Thursday, June 27, 2013
Disagreement Doesn't Have To Be "Hate" Or Hateful
I would just like to state for the record that to have a moral disagreement with or about something is not by definition "hate". If you know me or have read my posts in the past you know that most of the hatred in my life has been directed towards Hughesnet, which is no longer my internet service non-provider (to the glory of God) and Matt, the brutal Wii boxer at around level 1600 skill points (who I have now been able to conquer).
That said, I have a moral code and values based on the bible which I believe to be the Word of God and His plan for human life. IF you know me personally you know I am not a hater. I choose to believe that God created life in a certain way and know best how that life should be lived. I believe God wants the best FOR EVERY human that has ever lived or ever will live. I believe that we as people are His children and that as such we want to have our own way. And I believe that as a "parent", God knows better than we do about what is best for us. That is where I am coming from. I understand, if this is not your value system. I am just letting you know mine. It has also for most of our country's existence been the prevailing value system. I acknowledge that these values have never been adhered to perfectly. I am responsible for MY words and actions alone and ask to be judged by MY words and actions alone.
To the best of my ability, I don't treat anyone poorly. I don't care your race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation or (in the last few years) even your affiliation with the Boston Celtics. If you treat me with respect (even if you don't) I will treat you with respect. That doesn't mean I will agree with everything you say, do or believe.
Regarding the hot topic of the week. I don't believe marriage should be broadened beyond the scope of one man and one woman. (Polygamy when found in the bible proves to be nothing but trouble and is included because that is what people were doing.) I think the one man married to one woman family unit is the way God expressed His intent in the bible. I believe this in the same way that I believe that men in general should not follow our natural inclination to try to get with every woman we find attractive. But I DO NOT BELIEVE that people that are not inclined to live this way deserve abusive treatment or any ill will at all. But I also do not believe that the DEFINITION of marriage should be changed to accommodate other forms of family units. I know there are gay households and families that are healthier and happier than some hetero homes. I just don't believe that justifies officially changing the very fabric of society. I think a civil union that gives the same legal rights to a gay partner should be enough. It is simply not necessary to say that marriage between two men or two women is exactly the same as the marriage between a man and a woman. Men and woman TEND to bring different things to the table of life and those differences ideally create a balance in a home that are unlikely to be created otherwise. It's emotional, it's chemical, it's physiological, it's honest. Men and women are different. And it is neither a put down to or a glorification of either. All this is to say I DO believe that there is an ideal family unit and that it includes one man married to one woman and goes on from there with or without children. This is NOT to say that I wish other families destroyed, abolished, persecuted or whatever. It is only to say is that this should be the recognized ideal. I think when you say someone is a husband or father you should be able to to assume it is a man you are speaking about. And if you are speaking of a wife or mother you are speaking about a woman. I believe it is the most healthy and sustainable family unit for society. And I truly don't believe it makes me a bigoted, homophobic monster to think this way.
I have other beliefs based strictly on what I would consider to be common sense.
For instance: I don't believe that GENERALLY speaking pound for pound women are equally as physically strong as men. Of course, there are exceptions. Hence the word GENERALLY. When it comes to say, emergency services or the military, doesn't it make sense to have a set standard based on can you physically accomplish the task set before you, as opposed to what do you have under your uniform? The standards set for combat or for carrying people out of burning builders should be based on CAN YOU HANDLE THE GEAR? CAN YOU PHYSICALLY DO THIS JOB? That, again is not hatred. That is a legitimate question. If you are in a combat unit can you carry your own gear and do your job? If you are a firefighter or paramedic, can you carry that person out of that building? I am strictly dealing with the physicality issues here for the moment. I am not saying a woman shouldn't be a combat soldier or a firefighter. I am saying it makes infinitely more sense to me to insist that a woman be held to the same physical standards, because that IS the job.
PLEASE, if you don't know me, don't get nasty and call me a hater. Let's engage on a higher plane than that. If you know me, you KNOW I am not a hater. Can we agree in advance to disagree agreeably? There IS room for discourse. There HAS to be. THAT IS America. I think I have expressed my views without spewing bile on anybody. And if I have been unsuccessful in my attempt to be respectful please be kind in your rebuke and show me the err of my ways. I WILL LISTEN... All I ask is that you express your challenges to my view with equal respectfulness.
I love you all! (Even Hughesnet, now that we've broken up.) God bless you all! ESPECIALLY those of you who don't believe in Him!