I am going to require a citation for that, other than that, well done. I don’t get all the hullabaloo over this particular issue. Let men marry men, women marry women. Who cares? It isn’t as if it’s going to stop heteroes from marrying, procreating, etc. I just don’t understand the outrage.
I am a non-practicing Christian, raised Catholic and even my ultra-conservative parents whom are in their 60’s can see the light on this one. This isn’t abortion…it’s just letting two people do what they wish, with the same protection under the law that heterosexuals receive.
Is the issue perhaps tied into the fact that since gay people are a minority group that the majority of voters don’t want to “encourage a gay lifestyle” (whatever that means)? Perhaps it has to do with gay people adopting children? I am not sure I am in favor of that, but I do think gay people should be able to marry, if for nothing else to see what the long-term statistics are WRT divorce, domestic violence, etcetera vis a vis hetero marriages versus gay ones.
Oh yeah, I forgot…allowing gay people to marry will open the door for people to marry goats. How could I have forgotten?
The last time I tried to make red velvet cupcakes (Duncan Hines, though), I didn’t bake them long enough. They were still pretty decent. And only I ate them, because no one else wanted them. Mwahahaha!!!
The problem with precedent-based arguments is that you cannot prove that one action will inevitably lead to another. I could see someone arguing that, if and when the time comes to be against these other religious laws, then that person will be against those laws.
I also know quite a few Christians who believe that Jesus will come back before any of those issues will become factors. Or that America will not exist by then, as God will have destroyed it.
My own position is that, if a law doesn’t affect me personally, I really can’t get up in arms about it. So I leave the decision to others who actually care.
I am more or less in the same boat as you, but I have somes problems with some of your reasoning.
I think you’re more or less right here, but that’s just not how the issue lives. If you refer to the current problem with “marriage equality”, people may or may not know what you’re talking about without further clarification. I also disagree that calling it gay marriage implies it is something other than marriage. That is, it is a descriptor. You wouldn’t say that a red car is something other than a car simply because it is part of a sub-class of red cars. Similarly, you could also call non-gay marriages heterosexual marriages.
Of course, I do see your point, that it always has been heterosexual marriage, and there is a real question about whether that means all marriages are heterosexual or if heterosexual marriage is a sub-class of a larger group of marriage. Either way, I don’t think trying to redefine terms once the fight is well underway is the best way to address the issue.
While I see your point, this is an ad hominem attack. Whether the opponents of gay marriage actually respect the sanctity of marriage isn’t beside the point that there is, at least a perceived, issue here about what marriage is. Up until recently, marriage has always been taken for granted to be synonymous with heterosexual marriage, and that’s why you see those arguments that you do.
Comparing opposition to gay marriage with divorice rates doesn’t help anyway. Sure, they may have a high divorce rate, but we don’t know diddly about the divorce rate of gay marriages simply because there isn’t enough data. A lot of the perspectives of those who are opposed to gay marriage are based in fear and they can’t really be adequately countered simply because we don’t know if they’re right or wrong.
So, while I do agree with you here, that anyone fighting for the sanctity of marriage should see divorce as at least as much of a threat (if not entering it unwisely as even more of one); however, the fact that gay marriage may not be as much of a threat as divorce does not necessarily mean that it’s not still a threat in some manner. In fact, most of those whom I’ve met of this opinion tend to believe that marriages are primarily intended for raising families and are concerned about homosexuals raising children. Now, I won’t give any credence to arguments that claim that homosexuals being bad parents because they’re necessarily immoral, they will try to instill the homosexual agenda in them, or that those children necessarily have a higher chance of becoming homosexual themselves, but there are some points that do make at least some sense (ie, two same-sexed parents not having a role-model of the opposite sex when compared to a heterosexual couple, peer issues, etc.).
This is the real crux of the argument. What are the legal reasons for marriage? No one can give me a good explanation of this. Our current secular reason seems to be that we marry someone because we love them, and if that’s the case, there’s no reason to prevent people from doing so. But that’s not necessarily the way that everyone sees it. Some, as I mentioned already, think it’s primary purpose is still about raising children. For them, you either have to convince them that that’s not what it means anymore (good luck with that) or that it’s not harmful to any children they may raise. Others will argue that it’s a religious institution that got legal recognition for special purposes (taxes, next of kin, etc.), and thus see legal recognition of those same rights to others is, essentially, dictating to those people of those faiths what they should and shouldn’t believe.
Now, many of us just see the legal ramifications, that if two people want to enter a legal contract, they can, and a specific church can choose to recognize it as religiously significant or not. Why would a gay couple want to go to a church that outright thinks they’re going to hell anyway?
So sure, while I do, more or less, believe in separation of church and state, that doesn’t mean we can simply say that a religious issues can simply be ignored. While many of us will interpret the church as being irrelevant, there are those out there who see this as an assault on that very same priniciple, trying to force them to recognize secular beliefs in their belief system. Of course, I think their interpretation is incorrect, but they can’t be ignored.
Again, I agree here. The problem is, you’re presupposing that the right to marry someone of the same sex is pre-supposed. As I’ve tried to lay out above, it isn’t that simple for a large number of people for varying reasons. Besides the ones I’ve mentioned, there’s probably others that either make it difficult or impossible for people to see it as a right, particularly those who oppose primarily because it’s “icky” or moral reasons.
So, while I do absolutely believe in the rights of the minority, it is also important to make sure that the rights of the majority aren’t damaged in the process of doing that. And while you and I, and many others, don’t see a threat to their rights, many of perceive a very real threat, and perception is reality.
This last part is an appeal to emotion. That is, the fact that they may some day be part of a minority that could be persecuted doesn’t necessarily mean that the minority today is being persecuted. As I’ve tried to point out, many of them don’t perceive it that way, so it’s not necessarily a useful argument.
Really, I think you make some good points, but I don’t think you’ll ultimately convince many people because you’re sort of assuming a few things that they won’t, for various reasons. Many have a very real fear (well grounded or not), that it WILL demean their marriage, that it will affect the children over the next few generations, that it will degrade the moral fabric of our society, and various other things. These fear must be addressed or progress will never be made.
And this isn’t really the best analogy, but compare it to racism in the century following the civial war. Sure, black’s were, more or less, given equal rights shortly after the end of the civil war, but you still have fears and misconceptions that lasted generations thereafter. Many people had a very real belief that black’s were far less intelligent, less socially adapted, etc. Hell, there was even some very real evidence (even if they were doctored studies, or anecdotal) to support those positions at the time.
So sure, this is in essence, a matter of rights, but it’s not that simple. This is a social issue, just like equality across race and sex. So it’ll take time more than anything else to solve it.
Have at it. They need to be challenged. I did that myself when I was a Christian. I’ve been in several discussions with Christian friends and family. Now we all agree to not start anything.
I remember a lady at one sitting talking about Jesus helping her child who was having problems at school. She prayed and poof the problems went away. I asked if she had ever talked to her child or teachers about what the issue seemed to be?
Nope I just gave it to Jesus.
I asked why Jesus would solve her problem for her if she was unwilling to make any effort for herself or her child. You can imagine how well that went over.
You leave me wondering if you are an American first and a Christian second.
So would Jesus vote against Proposition 8 ? Are you okay with abomination ?
The constitution supercedes the law given to Moses for you ?
.
Yes, but these brilliant men are not as smart and just as God are they ?
I’m actually in the same camp as you although I’d describe myself as a somewhat confused christian . My faith was born from the bible, but I depend on my conscience guided by the golden rule. It would be interesting to see how you respond to my challenges.
FD, I am a follower of Jesus, to the best of my ability. I use the term “Christian” out of facility, but I don’t think Jesus would recognize much of what Christians do as being of Him.
When it comes to governing my life, I try to use values learned from Jesus. I fail at this daily. However, I am unwilling to force my values on people who have not chosen to identify with Jesus.
The “brilliant men” must come put in place laws to govern a nation, that all in the nation must obey. The laws of God are obeyed voluntarily.
If someone finds Jesus interesting because of me, I want it to be because I loved them, fed them, held them, shared with them, not because I enforced some code of conduct.
I write articles like this because I am confused, too, and writing helps me work t out. The conversations that follow help me consider different points of view. I appreciate where you are coming from.
We all have tendencies that is outside the will of God, acting on them is sin. People like to jump on homosexuality as the biggest sin for some reason. It’s really no difference of any other sin and really has no reason to be so elevated as it is. Somewhere along the line we all have violated the 1st commandant and that resulted in us all further sinning in certain patterns.
They are people who need love of society along with anyone else, they are not worse then others, just trying to find their way on their own.
The question if the state and/or religious authorities and powers should sanctify such a union is really irrelevant as there are penalties for all sin that are unavoidable even if the state or religious authority does not impose a part of that penalty, the person, or couple in this particular case, will have to suffer.
What the couple need, and what we all need and long for is the freedom from the law of sin and its penalty, and experience God’s total love and acceptance for who we (they) are , and there is only one way and His name is Jesus. It changes the relationship from someone who is being beat into submission to God’s own children.
newcrasher, good for you. I once had a Mormon friend I was very proud of because while he thought on a personal level that homosexuality was a sin, abomination, horrible, terrible, disgusting, blah blah, he *also *thought that same-sex marriage should be made legal, because he recognized a distinction between his religious beliefs and what could be legislated.
The distinction is, we don’t call them “heterosexual marriages.” It would be “red car” vs. “blue car,” not “red car” vs. “car,” which would be the appropriate analogy for “gay marriage” vs. “marriage.” It sets up a man-woman marriage as the norm from which a man-man or woman-woman marriage deviates.
If you’ve ever watched Sealab 2021, compare to “Debbie” vs. “Black Debbie.”
Hey, that’s me! I was a homophobic teenager, but I’ve been converted to tolerance by civil debate.
I sure hope you’re right about the “vast majority” finding room to change their position. I suspect that most people are absolutely bent on their current position and would not be swayed by talking it out civilly, even if they were capable of remaining civil during the discussion. My friends, family, and fellow church-goers have very little “room to change their position.”
Yup. They’ve been very sheltered in other words. I have some Christian friends who are extremely sheltered about anything that’s not Praise Jesus fundyism.
I’ve wondered if I ever came out to them, if it would change their beliefs.
A lot of them do seem very…naive about same sex things. Like they believe that all homosexuals are Tina abusing hedonoists who love having sex with random people.
Then again, looking back those are the same people who thought that interracial marriage was teh evil and that the civil rights movement was also teh evil.
I’m rather startled to find myself appreciating something that kanicbird has written, in that IF, as a Christian*, you believe that homosexuality is a sin, there is still no particular reason for singling it out for special attention. Not only is it conspicuously missing from the Ten Commandments and any utterance of Jesus, but given that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and also that Jesus did have a few things to say about condemning others when we ourselves have transgressed, it makes no sense to make such noise over something that gets a few passing mentions in the Bible at best.
We make far less fuss over adulterers and moneygrubbers (greed/covetousness and adultery being mentioned as no-nos in both the Big Ten and the teachings of Jesus) than we do over gay people. Except, of course, that we all feel lust and greed in our own hearts and secretly hope that by not making too much noise about them, our own sins will be overlooked - but being gay? No chance of it happening to us! Fingers of condemnation - point!
I am now burbling, so I’ll stop.
*which, FTR, I’m not. I’m just saying “if”.
But that’s true, is it not? Even if we have legal same sex marriage in every state, you would have to contend that male-female marriage would still be the norm while homosexual marriage would be in the minority.
I just want to keep a running total of the latest outrage here. I’ve learned the following:
Supporting civil unions only makes you a bigot.
Wanting state-by-state control, even if you support gay marriage, makes you a bigot.
Now, just referring to the institution as “gay marriage” or “same sex marriage” is bad? I guess it can’t have any description at all because anything you call it would separate it from “normal” marriage.
I guess you can simply say “marriage” and if someone presses you for more details you can run away with your fingers in your ears.
Can I say “ears”? I guess I should say “body parts” because I don’t want to single out the ears as being an abnormal body part…
“Average” isn’t exactly the same as “norm” when we’re talking about the perceptions of society. Most people wouldn’t think of brown hair or brown eyes as a “norm,” despite these being much more common than, say, red hair or green eyes. The key word here is deviation–people view deviation as bad/wrong/sick/perverted.
Well, yeah, unless you want to abolish all marriage by the state and make male-female partnerships civil unions, too. We all remember how well segregated schools worked out. :rolleyes:
Yes, that’s correct: states shouldn’t get to decide who gets basic human rights. You may recall we had a bit of a civil war about that a while back. (Not that being denied the right to marry is anywhere close to the same thing as chattel slavery, but the underlying principle about what states do and do not get to decide is the same.)
“Gay marriage” isn’t exactly the right term, because you can have a gay person married to someone of the opposite sex.
Whether or not its offensive depends on the context it’s used in. Did you read my comparison above? When it’s being specifically juxtaposed with a male-female marriage, it makes sense to say same-sex marriage. But to continually qualify it as a same-sex marriage, in comparison to a marriage, would be offensive.