Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Gay Marriage
How did you feel about Richard Mouw? Can you think of other public figures who are open to truly respectful debate, people who deeply consider and try to admire the views of their opponents? Can you think of public figures who have been willing to take a side that is unpopular with their political party or religious group? Have you ever changed your mind completely about a commonly debated issue? How did that happen? If you are Democrat, is there at least one issue where you can say, “The Republicans are more in the right on this” or vice versa?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In one our reading, "What Makes People Gay," Rev. Rob Scherick, a evangelical leader, was mentioned for his changing views. After he had the chance to speak with genetic researchers and psychologists he began to believe that homosexuality was not a choice. He went on to share with the evangelicals that "scietific evidence is coming, and we have to be prepared."
ReplyDeleteAlthough his views changed, he was not completely different from before becuase he still opposed homosexual behavior. It is extremely hard to persuade a person from their original views when discussing topics of religion, abortion, and certain aspects of politics. These issues are personal to people and normally takes a huge amount of evidence or a personal experience for them to begin to change their views.
that was supposed to say... In our reading...
ReplyDeleteI thought that Richard Mouw was a very interesting man with very interesting views. I thought that he asked a lot of really good questions, but didn't really give any answers. It is a hard topic for me personally to really get my mind around, and I agreed with a lot of what he had to say. I know that I grew up in a very conservative home, and my dad is the king of conservative. So it is ingrained in me to feel a certain way about things. As I have gotten older, I have changed the way I think about some things, I guess because I educate myself about the different issues.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know of any public figure who had taken Mouw's open standpoint on the issue. I think that there are a lot of things that both the Republicans and the Democrats have right. Like in our reading when it said that when policies were shown to people without the party affiliation shown, many Republicans thought Democrat policy was great and vice versa. A lot of times people just go along with "their group" and don't really try to figure it out for themselves what their personal opinion is. We need to teach our students to not just follow the crowd.
*For anyone looking for the NPR link, this is it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9041745
ReplyDeleteWhile I do appreciate that Richard Mouw is willing to have a discussion about homosexuality and religion, I still felt that he was saying that homosexuality is morally wrong. He did compare it to other sins, such as theft and sex out of marriage, to put it into context for others who may judge homosexuality to be end all of sins, but it doesn't change the fact that he is still categorizing homosexuality as a sin. I think, in terms of serious religious conservatives, it is a step in the right direction because it demonstrates that any sex out of marriage is morally wrong. However, that particular view, I feel, fuels the debate about whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
I personally feel that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If we are going to define marriage as a condition that is both social, as well as economic, then it seems to me that we need to be fair when establishing laws that affect everyone in the United States. There are economic and social benefits to being married, and I do not think it is fair for religious doctrine to be part of the discussion involving federal law.
It was so refreshing to hear this. I feel like too often in our daily lives -especially the media -everything is rushed and crammed into short little tidbits. The average 'interview' or 'debate' on any news channel is going to be about 2 minutes long, and consist of both sides yelling at each other. The reason that we are in the situation we are is because of intolerance and unwillingness to listen to the other side. There are lots of controversial topics, but this one stands out because of the poor way in which it has been handled.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a moderate, but there was a time where I was much more conservative than I am now. Many times I have looked at the other side (I would say socially liberal, rather than democrat, because those aren't exactly the same thing -see social vs. economic liberalism). The main issue that stands out to me is the war in Iraq, which I thought was a necessary evil when it began, but now think it is a travesty. (This is why I say liberal vs. conservative since many democrats supported the war as well). It makes me sad that now the democrats are being led down what I think is the same road through the way in Afghanistan. It is even more ironic for me to see the hardcore 'anti-war' bunch who opposed the Iraq war now supporting Obama's war. I wonder if they ever opposed war, or just republicans? Sorry this got so off topic!
I agree with the majority of what Richard said and also of what Nathan said. Richard's closing statement made a lot of sense to me as well. I appreciated the fact that both speakers were strong in what they believed, didn't get angry in their responses, and actually listened to one another. So many people on both sides are so eager to express their opinions that they don't even listen to the person their talking to and have a one-sided conversation. As far as Richard's view, I completely agree with him that it's not necessarily about what a person believes, but how they treat it. No matter what the opinion is, respect needs to be practiced and it often isn't on such touchy subjects.
ReplyDeleteAs far as public figures that have changed their ideas about commonly debated issues...I know of many and can list you quite a few...My favorite one is the award winning legal editor, or at least was at the time, for the Chicago Tribune. He was an atheist and when his wife became a christian he became very angry and decided to do a bunch of research to prove how God was not real...during his pursuit the bundles of evidence he found on the questions he raised changed his opinion of God. He's written about it in several books, the first one called The Case for Christ-Basically his research case and the evidence he found.
There was also the Gay Bishop who came out in public not so long ago-obviously against his religious group
I also know of lots of scientist, preacher's, and artist's who's opinions have changed when it comes to heavily debated topics. Most of the preacher's I know of that are in the public's eye are evangelicals like Richard Mouw, who's opinions of how to treat issues such as sexuality differently than their religious groups.
I appreciate the idea that he wants people to openly discuss their ideas and believes. However, I agree with Christy. I found it hard to trust his idea of "open discussion." Personally I believe that religion should not play a role in the political status of whom can marry. I actually found the woman's point that heterosexual couples may be ruining the morality of marriage more so than homosexual couples.
ReplyDeleteI cannot think of any person of status that has dramatcially changed their views or stood against their party. Nor have I ever experienced a dramatic change in a view point.
One dramatic change that is on the way in (i hope) is what Obama and his staff are doing to change the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. The policy will be changed to gays and lesbians being able to openly serve. I think this will have a huge impact on how people view being gay. Because really I don't think being gay is some huge deal. These people just want to live their lives and have the same civil rights and liberties.
ReplyDeleteChristy said that marriage is a condition of both social and economic circumstance. But I would have to argue this. It is also in some cases, religious. And, I think for many people religious doctrine dictates marriage look a certain way, man and woman. And I think this is where the debate in our society is hung up.
At one time I, like Lee, thought of myself as a fairly conservative person. However, there are many issues in our society today that I find pulling me more toward the middle of the road. The thing I liked that Mouw said was he had a friend tell him he was homosexual and asked him what he thought and Mouw replied "I am a heterosexual what do you think of that?" He said that just because we know someones sexual orientation doesnt mean we know what kind of person they are. I think when I realized this and stopped making snap judgments of people is when some of my views began to change.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is anything wrong with changing your beliefs if they are no longer logical. It is hard, of course, but it is nice to put down our ego sometimes and let the truth become known. I see this as often with the supposedly 'liberal' democrats as well as the republicans. Both suppress the truth at times when it contradicts their worldview. It is only through open and transparent dialogue that progress can be made. As Thoreau said:
ReplyDelete"Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today."
When what tomorrow says is different from what yesterday said, it usually means that progress has been made.
I am a registered republican, but I believe that you can't take choice away from someone. Republicans try to take choices away a lot, especially with abortion and gay marriage. Yes, I do think those this are morally wrong, but Americans should have the right to choose that for themselves and making these things illegal would just cause more harm than could. There are several cases were women who lived in an area where abortion was illegal tried to preform one on themselves and ended up hurting themselves or even dying from their self-inflicted wounds. I personally think that marriage is more of a religious union, but I do think that gay couples should have the same rights as married couples if they choose to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Claire when she says that marriage is also a religious issue, and because of this it doctrinally should look a certain way. It is a very hard debate, and one of the things that makes it so hard is that people don't really know how to debate about it because most people agree or don't agree and there isn't much middle ground.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Katey and Claire. Marriage is also a religious issue and it is ingrained in society that it is supposed to be between man and woman, not couples of the same sex. People are not used to seeing it and believe it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think I have softened up on some of my opinions by educating myself and by hearing views from other people. It is easy to have a strong opinion about something, but once you are effected and experience something first hand your views can change dramatically.
I forgot to add in that I believe marriage between homosexuals should be allowed everywhere. Some religious groups might not agree with it morally or accept it in their church, but there is no denying that homosexuals have unions and relationships that are just as strong as couples that are heterosexual.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think of myself as liberal, which means, of the two evils, I usually throw myself in with the Dems. I don't always agree with democrats' view on things or the decisions they make in our government, bailouts and war come to mind, and I don't justify government decisions that I don't really agree with just so I can feel better about being liberal.
ReplyDeleteOne person that I have a great deal of respect for is my friend Ellis. He is a minister and has been for upwards of 30 years. He was the first, and only, minister I've ever met that could talk philosophy and literature, while listening to R.E.M. or Coltrane. He really strives to understand everyone's point of view without losing sight of his own and perhaps, even adding to his own. He does, as any good minister should, bring things back into a religious context and often talks of his relationship with God. I've found, over the years, that our mutual respect for each other hasn't diminished, despite my "heathen" nature and his deep love for Jesus. I think being open-minded and listening to other points of view, objectively, is an amazing quality to have. I try to be that way, but I often fail.
Man it is so hard to some times listen to the other side. I have never been one for sitting still but also I think it is important to make informed decisions. I think it is hard for me to get students to consider my reality and condition for respect. But I guess at the same time I have a hard time considering theirs, to be fair and all.
ReplyDeleteI think I will try to address sex and its all encompassing-ness in my class. I think having guest speakers is a great way to introduce and examine other points of view and help our students have a more tolerant way of life.
I think Erin has a good point, there are many gay relationships or marriages that probably last much longer than the average hetero marriage. I dont think that marriage is what it used to be, people dont take it as serious as they have in the past. A lot of people get married on a whim, it lasts a few years and thats it. I liked what Mouw said about the two women who went to get married that had been together like 50 years. That is rare to find in any kind of relationship.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Mouw's interview. He led you to know what he believed without telling others that they are wrong for sins, or what he believes to be sins. I think it is very important for us to listen to different perspectives, otherwise people would never change their viewpoints, and therefore, life would never change. People would always be stuck in their ways and nobody would challenge others to change.
ReplyDeleteMy grandma's brother-in-law, Uncle Eddie, is now a public figure in my eyes. He is one of the remaining survivors of the Holocaust. Growing up, his mother was of German descent, and his father was Polish or vice versa (it's hard to keep the story straight because he's only talked about it once). He was put into the Hitler Youth by his mother. Uncle Eddie is a very small man, but one day he saw two German soldiers beating up a Jewish boy, so Uncle Eddie picked up a shovel and hit one of them with it. They beat Uncle Eddie up (his nose is flat as a pancake to this day) and put him in a concentration camp. Uncle Eddie ,a Russian, and a Slavic man escaped the concentration camp by lying with the dead bodies and sneaking out later. He went to fight for the Polish army after that, rebelling against Hitler's regime. He met my dad's Aunt Anne in England, and they moved to Springfield, Illinois shortly after WWII where they still reside today. He put aside what he was taught in order to save that young boy's life, and he is a hero in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteChristine points out Mouw's predilection to telling people when they are morally wrong. I would be terrified of doing that; my "mayoral" sensibilities do not allow for public accusations of immorality as if the accusation were as natural as pointing out that someone's shoe is untied. We could debate the existence of absolute moral truth until we exhaust all of our patience and start using caps lock to shout at one another, but few people are willing to admit that one man's moral code is right for another. Thus, Mouw may well be on the verge of saving the Baptists some face on this issue, he's a long way from the Episcopalians and Unitarians. In short, his views are still not yet ready for prime time and need a little more revision and clarification before I'm willing to trot him out as someone to quote on the issue. The gent from the Boston Globe reading has more of a palatable air to him, on the other hand.
ReplyDeleteIn my perpetual staunchness to the "radical middle," I must confess that I will protest not one whit if the homosexual community ever gets the right to marry. I'll never be the one to stop someone from seeing a loved one in the hospital. With that said, I don't think that the gay community is going about this in the right way.
ReplyDeleteTheir fight is the good one and right one to be certain, but they're going about it in a way that makes their efforts distasteful to the public. By attacking the issue most vocally on the moral front, they have delivered their fusillade to a group willing to shout back at them a lot louder. Now the moral front may be tack that is most palatable to the gay community's strongest, innermost feelings on the issue, but it's not necessarily the most effective means of getting results. This is, of course, a moral as well as a political "war" of sorts, but the moral battle need not have been fought first.
The political arenas probably should have been their first sites of battle. Put the fight into the politicians' dens first with civil unions, and get the political benefits first. Once the populace has been sufficiently used to the ideas of gay unions, the gay community could then make the fight moral in nature.
In short, my question is a simple one, really, though it has no right answer. Which is more important: the "theory" of morality or the "practice" of political benefits?