I actually took this picture over a month ago, but just rediscovered it in my picture gallery. I came across it in the Publix parking lot. As I was standing there with my camera taking a picture of this stupid bumper sticker, I kept hoping that the owner wouldn't come out and think that I was taking a picture because I liked it. That would have led to the awkward, "Actually I think it's utterly ridiculous, and so are you" conversation. OK, I probably wouldn't tell them they were ridiculous...only the bumper sticker.
Besides the incorrect grammar (you know, the random comma in the middle), this bumper sticker indicates a quite small minded individual. I'm sure this person voted to ban gay marriage, because, you know, gay people are responsible for destroying the American family. Therefore, every gay person who is in a loving, committed, faithful relationship can't possibly fulfill the first of only two possible ways to stop AIDS. But, I digress. I wonder if the proud displayer of this bumper sticker has any perspective on the AIDS epidemic in Africa? How about broadening the possible options for helping to prevent AIDS, like practicing safe sex, or funding research to destroy AIDS (because, not all of us ready to get married just to do our part to help stop AIDS).
I suppose my big frustration is with people who think a complex problem like the spread of AIDS could be solved if people would simply heed the advice of a two-fold plan promoted in a bumper sticker.
Anyway, there's my absurd bumper sticker for the month.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Stumble
7 comments:
you should read "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers" by Dan Merchant, great read and idea for starting the conversations, even the awkward ones
over half of marriages end in divorce, which means (drumroll) a whole lot of straight people haven't been valuing the sanctity of marriage and what marriage means
I guess you just conveniently ignore Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6 . . . homosexuals (along with idolators and adulterers, et al) shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
I agree with you that AIDS is not merely a disease spread by gay men. It's also spread by heterosexuals who sleep around and drug abusers. I also agree that Jesus is love, and he accepts all of us sinners. (Hate the sin, love the sinner!)
However, is it not our duty as Christian disciples to fight for the abolition of gay marriage since that does not adhere to the biblical command of reproduction?
Methinks you have a rather selective recall of Scripture . . .
Apparently God made a PSA about those of an alternative lifestyle. Check it out!
http://www.tv.com/uservideos/?action=video_player&id=J301njuq5bgEvj_W
To the second anonymous commenter (by the way, I really prefer folks to at least include a name if they're going to make comments on my blog...it seems more authentic to me): I'm willing to grant that one could read scripture in a way that prohibits gay marriage. I don't read it that way, but I understand that some do. As I've mentioned many other times on my blog, I have a great concern for that being the basis for the laws of our land. If all are considered equal under the law, it seems utterly ridiculous that a religious ethical standard about marriage should be the primary (if not, only) reason to ban gay marriage. Plus, if we really want to get into all of this "biblical model for marriage" stuff, I'll look forward to marrying at least 10 wives. OK, that's all on that.
I am the second anonymous commenter. My name is Woodrow Call--I've posted on your Blog before--and I'm from Birmingham, AL.
Now that introductions are out of the way, let me say that I appreciate your response. You're right by saying all people are equal under God. (Except those who deny the salvation of Christ; cf. Matthew 13.49 and 2 Thessalonians 1.9-10.) While I do not hate gay people--I have a few gay friends, in fact--I cannot support gay marriage.
Let's be VERY hypothetical here, sir. Let's say everyone in the world suddenly became gay. How would life continue? I realize God is the ultimate Creator, and that He provides, but without sex between man and woman, what would come of babies? Perhaps God, like Jurassic Park, would extend the generations regardless.
As for your contention of the biblical model of marriage allowing for ten wives . . . that is strictly OT stuff. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.) While I certainly regard the OT very highly, as its words are inerrant as well, I do believe once Jesus came along he sort of "altered" some of the "BC" stuff, like sacrificing animals and other Levitical codes.
The Law, therefore, is clearly part of the Pentateuchal narrative and is firmly embedded into the story of Israel’s exodus, wandering, and conquest. One’s interpretive approach to the Law should take this into account. Connecting texts to their contexts is a basic tenet of proper interpretive method. The Law is part of a story, and this story thus provides a critical context for interpreting the Law. The method for interpreting Old Testament Law should be similar to the method used in interpreting Old Testament narrative, for the Law is contextually part of the narrative.
Does this diminish the force and power of the text? Do Christians have to put themselves under the Law before they feel called to obey the Scriptures? Is not narrative in the Scripture as authoritative as Law? To give the Mosaic Law a greater authority over the Christian’s moral behavior than that of the other parts of the Old Testament narratives is to create a canon within a canon. Likewise to say that the legal material should be interpreted in the same manner as the narrative material certainly does not diminish the divine imperative of Scripture. When the disciples picked grain on the Sabbath, the Pharisees accused them of violating the Sabbath Law (Mark 2:23–28), for reaping on the Sabbath was prohibited in Exodus 34:21. However, Jesus justified this apparent Sabbath violation by citing a narrative passage in 1 Samuel 21:1–9. In essence the Pharisees criticized Him with the details of the Law, but Jesus answered them with principles drawn from narrative.
As for you, Peter Griffin, I enjoyed the Family Guy clip. Funny, funny show--if wildly profane!
To Alan,
Where the picture? It doesn't show up on my puter...
and to Woodrow,
I'm sitting here counting my blessing that Paul wasn't Jesus (but maybe that's just me).
Also, I think it's terrible to speak of AIDS as something people deserve, for sexual behavior and drug use--It is a possible risk/side-effect of such behavior, but I don't think it's an evil disease created by God to condemn people. And what about children born with AIDS, people who have AIDS in war torn countries, people who have AIDS as the result of violent acts such a s rape, or people who have AIDS from medical procedures, such as blood transfusions? No one "deserves" illness.
Also I am so not a fan of love the sinner, hate the sin. It makes my skin crawl.
And one final thing--last time I checked, the world was over populated. AND there are plenty of straight married couples that are unable to have children, but we let them be married. Gay people aren't out to turn the world gay, we just want human rights like everyone else.
Sorry for the tirade, but I wanted to share my thoughts...
Post a Comment