Gay Marriage

Great Debates
21

The Bible condemns homosexuality not due to the will of God, but as the result of a human attempting to do the right thing.

The prohibition of homosexuality is just one of a long list of rules. The same list defines what is and is not kosher, and forbids shaving the head.
A lot of prohibited activities were part of the surrounding cultures.
I had a long talk with the former host of WXPN’s Gay dreams on the subject of the Talmud and homosexuality. The Jews were in danger of assimilating and losing their identity as a people. Then some elders discover a sacred text with a few hundred commandments. Shlomo is now forbidden to go to the gym with Marcus and Crassus and exercise in the nude. He can go to Marcus’ party, but he’s not allowed to eat the food, drink the wine, or participate in the gay sex.

   Banning homosexual activity also helped keep Jews in relationships which would create more Jews. 

  Eventually, the reason for the ban was lost.   

    Despite what some Fundies say, Rabbinical opinion has always been that the great sin of Sodom and Gamorah was not homosexuality, but lack of compassion.  One legend says that any stranger entering the town would be given a huge sack of gold. But merchants would refuse to sell the stranger any goods, even food and water. Eventually the stranger would die of hunger and thirst. The townsfolk would then take back the gold and wait for the next stranger.
22

Cool, dragongirl. Now how do you explain the fact that I and my wife of 27 years were not able to conceive a child, but ended up with three wonderful teenage runaway boys through an informal guardianship, and gave our best shot to helping them through their problems and enabling them to move into a productive adulthood. And how would this differ from, say, Dr. Matrix and Cajun Man, or Anthracite and Fierra doing likewise?

23

DocCathode, I do agree with you there. I think that when these laws were formulated, most (if not all) of them had a practical basis. ‘No sex before marriage,’ because it would extremely difficult for a single woman to raise a child on her own (in practical terms, not only social), and marriage is the best guarantee of getting the child’s father to support the child, as well as giving him the best guarantee that it is really his child.

It made sense to discourage unreproductive sex at a time of poverty, drought, and high infant mortality, because they needed as many breeders as possible. Thus it made sense to warn against onanism as well as homosexual relationships. The problem is that our society has the reverse of this situation now - we are overpopulated - but the religious laws haven’t adapted. At least now in some countries the secular laws are catching up.

24

Two of the most frequent arguments against same-sex relationships are:

  1. It’s unnatural.
  2. It violates the whole purpose of Nature and evolution.

These are very similar, but different.

Here is how I think of it:

Nature intended for men and women to reproduce. That is unarguable based on example, the way in which our reproductive systems work, and essentially is required for continuing the species.

Nature also made (for most people) the act of sex pleasureable. This is good, as it encourages reproduction attempts.

Nature also gave us higher brain functions and consciousness, which allow us to make choices most of the time - such as whether or not we want to reproduce, or whether or not an activity that is pleasureable is one we want to continue to engage in…for hours and hours…while tied to the Pommel Horse of Love…the flogger gently caressing bare flesh…

Ahem. Anyways - What I’m saying is, there are potentially several different options given to us by Nature. And love between men and men, and women and women, seems to me to be actually quite natural if I one traces down this logic path.

And as for things being unnatural - well, so is overeating to become morbidly obese. So is body piercing. And laughter, and insanity. One can then argue if other things are “unnatural” - is religion, belief in or Faith in a higher power, “natural”? :confused:

The only real problem that the same-sex issue seems to have is when religion comes into it. Not all religions, but it’s safe to say that the majority of the population of the World which follows a religion has some restriction on homosexuality in their beliefs.

But then, religion comes down to only two reasons really why it is not to be permitted:

  1. It’s unnatural.
  2. God says so.

The first one having been answered, we come to the second one.

And how can you argue with that? If you really believe that God is God and the word of God is law, and God says that homosexuality is evil, then really, is there any more discussion possible at that point?

The only discussion that can therefore come about from this, which could have any productive outcome, is this one fundamental question:

What does God really want?

25
  • originally posted by Polycarp*

I stated in an earlier post that I personally do think that gay couples should be able to adopt and raise childen. I was only saying that there are some peole I know, who use this argument as a reason why homosexuality is wrong. ** I am not in any way against homosexuals adopting children.**

26

originally posted by dragongirl

Wah?

27

Yeah, I’m confused about that as well. DragonGirl, the whole point of GD is to debate. If you have a sincere belief that homosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt, don’t backtrack just because some of us don’t agree.

Personally, I think consenting adults should be allowed to reap the benefits of marriage and coupledom, no matter what their gender or sexual orientation- and this includes raising children, teaching, doing yoga, EVERYTHING. I love living near VT!

28

What? I know, I’m re-reading and confusing myself.

DragonGirl, I do get your point. It’s late and I should learn that writing and thinking are not analogous to church and state… i.e. should definitely be considered in tandem!

29

What wah? Makes sense to me.
As to the OP: I believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples under the law. That includes marriage.

30

Sorry for the confusion. The kids were all over me as I wrote that yesterday. I should have previewed what I was writing.** I do believe that homosexuals should be able to adopt.** Just don’t try to concentrate with the rugrats around. :smack:

31

Sorry – I’m sure you’ve discovered by now how difficult it is to sort out “straight” (excuse the unintentional pun) statements from things said ironically or things representing a viewpoint with which one may not agree but which one wants to address. I’m guilty of misinterpreting your post just before my first one to this thread as your view and not your explanation of the view of others. Accept my apologies?

32

You got it ! :slight_smile:

33

Gay sex is mentioned along with other assumed evils, like fornication, temple prostitution, pedophilia, and so on. The issue of persons being born gay and/or able to emotionally love others of the same sex is not really addressed in the Bible. Though it is natural to focus more on the sex aspect, it doesn’t account for gay couples who may be impotent or are sexually inactive for other reasons. In those cases, love, not just sex, is in question, and I’m not convinced that anyone will go to Hell for loving another person, regardless of gender. Therefore, the ideal should be presumption of innocence until proven guilty by God, not by Christians or anyone else.

34

dragongirl doesn’t need to backtrack anything. Perhaps folks are misreading her? She wrote (emphases mine):

Those two statements say the same thing, that she is for homosexual couples being able to adopt children. I’m thinking people read her first “do” as a “don’t,” yes?

And obviously I’m for gay marriage. Now if only I could find me someone worth marrying… :frowning:

Esprix

35

Iteki, it is my belief that the two issues are inseparable, at least in the current U.S. legal environment.
There have been two legal arguments traditionally advanced in the U.S. in favor of gay marriages. The first is that denial of the right to marry to gays denies gays equal protection of the law. The second argues that restriction of marriage to a man and a woman constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex.
With only minor exceptions, both legal arguments have failed. The equal protection argument stumbles on the fact that no one is denied the equal protection of marriage laws - a gay can marry a MOOS. Similarly, the sex discrimination argument loses because the availability and restrictions on the right to marry are equally applied to men and women. So, we are back where we started.

But there is a third legal argument, one that has yet to be tried in the courts. One of the traditional purposes of marriage is to provide protections to the actual and potential children of that marriage. The “best interests of the child” are served, sociologically speaking, if a child is raised by a married couple.
And all gay couples are actually or potentially parents, whether through natural childbirth, adoption, or “second parent” adoption (in which a partner or spouse adopts the child of his/her partner, to become the “second parent”).

Since every gay couple has or potentially has children, it violates the best interests of those actual or potential children to deny the couple to ability to provide the socially, fiscally, and psychologically most secure environment for them. The best interests of the child is a doctrine that has taken on extreme importance in American jurisprudence in the past 30 years, and IMO, provides a “bootstrapping” argument to require the legalization of gay marriages.

Sua

36

Sua, the traditional purpose of marriage is also to give birth to biological offspring – traditionally, this was the only way available. As a society, the non-offspring having individuals would be called upon to the riskier, harder work, so the couples could sacrifice for their children, and further that the rest of us sacrifice so that the pool of married couples could concentrate on the next generation.

This means that the “best interest of the child” is furthered by having the societal-valued pool of couples be minimized to those that have contracted to care for each other and their offspring. This leaves out in the cold the unusual, though equally emotionally bonded couples who are non-offspring having, like Gay, Bi, Transgender, and, in this argument, those hetero couples incapable of having children by normal means.

The social value theory does place value on couples being emotionally, sexually, and contractually bonded – stable couples live longer, make more money, and, (no doubt stemming from that) are happier. Therefore the compromise, and thoughtful position is to venerate gay stability with a different contract – gay union – which denotes emotional stability, but no genetic lineage.

This can be considered separately from the adoption question (though entangled in the actual world) – one can easily perscribe the paramaters of the debate – if gays have equal parenting skills, should they be allowed to marry? is one formulation.

If, at the end of this argument, we made the further assumption that future genetic and/or trivial technological innovation makes having genetic offspring of two gay parents possible and trivial, this argument will vanish, and true equality of marriage will result.

Until that time, I see this argument holding sway, as is well by both sides of the debate. Lesbian couples impregnated by the brother of the mate to approximate direct genetic offspring is not uncommon, and may be the first gay coupling to be recognized as a full “marriage.”

37

Bringing the argument of children into a debate over marriage is, IMHO, irrelevant. Two people make a family, and the interest in making more is only one factor among many in the decision to make a life-long commitment. When they start asking, “Are you planning to procreate?” before giving out marriage licenses, then it’ll be relevant.

IMHO, that is.

Esprix

38

I disagree. Marriage is irrelevant to the birth of biological offspring. One can very successfully give birth to a child outside of marriage. It is only relevant to the raising of offspring. A purpose of marriage is to provide a framework for the raising of potential offspring. Where those offspring come from is unimportant - a nephew who is raised by an uncle and aunt after mom and dad die is just as important to society as a child who lives with mom and dad.

The only traditional concern in family law and marriage regarding genetic lineage has been illegitimacy. However, that concern dealt only with certainty of inheritance. It did not assign any particular value to a child based upon legitimacy or illegitimacy. The purpose was that, in an era before blood tests, it was impossible to determine fatherhood, so a bright line test was created that those born in wedlock were the child of the father, and those who weren’t weren’t - without regard to whether that was actually true or not. In any event, blood tests have eliminated the concern, and the Supreme Court has effectively eliminated discrimination based upon illegitimacy.

As a final point, bestowing the benefits of marriage on childless couples (gay or straight) has no impact one whether or not childless persons are available to perform the riskier tasks in society.

**Esprix - **
To a certain extent, the bootstrapping argument I posit is a legal game. It overemphasizes the child-rearing purpose of marriage in order to create an imperative to spread the benefit of marriage to as many couples as possible. The validity of the argument is based upon the fact that any couple is potentially a parental unit.
And, I think, since the denial of the arguments based on equal protection and sex discrimination are also incidents of legal gamesmanship - sure a gay person can marry, but a gay person can’t marry the person s/he wants to marry, so the “right” is useless - we are allowed to play games to support our position.
BTW, your opinion that bringing children into the debate over marriage is irrelevant is, sadly, incorrect. The other side uses the issue of children, quite effectively, as a basis for their arguments against gay marriage. The issue cannot be ignored; it has to be addressed (and hopefully, turned around).

Sua

39

I’m not saying it isn’t brought into play, I just think it doesn’t deserve to be when considering the institution of marriage. Nobody ever plays by my rules, though. :frowning:

Esprix

40

Sua, one’s offspring generally refers to oneself – that being the spring that they’re off of. You argue that raising one’s orphaned nephew is equal in societies eyes – but that ignores the primary object of bearing and raising children, which is to pass one’s genetic heritage on to the next generation; secondary is to socialize children to make quality adults. Your ‘Nephew’ scenario (and adopters in general) are sacrificing for the second reason without genetic reward.

In fact, many creatures great and small use cuckolding strategies to gain the sacrifice of non-lineal parents, without such tacit approval. Consider the bird that raises a tree-lizard – equal? A cuckolded husband who finds, by dint of your modern blood test, that he’s been raising someone else’s offspring – is he equally happy? No.

This may not jibe with your legal argument – but marriage contains three spheres of which you address merely the middle one: The religious, the contractual, and the social value. I don’t doubt your legal analysis, but the social value of bearing children in wedlock still exists, though perhaps less enforced than in past generations; I remain certain that children out of wedlock have a stigma attached, even if they are no longer called bastards in their absence.

Pentulitmately, expanding the pool of benefits of marriage does not come from thin air. By elevating and subsidizing married, procreative couples, every addition to that pool is supported by the childless, and moreover, the single. If the benefits are so free, as you say – why not let anyone marry anyone else? Or even themselves? Tax benefits for all, I say!

Finally, consider a technologically incompetent society with an 80% gay makeup. This would be unsustainable due to the dearth of hetero parents – or perhaps you would have random gay insemination and no genetic parents? I can’t imagine how you would treat hereditary disease or by what criteria you would marry, if, as you say in the face of generations of sociological theory, genetic selection of offspring and therefore mates is irrelevant.