Posted by Helen on: 01.12.2009 /
This is my latest contribution to the local newspaper dialog I’ve been having with Rev Dean Lueking on doubt and faith.
Dean, I was curious to see what you’d say when I realized your last contribution to our dialog was about being gay and being on The Way. [The Way and being gay, Viewpoints, Oct. 8]
This is such a sensitive topic. As best I understand, for many if not all gay people, “I am gay” is part of their very identity. When others make pronouncements that homosexual activity is not OK, what these people hear is, “Who I am is not OK,” which is a very hurtful message.
A number of years ago I was struck by a Bible verse about Jesus which said he would not break a bruised reed or snuff out a smoldering wick (Matthew 12:20 and Isaiah 42:3). It seems to me that followers of The Way are called to show the same sensitivity. Anyone who wades into the issue of sexual orientation with heavy boots of “truth” risks leaving a great many broken reeds in their wake.
I appreciate that this is not your approach, that instead you listen to gay people with respect, humility and sensitivity.
Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California, has put gay marriage back in the news in recent months. I was sad that it passed. I really don’t see what’s wrong with gay marriage. I would feel uncomfortable as a married person saying that other people who want to make that commitment to each other shouldn’t be allowed to just because they are the same gender as each other.
You defined marriage this way:
As for me in my calling, I am responsible to a Biblical truth which teaches that marriage is more than a civil compact but a God-given covenant between a man and a woman, a sign of the Divine love that joins Christ and his church, a building block for all human community, and a channel to keep the human race going. I hold to that.
It sounds like you are against gay marriage. But I’m not sure why. Is it because marriage is “a channel to keep the human race going”? If so, then we should not allow infertile men and women to marry either. Yet as best I know no one has ever suggested making their marriages illegal.
The issue of sexual orientation seems to invite some people to assert to others: “This is what’s wrong with you.” I think it is kinder and more respectful when we refrain from such assertions, instead giving each other space to discover where each of us needs to grow as human beings. Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he suggested we take the plank out of our own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s?
Comment by: Irritable
1Ah, but that everyone — myself included — would have your conversational grace.
Nicely done.
Comment by: Jason Horton
2The way I see it is very black and white for me. Either the church should stay out of marriage or the state should stay out of marriage. If should either be a religious ceremony with no tax, property, legal, etc benefits or responsibilities or it should have all those things but not have the support of the church.
As it is now marriage is a muddle of secular and religious ideas that don’t work well together. They need to be distinct and separate ideas. That way the state can marry Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve and the church can keep it’s nose out of it but Adam and his partner are free to go along to their local church and receive a blessing if they wish and the church can approve or deny it if they wish.
My way isn’t nearly as polite as yours though.
Comment by: Anisha
3Jason, I agree with your point about everyone having their hands in marriage. Why not define “civil union” as being ordained by the state (for tax and other legal purposes), and “marriage” ordained by whatever religion you believe in? This should apply whether a couple is homosexual or heterosexual, and it separates out the confusing parts. I was raised Hindu, and my parents were certainly not married in a church, but everyone considers them married, right?
As far as the Bible and homosexuality goes, I wonder whether part of it is that there are no committed homosexual relationships shown. In historical context, such relationships were often pedophilic, or heterosexuals engaging in homosexual behavior – maybe that’s why it wasn’t acceptable. But Jesus did teach us to love one another regardless. I think that what may be most important to him is the nature of our relationships with one another, not who is involved.
Nice reply, Helen.
Comment by: Jason Horton
4Why not define marriage as being sanctioned by the state and “faith union” as something that a religion does? People want to get married. Tens of thousands of gay people flocked to marry in the few months that it was legally available. Nobody forced them to or provided any incentives for them beyond a cultural expectation and a long withheld equality.
Why not call them both marriage, allow the state to mandate the legalities and the church to add their religious stuff if the participants want it? Prop 8 did the opposite. It said religion sanctifies marriage and the state must follow. If religion wants to sanctify marriage, that’s fine, just don’t expect the state to support it. The state doesn’t support other religious rituals like Christening, Bar-Mitzvah or the Annaprasana. Why should it support marriage?
Comment by: Jim J
5In recognizing marriage the state recognizes a vital authority: the family, a man and a woman who raise their own children together. It’s true that many couples have trivialized marriage but that does not mean the answer is to extend it to everyone. Perhaps the answer is to reassert what is was meant for in the first place.
Comment by: David H
6Please define vital authority. And who says a man and a woman who raise their own children are the only way to define such a vital authority? Which is better: for children to have good parents or for children to have parents who are a man and a woman?
Also, what is the state’s interest in defining marriage? What is a religious institution’s interest in defining marriage? Are these interests mutual? Might they be exclusive, sometimes, even among religious institutions?
Would/should a religious institution allow the state to dictate its definition of marriage? Are religious institutions attempting to define for the state a definition of marriage?
A synopsis of the arguments against gay marriage can be found here. About half of them are based on the premise that homosexuality is a perversion that must be battled and laws against gay marriage are a big tool in the arsenal. However, non-discrimination laws would seem to make illegal such a use of state laws. Likewise, current understanding of human biology would seem to put the religious conservatives in the wrong on that argument (if the definition of unnatural sex still holds for that term).
Likewise, many of these arguments for the effects of gay marriage are supposition at best. An explosion of polygamy has not occurred in the countries that have legalized gay marriage. Likening it to pornography (argument 8) is not only inappropriate, but that entire argument is a fallacy. The Nixon-era supreme court decisions on what constitutes porn didn’t open the flood gates to the rest of the world, just the US. Sexually explicit material was already readily available in many other societies outside the US. Also, having been married to a Vietnamese woman and studied US history, I know that our country was already renowned for the moral degradation we brought to other countries long before any US courts modified our national definition of porn.
Likewise the study cited by Dobson and many others as absolute proof that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage (argument 1) is based on highly questionable statistics.
About the only issue with any substance is argument 7. There will be an impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits. Of course that would seem to be a governmental issue rather than a religious one.
Perhaps the answer is to separate church and state. The founding fathers thought it was a good idea.
Comment by: Jim J
7Thanks for the link, David. Great arguments there. :-)
Actually the strongest argument is not listed – at least I didn’t see it. A man is not a woman. There is no way one can justify that a marriage between a man and a woman is the same as between a man and a man. Two men cannot produce children in any circumstance. They cannot start a family. Opponents to miscegenation laws (barring marriage between races) could show that a black man and a white man were fundamentally the same. Clearly a man and a woman are fundamentally different.
I would also add that the family has been a strong glue for society for thousands of years. It’s the first power structure we learn of in our lives. It isn’t unreasonable to be wary of expanding it to include non-reproducing couples. For that matter, where are your arguments FOR same-sex marriage? Regards.
Comment by: Jason Horton
8I disagree. Children are neither necessary to complete a marriage nor marriage necessary to produce children. The fact that marriage typically precedes children and the growth of the family does not make it a required step.
Marriage is a ceremony marking the personal union of two individuals. Family is a social unit. While it can be said that a married couple are a family marriage is only a subset of what it means to be a family.
This is irrelevant. If you choose to define marriage as being between a man and a woman then you force your judgment on people who hold a different definition. If I were to define “love” as “an emotional feeling of attachment between a man and a woman” would that mean that gay couples could not love? Narrowing your definition of marriage, as was done with Prop 8, is an effort to impose that definition on others. This is precisely the same situation as with mixed race marriages. Why is that necessary or desirable?
I also want to add that the differences between a man and a woman are not that great. It’s not as if we’re from different planets. We have the same needs, loves and hopes as all members of our species. Our similarities are considerably greater than the few differences in reproductive systems.
How does this change by allowing families of same sex partners to marry?
Society already allows non-reproducing couples to marry. There is no bar to marriage at 80, 90 or 100, long past the time where a woman can typically be said to be fertile. If you wish to redefine marriage to include only reproducing couples then no infertile person can marry or be married. If I were to have a simple operation to limit by fertility I would be denied marriage. How would the use of contraceptives be seen within a marriage? No, this reproduction has no merit on limiting marriage.
Comment by: David H
9The only argument I can think of is why not.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument against same-sex marriage. Most seem to focus on a) the Bible says so, or b) that is how it has always been.
Were I to make an argument it would be that US laws already prohibit anyone from discriminating against another person because of their sexual orientation. Thus laws banning same-sex marriages are illegal/unconstitutional because they are discriminatory. BTW, that’s what those judicial activists on the California State Supreme Court said.
The Bible doesn’t say gays must be treated fairly or equally. US laws do. Prohibiting same-sex marriage because of a religious concern is then an improper crossing of the boundary between church and state.
Marriage for procreation is not a legal definition. Most US laws simply define marriage as a CONTRACT between a couple in which they agree to live together as husband and wife. The contract carries with it issues regarding taxation, debt and other civil issues. Termination of marriage is a legal issue. It must be executed by a court, a priest, pastor or rabbi will not suffice. While procreation is implied in many legal understandings of marriage it is not spelled out. If it were then the state could require testing of couples to determine if they can bear viable children and prohibit marriages where that is not possible.
Is this the same society that folks like James Dobson contends is falling apart and headed very quickly toward a bad end? Doesn’t seem like the glue is working?
Comment by: David H
10While driving home a couple of other things also occurred to me. Marriage is not immutable. What American Christians consider a good marriage today is far different than what was acceptable to Abraham, as an example. It is also quite different than what was deemed right at the time of Jesus and even at the time of King James.
We would never condone a man sleeping with the maid in order to have children. We would not permit the men of a town to stone a woman on the allegation she was getting down with someone other than her husband. We wouldn’t even deem right a husband beating his wife of locking her away because she displeased him. Heck, we American Christians moralize about the Indian practice of wife-burning even though it was long considered an acceptable way for men to get rid of unworthy wives.
All of this is to say that marriage has changed and continues to change even within the Judeo-Christian definition. Just because the concept has been around for thousands of years doesn’t mean the practice can’t evolve.
What makes the situation even stickier is that marriage in the United States is an odd amalgam of civil, societal and religious norms. Each one of those things has changed even in American history. Women are now considered to have equal value to men (not only can they vote, they can run for president). Many religious people don’t believe wives are just supposed to stay home, cook dinner and make babies. And even those who still believe women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen might find a hard time getting wide acceptance for stoning their wayward spouse.
How do we balance the civil, societal and religious understandings of marriage in this country especially when the religious component is not considered critical to the institution? I don’t, after all, need of cleric of any kind in order to tie the knot in the eyes of my neighbors or my state. What’s more, if you ask almost any intelligent human, they will be able to cite examples of how all three of those components have been wrong regarding their definition and enforcement of the concept of marriage. Miscegenation was once popularly and legally accepted, plus it had the blessing of most versions of the Christian church.
I’m going to need more than that’s the way God intended to convince me that the current US aversion to same-sex marriage isn’t simply an ongoing form of prejudice. So gay couples make some uncomfortable. Me too, big deal. Southern Baptist couples who talk about the good old days when this country was morally upright make me uncomfortable too. I’m not trying to stop them from getting married.
Comment by: Jim J
11Jason H–I disagree. Children are neither necessary to complete a marriage nor marriage necessary to produce children.
But shouldn’t it be?
JJ–”Actually the strongest argument is not listed…A man is not a woman.”
Jason H—This is irrelevant. If you choose to define marriage as being between a man and a woman then you force your judgment on people who hold a different definition.
Do you really think that that’s how you can get around the fact that a man is NOT a woman? Good luck.
JJ-”For that matter, where are your arguments FOR same-sex marriage?”
David H—The only argument I can think of is why not.
Why NOT is a negative.
DH— Doesn’t seem like the glue is working?
Agreed. You can say that again! So should we finish it off?
DH—Marriage for procreation is not a legal definition.
Perhaps, but it helps prevent bastard children…
Cheers.
Comment by: Jason Horton
12JJ
If you belief that marriage should be a requirement for children then you need to make a case for that. On what grounds should these values be imposed on unmarried parents. Given the pluralist nature of modern societies you need to state these reasons in secular terms and not religious ones.
JJ
A man and a woman are human beings with considerably more in common than they have differences. In California marriage between two people was legal. On what grounds should gender role be enforced in a marriage? The key difference between men and women is in reproduction. A male fertilised an egg and woman carries a child. If reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, which it isn’t, then how is this relevant to determining the validity of a marriage contract? Gender stereotypes? Surely what each person within a marriage does is a matter of free choice between them? Why should society seek to impose gender roles on free citizens.
JJ
Prop 8 did not enshrine a definition in law. It overturned a definition and prevented same sex couples from marrying. As a legal institution that allowed for equality based on gender on what grounds would you deny marriage to gay people? In short the argument for same-sex marriage is that society allows marriage for others and has no secular reason to deny marriage to members of a minority group.
JJ
This is a judgment on your part. One that I find to be outmoded and ridiculous. To resort to name calling insults simply shows that your arguments hold no substance. You should abandon them and such judgments.
Comment by: Helen
13Thanks Irritable and Anisha.
Jim J, as I wrote in my response to Dean, I don’t understand the argument that says gay marriage is wrong because gay couples can’t have children – since marriage has never been limited to men and women who are proven able to conceive.
I would echo David’s “Why not?” because I don’t have any reasons against gay marriage. I don’t believe allowing it would destroy society. The consequences of gay marriage piechart sums up my opinion about it.
Comment by: Jim J
14Jason H, the “bastard children” comment was meant as a joke, albeit a pretty bad one. It was late.
The first authorities a child meets are Mom and Dad, even if they aren’t together. Marriage strengthens that mother/father authority.
I didn’t think I used religious arguments.
I’d say they have considerable differences in the context of marriage. Equality is one thing, sameness is another.
Gender “roles”? Am I being oppressed because the State sees me as a man?
“No secular reason to deny”. Two negatives no less. It also seems that secular is interchangeable with legitimate. Where did this secular reasoning come from? Is it totally uninformed by any religious worldview? If so, aren’t you simply silencing those people? Just a thought.
Nonetheless, I can’t think of a more secular argument than equality and sameness are not the same. I stand with the gay rights activist who says they should be treated equally before the law, but the appeal for SSM crosses the line from being equal to being the same.
For example, imagine I sued to be allowed a spot in a Women’s softball league. If I tell them I’m the same as a woman, I don’t think my argument would hold. I can complain that my prohibition from women’s softball is an unfair imposition. I could even argue, why NOT let me play? Right? If we are the same, there’s no reason not to let me play. What do you say to that?
You’re a good debater btw. Regards.
Comment by: Irritable
15I’m sure Jason will have better answers, and I don’t claim to be answering for him in any way, but there are some interesting things here.
Arguments against SSM take on a religious cast when they appeal (however implicitly) to a purpose for marriage backed by some sort of transcendental authority. To “reassert what it was meant for in the first place” implies a source of authority doing the “meaning” and some kind of definitive “first place.” If these are not agreed upon the conversation founders (or flounders — either word works).
There are many holes in the softball analogy. The most salient for me is that whereas denying you a spot on the softball team does not deny you the opportunity to play softball, refusing to legitimize SSM does deny S/S couples the opportunity to be married. A man is not the same as a women, but the sexual attraction, love, and commitment between S/S couples is the same as that between heterosexual couples. To deny them the same culturally acceptable expression of that relationship is unfair, unjust, and uncharitable.
Playing on a softball team does not (for most people) have the same kind of legal implications or cultural cachet that being married does. The workaround of civil unions is thoughtful, but it still denies S/S couples the cultural capital of being married, and it smacks of “separate but equal” arguments that sought to legitimize racial segregation.
Getting rid of “married” as a legal designation altogether and leaving it to religious institutions, as others have suggested, is also interesting but I suspect it doesn’t really address an issue you rightfully bring up: for some, allowing S/S unions under any name is a threat to the common good, and those of us who are in favor of legally recognizing those unions cannot help but marginalize those who earnestly see them as such a threat. One of the reasons I think this is such a hotly contested issue is that it exposes uncomfortable fault lines in our collective thinking about the oft-troubled relationship between religion and politics.
Lastly, sexual segregation in sports is, to me, philosphically problematic anyway, but the arguments for it appeal fairly convincingly to sexual dimorphism as a mitigating factor. For an analog argument regarding SSM to hold one would have to demonstrate that sexual dimorphism (or in the case, the lack of it) is a mitigating factor in the same sense. This depends on how one defines marriage and how one understands its purpose, and, well, round we go again.
Comment by: Helen
16I think a better analogy than a man trying to get on a women’s softball team would be, a group of men and women wanting to form their own league of teams and be recognized as a softball league, and people won’t recognize their teams and league because people see that as an unacceptable move away from tradition.
Comment by: David H
17I doubt Jason’s intent was to imply secular means legitimate. It is more likely that he was posing secular as an opposite to religious. One reason to do that would be that while religion can inform those who make laws in this country it isn’t supposed to dictate those laws.
Many conservative Christians have contended recently that separation of Church and State is only intended to keep the State our of Church affairs. However, the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not seem to see it that way.
The first amendment, which does not contain the words “separation of church and state” says simply:
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the amendment was intended to create a “wall of separation between church and state.”
Last time I checked a wall had two sides.
James Madison, who drafted the Bill of Rights, expounded on that by writing that the intent was a total separation of church and state. He also wrote: that the “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
He and others likely drew their inspiration from both the Anglican experience in England, where the church was government established and forced upon the people, as well as the Roman Catholic experience in Europe where the church attempted in various ways to dictate to government.
The reason for a distinction in this discussion between secular and religious is that U.S. laws are not only supposed to respect our pluralistic society in concept, but also because many already do that in practice even if their protections fly in the face of some popular religious positions. So while some Christian leaders declare homosexuality a sin (at best), the laws of this land call it legitimate and protected.
The problem then becomes that if the law already decrees homosexuals and homosexuality as acceptable, how can laws prohibiting certain practices (like marriage) be permitted? Should a moral or religious perspective (no matter how popular) be allowed to overwhelm what would seem to be a natural right under the existing laws of the land?
Perhaps if homosexuality had remained an evil in public perception and prohibited by law, then a ban of homosexual marriage might be justifiable. But that isn’t what has happened in this country.
As for the softball analogy, Title IX was set up to make sure that female students and scholastic athletes would have the same opportunities as their male counterparts.
It says: “No person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Title IX has been used to force federally funded institutions to provide comparable athletic programs for female athletes (e.g. women’s soccer if there is a men’s soccer team or at least comparable spending on academic and athletic programs for both).
The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution (the part of the 14th amendment that says: “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) has also been used to force schools to allow female wrestlers, baseball players and football players (at times because there was no comparable athletic program for them at their school).
As an aside, the 14th amendment was added to the US Constitution in 1868 as a way of legitimizing federal laws intended to give citizens of color the same protections as enjoyed by white citizens.
However, Title IX and the recent implementations of the equal protection clause both indicate that in this country desire for equal opportunity and even equality must be accepted and protected, at least when the federal government (i.e. US taxpayers) are expected to foot part of the bill for the program in question. Which would seem to include marriage in this country because, if for no other reason, its tax implications.
One mitigating factor with marriage is that it, like abortion, has been deemed a state’s rights issue. Perhaps that is to protect those states that allow 13-year-olds to marry distant cousins. Of course, for years the feds also permitted individual states to decide how they would deal with racial equality. Which is why we now have the 14th amendment.
Comment by: Jeff Eyges
18If the potential for procreation is a prerequisite for marriage, should we forbid elderly people to marry?
Comment by: Helen
19Jeff Eyges wrote:
Exactly.
Hopefully we shouldn’t.
Comment by: Doreen
20Well, my church’s (denomination’s) free expression of religion is certainly being prohibited since my denomination would like to marry G&L couples but cannot legally do so. Someone’s religious views or what they believe the Bible does or does not say are not valid reasons to deny G&L couples the right to civil marriage. No denomination, individual church, or minister/pastor should be forced to do so. As far as the states are concerned, some states do not allow first cousins to marry, but if married cousins move into a state that forbid it, the marriage is still considered valid, so I do not see why it is constitutional to deny G&L legally married couples the same thing.
We’ve gotten far away from the original question (typical on this issue). I do not think Jesus would condemn monogamous, married same-sex marriages that are intended for life.
This line “love the sinner hate the sin” is so bogus when it comes to G&Ls. A person’s sexuality is part of the essense of who he/she is, so if you hate the sin, you hate the person. Straight people are unable to see beyond the sex, which cracks me up. They’ve obviously never heard of lesbian bed death!
Comment by: Bob
21Back to the original question (thanks Doreen) I think it’s a pretty safe bet that if you went back to the time Jesus walked the earth and asked him if two men should get married you’d get “no” for an answer. So are we saying because time and culture has changed and we might find it more acceptable that Jesus would also find it more acceptable? If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow then I would think not.
Of course if you don’t believe that Christ was God and merely a man (not the case for me) you might be able to make that argument more easily. In terms of biblical references that support it I can’t think of any. Would Christ love people regardless of their position or inclinations on this issue? I certainly think so.
Any time we try to speak for anyone else without being able to ask them publicly there’s a level of assumption. My assumption based on Jesus observance of the law and the absence of any pro homosexual union recorded statements would leave me to believe he would not support it.
Comment by: Jason Horton
22Bob, would he oppose it though? There is a difference between not supporting something and opposing it. Would he say “I don’t like it but it doesn’t hurt anyone so I’m going to let it go” or do you believe a stronger stance is required?
Comment by: Jim J
23Jh,
Are you asking, “On a scale of 1 to 10 of ‘No’, what would he say?” Jesus said, “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’” (Matt 5:37), so I agree he’d say “No”. Give it a 10.
David,
Should a moral or religious perspective (no matter how popular) be allowed to overwhelm what would seem to be a natural right under the existing laws of the land?
1) Are you suggesting that freedom of speech does not extend to those who are informed by a biblical worldview? All I can say to that is “Wow” and how do you get that from the words:
2) Marriage is a union between a man and woman, husband and wife. While raising biological offspring in that relationship is not mandatory, the only union is between a man and a woman. Society would have to agree with this new definition. This is inevitably a linguistic matter. The Miriam/Webster Online Dictionary has alreay made that addition.
But this new definition begs the question, What is meant by “like that of”? It is not the same.
Comment by: Irritable
24For my part, I’m wondering how questioning the relevance a particular moral or religious perspective in determining policy is a violation of free speech.
Comment by: Irritable
25I think Jason’s question presumes a level of civic discourse that didn’t exist at the time and would not have made much sense to a 1st-century Jew, divine pedigree or no. (This is a problem that is intrinsic to WWJD-type questions and not unique to Jason.) Perhaps a clarifying question could be: even if Jesus might have opposed SSM for the people of God, would he have petitioned the Roman government to deny it?
It is common in Christian theology to appeal to some sense of the “founder’s intentions” — to assert that Jesus, or Paul, or the Bible in general, supports our particular position and has always done so, even if poor benighted others have not been able to see this. There is a long history of this, from every imaginable perspective.
Another theological option might be to assert the church’s ongoing role in both the interpretation of scripture and the administering of grace. If the church holds the “keys to kingdom,” perhaps the church has the right, and even a divine mandate, to extend grace to those whom the Biblical text, as such, did not foresee.
If the biological markers for lifelong same-sex orientation existed in the ancient world, the social categories to make sense of this did not. So the idea of a monogamous same-sex relationship was not on the cognitive map.
Various oppressive and objectifying sexual practices did exist, including pederasty, which seems to be a more appropriate target for Paul’s tirades. These practices and lifelong same-sex orientation are — to invoke a recurring refrain in these comments — not the same.
But even if one considers the above to be nothing but a bunch of liberal rubbish, and asserts the necessity for Christian doctrine to preserve heternormativity for believers, how does this necessarily translate to a mandate to impose the same strictures on society at large?
Comment by: Helen
26Bob, I would be interested in your reasons why you think it’s a safe bet Jesus would have said ‘no’.
It depends what you mean by ‘acceptable’. Jesus accepted and upheld paying taxes to Caesar which was totally a cultural thing. I don’t expect he would have sent Caesar donations if there hadn’t be a mandatory tax. So his view on paying tax depended on culture.
Also, Jesus put people before rules at least some of the time. For example when he saved the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, rescuing her from the punishment due her according to Jewish law.
What people conclude about Jesus and gay marriage depends whether they think a universal moral principle comes into play and/or how they think Jesus makes decisions. I think the lack of comment about gay marriage in the NT is a very weak argument against it because why would the question even come up in Jewish society, in which there was no question of it being allowed?
Whether one group of people may make rules limiting the rights of another group is not a freedom of speech issue. I haven’t seen anyone on here arguing against the freedom of religious people to say “this is morally wrong according to my religious beliefs”. What people are arguing against is religious people having the right to make behavior illegal for others who don’t hold their religious beliefs, based on it being wrong according to the religious peoples’ beliefs.
Similarly, freedom of speech gives nontheists who have the following belief the right to say ‘prayer is a waste of time and therefore immoral because you should be doing something more useful with your time instead’ but it doesn’t give them the right to make praying illegal just because of their belief about it.
Comment by: Helen
27Irritable wrote:
Wow, wouldn’t it be wonderful to see churches interpreting ‘keys to the kingdom’ this way? Maybe some already do.
This is my question too. It seems to be going beyond the bounds of what’s reasonable to impose your rules on others.
At the same time I think I know what the Christian answer is – “God’s rules are good for society at large so it’s best if society at large abides by them”.
But Christians need to be able to persuade society at large that God’s rules really are best in order to persuade society at large that society at large should abide by them. And I’m not seeing that Christians have been successful at that.
Comment by: Jason Horton
28JimJ wrote
Fair enough, that is your opinion and I did ask for an opinion. I would say though that I’m not aware of any reference in the bible of Jesus saying that homosexuality was bad (or acceptable for that matter) so it may not have been considered an important issue of the time.
Alternatively the state already allowed for SSM so perhaps he would “render unto Ceasar” on this question. I see that Helen got there first with that particular reference.
On the freedom of speech issue I have to point out that sensible limitations are placed on freedom of speech. You cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and yell “Fire” and you cannot put up posters inciting others to violence. Not without facing criminal charges. So you have the freedom to say that you don’t recognise SSM as valid and I have the right to say that I do. That gives neither of us the right to impose our views on the other.
Comment by: Jim J
29Jason,
Muchas problemas aqui..
If you willfully suspend your disbelief so that you might understand the Bible, as you would a Batman movie, you would have to agree that Jesus is God. Yes, he was back when Genesis 19 and even before then when he told us to be fruitful and multiply.
JH
There’s a false dichotomy there. It’s true that if the government decrees SSM we have to recognize it. In the same way, if Major League Baseball Inc added the Fort Lauderdale High School baseball team as a new franchise the other teams would have to come and play them. Nonetheless, the structure of our particular “Caesar” is that the people give their sovereignty to the government. Before: God to King to People. USA: God to people to government. IOW, the government is subservient to the will of the people. Do you really stand with 4 MA court judges over the sovereign – the people? Granted, you could still say the government must be obeyed, but at what cost to the pre-ordained structure?
JH
Equivocate much? You say that we each have the right to free speech, then you say we don’t have the right to impose our views on someone else. What does that mean? Who gets to decide what is an imposition and what isn’t?
I am entitled to my personal opinion (protected by the First Amendment) and will always vote AGAINST same-sex marriage.
Helen
Gay marriage and abortion have been court-ordered. Where have Christians “failed to convince” the public? In light of California’s recent vote defending traditional marriage, I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Helen
In Freedom of Speech, what difference does it make what we “base” our beliefs on? And how is opposing gay marriage “making behavior illegal”? We are not arresting gays for marrying, are we?
Helen, you are willfully corrupting language to make a point that cannot be made honestly. The truth is that whether government accepts or rejects a new law, it will be decided privately in the voting booth. It is a simple matter of who convinces the most voters. Every major movement had to go through that crucible of convincing the people of their cause. Why should your cause of gay marriage circumvent the dialectic of a democratic republic?
Don’t get me wrong. This issue doesn’t anger me, just the abuse of language and reason I see here. It’s very similar to the rhetoric leading up to the Iraq War. “Why not invade Iraq? It can only help in our War on Terror.” Which is to say, it can’t hurt anybody. Not a good thought experiment. Just a thought. Regards.
Comment by: Bob
30Jason wrote:
That’s a good question Jason. I was thinking about that while I was writing the post. Since it was viewed to be sinful behavior at the time, I think it might be more along the lines of “go and sin no more”. Jesus didn’t openly condemn a lot of people other than the Pharisees. So I expect he would have been graceful but still urge change.
If pressed publicly I believe he would have a stronger stance. But Jesus was pretty good at controlling the circumstances and we find him pressed only in matters of defending his statements regarding his deity. So it doesn’t seem likely he would need to.
Of course I’m guessing but that’s my best guess. I don’t think Jesus came in order to be bound to people’s political views or kidnapped by conservatives or liberals. Just to bring reconciliation. Whatever Jesus would have done it would have been out of love and with guidance towards what is pleasing to God.
Comment by: Bob
31Helen wrote:
Irritable had some excellent insight on the mindset at the time, thank you for those thoughts. Well said.
Helen I make those assumptions based Jesus’ identity as a practicing Jew.It was considered completely unacceptable by the culture at the time both in a scriptural (man shouldn’t lie with a man) and legal standpoint. Since Jesus was an adherent of Jewish law and scripture it seems extremely unlikely that he would find it acceptable.
Taxes are beyond culture, they were law at the time. Jesus didn’t pay them because everyone else was, he paid them out of respect for the presiding authority per his statements in scripture. It wasn’t a matter of cultural opinion or acceptance. He thought is was the right thing to do.
As for the women caught in adultery, he forgave her (as he does all of us) but also told her to go and sin no more. I suspect he might do the same thing here (see other recent post) He doesn’t accept or condone her behavior, he accepts her.
There’s is difference between Jesus stance on a matter and how he treats the people in those situations. Separate issues. I am never intending to say that Jesus would treat people in an unloving way because of their circumstances (or at all for that matter). He does say some things are wrong and tells us to turn from them. Whether or not this is one of them will be debated indefinitely.
Since he didn’t specifically address this issue (as it really didn’t exist in its’ current incarnations at the time) in the new testament. I can only fall back on what little is said about homosexuality in the old testament, as Jesus embraced those scriptures. But I completely know what you mean, because there are tons of things that aren’t directly mentioned in the NT, and the things that are get shaped and bent to fits various denominational views and political agendas. This is just my best assumption based on what evidence I have.
Comment by: Jason Horton
32JimJ wrote:
I suspend disbelief in something I know to be false. If i did this with the Bible I might be more entertained by it but when I cease to suspend my disbelief I’m back at the same position. I’m not sure it helps.
Or are you saying that the poetry, metaphor and parable throughout the bible is a way of getting across an idea? In the NT it would be love thy neighbour\tolerance right but couched in language suitable for the era. I can do that but it still ends with me thinking that SSM is fine.
Here I disagree. “For the people, by the people” is a social contract with mutual terms and not a hierarchical structure of kings and subjects. The people vote for government to administer affairs of the collective, they trust in the rule of law and defer making of laws to those they have appointed.
Just what it says. You can say what you like (within reasonable limits) but no-one is obligated to obey what you say, not unless they want to.
Bob wrote:
1 Corinthians 7:9 …let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
I know this isn’t about SSM but isn’t it relevant? SSM isn’t the pedastry (pederastry?) of ancient Greece but a loving commitment between two people. If you are right in your assessment then marriage would be the best option available.
Comment by: Irritable
33I’m still not getting the free speech thing. Seems like a red herring here.
Comment by: Jim J
34Jason H
So if my opinion regarding marriage prevails as it did in California and all other states in November, are you saying that gays who want to marry can disregard those marriage laws?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you, David, and Helen seem to be saying that everyone has a right to free speech unless it obligates another to do what they don’t want to do or keep them from doing what they want to do. IOW, the opinion that SSM is meaningless is akin to yelling “Fire!” in a theatre. If this is your position, it may work for you on this issue, but wreaks havoc across the spectrum if broadly applied. You are ostensibly sleeping with abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph and his ilk.
I recommend taking the high road of changing the hearts and minds rather than tricking them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and, if the people and/or their elected officials ratify SSM, so be it. The people would have made a declaration that the Christian Bible is categorically mistaken on a major issue. But, so what, its not the first time and likely won’t be the last.
One thing I’d never do is say that you had no right to free speech. We legalized the murder of unborn children in this country. What could be worse than that? Yet I debate pro-aborts; I don’t try to shut them up. And talk about causing harm to others through your speech! Gay activists are saints next to those people, yet they still have a right to free speech and abortion is still legal.
The United States is a temporary entity in any event. Win or lose, there’s no reason to get too worked up about it. What bothers me is the deceptive language games you, David, and Helen are using to try to abridge the freedom of speech of others.
Comment by: Irritable
35Still not getting it.
Comment by: Irritable
36The breakdown, as I see it:
Person X saying SSM should be legal: speech
Person Y saying SSM should be illegal: speech.
Person X saying Jesus would support SSM: speech.
Person Y saying Jesus would not support SSM: speech.
Proposition 8: legislative action.
Person X saying Proposition 8 is unfortunate: speech.
Person Y saying person X is denying him/her free speech: huh?
Comment by: Jim J
37Wrong, Irritable. It goes like this:
Person X saying SSM should be legal: speech
Person Y saying SSM should be illegal: speech.
Person X saying Jesus would support SSM: speech.
Person Y saying Jesus would not support SSM: speech.
Person X says Person Y’s opinion should not be allowed because it’s influenced by religion.
Exhibit A – Helen
David H
Jason H calls my view “imposing my views on someone else”. He, apparently, is not imposing his views on me. I still don’t know how that works.
I think the name of this language game is “Heads I win, tails you lose!” :-)
Comment by: Eliza
38I’ve heard a saying that goes like this: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
And another that goes: “Love thy neighbor.”
Don’t these support allowing, tolerating, accepting, and even welcoming same-sex couples into the exclusive “marriage club”?
(Not that these are the only arguments in favor of SSM, IMSO*)
(*In My Secular Opinion)
Comment by: Helen
39Jim please look at the quote of mine again which you referred to. “People having the right to make behavior illegal for others” is not about speech. It’s about limiting the rights of others.
If your neighbor says “I don’t like you walking in the park at the end of our block” that’s free speech. If he is able to pass legislation banning you from walking there that’s not about free speech; that’s about limiting your behavior based on his beliefs/preferences.
Comment by: Irritable
40Jim,
Clearly, no one is curtailing your speech.
“Person X says Person Y’s opinion should not be allowed because it’s influenced by religion.”
No one has suggested that any opinion not be allowed in conversation — though personally I question the appropriateness of remarks about sleeping with abortion clinic bombers.
What has been questioned is the extent to which religious opinions or teachings as such should be allowed to determine policy, if they cannot be translated into terms that make sense to persons who adhere to other faiths, or no faith at all.
Comment by: Jim J
41Helen
I think I understand. You can say what you want but you can’t act on it. Do you see the problem with that?
If any rule that limits our behavior is an imposition and not protected by free speech, what can we say about public nudity or public sex, or those wonderful zoning restrictions at City Hall? What about “green space” laws that tell you when and where you can plant a tree on your own property? Talk about tyranny!
Admit it. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
Irritable, re-read your last post. I phrased your argument that opinions are OK by you unless they’re influenced by religion. Then you say my opinion is allowable unless it’s influenced by religious teachings! I’m glad you agree with my assessment of your circular reasoning.
It’s not unlike that trick in software; Free download, but then you find out you have to pay a price to install. That, too, is deceptive.
Btw, today we celebrate the greatest American of all time: a pastor who put Christian religious teachings in practice to change forever the way this country thought. Enjoy the holiday.
Comment by: Jason Horton
42Jim, that’s not it either.
State: Allows SSM in line with secular equality legislation
Person X says it should be illegal: speech
Person Y disagrees: speech
X and Y can carry on like this ad infinitum with no loss of freedom at all.
Person X gets a bunch of his mates together and they change the law to make SSM illegal. That’s imposing views (not based on secular reasons) on others.
Comment by: Bob
43Jason wrote:
It’s a tough thing. I know we have all have opinions about it. If Jesus condoned same sex relationships, I do think he would want them to be monogamous. I just don’t believe that he does based on what I have to go on.
Comment by: Helen
44Bob thanks for answering my question.
Comment by: Irritable
45Allowable for what??!!??
There are oodles and oodles of opinions, from the sublime to the utterly and ineffably banal, that should be protected as free speech but should not be allowed to determine policy.
These things are, as you are so fond of saying, not the same.
Comment by: Doreen
46Things seem to have gotten way off track somewhere in this discussion. People are of course entitled to opinions, religious or otherwise. I don’t think people are necessarily entitled to turn their religious opinions into discriminatory laws, regardless of what the majority thinks. We do not live in a “majority rules” country.
Comment by: Irritable
47“Then you say my opinion is allowable unless it’s influenced by religious teachings! ”
Actually, Jim, that’s not what I wrote. Your opinion is always “allowable” (though I’m beginning to wonder if we agree on what “allowable” means).
And of course your opinion is going to be influenced by your religious perspective. It would be unreasonable to expect any different.
Your opinion can only be taken seriously in the determination of public policy, however, if it can be explicated in terms that make sense to those who don’t share your religious views. It must be intelligible in a common ethical, legal, or juridical language. This can be challenging sometimes, but it is the challenge of democracy.
To suggest this does not in any way impinge upon your free speech.
Laws regarding indecency, zoning, and the like, are debated in terms that are not contingent upon any particular religious perspective.
You seem to be suggesting that if your opinion is not allowed to carry the weight of law, then your right to free speech has been violated. I’m sorry, but that’s absurd.
Now, having said that, there is an asymmetry here, and maybe this is what you’re getting at:
Making SSM illegal deprives same-sex couples of the opportunity to get married.
-but-
Making SSM legal deprives you of your desire to live in a world where gay people don’t get married.
Comment by: David H
48Would Jesus oppose gay marriage? I don’t think it is a yes or no answer.
Let’s look at a controversy he was asked to address if you accept Matthew as gospel. In Matthew 19 Jesus was asked about the acceptable reasons for divorce. His answer was that divorce is not permitted (perhaps not even possible) in the eyes of God.
In verse 7, those testing him responded: “Why then did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Adultery was a pretty serious crime under the mosaic law. While defined strictly as a woman having sex with a man other than her husband, both participants were considered equally guilty if the woman did not cry for help. The penalty for this crime was death.
But when Jesus came across the men preparing to carry out this law he did not ask the woman if she cried out of if there were other extenuating circumstances. He did say: Go and sin no more, but he also violated the covenant between God and the people of Israel.
And when Jesus met the woman at the well he apparently knew she was an adulterer, yet he didn’t tell her to forsake her sin. He used her as his witness to the town.
Apparently for Jesus there was God’s law, which is too pure for people. There was also the Mosaic covenant, which allowed people to sin but still keep some relationship with God if followed to the letter. Then there was something else. That something else seems on some level to trump the other two.
Not to belabor the point, but in Matthew 5 Jesus makes clear that God’s morality is far more stringent than the law. To God being angry with someone is the equivalent of murder. To God looking at a woman lustfully is the same as adultery. And we have already discussed the proper punishment for the latter.
Yet when he meets people guilty of those specified sins he neither judges nor condemns them.
How would Jesus respond to a homosexual, married or not, where he walking the streets of America today? I don’t know if he would call a sin their sexual inclination or desire to be joined as one. But I am pretty sure that wouldn’t determine his response to them either way.
How should that affect the Christian position for or against laws on homosexual marriage? It seems that deciding the wrongness or rightness of the inclination or activity is only the first part of the answer. Second would be whether we — the followers of Jesus — prefer to be bound by God’s law, the laws he gave to the people of Israel, or the something else Jesus lived and spoke about.
Do I expect myself to live by the law of God or face the consequences? How could I and survive?
Do I expect myself to not only live up to but to enact the laws of the land — thus binding me to ALL of their restrictions? I can’t because some are simply too objectionable. I will not kill someone for my country.
I want to live by grace. That makes it pretty difficult for me to vote against same-sex marriage. Enacting such a law does not meet the standards of God or even of Moses. It is some peculiar bastardization of a heavenly and human statute that may satisfy my own sense of propriety and/or righteousness, but certainly doesn’t serve the purposes of Jesus.
WWJD is a pointless question if you are looking for a yes or no answer on the morality of global warming, same-sex marriage or even abortion. Jesus doesn’t seem to be an issue person or even a terribly moral one. However, it isn’t a pointless question when it comes to people. It’s clear what Jesus expected his followers to do in regard to the person right next to them.
Can I make judgements about laws for my neighbor if I do not myself keep every law of God without ever even thinking about breaking one? If God’s laws are the gold standard should I be part of efforts to enact human laws that are just a poor imitation? If I want to be forgiven for my violations of God’s standards — because they carry such dire consequences if the Bible is to be believed — then do I really want the laws of my land because they come from God or simply so there is an ordered society?
If I want laws that make me feel safe and comfortable, then I shouldn’t call on God to justify them. They are of me and by me and for me. That doesn’t necessarily make them good or bad laws. But they certainly are not God’s laws or even Christ’s commandments.
Comment by: Bob
49David — Interesting thoughts. Maybe our question is flawed in the fact that it seeks to approve one position or the other when we don’t really have the right to do that. Jesus can seem pretty harsh when talking about lust (gouge your eye), anger (is murder), and other sins. Then he is unusually merciful when dealing with people caught in those sins. It can feel a bit confusing but if actions speak louder than words maybe we should focus more on what he did with his life and how he treated people as opposed to our interpretations of what he never actually talked about.
Comment by: David H
50I’m not at all sure there is any point in trying to address and clarify things I have tried to say to Jim. Perhaps he truly doesn’t understand what I have tried to say. Maybe he is just so utterly opposed to what I have to say that we aren’t even speaking the same language. Though knowing it is fruitless, still I will try.
Let’s first define obligate: To bind, compel, or constrain by a social, legal, or moral tie. See Synonyms for force (American Heritage Dictionary).
Saying what you think is free speech. Forcing me to live according to what you say is not free speech. It may be legal to force me (some believe that’s why we have laws), it may even be necessary (that’s supposedly why we have laws against murder and requiring taxes). However, it isn’t always right (like Jim Crow laws).
It’s not about allowing opinions (regardless of their influence), it is about accepting obligation. Supposedly this country is all about freedom, but as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it: “My right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor’s nose begins.”
Were I to paraphrase, it would be that anyone’s right to swing their Bible probably ends at exactly the same place.
Ergo, freely express your opinions. Expect resistance if they impinge on my nose.
It depends on what you mean by act. If you mean force me to do what you want, then you better have more than an opinion to validate your use of force. Once again, that’s where laws come in.
According to renowned French economist and political thinker Claude Frédéric Bastiat, laws are not “to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free excercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these rights by any other person.”
Even if this was a majority-rules country, (California has a direct-rule constitution, most other states and the federal government are purely representative), that wouldn’t necessarily make a popularly or publicly held position right — just legal. Once again reference slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. Some would even throw taxation in there.
If something is legal but not right, how should those who oppose it respond?
In the case of same-sex marriage, how do you Jim, determine that it is not only wrong but should also be illegal? Is it because God says so or just because most of your neighbors say so? Would your position be the same without the weight of your neighbors?
Where should the Christian God or the Moslem God or the Jewish God or the Hindu gods, et al, come in for determining not only what is right or wrong in your opinion, but what is legal or illegal according to US law? Does the Christian God get to take precedence in our pluralistic society, especially if the freedom being constrained doesn’t dent anyone’s nose?
Why did the California judges rule that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Because, in their judgement, established laws in this country should outweigh both religious and public opinion. They ruled that we can’t have laws saying no one can discriminate against homosexuals and then uphold another law that discriminates against homosexuals. They decided, in effect, that the ban of same-sex marriage in California (laws enacted by the state legislature) was a fist that had met someone’s nose. Prop. 8 was a ballot initiative that put the ban into the state constitution, thus (at least for a time) over-riding the court’s decision and obviating the need for further legislation.
Does your perception of morality, Jim, trump the laws of this country? Is the United States a Democracy dedicated to human freedom or is it a Christian nation dedicated to upholding God’s standards?
Be careful how you answer, because I am told that God’s standard dictates that the wages of sin is the ultimate abridgment of freedom, not a fine or jail term.
Comment by: Jim J
51I’ve allowed this to go on your assumption that I am a religious zealot, informed only by that monolithic tome known as the Bible. Yet my reasons are soundly placed in secular science.
#1 – A man cannot produce a child with another man and therefore neither can claim to be the head of a family they cannot bring into the world.
#2 – As David H described earlier, gays would have to prove a natural right was being abridged. In order to prove that my arm has reached the gay couple’s nose, it has to be proven that gay unions have a nose. In this case the nose is “natural rights”. Homosexuality would have to be proven scientifically to be a natural state. Yet all science will show is that all humans are born heterosexual, either male or female. There is no such thing as a newborn that is homosexual. A black man began as a black baby but a homosexual begins life as a heterosexual baby.
#3 – I don’t want this marriage definition because it is based on the same premise that would qualify polygamy and polyamory. This is not a religious complaint; it’s merely a legal state that would be created by default if same-sex marriage was made law.
#4 – Who’s “making same-sex marriage illegal”? SSM does not exist and has never existed. You want to bring it into existence. This is different from “de-criminalizing” it.
Irritable made this point
Now, having said that, there is an asymmetry here, and maybe this is what you’re getting at:
Good points. Both decisions lead to an imposition on personal freedoms, depending on how you look at it.
David H
Are you seriously going to maintain that, because the majority has erred in the past, that majority rule has fallen out of favor? Majority rule is flawed, thus we must go with minority rule. Shazam! We’re a minority! How serendipitous of you, David.
David H
I don’t know. Does yours? What bald-faced subjectivism. I think “Heads I win, tails you lose!” fits your technique perfectly.
David H
DH,
The actual passage you mutilate is from Romans 6. Here it is in its entirety.
The final jail term is rendered when we choose our hubris over what is right. And if you think it is loving to indulge another person in their own hubris to make them feel better, then you are not “loving your neighbor”. Have you ever given someone careless advice that they later said was not helpful? Well, that is what you are doing here. But the Bible points are all yours. You’re the one who brought up Romans.
Btw, I don’t “so utterly oppose” your position. I utterly oppose your abuse of language. The primary victim here is meaning itself.
Comment by: Jason Horton
52JimJ your opposition is based on four points as you’ve described.
The hierarchy you describe and requirement for reproduction is not part of marriage but part of the social assumptions that some people have about marriage.
You are not making a distinction between gender as a natural state you are born with (even though this can sometimes be ambiguous itself) and sexual orientation. However some studies have shown that homosexuality is indeed a natural state that some people are born to. These studies are not conclusive but they do show that it is a possibility. I must add that specifically exploring the genetic markers that make homosexuality more likely could be considered unethical.
Plenty of gay people say that they were born gay and recognise their homosexuality as soon as they begin their sexual awakening.
This is a slippery slope argument. The same one was used to try to limit mixed race marriages.
Proposition 8 is. Marriage was a legal state for a few months until is was redefined as a state that exists between a man and a woman only. SSM did exist.
However, even if it didn’t, what harm is there in allowing the same rights and responsibilities to gay couples as you allow to straight couples? The only difference is sexual orientation and setting the law on these grounds is discriminatory. SSM does not change the legal status of your marriage, if it did you might have an a point.
Comment by: David H
53On producing a child/bringing into the world: Is this your opinion or a criteria for defining marriage or can you provide the legal precedence for this as part of a definition for marriage in the United States? As for the head of the family concept, some states do permit that definition in as much as they allow same-sex couples (male and female) to adopt children and/or use other means to have children (artificial insemination). Only one state specifically bans this practice, Florida. Many states in this country permit single parent adoption regardless of that parent’s sexual orientation. That would seem to permit all sorts of family heads.
Once again I am going to need some links as evidence of your statement. I will provide a few of my own to counter your claim. According to research by Bruce Bagemihl homosexual behavior has been observed and documented in more than 1,500 animal species. There are various theories behind why, but the behavior is heavily documented. It appears to occur in 10 percent on average in animals of every type studied.
Petter Bøckman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature?, says: “No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins….”
According to one study: “Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams).”
According to Bockman, one-in-five Australian Black Swan pairs is homosexual. The swans mate for life, so this behavior can and has been studied over a period of time. What’s more, with these swan and other bird species, same-sex couples seem to do a fine job of parenting. When two males form the bonded pair more of their young survive than with male-female pairings. BTW, they get their eggs either by mating with a female who is driven away after laying the eggs or stealing the nest of another swan pair.
Does this make homosexuality natural?
As for sexual orientation, there is no way to determine it at birth, however there is growing evidence that there is a genetic component. There may also be hormonal or other biological causes which may be present at birth. While that genetic component may not be the sole driver, it does kind o make it difficult to contend all human babies are born hetero.
Even those studying the biological components of homosexuality acknowledge that there are psychosocial factors in play. But almost all say they are not yet able to determine how exactly these work together. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue for conscious choice of sexual orientation as studies have begun to pinpoint nascent gender identity formation at age 2-3 in children and to conclude it is not just based on whether the child is anatomically male or female, but includes factors from both nature and nurture. Children typically become aware of sexual orientation from “>age 12-19. But some research suggests that determinant factors to that eventual orientation may be present as early as age 5.
Should we blame the creature, the creator or the fallen world for homosexuality? It seems difficult to blame the child, especially when there seems to be little “choice” involved. If it is not a choice, why should we demonize the orientation?
Once again — provide proof. There doesn’t seem to be an explosion of polygamy in countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized. In some there is debate about such unions, the Dutch have permitted such civil unions (though there haven’t been many). Polygamous marriages performed in other countries are recognized in The Netherlands. Apparently such unions are common in large parts of Africa, the Islamic world and even by some Jewish sects. Christian societies ban and criminalize the practice even though many of our patriarchs were polygamists.
Don’t know where this leaves us on the slippery slope, but it doesn’t appear to be too slick yet.
As was pointed out above, it was legal in California for a short time. It is also legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut. New York and Rhode Island give some recognition to same-sex marriage performed elsewhere. New Mexico has left the issue in limbo, defeating provisions that would ban or legalize the practice and granting some recognition to unions confirmed elsewhere.
I’ll take the high road. What I would like, since I have an innate distrust of politicians, religious leaders and mass movements is for some real justification other than — everybody thinks so. Majority opinion has been proven incorrect many many time. I don’t expect you to accept that I’m right. Just that you stop defending you position with the argument that most people agree with you.
As for the rest, Jim, Bible verses and insults are not an answer per se. But perhaps I can infer that yes, despite all the rest of what you wrote, you believe that biblical morality should trump the established laws of the United States. Funny thing is that I don’t disagree with biblical morality. I try to practice it myself. But as I have repeatedly tried to point out to you, the link between the laws of this land and the laws of God is a sham. They were not, are not and never will be more than distantly related. While that may make some unhappy, it doesn’t change what true followers of Jesus are supposed to do in the world. And that gospel has very little to do with laws.
Comment by: Irritable
54Thanks, Jim. That answers my question.
Comment by: Helen
55Jim I can’t see how it depends how you look at it. I can’t find a way to look at it which causes gay people marrying to impose on my or your personal freedom and I can’t find a way to look me being able to prevent gay people marrying which doesn’t impose on their personal freedom.
Unless I and other heterosexual people intrinsically have so much more ‘worth’ than gay people that if I preferred them not to marry, that would be more important and valid than their personal freedom to marry and should overrule it. But the idea of me or other heterosexual people having much more worth than gay people is offensive to me.
Comment by: Jim J
56David H,
Thanks for all the information. First, I’d like to link to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Citizens for Equal Protection, et al. v. Jon C. Bruning . The pivot point in their decision to uphold a gay marriage ban was:
I agree with them in that you are stretching the scope of one speech over another based on some presupposed superiority of your own making.
Another problem with your argument from nature is that sexual orientation is not as stationary as you insist. The following is from the Journal of Mental Health Counseling from 1998.
Sorry I don’t have any links to a naturally gay baby. Do I really need any? Keep in mind, that a study proving such a thing would have to begin at birth, “This baby is gay” and then be controlled by limiting the child’s exposure to the gay lifestyle, to rule out cultural influences they should be raised in a traditional family setting with traditional values. Then if they still turn out gay, then you might have something. But tendencies don’t a fixed natural state make.
Regarding
How do you explain changes in sexual orientation? Exodus International, just one ex-gay support group, has grown to 150 regional local organizations. So your natural rights argument is very shaky. I strongly support gay rights when it comes to the right to work or own/rent a home and the like. These are human rights that no natural person should be denied. The “right” to marry is itself debatable. Marriage is a benefit designed to assist in the raising of children. I know you disagree with that definition since your arguments are more about redefining terms than natural rights.
David,
Re: the slippery slope argument, I grant you one thing, your point that the world will not be overthrown by this. I can link to some funny stories of polyamorous marriages like the one in Belgium where one husband has several wives, and a slew of kids, all on welfare. But last I checked the percentage of married gay couples where it is legal was in the single digits. Nine European countries together had 2% of gay couples married.
The real drive for these SSM measures is apparently the right to marry without the actual marriage itself. It’s as if the whole debate is over whether homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. I think that’s precisely the intent.
Again, I’ll point to that 8th Circuit ruling: “The First Amendment guarantees the right to advocate; it does not guarantee political success.” I live in a city that has been so poorly managed that it almost went bankrupt 4 years ago, and now has even dug itself a deeper hole. We have a terrible mayor and several totally incompentent City Comissioners. Yet I’ll go vote for the candidates I know are qualified and rational and, lo and behold, a political novice will step in behind me and vote for the same old village idiot they’ve always voted for. Thus my vote is canceled out. The only way I can overcome that is to advocate for a better change so more people vote better candidates in. And that’s what any political movement has to do. It is absurd to think you can disqualify someone’s point of view just because you can’t find a way to understand it. Isn’t that just another word for “disagree”?
Helen,
One last point. Explain how the personal freedoms of gay couples are infringed. There are many structures such as corporations and living trusts that couples can use. Many companies already offer benefits to same-sex partners. Other than preventing a wedding ring, I don’t see how their personal freedom is being denied.
Helen,
Heterosexual: pertaining to the opposite sex or to both sexes.
People have forgotten that heterosexuality is a natural state that there are two opposing sexes. Either you are one or the other. If you were born male or female, you were born heterosexual. Just a thought. I’m off to enjoy the Inauguration. Good day.
Comment by: David H
57Can’t help myself. Supply proof of a heterosexual baby. While you’re at it, dig up an explanation for hermaphrodites.
I’ll get to the rest of this later. But after only a brief review of the Journal article you reference I am doubting you read the whole thing. It doesn’t really support your contention.
Comment by: Helen
58Jim J wrote:
Your ‘other than’ shows you do see some freedom is being denied, even though you minimize how much by implying marriage is only a matter of having a wedding ring.
If that’s really all it is I would have thought you’d support the right of gay people to wear wedding rings just as you support free speech – after all, wearing a particular item is in effect just a non-verbal form of free speech isn’t it?
Could you explain what freedom is denied to you if gay people are permitted to marry (wear wedding rings)?
Comment by: Irritable
59Designed by whom?
Comment by: Irritable
60Actually, the design question isn’t very interesting.
“…to assist in the raising of children” is different from your earlier associations of marriage with reproduction. Though I don’t think the benefits of marriage are limited to those related to child-raising, this definition does not exclude same-sex couples, many of whom might be very interested in adopting and raising children.
Nor would heterosexual couples need to be legally married in order to benefit from the presence of a partner in the challenge and rewards of raising children. As a definition of marriage, assistance in the raising of children doesn’t seem to do a lot of work, and certainly not in your favor.
If this softer stance was not intended and you are going to continue to define marriage on the basis of reproductive potential, the absurdity of which has already pointed out by others, this stands in interesting relationship to the (equally spurious) slippery-slope argument that legally recognizing SSM will lead to polygamy.
In plain fact, polygamy is a much more efficient system for producing offspring than monogamy. Humans have single births (typically), a relatively long gestation period, and reduced fertility during nursing (generally). As much as patriarchal cultures viewed women as baby-making machines, they are not well-designed for that purpose.
The Old Testament recognizes this, which is probably why polygamy is never explicitly condemned, and seems to be normative — at least in the patriarchal period. True, the primordial couple appear to have been monogamous, but Lilith might take issue with that.
So rather than hold out the prospect of polygamy as a deterrent to embracing SSM, it seems you would be supportive of polygamy as a Biblically sanctioned means of accomplishing the purpose of marriage — by your definition.
Or maybe we should drop the idea that marriage has something intrinsically or exclusively to do with reproductive capacity or child rearing.
Comment by: Jim J
61Irritable,
Designed by society. Can it be changed? Yes, by the society; an open society with freedom of speech for all people, not just secularists.
David H,
Supply proof of a heterosexual baby.
A baby that is male or female.
Your definition is about heterosexuality as an action, which comes later. How then is it a natural right?
All this is moot politically if you succeed in redefining marriage in our legal system. I will stick with my view which is protected by my right to free speech. My main goal here was to expose these flaws:
1) That someone’s opinion can be silenced because it doesn’t “make sense” to someone else. As the 8th Circuit pointed out, the right to free speech is no right to succeed.
2) That being informed in part by a religious worldview does not disqualify an opinion.
3) Religious people don’t rely only on the Bible for their worldview, at least they shouldn’t (that’s biblical btw). I gave some reasons not weighted down for you by Scripture.
Comment by: Irritable
62I’m sorry to be Johnny-one-note here, and pardon me for being dense, but can you please explain to me what freedom of speech has to do with it?
Comment by: David H
63To quote John McClane (no relation to the senator and would-president): “Eeeh! Sorry Hans, wrong guess.”
Heterosexual is not about gender or even gender identity, it is about sexual orientation or preference. To put it in rough terms: gender is about your gear, sexual orientation is about how you use it.
The World Health Organization makes a further differentiation: “Male” and “female” are sex categories, while “masculine” and “feminine” are gender categories. The APA puts it the opposite way. To them gender is a noun, sex is a verb.
However, even were we to allow the definition of heterosexual to encompass the biology of male and female that would still leave us with the question of hermaphrodites. That’s a term which has fallen out of favor for use with humans that describes someone born with both male and female genitalia. According to your definition then, while I can’t show you a homosexual baby I can show you a bi-sexual one.
Comment by: Helen
64Jim J can you point out where anyone here has said your opinion should be silenced?
Comment by: Jason Horton
65I’m getting a bit mixed up here so I’m going to summarise the position against same sex marriage so far:
1) The majority don’t want it.
2) The Christian faith frowns upon it.
3) Families are better in a strictly heterosexual marriage.
4) The production and raising of children is better in a heterosexual marriage.
5) There is a long tradition of marriage being defined as being between one man and one woman.
6) There is nothing stopping homosexuals from having a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. It just isn’t called marriage. that should be enough for them.
7) Allowing SSM is to allow men and women to marry in multiple partner relationships. Polygamy is the next step and pretty soon well let people marry goats or rocks.
8) SSM devalues straight marriages.
9) Gays are icky and you have the free speech to say so.
Did I miss any?
The last point is a red herring. You can voice an opinion and it doesn’t change a thing. Let’s discard it as a distraction.
Let’s then discard the religious arguments. A pluralist society uses secular rules and America specifically guarantees a separation of church and state. Arguments that promote or limit a religious view are automatically out. As allowing SSM does not impinge on the religious freedoms of Christians or any other faith group it cannot be counted. If you think it does I’d be interested in hearing your reasons. We are free to hold whatever religious views you like but you cannot enforce them on others.
Issues involving children I think have been extensively dealt with. Marriage or sexuality are not necessary nor are they impediments to raising children. Maybe some would like marriage and heterosexuality to be necessary for producing and raising children but that doesn’t make it so.
The argument from tradition is also pretty straightforward to deal with. Compare it to the long tradition of keeping slaves or the long tradition of denying women the right to vote. We can clearly see that tradition isn’t always the best argument.
Point 6 is that gays already have some legal recognition but that this isn’t marriage. They should not expect this to be called marriage though. This just begs the question though. if they’ve got legal rights and status equivalent to marriage then why not call it marriage?
The slippery slope argument didn’t hold up with mixed race marriages and doesn’t hold up with SSM either. Yet, even if it did what is inherently wrong with polygamous relationships. It might not be for everyone but then not everyone will want it. Let’s ignore this as a distraction not relevant to the question.
SSM devalues marriage. How? Does allowing old people to marry devalue the marriages of the young? Does allowing divorcees to marry devalue the first marriages of others? Does allowing Muslims to marry devalue Christian marriages? Marriages mean different things to different people and they should only be interested in their own marriage, not anyone elses. Right up until someone else’s marriage harms another it should be permissible. Gay marriage harms no one.
Now back to point 1: The majority do not want gay marriage. In a democracy this is hard to dismiss. It does beg the question as to why the majority do not wish to allow SSM? Perhaps one of the other arguments that we’ve dismissed has swayed them, perhaps a religious view or a homophobic view or a fear makes them feel that marriage should be for straights only. Whatever their reasons they have spoken. Should they be overruled? Well I think so and I’d suggest that denying SSM is to treat one group unequally compared with another, solely on the basis of their sexuality. The majority would hardly be expected to appreciate this if it doesn’t impact on their lives but that is why they vote for others to represent them. These others should appreciate the full impact of the issues.
Comment by: Jim J
66Jason Horton,
You write
Let’s then discard the religion arguments.A pluralist society used secular rules and American specifically bguarantees a separation of church and state.”
This is so transparently fallacious as to earn the distinction of being called “stupid”.
1) If its a pluralist society, how can any point of view be excluded??
2)It seems to me that a “pluralist society uses secular rules” is YOUR OWN RULE!!
3) How is my opinion a “church”? That’s ridiculous.
This is the Humpty Dumpty school of reasoning;” words mean what I have them mean”.You may win the debate on SSM, and frankly, I don’t care all that much. Gays don’t want to marry so much as they want society to affirm that their lifestyle is OK.
What bothers me is the brazen abuse of language to essentially and potentially take away a person’s freedom of speech. In conclusion, I say No to SSM and I will vote and I will advocate against it because that is my natural and inalienable right to do so. And that includes participating in setting policy! Your deceiptful language game is impotent to stop that.
Good day and goodbye for this thread.Regards.
Comment by: David H
67Echoing Irritable and looking back over the numerous posts you have put up (Helen: is posting here a right or a privilege?) I can’t help but ask who is trying to silence you even though your opinion doesn’t make sense? Likewise, who here has said that a religious worldview disqualifies an opinion?
I’ll answer those for you to save another repetition of much that has been gone over multiple times before: NO ONE HERE.
Questions have been raised about whether a worldview based on biblical principles should be permitted to determine the laws of this land (given that whole separation of church and state thing), but your religious or spiritual convictions don’t disqualify your opinions any more or less than they do for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Shintoists, Confucianists, Mormons, Sikhs, animists, or Wiccans. The whole question is whether a Christian worldview by itself should be a determining factor in laws that could infringe on the beliefs of anyone from those other religions or those who don’t hold to any religion whatsoever. In other words, is the United States a religious or a secular nation in terms of its governmental foundations? If you answer religious, then how do we decide which since the Constitution clearly prohibits picking one?
As for your reasoning against same-sex marriage, I’m not sure I saw a single valid point (other than those supported by your 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling) that doesn’t derive from a religious point of view. Your biology is remarkably uninformed, you simply discard psychology, and even you admit that your slippery slope doesn’t exist.
That 8th Circuit ruling and similar opinions from other federal and state courts are not universally held even within our legal system, hence same-sex marriage in two states. The 8th Circuit ruling also relies on some logic that is rather laughable.
As an example a lynchpin of the court’s ruling is that the State correctly believes
That quaint notion is not supported by any evidence in the ruling — it just has been so it is. Current biology and psychology seem to be non-supportive of that position. Perhaps the idea is that such traditional families are best suited because they are far less likely to receive the discrimination and abuse that would be heaped on the children of same-sex unions in large segments of U.S. society (like Nebraska)?
However, what’s funny is the second paragraph in which they lump together “responsible procreation theory” with the addenda that it can only apply to opposite-sex couples able to produce offspring by accident. Wouldn’t that make them irresponsible? Do you think that last part was intended to insure that female same-sex couples couldn’t make the argument that they (as opposed to males) could qualify because their biology would permit them to bear children the old-fashioned way but only on purpose?
Even funnier is the reliance on the “traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children.” So if that traditional notion is not true or other parental constructs can be demonstrated to be just as good or better (nod to Irritable and his polygamist family) then they should be allowed in this country?
If I have time I may get to a further deconstruction of the 8th Circuit ruling and some that stand in opposition.
In the meantime, your favored court dispensed with the freedom of speech argument rather quickly on the part of the plaintiffs. Perhaps you should stop regurgitating it for your position, as well. I am not trying to silence you. I am simply trying to demonstrate that your position, while apparently still embraced by a sizable population of this country and its judiciary, doesn’t make much sense except as a warm, fuzzy tradition.
Comment by: David H
68I’d say me too, but I think I’m not allowed.
Comment by: Irritable
69David,
I think this thread is probably dying, and I’m really not trying to split hairs, and I hate to pick a bone with someone cool enough to quote Die Hard, but in solidarity with third-wave feminists everywhere:
I’d push your distinction just a bit farther, suggesting that your biological sex is your gear, gender is the culturally constructed identity you perform in relationship to that gear, and your sexual orientation is the relationship between your gear and that of your usual choice of sexual partner.
You basically get there further in your comment, and it doesn’t change your argument any, but I want to gently push back against an essentialist conflation of sex and gender.
Comment by: David H
70Agreed.
What I found odd (perhaps confusing) was the the APA and World Health Organization only wanted two terms to encompass gender (or gender roles), sexuality (or sexual orientation) and sex (biology). However, they wanted those two words (sex and gender) to mean exactly the opposite things. Somebody get them a dictionary.
Also, while it seems Jim has given up on us, I was glad to have him introduce me to some of the court cases involving discrimination and same-sex marriage in this country. I haven’t delved too deeply yet, but they seem to be wildly at odds with each other on the district court level, with some (even at US Supreme Court level) saying sexual orientation is something that deserves the same recognition and protection as other “special classifications.” Yet other courts, while acknowledging that they are protected from discrimination won’t allow that such a defined group deserves anything beyond that.
The Nebraska case from the 8th District court was over a state constitution amendment that bars same-sex couples from ever having any officially recognized relationship for ever. The circuit court seems to acknowledge that had they passed such a law it would have been unConstitutional. However, since they amended their constitution they are fine to ban marriages, civil unions, et al in perpetuity. I may be missing something, but haven’t had time for a deep reading of the decision or to search for any commentary.
When I get time I want to see if I can find any statements by politicians regarding this amendment before or after it passed. The court decided that there was no animus toward gays in the amendment. I wonder if there was any in those who framed it and campaigned for it.
Comment by: Jason Horton
71I’ve had a look at Jim’s blog and his comments about this conversation. I think that there is an essential confusion between freedom of speech and separation of church and state. When I said that a religious argument should be discarded I meant it in this way (and I’ll try not to be so “stupid” this time :) ):
1. Holding a religious view is protected by the first amendment.
2. Religious views are inherently personal and forcing those views on others against their will is prevented by the same amendment.
3. In order to protect the state and the individual no law should be implemented that limits or promotes a religious view.
The arguments against same sex marriage come down to tradition and religion. The religious argument cannot be allowed to stand in making a law. Imagine a land where religious law is secular law. You don’t have to because there are nations that operate under sharia law. Now imagine a land where you are told how, where and when you can observe your faith. There are plenty of examples in history.
Forcing anyone else to act according to my own religious view should not be allowed and any call on my part to limit an action based only on a point of faith should be rejected.
That, in no way, prevents you from holding a religious view or sharing it. It just stops you from forcing anyone else to go along with it.
Not excluded but not given precedence over other views.
No, it isn’t.
“Church and state” is a well known phrase that separates religious views from non-religious ones.
Society already affirms that their lifestyle is OK. Anti gay laws have been largely dismantled. What many gays want is to get married. They could for a few months in some US states and now they can’t.
Anyway, if you think that the issue of same sex marriage is not about tradition or religion I would be interested in hearing why. If it is about religion then I’d be interested in hearing why your religious view trumps my religious view on this issue and why we should not stick to religiously neutral viewpoints. Perhaps I am simply being “stupid” again but I can’t see where the anger you’ve repeatedly expressed come from. I know that I’m not always polite but in this discussion I’ve tried to be and everyone else has extended the same courtesy.
Comment by: Jim J
72Jason,
I’ve been saying until I’m blue in the face that this is a question of LANGUAGE, not tradition or religion. You’re changing the definition of marriage.
You are simply expanding the establishment clause to include religious speech, just as you are expanding the definition of marriage to include a husband and a husband. Your new rule forfeits a religious person’s right to free speech, pure and simple. We live in an open society; if an argument doesn’t hold water, in time it will be abandoned.
Last, I did not hatch out of a Bible. My worldview is based on reason and facts much like yours is. Faith without reason is stupidity and to claim that faith or religion is completely devoid of reality is a Red Herring.
It’s an intellectual House of Cards. I doubt it will ever work. If the courts don’t do it, it won’t happen.
Comment by: Irritable
73Jim,
Fair’s fair. I’ve been hounding you until I’m blue in the face, virtually speaking, to explain how in the world you get a free speech issue out of this. You have either refused to explain this or failed to do so.
I’m beginning to think you don’t like me as much as you like Jason and David.
Comment by: Jason Horton
74Yes! Absolutely. Marriage was extended to include same sex couples. The definition where marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman was changed. What is wrong with that? It’s not as if the definition of marriage hasn’t been changed before…many times.
As for free speech I’m going to step back and wait for your response to Irritable’s excellent question.
Comment by: Helen
75Add me to the list of people waiting to hear how this is a free speech issue.
Comment by: Jim J
76I like you very much, Irritable. Don’t worry.
Jason wrote
We must then strike down the Sixth Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” among many others. But let’s go further and break this down.
The arguments against same sex marriage come down to tradition and religion.
You are falsely characterizing my secular argument that a man does not have a union with another man naturally as religious. There is no natural function between two men. Nothing is created. One cannot impregnate the other. It is not the same potential as a life-giving union between a man and a woman.
The key here is that you pidgeon-hole the opposing view as “religious” so it’s easy to discard. Your contention that it’s religious is questionable. Religion is informed also by nature and reason. As Ravi Zacharias says, “I cannot believe in my heart something I cannot believe in my mind”.
Another point. Religious behavior is common among secularists as well. I’ve seen some pretty devout behavior out of secularists. If religion is allegiance to an absolute entity, what difference is there between a Christian and a Global Warming absolutist.
For instance, the next sentence:
That’s a strong “Thou shalt not…” So you have a fuzzy premise on what is religious but you make an absolute truth statement. If it is absolutely true that the “religious argument cannot be allowed to stand in making a law”, then absolute truth exists. Jason makes a declaration that is divinely true.
And I love this:
Now we go John Lennon after sounding like an imam during Friday prayers? I think this weakens your argument substantially. Cannot followed by imagine. Why isn’t the forementioned absolute truth the rule we live by? Could it be that we haven’t settled on that anti-religious bedrock yet? Or that we never came close?
If I said to you that your opinion on any subject couldn’t be considered in the making of law, how could I not be taking away your free speech?
My opinion on same-sex marriage is not JUST a religious point of view, if it is at all. Even if it was, I would have the right to vote my conscience. If this doesn’t answer your question, Irritable and Helen, you’ve closed your mind on the subject. Maybe you’re just playin’ with me….?
Jason, I’m glad you do admit that the definition of marriage is the issue. Yes, we can change it. Dictionary.com has a fourth listing that reads a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
And that’s only there because people have begun to use that term commonly and, like anything that comes into use, it is added to the language.
Finally. The discrimination against views that might be religious is supposed to be unnecessary in a pluralist society. If my views were seriously akin to, say, the Klu Klux Klan, you wouldn’t be debating me, but laughing at me. History in a democratic society has a way of eliminating bad thought processes from staying in the mainstream indefinitely.
A fun chat. Thanks, guys.
Comment by: David H
77I think, Jim, that you fail to grasp the difference between you voting your conscience (i.e. your views informing your participation in the political process) and the position affirmed quite consistently by the U.S. Supreme Court (until recently) that religion is not supposed to play a role in law making in this country.
At this link find a quick summation of the way the Supreme Court has traditionally decided cases that involve the establishment clause.
The first is the Lemon test.
There is that pesky word secular.
And no, we don’t have to strike down the sixth commandment, but even if we did it shouldn’t have any affect on U.S. laws because they aren’t based on the 10 commandments and they certainly aren’t based on God’s laws. The Sumerian Code of Ur-Namu predates the 10 commandments by more than half a millennia. The Code of Hammurabi was written down three centuries before the Mosaic laws. Both are at least as formative for the US legal system as the Mosaic law. Both have prohibitions against murder. Interestingly, the Mosaic law (beyond the 10 commandments) has many supports for a class system that determines the severity of the violation and the punishment for a crime. So an eye-for-an-eye is only applied if both eyes were held by people of the same station. However, it wasn’t put into effect if the person maimed was a slave or lower-born individual.
In the 8th Circuit Court ruling you have cited numerous times, the judges appear to have substituted TRADITION for RELIGION. Perhaps more appropriately they had substituted that word for one religion — “Christianity.” (I put it in quotes because while many followers of Christ seem to find stuff like this really important, I have sincere doubts Jesus would have wasted any time on enacting laws or passing constitutional amendments.) Using those words inter-changeably does allow for ignoring the most recent findings of biology and psychology when it comes to words like natural and function. Thus the function of marriage traditionally is for the man to impregnate the woman and for the two to raise a child. How odd that is also the strict Christian religious view of marriage. Undoubtedly a coincidence since marriage between one man and one woman is obviously a Darwinian concept — supported by the natural laws we see at work around us in the birds, the bees, the animals and the trees. Oops — no it isn’t. Heck, the naturalness of that arrangement is not supported by half the religions in the world and certainly isn’t the common practice in nature. So where does this tradition come from? It isn’t the tradition of the patriarchs. It isn’t the tradition of the Muslims. It isn’t the tradition of the American Indian, the native African or the vast majority of plant and animal species in the world.
So, if not Christian-tradition (important distinction) then what is the origin of this almost holy tradition that is so important to the bedrock of American society that it supports laws and constitutional amendments that supersede the apparent protected status of people who don’t have a heterosexual orientation? Supersedes them to the point that it allows the Nebraska marriage amendment which reads:
The 8th Circuit said that amendment is fine even though it did not outlaw civil unions or domestic partnerships for everyone — only same-sex couples. Hmmm, some traditional people believe that is a clear case of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
But I digress. Let’s sum up:
There is no freedom of speech issue here.
Christian tradition seems to be behind the laws that ban same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court says such traditions shouldn’t be behind the laws in this country even if they are in the minds of the law-makers in this country.
Therefore: I’m completely wrong and I don’t know what I’m talking about. If I did know what I was talking about, apparently, I would be on the other side of this issue.
Let’s see, how long did it take our democratic society to eliminate the bad thought process behind slavery and racial discrimination? Only a few hundred years if you go back to the first European settlers and trace it all the way until about now. Funny thing is, the founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, et al) knew slavery was a problem but lacked the courage to address it when they formed our country. Economic and political fears, along with Tradition, convinced even brave men like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to do nothing about what Jefferson termed an “execrable commerce.” These men didn’t believe our nation could survive without slavery. According to more than one historian: The southern states would not have signed the Constitution without protections for the “peculiar institution,” including a clause that counted a slave as three fifths of a man for purposes of congressional representation.”
What does that say about our society’s ability to eventually eliminate bad thought process?
Comment by: Jim J
78David H,
Thanks for clarifying the argument.
There’s the answer! Let the Supreme Court decide. We throw our often sloppy opinions around, make some new law, and the Court will rule if we’ve crossed the line.
Democracy has been restored at Conversations at the Edge, compliments of the third branch. Praise the Lord. :-)
Comment by: Jason Horton
79Nothing is created when a hetero couple marry and if one or both of them are infertile then nothing can be created. They can still adopt though. Reproduction is not a function of marriage and marriages are not limited to reproducing couples. I thought we’d already covered this. If that is your secular argument then it does not stand.
That takes us back to religion and tradition.
I don’t think a religious argument is easy to discard at all. Religion is often married (excuse the pun) with so many of our thoughts and opinions that it is almost impossible to ignore. The key point though is that one person’s religion should not impair the rights of another. If you were to say that the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman (I don’t think you have) and so that cause to limit marriage to that definition then I’d say that you can’t impose your religious views on me. If I were to say that my religion defines marriage as something that occurs only after children have been produced then you’d rightly say I can’t impose that view on you. I don’t think that we disagree on this.
I think David has already shown that nature has little to do with a definition of marriage. Some animals do mate for life, many species have homosexual members, some mate only after elaborate rituals have been observed and then part. Humans, and we’re talking about a human idea and tradition, also have members who homosexual. Should we not treat them the same as anyone else?
I agree and I find nothing wrong with this at all. As our society evolves we change traditions, language changes, ideas take on new meanings. If we define marriage as an institution between two people then that is what it is. The question is: should we limit this definition to the traditional one? If so then why?
Comment by: Helen
80I don’t think it’s appropriate to decide whether one group of people has a particular right by majority vote of a group mostly composed of people who already have that right and aren’t at risk of having it taken away.
I can see using majority vote to vote on a right which affects everyone voting. But not to vote on whether another group is allowed to do what we already can do. Especially when that group is in the minority among those voting, which means they will not be given the right unless we decide to give it to them.
As I said earlier this assigns more value to some people than others. Those who have a right and get to vote on whether others may have it too are being assigned more authority/value than those who don’t have it and will only be granted it if those other people assigned more authority/value vote that they may have it.
Comment by: Irritable
81Actually, it doesn’t, but I refuse to accept the polemical dirty pool of only recognizing two options.
It might be that I am unable to see the connection because my mind is closed. It may also be that I am unable to see the connection because you have not adequately explained it, and I refuse to take responsibility for your failure to make a credible argument.
I have been looking for you to offer, and trying to open doors to allow you to offer, something like this:
“I’m not saying anybody’s limiting free speech in this conversation. What I mean is that when some of you say things like X, Y, and Z, this actually impinges on the free speech of others in ways P, Q, and R,” with some explanation of why this is the case. Now, I realize my example is more how I would word things, and I’m an English teacher who just fed you a template for a thesis statement, but I have been looking for something that did that kind of work, so that I could make sense of your rather consistently crying “foul” when things get rough by invoking free speech.
Having said that, I think I might understand in spite of your lack of explanation.
There are some contradictions and fault lines in modern democracy, particular where religion is concerned. It is only since the Enlightenment (a suspiciously religious-sounding word in itself) that religion and politics have really been separated. Prior to this, they have been intertwined in such a way as to be indistinguishable. Even where we can make a distinction in premodern societies, it is often an anachronistic projecting-back of our own bias toward religion and politics as separate spheres.
What this means is that liberal democracy (I mean this in the generic, not partisan, sense) assumes many of the cultural and societal functions that religion once played, and relegates religion in general to a less robust role than it played in the past. For many religious people, this means that their religious perspective is either subsumed by or subjugated to something that claims to be a larger frame of reference.
Those for whom a particular religion is an important source of identity, and their primary frame of reference, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to obey implicit or explicit calls to suspend that in order to facilitate civil discourse — that is, when the conversation turns specifically to legality and the role of the state.
This might seem unfair, and could feel like suppression of free speech. I don’t think that’s really the case. In order to protect the free exercise of religion for as many as possible, we cannot privilege the overtly religious perspective of any, nor can we guarantee autonomy to religious groups seeking expression. Religious expression calling for human sacrifice, for instance, cannot expect legal protection in a modern democracy.
As we go along, we begin to recognize ways in which cultural assumptions we thought were neutral are actually informed by a specific religious tradition, namely Christianity, as David adequately explains above. It’s just that we had never previously interrogated these assumptions. As we do, it becomes imperative — to some of us, at least — that we re-evaluate them and the role they play in our laws and societal structures.
Again, this may seem unfair, and feel like something precious is being taken away. And it is true that participation in democracy requires a certain measure of compromise which may seem questionable on a religious basis. But this does not suppress the speech or restrict the free association of anyone.
You are, of course, welcome to offer your own explanation.
Comment by: Jim J
82Irritable
That’s right, some of us. I agree.
Helen
Are you for inaugurating President McCain? I lost my right to choose a president. I’d want it back but I wasn’t a big fan of McCain. We’ll let the majority impose its will on the minority this time. It’s not worth another $160M inaugural ceremony.
The inauguration made me proud to be an American, by the way. We have an open, pluralistic society that cherishes its free market of ideas. But on Tuesday we are reminded that we are one people. Aside from leaving the country or dying, there is no way we can divorce each other; Americans are brothers and sisters, our fortunes entangled.
The success of a democracy is not rooted in the success of your worldview. Its success is affirmed when the answer to “Did we govern ourselves?” is “Yes”. Tuesday, I was reassured that we did, and my worldview, or about 55% of it, lost out.
There really isn’t anything else to talk about in this thread. You would only understand me if I agreed with you. I got that. The only defense I need is unnecessary, that my opinion is not informed solely by religion (I would still have a say in making law if it was). The truth is that defense of marriage laws do not fail the “Lemon Test”, which is why a pluralistic society like ours have them. I promise I won’t comment further. There’s no point. Take care y’all.
Comment by: Helen
83Jim J wrote:
You had your right to one vote like everyone else – it was a level playing field. You still have your right to vote – nothing has been taken away from you.
You having a vote on whether gay people can marry but them not having one on whether you can marry – that’s not a level playing field.
Jim, thanks for participating in the conversation.
Comment by: Helen
84Jim J wrote:
I still have a hard time thinking of myself as American (I’m a dual citizen, raised in the UK) but otherwise this is something we agree upon.
Comment by: Doreen
85Eek, if we start bringing Warren Throckmorton (post 56) and Exodus into this, we’re falling into pseudoscience, and lies, myths, and fairytales very fast. This will get us way off the original topic, lol.
I’m doing some interesting reading & study on, if homosexuality is a learned behavior, who did the first gay man and lesbian learn it from? (Certainly NOT from one another, lol.)
Comment by: martingugino
86Interesting thread I am sure, but I wish the technology allowed one to follow each sub issue’s pros and cons in some kind of definitive way, and did not require one to read the whole thing in all its convoluted glory.
Comment by: Helen
87Martin, yes, that would be helpful – I’m afraid we don’t have that technology on this blog.