herself this: Would the world be better off without homosexuals? Would the world be a better place if laws were in place to prevent homosexuals from parenting? Babysitting? Teaching? Is there a List of Exclusions of Freedom for homosexuals? And,ultimately,is she promoting,voting, acting,and working towards this world? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes",then she believes in them all,and does not believe in freedom or equality.
The idea of Freedom can only be based on acceptance and tolerance. There is no other way. While people are free to believe what they will,the idea that those beliefs should be legislated and acted upon no longer indicates any sort of tolerance. It indicates an intentional suppression of freedom. Be it slavery,womens’ rights,or homosexuality – each in its own right faces abuses of civil rights time and time again by people who defend their bigotry through religious and conservative beliefs and legislating them.
I can tell that you’re all itching to point out the pathological extreme of this argument by saying this justifies murder,child pornography,child marriages,etc.,to which I point to the jurisprudence of American civil rights: your rights as a human extend to the fact that you cannot restrict another person’s freedom*. And to do so for homosexuality requires you to prove that homosexuality somehow limits your individual freedom – and by that argument,so would people’s private sexual preference (whether genetic or by choice). Raising a child in a non-traditional home has more than its share of challenges and difficulties,and does not come without a certain amount of possible harm. Neither does raising a child in an Aethiest home,or a single-parent home… But perhaps most especially in a foster home or homeless shelter or in a barrio. But none of these have legislation against poor families,aethiests,single-parents. Because these are private choices,private lives,and Freedom by definition means tolerance of these harmful situations.
She feels that she’d "rather be killed" – a lexical trick to get out of the Christian rule against suicide – than see a child raised in a non-traditional family. Remember when it was abhorrent and non-traditional for a white woman to give birth to a child with an African-American father?
The one truth she’s managed to nail is that she can’t "continue reading your posts." At this point,she’s clearly convinced that Freedom does not trump Christian and conservative principles. As a member of a tyrannical majority,it is far easier to look away from the pain,destruction,and suffering they promote than watch their beliefs in action.
All this late in the year of someone’s foul Lord,two thousand and seven. But then again,this is why Tyler and I created the Lambs of Abortion, the worlds greatest Christian Rock band. Are you a bad Christian? You literally are God-Damned right. Ho ho ho.
* S. v. Kuch 288 FSup. 439 (1968) ("Those who seek constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms that this special sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in anti-social conduct that otherwise stands condemned."