Comments on: Domestic partnerships bill fails by 8-vote margin in N.M. Senate

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:25:09 +0000

In the first paragraph, I meant to say “Those ideas seem to plug into stereotypes that do not fit the complexity of reality.”

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:24:07 +0000

Writesalot, thanks for your comments.
Several things you wrote gave me pause. And I am hoping you can clarify them for me. It appears that you assume that gays do not want to live quiet lives? My experience would lead me to believe otherwise in that the GLBT community is as diverse as the straight community. Your comments also would lead one to believe that people with same-sex attractions want loud, flashy lives or that they should live only in urban, or coastal regions. Those ideas seem to plug into stereotypes that fit the complexity of reality. Perhaps I am misreading your post.
One thing I hope you can explain is how a gay person moving in next door intrudes on your quiet lifestyle? I have heard this statement often, but no one has really explained the particulars of how someone moving in next door that is different is somehow impinging on your values. I am not trying to pick a fight, but am genuinely seeking clarity. Also you write that 'Both sides are split by fundamental differences that can not be reconciled.' Really are the two sides that far apart? Likely there are members of the GLBT community living among you right now.
As for rural NM being the last bastion for Christians, do you think that Christians don't live in California or New York?
As for acting on the impulses of a carnal mind, what do you mean by that? Acting on sexual impulses in not something that is unique to the GLBT community. It seems to me that it is a particularly human quality. The last time I checked the straight community is rife with stories of people who cheat on their spouses, and who lead lives driven by carnality. But just as there are those in the straight community who do not cheat on their spouses, there are those in the GLBT community who have been in trusting relationships for decades.
Finally, reading the Bible closely would lead one to quickly determine that the Bible is a tricky text to decipher sometimes. I say this as someone who takes the Bible seriously. What does one make of Samuel, who acting at God's behest, strips Saul of his kingship because Saul did not slay the the king of the Amalekites; a reminder, this is the last living Amalekite in the world and God wants him dead. Is Yahweh really punishing Saul for not completing genocide? Or what does one make of the Bible when it repeatedly — as in hundreds of reminders by OT prophets and Jesus — tells the Israelites and later the early Christians to take care of the widow and the orphan, ie, the poor, and only lays out a few proscriptions against same-sex attractions? What is one to make of that proportionality?
I do not have the answers. But I would like to hear what you think about these questions.
Finally, as a person who grew up in a Christian community that often stressed purity of faith and a removal of oneself from the world, I end with this funny story I heard from a friend.
He told me once of the first meeting between his parents and his in-laws. My friend and his wife both came from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds. The only difference was that his parents came from the U.S. and his wife's parents hailed from Scandanavia. When the two sets of parents met, the two women each found themselves judging the other as up to snuff as a Xian by their own understanding of what a Christian was supposed to be. The woman from Scandanavia dismissed the woman from the U.S. as non-Christian because she wore makeup. In the Scandanavian woman's particular worldview, wearing makeup was a no no. The woman from the U.S., meanwhile, found that her Scandanavian counterpart scandalous because she smoked and drank. In the American fundamentalists tradition that was a no no. I've always found that little story illuminating about human communities — not just Christian communities — and how they assess who is allowed in and who is not.

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:25:09 +0000

In the first paragraph, I meant to say “Those ideas seem to plug into stereotypes that do not fit the complexity of reality.”

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:24:07 +0000

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:25:09 +0000

In the first paragraph, I meant to say “Those ideas seem to plug into stereotypes that do not fit the complexity of reality.”

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:24:07 +0000

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:25:09 +0000

In the first paragraph, I meant to say “Those ideas seem to plug into stereotypes that do not fit the complexity of reality.”

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:24:07 +0000

By: writesalot

writesalot — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:13:53 +0000

I know I am stepping into this land mine, but I thought that the unfavorable side of the religious right should be better represented than by those who stand against those values. Anyhew, as someone who supported this bill being shot down in New Mexico, I don't think that those who support or live this 'lifestyle' have much to worry about. In the last two decades not only has acceptance of this 'lifestyle' grown in the popular media and American culture, but so too has the legal support for it. How many states now support civil unions as opposed to the number that did in 1980? I think it is a few more.
And, I also think it is funny how over a hundred years ago, and including all the way up to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., religious nuts like me were fighting for the equality of all men and women of different races. What changed? nothing much. You see, we have this code of ethics, morality, laid down by God (yes, I know, you obviously think that is just a fairytale). But our belief fueled us to create the environment where there is no more slavery, and an African American is now president. No, we do not take full claim for this and there are different factions who stand against and stand for this. But, those ethics we have state VERY clearly, if one chooses to read the Bible, that the pursuit of lusts and being of a carnal mind, and certain 'lifestyles', are not the path to being a better person living a better life.
I know, in our very democratic nation these days that statement is completely open to interpretation. Ideally, we Christians are not supposed to “throw stones” at those who live such a lifestyle, nor are we to join hands and live happily ever after with them. So, why do we Christians stand against it, or “throw political stones”? Because more and more, despite how voisterous we Christians are, the swing of popular culture and the media is, for the most part, against our lifestyle. So, those of us who have lived in rural New Mexico, where we can switch the T.V. off and live a simple life, quietly in our beliefs, are dismayed when a contrary lifestyle to our way of life is being forced upon us and our families.
We understand that in places like New York and California, there are many who choose other religions and other ways of life. And, we understand that the Christians there are upset about it to the point of going too far with hostile media campaigns and so on. But, those Christians have options to leave, if they so choose. Christians in New Mexico have no where to go. This state is one of our last refuges, aside from maybe Texas, or Alaska. What I ask of those who choose this life style that is under contention is to leave us religious nuts out here in the desert alone, let us have our refuge for our families. There are many places now that openly support your lifestyle and where the populace think that those who believe in God are crazy. Would you not feel more at home there?
This issue will not be solved by one side overpowering the other, nore will it be solved by both sides agreeing to disagree. It will instead be solved by the two sides picking their own little parts of the world to live, and leaving each other alone. Both sides are split by fundamental differences that can not be reconciled, nor tolerated in the presence of one another, just like slavery so many years ago. But before we have another civil war, lets just give each other the room to live and pursue life as deem fit. I know, both sides have not done this too well, and both sides have crossed the line in a most disagreeable fashion. Knee-jerk, hostile reactions will not help find the peaceful resolution that is needed. Only long term thinking, and space, will bring about a solution that is, well, tolerable.

By: tripjennings

tripjennings — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:32:42 +0000

Oh, and since you know so much about my worldview, would you tell me a little about it. I'd like to know hear what you think.