Okay - how about “understand as much as possible”? I think this thread has done a good job on that score so it’s possible. Learning pretty much anything about religious beliefs risks going into the territory of the irrational but it doesn’t mean that it’s not worth doing for increasing one’s own self knowledge, I considered this to be the same.
Yeah, I think, that Gytalf2000, JRdelirious, and (overdramatically) Astro basically illuminated the fact that, according to the (mainly) Christian zealots of the USA, homosexual activity is sinful according to the influences of Paul (formerly Saul) in the New Testament and sanctifying/condoning such non-Christian behaviors shouldn’t be done by “our Christian Nation” lest it piss off God and/or everyone living within its borders be passed over during the Rapture.
Then again, isn’t condoning/sanctifying marriages of Buddhists, Hindus, and various other religions – including those non-believing Jews and Muslims – logically just as offensive and objectionable? After all, those New Testament adherents should be following their first Commandment and (by their own interpretations, a la the War on Christmas) refusing to acknowledge, recognize, or permit the validity of religious practices other than Christianity. Isn’t allowance of non-Christian marriage a big step down that slippery slope? Funny how they don’t seem to voice that argument, even though (or perhaps because) marriages from other countries and other religions have been recognized/sanctioned in the USA since way back when the first illegal immigrants were setting up forts in Roanoake.
AND, then again, Paul’s disparagement of homosexuality stems less from studies of the Torah and more from his personal experience of being abused (sexually) by Romans. *Ouch, this hurts and it’s being forced upon me against my will. It must be Evil. *But he makes the wrong leap of logic and pronounces sodomy (anything but face-to-face hetero acts) diabolical while giving petriarchal monotheists license to continue practicing nonconsensual sex.
[Open another thread on the validity of Paul as a biblical contributor, if you wish, but I’ll step off the soapbox here. I just don’t see anyone from Paul to Shoko Asahara to that wierdo in the Texas compound as anything more than charlatans.]
—G!
And we pray to our Lord, Who we know is American
He reigns from on high, He speaks to us through middlemen
And he shepherds his flock, We sing out and we praise His name
He supports us in war, He presides over football games
And the right will prevail, All our troubles shall be resolved
We have faith in the Lord, Unless there’s money or sex involved
[COLOR=White]. --Don Henley (The Eagles)
[/COLOR][COLOR=White]. Frail Grasp on the Big Picture
[/COLOR][COLOR=White]. Long Road Out of Eden[/COLOR]
This would be my best guess. It goes with the conviction that gays choose to be gay (since God would never create someone that way) with a fallback position that it is okay to be gay so long as you don’t do anything about it.
It always amuses me when they talk about God intending marriage to be between one man and one woman. Isaac, David, Solomon - hands in ears.
While many religious people are fine with SSM, I wonder if there are any or many atheists who are not fine with it. That would be good evidence that religion is the root cause.
Do you have a cite for the above? Because I don’t think he ever mentions it in his letters.
Regards,
Shodan
I’d say a better analogy would be “Imagine that the only thing you have going for you in this world is that you’re allowed to get married, which means you’re at least still better than the gays. Now they’re gonna let gays get married too. Fuuuuuuuck. You’re officially not better than anyone.”
I mean seriously… marriage was never “prestigious” to begin with. If that’s what people are clinging to, that’s even more pathetic than I thought.
To try to wrap my head around it, I think of it like this: Maybe it’s somewhat of an analogy to the way a scientific-minded person feels if a local school board decides to include a paragraph in a biology textbook stating that intelligent design is an alternate theory to evolution. “ID may be fine to teach in some shallow philosophy class, but it’s not SCIENCE” is akin to “gay relationships may occur, but they CANNOT BE MARRIAGE.” ‘Marriage’, apparently, has that strong of a definition for them as ‘science’ does to a scientist. They see the gov’t (like the school board) as trying to define it differently when ‘marriage’ is originally a religious idea (whether it actually is or not).
Precisely. Although not the premise of the OP, it’s just so obvious I have to second this.
Or themselves, or their siblings, or their XBoxes.
Since, apparently, most people answering the thread don’t actually hold the view or have seriously talked with someone who does hold, I’ll answer.
My own religious (Catholic) view about marriage is more important to me than the argument I’m going to make, but I can make a religion-free delusion-free argument.
The whole point of creating the legal/social reality of marriage in almost every society in all of th ehistory of humanity (save for the last 50 years or so) has been prtoecting/distributing/assigning assets and protecting children. Children were essential to the concept of marriage. Marriages that could not forseeably have children (age, disease) were modelled from the child-bearing reality and were exceptional rather than the norm.
The fact the there is gigantic ammount of legal precendets and laws and regulation concening marriage make no sense if “non-child-bearingness” becomes an essential part of marriages.
SSM means that marriage is now completely away from “you’re gonna make some kids so we’re gonna give you special rules”. SSM means that there is no logic for joint filing of taxes, or common isnsurance or medical visits AS SPECIAL RULES for married people make no sense. Just get a clear person-to-person contract about assests and get done with it (both for same sex and different sex couples).
Of course, the state should alway protect the right of children.
The meaningless part is, of course, for the civil wedding and more rethocal than true.
That’s the same argument. If it’s not prestigious, what are you holding over them?
I suppose it’s just a matter of degree, but I’m just laughing at the idea that getting married is like going to Harvard. Getting married is like going to Walmart, any fucktard can do it. If that’s all you have to cling to in this life, kill yourself.
I’m not sure this is entirely true. Oh sure, I agree that a lot of people don’t start with the same urges for same sex as they have for opposite sex. But I think a large percentage of the population are far more adaptable than we give credit.
If you open up and try having relationship experiences, and romantic activities with same sex partners, through familiarity and practice you can get accustomed to the interaction and find it pleasing. Even maybe start to desire it.
I think that’s why sexual abuse can lead to people learning same sex urges. It’s not necessarily the abuse itself that shapes the desire, but the conditioning of the experiences and learning to relate and interact sets up experiences that one finds pleasure in. In a similar manner, if a person chooses to experiment that person could develop some level of comfort with the relationships.
I will point to the current popularity of bisexuality in women, and a much more cultural openness to women experimenting. Many guys find it hot, girls play along and then are more open to sexual activity with other women.
I think this happens a lot less with men because our society frowns more on it. It goes to the very root of our social definitions of masculinity and being a man. Look at the cultural prejudice toward male homosexuality. The same men who are excited by the idea of two women making out will cringe at the suggestion that two men could make out. “It’s unnatural.”
Different societies have been shaped that do not perceive male-male sexual behavior as demasculating. Look at ancient Greek and Roman practices. If our culture had a different conception of male-male relationships, we could find a similar situation where college boys played experimentation games just like college girls, in far greater numbers than the “natural” gays currently.
And I say all this as a het male who has no desire to experiment with men.
This. They really feel that there is something inherently wrong and evil with homosexuality, that it defies the natural order defined by God. They really feel that if we accept rather than merely tolerate homosexuality, we are encouraging sin. They feel that there should be some level of judgement held by society against the bad behavior, some sense of “You can do that, sure, but it’s wrong.” Otherwise you’re, as a society, saying “That’s totally okay.” But that butts up against their personal perception. That’s why they’ll liken it to other concepts of sexual perversion, “things we should not condone”. To them, there is something inherently wrong about it, so we, as a society, must keep some level of sign that it is wrong. Otherwise, it makes our society as a whole degenerate.
I was going to pick on the analogy, but there’s something to it. The analogy relies on access to Harvard being restricted by some level of quality. So the anti-gay marriage crowd, marriage has a degree of quality established by being “a holy sanctioning by God”. So to “redefine” marriage to allow SSM is one more step in removing God from the process.
To them, “marriage” is God’s word and God’s relationship, so you can’t get married if God doesn’t sanction it.
The thing is, we have one word doing double duty - it stands for some sort of religious concept of bonding, and also a secular relationship between people. Historically, those have overlapped, but there’s no requirement that they do so.
One way to solve everyone’s problem is for the government to stop recognizing any marriage, and only recognize civil unions. Gays, straights, whatever, for the purposes of the government - joint taxes, child custody, medical consent, whatever - you put down either single, CU, divorced, etc. “Married” comes off the form.
Then separately churches can choose to hold any “marriages” they wish, that have no legal binding relationship, and is purely spiritual. The government would take no interest in that. If you want to get “married” to a chicken, the government wouldn’t care. It’s only interested in the legal situation of Civil Unions. You can be spiritually bonded to a toaster.
I am open to the idea that priests/preachers/ministers could become credentialed to perform the civil unions in parallel with the administration of marriage, but the two would be independent procedures that just happened to be done together. (Sort of like it is now, but more so.)
But I’m sure there would be some complication from a legal standpoint to this kind of word gamesmanship.
In a weird way, this reminds me of the story – perhaps apocryphal? – of the nice lady who sued Playboy magazine for invasion of privacy. By printing a picture of Miss November’s genitals, the claim was that Playboy had (in essence) shown all the world what Ms. Plaintiff’s genitals look like.
I think the notion that gay marriage “damages” mixed-sex marriage is equally absurd. It only “infringes” in their imagination, not in any real sense.