Hey, everyone. Sorry, I didn’t mean to drop this thread, life just got busy.
Thanks for all the responses. I was hoping that someone who could answer the question a reasoned viewpoint would show up. However, I found the next best thing:
It gives an interesting argument and a reasoned response to my question.
Here are a few quotes:
As far as I can tell, their arguments seem to be:
Traditional marriage is already in trouble and falling into disrepute. Homosexuals and the idea of homosexual marriage are helping it along.
Since traditional marriage is the bedrock of society, society itself is falling apart and will eventually fall into chaos.
I remain unconvinced. This argument is more about society going to pieces than homosexuals and homosexual marriage. I would argue that rather than going to pieces or falling into chaos, society is changing, adapting to the needs of its members. If traditional marriage doesn’t fit the needs of some if its members, then those members will seek out new ways of marrying, finding something that does work for them.
I would argue that society isn’t falling into chaos, it’s simply changing as it has done over millenia. And homosexuals aren’t causing that change, it was already happening when the gay rights movement came on the scene. They’re simply taking advantage of the change to try out new forms of marriage to see if they do fit their needs.
The interesting thing from my point of view is that I have a certain amount of sympathy for the “societal disorder” issues, and come to the opposite conclusion that the person Freyr quotes does.
I think it’s not only in the legitimate interests of a society to have some sort of qualifications for what partnerships it will recognise and those it does not, I think that it’s probably part of the nature of a society to do this. What rituals or qualifications make a partnership legit will vary a lot depending on the culture, but I would suspect that they have always existed.
With the case of gay marriage in specific, there are partnerships that exist that cannot pass through the rituals of recognition (legal marriage). This splits the original society into two groups – those that will not accept gays into the ritual, and those who come up with a new ritual that covers the partnerships that exist.
The social problem exists and is real: a society that does not have a means of recognising for itself partnerships that exist is setting itself up for social turmoil and schism. I think the appropriate solution is to change the ritual so that a broader selection of partnerships can be recognised; I think this not only because I think that individual people deserve more consideration than societies, but because it is the choice that creates and perpetuates social bonds and strengthens the community.
Other people seem to believe that the community is threatened with destruction when its rituals are modified. I have enough sympathy with the fears to understand it, but I cannot agree with it.
Lilairen, that’s a remarkable point, and one I’ve never seen brought up before. It makes perfect sense to me.
In regards to this quote, posted by Freyr:
I’m afraid I don’t buy it. Legalizing homosexual unions in no way “separate the essential connection between sex and children.” I believe that it would take rewriting the laws of biology to do that. The connection between sex and children exists whether the people involved are married or not.
People will marry each other, and have kids, whether gay people can do so or not. We’re not undermining anything. We’re just expanding the institution to include us, as well.
Mr. Visible, just like tree roots expand the substrate to make room for themselves, and crack the rock in the process. At least the way these folks see it.
What these people forget is that the current “sacred” form of family, the nuclear family (mom, dad, x number of kids) is only a few hundred years old as the dominant institution. Before the Industrial Revolution started drawing everyone into the expensive, crowded cities, the nuclear family was way back in the line behind extended families (in rural areas) and the village-as-family (in the more settled spots).
People have trouble recognizing the transitory nature of a lot of aspects of civilization, because our lifespans are so short (in relative terms) that those changes don’t impact us most of the time. I was a teenager before I actually understood what it meant that television had only been available commercially since the late forties. Prior to that, I thought TV had been around forever, because for me it had!
It’s somewhat fashionable to pooh-pooh Alvin Toffler, but he explained the process of paradigm change very effectively in Future Shock and The Third Wave. His predictions of many of the ways things would be done in an information age are pretty on-target. And the family paradigm change was part of that.
That’s a faulty conclusion Esprix. Anyone can have a monogamous relationship regardless of any legal relationship or lack of one. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard in our arguments.
FTR I’m in favor of state and church regognized gay marriage. C’mon, we can’t have you people living in sin.
The availability of birth control pills “separate[s] the essential connection between sex and children” in a much more direct and obvious way. I wonder how many of the people who oppose the legitimization of homosexual marriage on these grounds also think that contraceptives should be made illegal?
Made illegal again. I remember the notice on condom vending machines that said “Sold for the prevention of the spread of disease only”.
God, I’m gettin’ old!
Peace,
mangeorge
That really is the weirdest argument I’ve seen about this whole issue. I wasn’t even aware anyone was making it until I read a letter to the editor in The National Post from some deputy minster claiming that gay marriage would violate one of Canada’s founding principles, freedom of religion (and anyway, is it? Though we essentially have it, I wouldn’t say it’s one of Canada’s raison d’etres).
I mean, do Jewish people claim their relgious freedom is being infringed on if non-Jews eat bacon?
Think of it this way, if Jews have a religious law saying that it’s wrong or immoral for them to eat pork, would it be right for them, thru secular law, to force everyone else, to stop eating pork, too? Of course not!
If Roman Catholics have a religious saying that it’s wrong or immoral for homosexuals to marry each other, would it be right for them, thru secular law, to force everyone else, to stop homosexuals from marrying, too? Of course not!
Or will gays finally be treated with (gasp!) equal rights under the law? **
[/QUOTE]
Gays do have equal rights under the law. They can do anything any other American can do. A gay man is perfectly able to marry a woman just like any other man. And a lesbian woman is perfectly able to marry a man.
You are equating actions here with a state of being. Sexual orientation involves a person’s actions, not an immutable aspect of their personhood. I am a white female who stands 5 ft 2 inches tall. I will never be able to change these things, so should not be denied rights based on them. A gay or lesbian person can certainly refrain from acting on their impulses. Saying that being gay is an identity relegates human choice to chance. It basically means that we are helpless to control our own actions. What is next? People who “can’t help” being pedophiles, thieves, murderers. etc?
Another problem with allowing gay and lesbian “marriage” is that it does undermine the sanctity of marriage. If we say that two men can marry are we than going to say that a man and a boy can marry? or three men? or a man and an animal?
Marriage was designed for a man and woman to commit to a monogamous permanent relationship for the purpose of raising a family together.
You’re in favor of the CHURCH recognizing gay marriage? Hello!? What would we read instead of God’s Word then? (Since the Bible clearly calls homosexuality a sin.)
Do you say grace, mama2nate&anna, before digging into those pork chops? Or a ham sandwitch? Crab? Lobster? Wine or beer?
Do you condemn birth control?
There are many sins, but we adjust.
Tell you what, mama2nate&anna, I want you to stop acting on your heterosexual impulses for one week. Tell us how well you do that, okay?
**
Sanctity of marriage is a religious definition. If the various Christian churches don’t want to recognize homosexual marriage, then fine, no one’s telling them they must. But since there is a civil, secular aspect of marriage, and the federal, state and local governments must treat all citizens equally, the government cannot allow one group of people to marry yet not allow another simply because it violates some people’s religious definition of marriage.
**
Please show me the anthropological or sociological data that supports that definition. I’d love to see it.
You can say anything you want to. It doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with the issue at hand. We are talking about marriage between two consensual adult human beings. The last time I checked, a boy is not an adult. Three men does not equal two, and an animal is not a human being. If you cannot make these distinctions, perhaps you need better glasses.
Many bible scholars would disagree with that. Paul spoke against it but his words did not carry the weight of God or as a prophet IMO. Also note that it wasn’t important enough for Jesus to mention once in the gospels.
FWIW my church is ELCA lutheran and we are a Reconciling in Christ congregation. We welcome and affirm anyone without regard to among other factors, sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.
I turned 22 two months after I got married. My husband and were both virgins on our wedding night. We dated for 3 1/2 years. So believe me, I know about refraining from acting out my impulses.
Every day we refrain from acting on our base impulses. Our world would go south quickly if we all acted on every impulse.
The thing is, I believe God has GREAT PLANS for every homosexual person out there. But those plans are within the boundaries of His design.
Kosher dietary laws are part of the Old Covenant between God and the Hebrews. In the New Testament God told Peter that we are not made clean or unclean by the foods we take into our bodies. So we are not required to adhere to kosher food prohibitions.
As far as birth control, where did that come from?
Where is the Biblical prohibition against birth control?
Our church (as most protestant churches do) teaches that all marriages should be open to God’s blessing of children. How many children that means for each family is a matter to be considered prayerfully.
Personally, we have two currently but are open to more if God chooses to give us more.
So what constitutes God’s Word to you? Do you just pick the parts of the Bible that sound nice to you and don’t make you feel uncomfortable? The first chapter of Romans is pretty clear on the subject.
Our church welcomes all people too. But we aren’t going to pat folks on the back and encourage them to sin. We try to encourage each other to a higher standard. If I recall correctly Jesus didn’t affirm the woman caught in adultery’s sin. He said, “Go and sin no more.”
I have never felt more love anywhere than in a church. But I also feel stretched, challenged and pushed to grow. That’s part of being in a church family.
