You’re smarter than this. Reproduction has been obsolete as the reason for marriage for a long time. Barren people marry. Sixty-year-olds marry. People who do not want children marry. It’s not about that. At heart, it’s about two things:
And that’s why gays should be allowed to marry.
I’m sure I won’t be the only one to pick up on this (possibly not even the first, by the time I click ‘Submit’) - not all heterosexual marriages result in children, sometimes through choice on the part of the couple, but often not.
There is an important role though, that homosexual couples can fulfil (if they want to) and that parenting through adoption.
A very good question, to which I suppose I would have to answer that the church to which I belong is so many other things of which this is only a small (but not insignificant or acceptable) part - I do not wish to throw away the baby with the dirty bathwater and anway, in think the only hope for real change is if that change occurs from the inside outwards.
Thanks for a good answer. But to change from within, you mustn’t be afraid to speak out…
"Reproduction has been obsolete as the reason for marriage for a long time."
That is true, but it is one of the original reasons for the state promoting men-women relationships.
"And that’s why gays should be allowed to marry."
As I said, I used to agree, but not anymore: If the job description says man and woman, then man-man or woman-woman or man-solo or any other combination is apparently not eligible.
If homosexual marriages are actually allowed, this would throw the monkeywrench into the legal system. Why should healthy people be treated like second class citizens by not receiving the same benefits from the state disabled people get?
You’re really opening a can of worms with homosexual marriages, therefore the only middle ground you could reach would be to remove the marriage status entirely.
Or you could come up with a parallel model for homosexuals. It could give the exact same benefits as marriages, but it wouldn’t be a marriage.
That might be nitpicking on my part, but I really see a danger to the legal system, if you simply want the marriage to be open for homosexuals too.
Indeed, hence this thread…
Optihut; I’m having trouble understanding the thrust of your argument (and the bit about the job description looks dangerously close to circular logic from where I’m sitting) - could you elaborate a little more on specifically what dangers you feel society would face by permitting homosexual marriage?
Then the problem is the job description, whatever that’s a metaphor for.
Because they don’t need them. Healthy people get around without wheelchairs, and consequently get no wheelchairs. It’s not an analogous situation.
Suits me in theory. I know that it’s centuries away in practice, and should be.
So the only difference is that it’s not called “marriage”? What would be the point, except to reinforce the notion that gays and straights are different?
I can’t see the danger. Please point it out to me.
And Mangetout, whenever you want this discussion out of your thread, let us know.
Ok, perhaps I am being too unclear about it. The way I see it, a marriage is originally meant to be as a union between a man and a woman.
If the state says something to the accord of (simplified) “A man and a woman can marry and the state will grant these benefits:”
and now someone were to allow everyone to marry, I feel that this would set a precedence for a removal of prerequisites.
As I said as an example, if that were allowed in one case, why should a healthy person not receive the same benefits as a disabled person then? This would be a disadvantage for the healthy person as well and could then be allowed by the same reasoning.
That is why I think opening up marriages for everyone is not the right way to go, because of the precedences it would set. I see your point about certain rights, that should be open to homosexual relationships as well; nevertheless I am of the opinion that the state needs to make a new construct like a “homosexual partnership” (or whatever the name) in order to grant these benefits to homosexuals.
That would remove the injustice you complain about, without changing marriages and without creating all sorts of legal trouble for the state.
As I said, it might sound as nitpicking, but to me it is an important difference to simply demanding to change the ground principles of the marriage.
This might have been true, if gay marriages were the first example of this. You do know that once upon a time that law said something to the effect of “a white man and a white woman can marry…”, right? Well, that restriction was removed, and society still stands.
I cannot believe that you cannot see the difference. Disabled people are disadvantaged by birth or by accident, not by legislation. To get disabled people as close to the level of healthy people as we can, in terms of abilities and rights, is exactly the same as allowing gays to marry. Let me spell it out:
Boy 1, through no fault of his own, has no legs, so cannot get around on his own. He is given a wheelchair, and can now get around on his own.
Boy 2, through no fault of his own, is gay, so cannot get married. He is allowed to marry, and can now marry.
In case 1, it is nobody’s fault that boy 1 has problems. In case 2, it is the law that gives boy 2 problems.
I still don’t see the point in allowing gays to marry without calling it marriage, nor have you pointed out the danger to society in allowing gay marriage.
**‘meant’ by whom? the law should serve humanity, not the other way around.
Specifically, how do you think the precedents would be abused?
"What would be the point, except to reinforce the notion that gays and straights are different?"
I know where you’re coming from and I know this is meant in a good way, but I still feel there is an inherent danger in the concern you have:
If we were to ignore the differences between straight and gay relationships, just for the sake of people who cannot handle diversity, then that’s a huge injustice to homosexuals in itself. I am of the opinion that we need to clearly see what’s different in a gay and a straight relationship. Difference isn’t a segregation into “good” or “bad”, it just identifies that two things aren’t the same without any verdict on what’s “better”.
By hiding inherent differences and trying to make everything equal (remark: Some things need to be equal, like equal rights for women and men, but there are other issues where diversity is very much desired. I feel this is one of the cases), you’re building on a shaky foundation that’s eventually going to topple. I for one believe it is better to have differences out in the open and to make everyone see the differences. This will ensure that ultimately people can build up acceptance, which is otherwise impossible.
Optihut, I have two questions that I’d like straight answers to.
What are the differences between gay and straight relationships that you speak of?
What do you mean, in a practical, physical, no-bullshit, down-to-earth, concrete way, when you say that the “foundation” will “topple”? No abstracts, please.
A little tidbit from my real life: I need to go to lunch. No excuse, it’s really true and I’ll try to answer your questions later on, if you still have them.
Straight answers:
The obvious difference is that homosexual is not heterosexual. As I said, I am not reaching any quality verdict here, I am just pointing out that it is not the same, or else there would be no distinction in the first place.
The feelings are the same, I agree with you there.
Political correctness doesn’t solve problems, it causes problems, because people are afraid to talk about things openly. I am all for dialogue, and I am also all for showing differences and not applying the big paint brush to everything, because it is more convenient.
No offense intended. Seriously.
Ok lunchtime. See you later.
Well, the obvious difference between white people and black people is that black isn’t white. Does that mean we should have “whites only” bus seats? This is not a straight answer.
You’re not even trying to answer my question, and you’re serving abstracts, which I specifically asked you not to. Let’s try again (when you get back from lunch):
What are the differences between gay and straight relationships that you speak of?
What do you mean, in a practical, physical, no-bullshit, down-to-earth, concrete way, when you say that the “foundation” will “topple”? No abstracts, please.
Yes, Jesus did say that. However, he was talking to other Jews. When Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem, they concluded that Gentile converts were under no obligation to obey the Mosaic laws. James and Peter knew Jesus personally, I doubt they would make a rule in direct opposition to he whom they believed their lord and saviour.
UnuMondo
If Jesus never spoke on the issue, how would they know his opinion? I know lots of people personally, but I wouldn’t be comfortable speaking for them on issues that I’ve never discussed with them.
Where can I read about the meeting of Paul, Peter and James, and their discussion and subsequent conclusion?
I know this is off topic, but I thought it might be of interest.
Marriage in the Roman Empire was of two types.
The first was mainly reserved for the families of the elite. It consisted of a religious ceremony, feasting, sacrifices and so on.
The second kind of marriage was for the common people. Two people simply set up home together and sent out a proclamation, or wrote grafitti on a public wall to the effect that “X and Y have set up house together as man and wife”.
This of course relates to straight couples, but is interesting to note that because of this system most of the gentile believers of the early church would nowadays be considered to be “living in sin” by many churches.
Anyway, i’m christian, not straight, and i’m all for gay marriage.
Aart of the christian life is to strive to increase the happiness and joy of those around you, what could be more joyful and bring more happiness than a wedding?
The truth is, gay people will never settle down into a straight marriage, and i would rather they lived happy lives with someone they truly love, than be forced to live apart from them, or denied access to them.
Priceguy: Jesus did, in essence speak on the issue throughout the NT. Most Christians fail to listen to Christ, and instead prefer to use the highly situational reasoning of Paul, who used his limited knowledge to condemn homosexuality.
Everyone Else
The lessons of Christ on this subject are (1) He does not condemn an individual for their sin if they seek redemption through Him. (2) He does not support those who make value judgements for Him, which does not fall within the right of any follower.
An interesting way to look at this issue:
We let Muslims and Jews marry, along with a host of neo-pagans and whomever else wishes to. It should be understood that according to Christian doctrine, every single one of these people is going to Hell. We allow gays to marry any female they choose for any reason.
It should also be noted that there is no part of the old or new testament which condemns homosexuality in itself, but male prostitution, fertility rights of the canaanites, and of course the kept boys.
So, the lesson of Christ is tolerance and love at the very least. Acceptance at the most.
Oh, can I get an Amen?