Gay Marriage Debate – Cherry Picking Our Beliefs

May 9th, 2012

Photo by Tim Saville, T2PS, All Rights Reserved

From publisher’s desk…”The Dogmatic Virus” LP asks you to consider whether or not the real human lesson from Obama gay marriage headlines is one of integrity and consciousness. Leading Possibilities Magazine has followed the debates and headlines today (May 9, 2012) about President Obama’s clearing up his position on gay marriage, and likely also preserving his integrity with his daughters. It may have cost him Southern and Hispanic votes, and some say Obama’s truth confession could cost him the election.

We think perhaps not, if we look at this from a purely logical, non-dogmatic or partisan point of view. If everyone could, the barbs of rhetorical war might be replaced with a giant gold star in the column for humanity. We think it’s possible. But first, let’s unbound the argument.

Cherry Picking

We think it is a question of cherry picking beliefs to suit the story that keeps one’s agenda preserved. But just because you believe something, it doesn’t necessarily make it right, or even true. Remembering that truth is relative, always, sometimes what we choose to believe is also totally inconsistent, sometimes outright hypocritical to another belief we’re holding at the same time. It’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth. It could also be said to be the condition of someone who is unconscious about the breach of integrity in his or her own thinking and being, and therefore can’t see that there is a divide. Behavior that discriminates against another is a reflection of that unconsciousness.

The Argument

Here’s our shot across the bow: Some say Obama’s Republican contender Romney – who is against immigration amnesty and for strict border enforcement (which Hispanic voters shouldn’t like), and whose own father George was born in the state of Chihuahua, in a colony of polygamous Mormons (1) (3), gains ground w/Hispanic voters because Hispanic Catholics see gay marriage as being more egregious than protecting their American citizenship claims. They take no issue with a man whose lineage supported polygamy, but gay marriage is offensive.

Let us unbind the cherry picking further, which is not a judgment against religious believers of any race, but rather an examination that asks reasonable questions and is part of our continuing exploration of the role of religion and spirituality in the human experience of personal mastery and personal leadership.

What Does Dogma Say?

According to religious views of people who follow the letter of the Bible’s teaching, in New King’s James version of the Bible (2) you can sexually abuse women (Judges 19:25), sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and sell your whole family to pay a debt (Mathew 18:23-25), but you won’t vote for Obama because he now openly supports the right for two people to marry, who happen to be of the same sex.

It’s okay to stone and burn women for not being virgins (Deuteronomy 22:21/Leviticus 21:9), and steal women from others and sexually abuse them (Judges 19:25), then give them back, but marriage between two men or two women is off the table.

You can shift your vote to a man who is against immigration amnesty and for strict border enforcement, and who’s family engaged in polygamy because he would strike even civil unions between LGBT people off the legal books, thus satisfying your religious beliefs, but you’re okay with selling your children into slavery or your family to pay off a debt. Many wives are cool, but gay marriage just goes too far.

Can We Look Past Dogma?

Our editorial position is that we ought to be talking about the human valor of a man standing up in public for what he believes; consistent with how he has raised his own daughters, rather than whether or not this is political suicide. But even more important is the light this debate focuses on the inconsistencies between our actions and our words.

Today Barack Obama put his so-called money where his mouth was, and progressives worry it might have weakened his position among Southern and Hispanic voters. Perhaps, but the more interesting question from our perspective is once you’re consciously aware that it is impossible to hold a belief in two opposing, hypocritical views at the same time and still retain one’s integrity, might not we look to leaders for more valuable attributes than their paternal lineage or their beliefs about gay marriage, like whether or not their actions toward human beings are consistent with their words, which are consistent with their beliefs in every way?

Because if you believe in treating all people equally, as a rule of law (Anti-Discrimination Act) regardless of their sexual, racial, or religious orientations, you can’t also get to believe the exception should be in the case of marriage because it violates your personal religious beliefs. It is logically inconsistent and hypocritical.

You can have your rainbow and be an immigration fence sitter the same time.

What’s your perspective?

Article by Tracy Saville.

(1) (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/22/145574014/mexican-cousins-keep-romneys-family-tree-rooted

(2) The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982. Thomas Nelson, Inc. Nashville, TN.

(3) http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Immigration.php

 

Tags: , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Tiger Woods & The Shank Carnage Lesson | The Possibility Place

  • Kathryn Mattingly

    Recorded atrocities in Biblical scripture reflect societal behavior and do not advocate God’s intent for how people should live. What scripture advocates is that we not judge others or force our will on them, but rather love our neighbors (and our enemies) as we love ourselves. These atrocities happened and continue to happen (war, sex trafficking, lack of human rights, power struggles) because God doesn’t force His will on us (just as we shouldn’t force our will on others) but He acknowledges we are works in progress and that despite our imperfections we nonetheless have the ability to do endless good while achieving all that we might envision. This is also recorded in scripture. Christians do not have to be cherry pickers if they truly understand their faith.

    • http://www.t2ps.com TK

      A resonant, beautiful point.

  • http://www.t2ps.com TK

    This article is a part of a series of installments exploring what unconsciousness looks like in human behavior. We used the Obama gay marriage debate to suggest a different teachable moment: unconsciousness can create a condition of not seeing that you hold two value-based inconsistent views at the same time, and we see this by how we act in our daily relationships and interactions with others. Integrity being a key part of consciousness and how your behavior and actions impact or discriminate against others, it is a cornerstone idea of personal leadership mastery. To be awake is to care about not harming or violating the human rights of others first and foremost and to truly live by the dictum: treat others as you would have others treat you, a very human value system.

    We want to be clear that the intent was not to judge any religious belief, or even to suggest that believing in any single doctrine or rule within any religious belief system is wrong, but rather to point out that every piece of knowledge and every single belief is based on context, the lens through which it is viewed or expressed, and will be personal to the believer.

    However, when it comes to our actions that have direct impact upon others, integrity becomes an issue when our personal views, which others may disagree with, may act to impugn the human rights of others. We sought to give examples of how this happens in religion because like philosophy, it is an excellent sandbox for examining the relationship between our beliefs, perspectives, and our actions. Ultimately conscious human mastery begs for integral, consistency between what we think and what we do.

    Like Obama who trued up his actions with his beliefs finally, which was consistent with how he raised his daughters, putting integrity before politics.

    Thank you for reading and for engaging in dialogue.

    The Publisher

  • http://PossibilityPlace Chris

    Compelling points one and all – and after reading it thru, am ever more supportive of Obama making a stand and picking a side – clearly. The “two talk” of so many of our politicians is old, tired and insulting that they believe we the people do not recognize it for what it is – smoke and mirrors. So whether you would vote for Obama or not, at least respect the guy for being a good person. Great article Tracy

  • http://possibilityplace.net Stephanie

    So the story in the bible in Judges 19 (with the verse 25 in its entire context) is, in my opinion, ridiculous… if you read the context of the story some evil men came to find a newcomer to the city to know him “carnally” i.e. to have sexual contact with him. The master of the house said to them “Do not be so evil! Here have my virgin daughter of which you can rape and abuse all night instead, because she is to be his and this way you can get at him in a lesser evil way.” Then when the newcomer finds the raped and beaten daughter at his doorstep in the morning he goes and murders her ‘cutting her into twelve pieces and spreading her unto the world.’

    So homosexuality is so much worse than that? This actually made me cry a little today. And I fully support people who want to love whomever they love. Because that is not abuse, its called freedom and the pursuit of happiness.