Straight talk on gay marriage

We have a dog in this fight. Our 37-year-old son is gay and has been in a long-term relationship with another great guy for several years now.

As I mentioned in a comment on the earlier thread, and which I'll repeat here:

My opinion (+10 cents will get you you-know-what): The birth control pill changed the nature of sex and marriage for society by further separating sex from procreation. Removing procreation from the relationship makes the belief or requirement that marriage be strictly heterosexual harder to maintain, especially in a society that enshrines and protects individual freedoms and minority rights, and limits the extent to which religious beliefs can be made law. There is little basis for arguing that tax-paying and voting adult citizens can't have equal rights and protections under the law once their behavior is no longer considered criminal.

I may not agree with the concept of "marriage" being extended to such relationships, either religiously, morally, societally, historically, physiologically or biologically, but I'm hard-pressed to find a basis, under the type of government and types of laws we have in this country, for arguing against permitting "marriage" (from a civil/government point of view) to be defined to include same-sex relationships.

Help me out on this.

You're almost there, Rod, when you say "so many Americans long ago conceded, whether they knew what they were doing or not, that marriage is essentially contractual, and has no organic connection to transcendental values." You need to take it just one more step to the point where society acknowledges that as a culture we no longer share the same transcendental values. And while many conveniently (and short-sightedly) may point to the Sixites as the font of their discontent, it was a process well underway before the generation that came of age in the Sixties took interest.

Exactly, Rod. SSM is not the beginning of a slippery slope, it's a point part-way down a slope the slide on which started in force in the 60s (I say 'in force' because the trend was already shaping up well before that).

And you are, of course, correct about the prospects being dismal. The culture will continue to rot from the inside, and we will get to the place (if we're not there already) where we will neither have the will nor the capacity to defend ourselves against threats from outside.

There is a point where it's possible that people will begin to stand up and say, "enough's enough," but I don't think were anywhere near there yet -- the threat isn't perceived as being great enough.

As I've read more writers such as yourself, I've become, I don't know if sympathetic is the right word, but I definitely understand now that a lot of people are coming from a place that has nothing to do with close-minded bigotry.

I guess the thing I still don't understand though is the whole legal aspect. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out on his blog last night, why not a federal amendment to ban divorce, as well?

Is gay marriage worse than divorce? Is it close? Why does one deserve a constitutional amendment and the other doesn't? Or does it? Forced to choose, would you prefer a straight couple get divorced, or a gay couple be allowed to get married and stay committed for life?

None of these questions are meant to be antagonistic. I don't fully understand the thought process regarding many of these questions and I think they're interesting.

The culture will continue to rot from the inside...

...which has an interesting resonance to something said on the comment thread for the "Ponzi economics" post, that "[t]he US economy has had a hollow core for years".

If our culture and our economy are basically dying from the inside out, what in the world is propping us up, how much longer can we expect it to last, and how do we fix it?

Richard

JLF- you are nod oubt correct. Where and when do you see this loss beginning?
Rod- great post. Very thought provoking.
Winston- it is true that you can't really expect transcendental Christian values to be displayed in a relationship in which both partners are not dedicated to living them out. So there has to be a mechanism to take care of particular circumstances, but exceptions make bad law as the old saying goes.

In last night's post I offered my personal opinion of what I think should happen with marriage laws in this country. I'll reprint it here with some edits:

I think the government should get out the marriage business altogether. Marriage is too much of an emotionally charged and religious issue to be decided by law. Instead, government should issue civil unions or domestic partnerships, call it what you will. The civil unions would be a contract between any two consenting adults that would cover all the legal issues now associated with marriage. It could be between straight couples or gay/lesbian couples. It could be between two widowed sisters who want to be able sign for each other on important documents or determine end of life care. The reason doesn't matter. Leave marriage as a religious institution the requirements of which are determined by one's church. And churches should be free to set their own requirements.

I think if traditional marriage proponents were smart they would go for something like this. It would make everyone equal before the law and churhes would be able to keep their heartfelt definintion of marriage.

Same-sex marriage and the FMA strike me as Republican-generated smokescreens, part of the wooing of some moral conservatives (and the subsequent dropping of them). As for the strength of one individual marriage, it doesn't affect my marriage with my wife if a gay partner in a hospital or hospice is permitted to be at a partner's bedside, make legal decisions as a spouse would, or even gain some tax benefit from living with someone.

As for the factors which weaken marriage (and I would adhere to the classical definition, man plus woman) it is part of playing into the culture of victimhood that people point fingers at SSA folks and claim this is part of a decay in the institution.

SSA relationships are a part of life. They always have been. Leaving aside the debate on whether that's part of the human condition as created by God, I'd interpret the drive for same-sex marriages as another by-product of the drive to enhance and refine the contractual side of marriage. Marriage as legal contract is morally neutral, but it does have some concrete benefits. I'm not surprised homosexual partnerships want in on some of that.

Rod -

Thanks for bringing up this issue.

My two cents. The Protestant church (vs. the Roman and/or Orthodox church) comes off looking very hypocritical on this issue. If we took marriage as seriously as we say we do, then the divorce rate inside the church would not be the same as that outside the church. Given this well-known fact, it is practically impossible to convincingly argue with a straight face that SSM should not be permitted. On the other hand, in order to address this issue within the church, we would then have to build the type of community within the church that would be anathema to most in our highly individualistic society.

A tangential question: Is it known how the abortion rates within the church compare to those outside the church?

I agree with you completely, Rod, and thanks for doing such a fine job of stating the case. The only thing I might add is that another contributor to the demise of marriage generally is the trend (over the past 50-75 years) to industrialize and commodify everything. As you know from reading Wendell Berry, he sees a parallel between the industrialization of eating and the industrialization of sex. A cultural/economic trend like that is hard to fight on the legal/political level, because much of the trend flies under the legal/political radar. As you have said, the fight to defend Judeo-Christian culture will largely have to be fought household to household: by living well in place, by raising kids who have their heads on straight, by respectfully speaking the truth whenever we have the chance, by doing important things ourselves rather than handing them over to elites and profit-making "experts." With rare exceptions, voting probably will not make much of a difference on these issues. The more I read your blog, the more I think that the real crisis of our age is not Left vs. Right or Republican versus Democrat, but rather our own individual choices to serve either God or Mammon (just like Someone once said).

"It seems to me that 'marriage' will not be dissolved. The thing called religious marriage will not be affected at all. Catholic priests will not be required to marry same gender couples, just as they are not now required to marry two atheists."

Thing is, the homosexual lobby does not see civil unions as an end but as a means -- the end is the acceptance by the culture-at-large of homosexuality as being normal. Some of us in the culture will never accept that, whatever the broader culture does, but I'm not as sanguine as you about the unlikelihood of the leviathan-state's attempts to coerce us into accepting it.

Thanks Rod. I agree with you. President Bush and his campaign beat Sen. Kerry over the head with the protection of marriage issue. There was a little talk about Social Security from the Bush Campaign (very little actually). There ZERO talk about comprehensive immigration reform from the Bush campaign, but look what the President pushed, Social Security privatization and comprehensive immigration reform, which some people describe as amnesty. No push at all from the President or most of the republicans on the FMA. We were lied to last election cycle. Flat out, stone cold, lied to by Bush campaign and used in the most cynical way. Speaking of divorce, I think we social conservatives should be considering divorcing ourselves from the republican party. Look how the republican elites and the conservative media have treated Gov. Huckabee - lots of distortion and very shabby compared to the other candidates (with the exception of Sen. McCain who has also been treated harshly). I think the only way we will exert real influence is a third party of crunchy conservatives. Either that or do all we can to nominate candidates like Gov. Huckabee and his chances this time seem to be dwindling.

quote: "Thing is, the homosexual lobby does not see civil unions as an end but as a means -- the end is the acceptance by the culture-at-large of homosexuality as being normal. Some of us in the culture will never accept that, whatever the broader culture does, but I'm not as sanguine as you about the unlikelihood of the leviathan-state's attempts to coerce us into accepting it."

Bingo. Rod's right in his analysis of how we got to this point with SSM. The danger of SSM now, however, is that it will be used by the homosexual lobby to push the government to make those (i.e. religious conservatives) who disagree with the idea that homosexual behavior is moral. It's already happening in Canada, it's no stretch to fear that we are next.

rr

P.S. I meant to say "who disagree with the idea that homosexual behavior is moral second-class citizens."

Good stuff, Rod. I freely admit that no-fault divorce is far, far worse than gay marriage. But I also think that the GM movement is at least partially the byproduct of the no-fault divorce movement. If divorce was still fault-based, I doubt the clamor would be as strong. Of course, no-fault makes a hash out of the vaunted "conservative case for gay marriage," too--no-fault won't change anybody's subculture.

Solutions? Two-tiered marriage, with no-fault and "covenant" marriage tiers are being tried, with more benefits allotted to those who try the harder road. But I think the real solution is having a broom handy for cleanup when the whole thing breaks down.

The problem lies in the human heart. As long as we privilege the Autonomous Self, there is no solution.

Michael, in a very limited sense you are correct. But if I recall, there was a conservative outcry against "no fault divorce," (I vaguely remember such an outcry, but it's a little before my time -- can anyone help?) The conservatives lost that one, though.

It's not hypocrisy, however, to try to keep from sliding further down the drain instead of concentrating on how to get out of it altogether, is it?

Civil society's proper interest in this matter (in a pluralistic rather than a theocratic society) is not in "transcendence." That concept is way out of the expertise of a secular state.

Civil society's proper interest, it seems to me, is in order, is that children shall be properly supported and reared, and that people who make promises of mutual support, both emotional and financial, shall live up to those promises. In order to induce this behavior, society offers certain inducements in the form of tax advantages, inheritance rights, legal rights to access when someone is sick, and so forth. All of this in recognition of the family as a unit, and in support of that.

Our current state of confusion has blurred a lot of lines. So, gays can form "Registered Domestic Partnerships." Along come the straights, who say they too would like some of the advantages of marriage without all the responsibilities. Not to mention the hordes of both orientations who just want the goodies - health care coverage, largely - without really making any commitments at all.

Because viewed from a strictly secular point of view, marriage is not without its downsides. There is an obligation to support one's wife or husband financially, for example. One cannot simply walk out and leave that person to become a public charge.

I believe personally that the state's proper interest in this matter is best served by people who are willing to make commitments and keep them. Gender is secondary, if a consideration at all. Furthermore, it is very much in the state's interest that any children who are involved - and I don't know what's going on back there with you-all, but out here a LOT of same-sex couples have children - be afforded the financial and emotional security that having their parents legally married confers.

I would draw a bright line here. Either you are married or you are not. If you are not, please don't expect that you will get some sort of vague domestic-partner benefits from the state or from your employer or from anyone else. If you are willing to marry, and to make the commitments to each other which marriage entails, well then, we will reward that behavior with the benefits which attach to marriage.

To make this work, of course, same sex couples must be able to marry. Then if they don't, well, they're just shacking up, like a heterosexual couple in similar circumstances. They do not deserve the protections society extends to those who make commitments.

I would also, if Empress For A Day, make divorce a lot harder than it is now, in the hopes of dissuading some people from taking that route.

Now as for what the churches think of all this, of course they are not in agreement amongst themselves even. The Catholics will not marry a person who has been previously divorced. Some denominations will marry that person, but will not marry a same sex couple. Some denominations will marry same sex couples. No one is proposing to force the churches to come into line with the state on this. (The Catholics have been out of line with the state ever since the existence of easy divorce, so being out of line with the state on marriage is no new experience.) In a pluralistic society, that kind of disagreement is what we would expect.

The churches are the proper custodians of the transcendent. They will continue to perform that function as each separate body sees fit.

My two cents. The Protestant church (vs. the Roman and/or Orthodox church) comes off looking very hypocritical on this issue.

The only difference that I can see is that the Catholic Church makes sure that it gets a cut by charging annulment fees.

Y'know, I just wouldn't be so sure that there's not going to be a backlash to this.

The only state that now has GM is Massachusetts and everyone knows it was pushed through by the legislature without the consent of the majority of citizens. When a petition to put the question on the ballot garnered enough signatures the pro GM forces did their strong armed best not to vote on the issue. This caused an uproar against these pols. Not because they were for or against but because they were readily trying to subvert the democratic process. Public outcry worked and now the measure needs to be approved by a second legislature before it can go to the ballot. I'm really impressed by how the MA Constitution was drafted. Requiring the issue to take at least 2 sessions will allow the people of the Commonwealth to see some of the consequences of the judicial ruling. (Like Lexington) or whatever you choose.

In NH it was NOT the intention of the governor to introduce same sex marriage legislation, it was the intention of Ray Buckley, the man elected Democratic Party chairman last spring after being cleared for lack of forensic evidence on charges of child pornography by his former roommate. Both Ray and his former roommate are homosexual. This was Ray Buckley's cause celeb and he was able to pass the legislation when a wave of Democratic representatives were elected 2 years ago in response to the failures of the Bush administration. The governor later conceded based on an anti-discrimination mindset.

I don't believe any of these NH officials were elected on a pro-gay marriage platform. So while pop. trends may one day make these issues null and void. At this point, the general populations of Massachusetts and of New Hampshire have yet to express their own opinions on these questions directly. I believe they have a right to vote on this and at that point and ONLY at that point will I recognize a valid shift. Prior to, I consider it all the results of political maneuvering and legislating from the bench.

Some of the scare tactics put up against the petition signers were very dubious. In MA a website was used to publish the addresses and phone numbers of all signers so that they could be 'contacted' ie. harassed and intimidated by pro GM collectives. Not good.

Mark another day on the calendar. Susan and I largely in agreement on the secular interest in marriage. We even agree on making divorce more difficult. I'm afraid this conversation probably won't lend itself to addressing the issues dealing with the children of homosexuals and addressing that via marriage. Where Susan and I do agree is that there is an actual issue that will need to be addressed at some point there. A preview of my position is that a significant number of these children are a product of the divorces between maternal and paternal parents.

I have two major themes here.

Straight people and religious authorities didn't blow their chance to stop gay marriage when they they liberalized divorce law and ushered in the sexual revolution. You blew it when, for 2000+ years, you have demonstrated 0 interest in understanding why some kids, no matter how strongly you proscribed against it, kept turning to sex with someone of the same sex. Your unwillingness to want to understand what was going on and take action to minister to people, your willingness to accept the suicides and the violence, your willingness to simply write these people off as evil and leave them to their despair, to leave them to the bars, the alleys, the airport restrooms, to walk off the playing field when the best minds in psychology challenged your centuries old understanding and you reacted in no new way except to dig in your heels, stick your head in the sand, and say "nyah nyah can't hear you".

The problem is very much that the traditional religious faiths have done diddly or at best very little to set up a positive, hopeful life model for gay people that allows them to feel part of the larger human family. The vision held out is a lonely vision, one that is only put forth selectively, not proclaimed to all who need to hear it. It is a vision with many of the same ghosts that The Mighty Favog wrote touchingly about re: childlessness. He will probably be pissed I am daring to say that I experience similar ghosts to his, when his relationship is so noble and I am just some gay guy venting, but there you are.

Is there a Catholic saint that the Vatican would be willing to hold up as a gay role model for its children? (i.e. my child, you are being called to walk a different path from your brothers and sisters. Walk this path like X, who was gay like you. No, this has not happened because most of the RCC hierarchy, for all the talk about it not being the orientation, its the acting on it, still would consider a homosexual orientation itself as a black mark in and of itself. In today's world, no one in the hierarchy would ever hold himself up as a gay role model.

You are losing this issue because more and more people are seeing the truth for what it is: why on earth *wouldn't* gay and lesbian people want companionship, why on earth wouldn't they want commitment, fidelity, mutual responsibility? Why on earth wouldn't they want to make families by adoption or via means available to them?

You believe family and marriage are good things. Why on earth wouldn't we want them too?

And when it comes to gay people debating between themselves about how they should live their lives, who do you want to win? The radicals who think marriage is a patriarchal institution and gays shouldn't live by straight values at all?

I should edit more and post less (no snarks please).

My major point is that by throwing a class of people to the winds and not taking any interest in making a spiritual and worldly "home" for them, the traditionalists have lost their ability to prevent gays and lesbians from making the home of their choosing.

Rod:

I generally agree with you -- not so much that gay marriage is guaranteed (there are still a lot of people like you who will fight against it tooth and nail; even ultra-liberal New Jersey rejected it in favor of civil unions), but on the course of how we got here.

That said, I do have a couple of quibbles (just quibbles, though):

**In the 1960s and since, marriage as an institution was revolutionized. No longer did people think of it as having an essential sacred meaning. Rather, people came to think of it as a contractual agreement between willing parties.**

Rod, you of all people as a "Crunchy Con" are historically oriented. As far as marriage NOT being a contract ... ever hear of a little time called the Middle Ages? (Not to mention, as posters have said in various ways, so many other times in history and so many other cultures even today that have arranged marriages or worse.)

But the contract you speak of today is far different than those of the Middle Ages or arranged marriages. I think Eric W. is dead-on to the invention of reliable birth control being a key to making marriage less important ... yet theoretically, if people aren't relying on marriage to sanction having a family, they never have to get married at all.

(Which is why -- in theory -- Humanae Vitae actually makes a peculiar kind of sense, from that theological/philosophical perspective, to encourage marriage. Still don't understand the encouraging HUGE families after marriage, though, in a world that is overpopulated and whose economic basis actively discourages them -- and was headed that way even in 1968.)

I don't think that's what's happening, though. In an age when people have much more choice about actually marrying due to ABC, they marry (mostly) for LOVE. Which, IMHO, is why gays aspire to it, as much as for seeking equal rights. What is causing such societal conflict now, some no doubt believe, may cause more societal ACCEPTANCE down the road. Isn't one of heterosexuals' (occasionally true, mind you -- as it is of heterosexuals too!) prejudice about gays is that they are inveterate cheaters and that they can't be "loyal" as straight people (well, sometimes) are?

Rod, I think your ultimate fight is not with birth control or contracts, but with this new definition of "love." It's no longer the, "Well, we get along well enough to have kids, I guess, and we could be roommates in old age" of our great-grandparents (and sometimes even grandparents). People today want SOULMATES, people they will feel that "zing" with as often as possible, and in as many situations in life as possible. (Including, of course, THAT one.)

Still, your ultimate point, which is a valid one, is that couples who start out as glorified friends may develop, through time, experience, patience and (yes) love of the agape sort, the type of TRUE soulmate experience younger folks seek today -- and give up on too quickly when they realize their spouse is (HORRORS!) human. In other words, young people disdain (or at least don't understand) their elders' paths, and then wonder why they can't find that end result they seek themselves.

But of course, you found your soulmate (and bless you and Julie for that!) and I'm a divorcee. So as someone said earlier, take my ramblings for the dime or so they're no doubt worth.

"No longer did people think of it as having an essential sacred meaning. Rather, people came to think of it as a contractual agreement between willing parties."

That's how people thought of it before the 1960's? Society thought of it as the profoundly sacred institution that was unchanged in anyway for thousands of years?

Isn't it possible that people think of it as an contractual agreement as well as endowing it with sacred meaning? Isn't it possible that people have different concepts and views of the sacredness of marriage? Isn't it possible that yours is just one of many that has existed and will exist in the future?

It bespeaks an enormous amount of hubris and ignorance to argue that your version of marriage has existed since time immemorial and any alteration of that institution is ipso facto a corruption.

There are secessionist and Neo-Confederacy groups all over the country who assert pretty much that exact same thing, MZ.

...should have said "younger generationS"

>>>
If the tax burden gets to great or the State engages in war you don't like, just sever the citizenship.
>>>

Historicaly, that has been done by immigrating to a different country.

>>>
The State takes you to court on some charge, and you can just stand before the judge and say, "This sucks. I don't recognize you. You are just a social contruct, and I reject you."
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest | January 18, 2008 12:06 PM
>>>

As long as you leave the jurisdictional boundaries of the State and the State doesn't forcibly bring you back, then that State doesn't have any way to force you to recognize its authority or social constructions.

One thing has always bothered me, and no priest has ever given me a solid answer: if Jesus found a sick man in need of healing, and knew that the man was a homosexual, would Jesus still help him? I've had a few priests tell me "No" outright, but most evade the question. For me, though, that seems totally contrary to Jesus' message of helping those in need.

Posted by: Zach | January 18, 2008 11:29 AM

Jesus helped prostitutes, tax collectors, and any number of unsavory types. Of course he'd have helped a homosexual. But then, he might have said, "Go forth and sin no more." I can't understand why any priest would have to think twice about that...

Francis Beckwith, you may be the smartest person here:

"The philosophical flim flam men are running out of the inherited capital of a civilization whose currency they claim is counterfeit, but they spend it anyways."

Well said, man. Well said.

John E.,

Correct. The State doesn't dissolve. Likewise when a marriage ceases, the children don't just go away. The needs of the family are still present. Citizenship and marriage are not dependent upon the meaning a particular person gives it. This seems to be the most pernicious error among the youth today when it comes to marriage.

If you read the English novelists such as Jane Austen, it becomes clear that although the blessings of the Established Church were given, marriage among the well-to-do, at least, was all about money and property.

Meanwhile, there were plenty of whores for the randy squire.

This didn't become a fallen world only in the Sixties, and the notion we can legislate our way out of our fallenness, whether the sin is lust, or gluttony, or greed, is hopelessly naïve.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Christian morality defines murder as a sin.

Secular law defines murder as a crime.

Therefor, without the prop of Christian morality, murder will no longer be a crime.

====o====

This surely can be reduced to a strawman. I have no quarrel with that. At some point, though, I would like the Christian moral stance explained to me, with a focus on the line that should be drawn between moral behavior and secular behavior.

America is a post-Christian, post-post-modern society. If you think classic institutions and ways of thinking are currently under assault and/or are changing now, wait until 25 years from now when technology and genetic advancements (cloning, artificial/replacement organ and limb production, full 3D-sensory sexual encounters, etc.) are the norm.

Rod,

If you will permit me, the only comment I will make is one asking you not to despair. Remember that the inevitability of the radical way of thinking has been touted in the past and history has found it wanting. There was a time when socialism was viewed as inevitable, then the Soviet Union fell. There was a time when people thought that abortion would eventually be widely tolerated, if not accepted. Now my generation (the Millennials or whatever you want to call us) is more pro-life than our elders. Yes, we are more in favor of same-sex marriage than our predecessors, but there's no telling where the future of our society lies, so please don't get discouraged.

It's no longer the, "Well, we get along well enough to have kids, I guess, and we could be roommates in old age" of our great-grandparents (and sometimes even grandparents). People today want SOULMATES, people they will feel that "zing" with as often as possible, and in as many situations in life as possible. (Including, of course, THAT one.)

I don't know, Larry. I'm going through one of those madly-and-dreamily-in-love-with-my-husband periods lately and reading a lot of love poetry. People have wanted SOULMATES for just about ever. But maybe they didn't want to (or expect to) marry them? I don't know the answer to that.

My grandparents were born around the same time as e.e. cummings, and he wrote this:

i carry your heart with me(i carry it in
my heart)i am never without it(anywhere
i go you go,my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing,my darling)
i fear
no fate(for you are my fate,my sweet)i want
no world(for beautiful you are my world,my true)
and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;which grows
higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart(i carry it in my heart)

Lisa,

I couldn't agree with you more re: our spiritual condition and why we may never be fully healed. Thank you for your kind post.

I see your point re: thorns and how to understand this topic in terms of accepting the thorn, but I can also look at the history and understanding of various human variations, particular in the areas of mental health, and see that much that was ocne thought evil or morally deficient in character (epilepsy was demonic possession, depression was weakness of will/laziness/etc), have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Were people who sought to change the long-held opinions based on new understanding wrong -- people should simply accept their thorns without question?

A good addendum to your post would be there are a lot of people who don't live up to what they preach, but there are also quite a few people who live way beyond what they preach. Your son's story is inspiring and a reminder that fidelity is expressed in living.

Your son's story is inspiring and a reminder that fidelity is expressed in living.

Thank you MZF. I'm proud of him.

His wife (a lovely young woman) is very fearful, probably because of her illness. Nevertheless, she sent her husband and her son up to spend a few days with us in the Northern California wilderness. (My grandson could not get over the adventure of the jeep ride up the mountain, and kept crying, "WooHOO!") My daughter-in-law (we're close) warned me about my kid, and asked me to be vigilant if he became too short or impatient with the child.

No such problem. My kid is such a good father: tender, protective, challenging. I don't know when I've ever been so proud. Of course I'm not exclusively responsible for all this (!!) but this is my first-born, the apple of my eye.

I don't think that Mick "lives beyond what he preaches." He believes in love and in commitment; he believes in children. He's living that. He just doesn't understand why the gay couples in their circle, some of whom have children, are not included in all this. I guess I don't either.

"There is one weakness for those of us who support marriage as it has been traditionally defined, and that is we have very few really articulate spokespersons who don't sound like gay haters."

Jeff, check out Anthony Esolen here:

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/08/ten_arguments_f_2.html

Rob, I do get that. What I'm not getting, I guess, is the logical path that resides under the topic at hand. If you (and others) don't mind, I'd like to stick with murder as the point of comparison.

A society is based on fundamental agreements around the rules for living. When we focus on the interface between morality and law, we are vulnerable to the agreements that are not fundamental, and to the arguments that insist that secondary things (gay marriage) must follow the same logical path from morality to law as the fundamental things (murder). Hence my invocation of post hoc.

So my challenge is more to the notion that when we disagree on the source of morality, we necessarily disagree on the morality itself. My rebuttal to Dostoevsky becomes: without those fundamental agreements, everything is permitted (and I would further substitute "possible" at the end.)

Why does it matter that we have those agreements but disagree on their source? If law is the codification of the agreements, it should then be constructed to withstand future challenges that are not based on those agreements changing. Given that, Dostoevsky becomes Chicken Little, at least so far as I can see it.

I don't think Jesus can be boiled down to those two soundbites. The Gospels are far more complex documents than that.

Susan: "She pointed out what is obvious, that the South had much the better argument from Scripture. She was exploring how the New England Protestant divines wiggled their way out of this fact. Interesting. I hope she publishes it."

When she does (being positive here :-) ) PLEASE let me know. I would love to get a copy of it, and I know many universities will allow access to dissertations for a fee. It would be well worth the money to see what her research discovered.

There have been several good books published in recent years that attempt to build a Scriptural case for gay/straight equality, usually through exploring the cultural context of many of the "clobber" passages. Usually these are rebuffed by opponents as "distorting the plain meaning of Scripture."

I suspect that her research would encompass similar explorations into the cultural context of the passages regarding slavery in the Bible, and that these arguments were similarly dismissed by pro-slavery Christians as "distorting the plain meaning of Scripture."

It's amazing how often history repeats, or almost repeats, itself.

First, I screwed up the italics tag in my post of 2:06. Sorry! (WHY WHY WHY can we no longer have a "preview" function?? Rod??)

ds0490, fascinating, huh. I have her name, and I'm doing periodic searches. I think it's a very important topic. (She was appropriately modest, but I really think this work is of primary importance.)

autonomo, so now the Two Great Commandments are "soundbites." Interesting. Which accordingly we are authorized to ignore. Even more interesting.

There has been a movement among evangelical Christians to try to decrease the number of divorces in their circle of influence by trying to get legislatures to pass something called "covenant marriage" laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

The idea here being that Christians wanting to avoid the easy, no-fault divorce laws would instead apply for a covenant marriage. After jumping through whatever hoops are required, they would be entered into a marriage contract that could not be broken save for abuse, adultery, proven abandonment, or other major marriage breakers.

What has always amazed me about this is that the people pushing hardest for this, and the group that would take advantage of this, already solemnize their marriage in a church in front of God and "these assembled witnesses." They make a religious oath to God that they will endure and not take the easy way out. Their minister counsels them about problems, and stands ready to help them sort out issues.

Having made an oath before God you would think they would take their marriage vows more seriously than the general public. Yet the statistics show that divorce percentages in this group of Christians is pretty much the same as among the general public. Clearly they do not take oaths to God seriously.

So they turn to man, and make their oath in man's court, under man's laws. Why? Because, as their behavior has proven for a number of years, oaths before God and God's law regarding marriage are just not enough to keep them from taking the easy way out.

Rod hit the nail on the head with his observation that the blame for the failure of marriage as a holy institution lies not at the doorstep of gays, lesbians and transgendered people. It lies at the doorstep of "God fearing" churches and their congregants who cannot honor the commitments they make before their God.

Rob, thanks for the reference to Esolen.

This guy's arguments have more holes in it than my colander. I won't bother to go into detail. Perhaps privately. This would bore the company assembled here.

Rob G:

ds has never found a conservative Christian for whom he/she does not feel utter contempt, and he/she never will. That's the key to understanding all of his/her posts. CCon is just a podium to vent his/her undifferentiated loathing for all things Christian.

Autonomo:

"But as soon as you try to dilute the Autonomous Self, you would
create so many more problems. You'd take away some of our agency just to avoid gay marriage?"

Could you give me a little more detail at what you are getting at?

"Nice try."

How about a rebuttal instead of a cop-out? (sound familiar?)

Rob, you want a rebuttal, you can have it. But I'm thinking this would be a colossal bore for everyone else here.

I'm sefoley@foleyfoleylaw.com. I'm also leaving town shortly for a retreat at an RC monastery. Back Monday.

Let's start a private conversation on this topic. I think we have a lot to explore.

And the rest of you, my question remains unanswered.

What do I tell my kid?

As the mother of a gay son, I AM treated differently. Half the people think my husband & I made him gay or that he is just going to hell because he wants a life just like his heterosexual brother. I now know what being "different" is all about. Being a white, middle class person, I really never had the chance to suffer being different. Now I know. Even with all the shame, embarassment, humiliation & every other emotion I went through when I first found out I still can't imagine how gays/lesbians feel on a daily basis. I am ashamed to admit that I even had those feelings. Believe me I NEVER thought that gays where less of a person than you or I, but when it happens to you you realize that while you thought you were a good loving Christian person you really weren't.

I hate that people can't see people with a face and a name. These people are your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, your family members, etc. You just might not know it. My son was at the top of his class, received many many academic awards, & was loved by all his teachers. He is now in one of the top universities in our country with a fantastic scholarship. Still well loved & still getting awards. I can NEVER thank his high school teachers enough. There isn't enough money I could ever give them. Why? When my son finally admitted that he was gay they didn't blink an eye. They loved & protected him from the bullies at school. Many of these bullies where the good little Christian boys who went to church with us.

I am proud of my son for not hiding who he is. That is such a small part of who he is. I want him to have the same rights as my other son. I am no longer a Christian because I just can't get over the shame - not of my son, but that Christians are just so downright cruel. I can't wait for the day my son can marry the man of his dreams!

Susan -- that's fine. But I have another idea. You could go on Touchstone's site and try to rebut Dr. Esolen's arguments there -- he may even respond himself.

But if you want to talk about the Civil War's theological issues, that'd be fine. It's a topic I've read a lot about and am much interested in.

Yeah, yeah, the "ad hominem" card.

Which would be more effective if it were refuted by, say, evidence to the contrary and not "Well--I never!" high dudgeon. A person who said--amongst other gems--that Catholic priests are a greater threat to the nation than Al Qaida starts with a bit of a credibility deficit on this point. The person who compares mullahs defending a hard line against historical investigations of the Quran (which involves acknowledged death threats) to garden-variety Christian revivalists needs to do more than regurgitate a definition obtained from onelook.com.

Your mileage may vary.

Sheilagh, you must remember that one person's "legislating from the bench" is another's "protection of Constitutional rights." And it is at this juncture that social conservatives lose their Libertarian allies in the internecine Republican Party war.

"We have the advantage of over 100 years of cultural conditioning to accept the viewpoint that slavery, as practiced in the South, is completely and utterly unscriptural. However, were we born in the time of Furman our cultural conditioning and experience would be much different, and we would likely accept his exegesis of Scripture with little critical thought."

ds0490, this is simply not true. There were many theologians making alternate cases from Scripture at the time. I know because I've read them, and Noll, among others, documents them. The problem at the time of the Civil War was that there was a multitude of voices, all arguing from Scripture, but all disagreeing in the particulars. It's not as if there were only two sides. The continuum ranged from those like Furman, on one side, to progressives who wanted to throw the Bible out altogether if it could be used in any way to support slavery, on the other, with lots of points in between the two.

Again, using this argument as a parallel to arguments against homosexuality is tenuous at best.

I oppose gay marriage because I don't agree with this proposed restructuring of society.

This actually isn't a strawman. In the case of a person divorcing because they are gay and remarrying their lover, we have an endorsement of serial marriage. In the case of the lesbian couple that goes down to the bar or otherwise is inseminated, we have an endorsement of physically breaking fidelity. In the case of adoption, we are already dealing with a disordered situation. Whether foster families and stranger adoption are the best ways to mitigate the situations involving adoption is question that should be debated and not simply assumed to be answered in the affirmative.

Susan, give it up. Rod will just close down this thread because Erin is being molested (by our ignorance, of course). I haven't been to this blog in months & I came back to read when Rod had Erin blogging for him. Of course, she chose gay crap. Why? A good way to get a lot of replies I suspect. Why does Rod even keep bring this issue up? To see how many posts he gets. That is what I think.

In the case of adoption, we are already dealing with a disordered situation.

Adoption is by definition a "disordered situation"?? This is new. The many infertile (or, generous) heterosexual couples who have adopted children will be interested to learn it. So will their kids.

Susan, give it up. Rod will just close down this thread because Erin is being molested (by our ignorance, of course).

mom4vr61, I think more highly of Rod than that. Time will tell, of course.

Children aren't put up for adoption absent disorder.

An interesting statement, and quite without support.

You'd prefer abortion maybe?

Susan -- MZ's statement makes sense if one defines "order" as "every child is born to two married parents who want said child and have the means and desire to care for it".

It does seem to ignore the situation of orphans, though.

"Advice. Don't take me on on the Civil War."

You may be surprised by some of the people I've discussed the Civil War with. But I didn't say that, did I? I said the Civil War's theological issues, meaning those related to this topic, as referenced by ds0490.

Your "translation" of my statement is way off base. Frankly, if you went over to the Touchstone blog, you'd be ripped to shreds in short order, so maybe you better not. I believe all of Dr Esolen's points are defensible, so maybe I will email you. It's not a 'guts' issue; trust me, I do very little boot-shaking, and I sure as hell am not doing any now. Bring it on.

A child doesn't choose it's mother to be a drug sniffing teenager or its parents to perish in an accident. It's hardly an indictment of the child.

>>>>
I oppose gay marriage because I don't agree with this proposed restructuring of society, and the inevitable abolition of civil marriage altogether that will be the result of gay marriage laws. Most who support gay marriage argue that this is not the case, that gay marriage won't even cause a ripple in the lives of married heterosexual parents; I understand that this is your sincere belief and respect it, but I think you are being incredibly naive about it all. The radical destruction of the biologically-based family is the end result of gay marriage; but it is true that this destruction began with modern feminists, who were quite open about their desire to end marriage, a relationship some of them even likened to slavery.

....

I firmly believe that civil marriage will be destroyed completely along the lines I've discussed above, and that this will be seen by most of society, ultimately, as a good thing.
>>>

That is quite a detailed scenario, Erin. I think it is unduly alarmist.

I always look askance at argument by analogy, even more so when I employ it myself. In that spirit, I suggest we move away from comparisons to slavery -- an active institution protected by the absence of laws prohibiting it -- to the franchise -- a body of law that denied the right to vote to class(es) of citizens by omission.

To the broader point that has been glossed, there are many ways to address orphaned and abandoned children. Creating a household headed by two members of the same sex is one of those options. Having the ability to do so does not give it an imprimatur. Having orphanages does not give an imprimatur to other communal arrangement with kids.

Rod,
If God doesn't exist -- by "God" I mean a transcendent source of morality -- why is murder wrong?

I would recommend you to read CS Lewis. He takes the position that these rules are grounded in natural law.

Rod: "I did NOT say that traditional marriage has been chiefly undermined in this culture because churchgoing people won't live up to their promises. I said that heterosexuals (churchgoing and not) in the main decided that traditional marriage and its customs were an undesirable infringement on individual autonomy. The shift in the culture preceded a shift in the laws. Marriage has always been contractual, of course, but as a social matter (as well as a spiritual matter, for those so inclined), it has always been held to have a meaning that transcends the individual, and binds the individual's conscience. For whatever reason or reasons, society got tired of that in the 1960s, and no longer wanted to live that way. And so we don't."

There is another piece to this that needs to be mentioned. The tacit acceptance of marital infidelity, especially by the husband, has contributed to what you define as the decline of traditional marriage. This tacit acceptance existed both within and outside of religious communities. It was expected that wealthy and powerful men would have their concubines, and as long as it was done circumspectly the attitude was "don't ask, don't tell."

There was also the tacit acceptance of spousal abuse, again both from within and without the church community. A beaten woman was told to bear up under it and not disgrace her family by seeking divorce. My mother was in such a marriage back in the 40s, and after being divorced from the abusive, promiscuous "husband" was promptly chewed out in public by her "minister" in the small Baptist church her mother attended.

Part of what drove the liberalization of divorce law was the rejection of these double standards. Yes, the feminist movement may have been the loudest voice in such rejection, but many who eschewed feminism also saw the double standard for what it really was; a form of slavery.

>>>>>
Rod:
If God doesn't exist -- by "God" I mean a transcendent source of morality -- why is murder wrong?
>>>>>

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." - Kant

I don't think you are asking the pertinent question, Rod. My challenge is: since people already agree that murder is wrong, and require it to be covered by statutes, they have defined it as wrong independently of their individual or sub-group motivation to define it as wrong based on a transendant moral authority. The fallacy is, I submit, the notion that existing agreements are definitionally at risk because a moral wrong -- promoted by some -- is sanctioned by a secular law that the vast majority agree should be sanctioned.

At the risk of violating Manning's Law, I also submit that the degredation of moral order is already well advanced, as demonstrated by the daily violation of simple secular laws governing fraud -- such as those who fradulently acquire a handicapped sticker in order to use the mose convenient parking spaces on the lot, or even lacking such a sticker arrogantly use those spaces and ignore any citations they receive. We, as a society, see that as trivial, and do nothing about it; but, it is just one of a long list of "petty" crimes that occur every minute. I believe that speaks to the moral bankruptcy of our culture much more loudly than same-sex marriage ever could.

See also, if you have the time and desire, my exchange with Rob G.

I find Rod's phrasing above very telling -- it is not the "objective and authoritative source of moral value" that keeps the whole shebang going, it's simply "commonly held beliefs" in said source. In effect, Rod is arguing for exactly what many atheists have claimed all along --God as a way to control and constrain otherwise free people to behaviors the ruling hierarchy prefer and to punish those who displease them.

From a materialist standpoint, I would argue that whether murder is wrong or not is actually irrelevant. Human history demonstrates that every society will criminilize what it believes to be murder. Our own is no different. Morality becomes justification for what we were going to do anyway, same as always.

"We have the advantage of over 100 years of cultural conditioning to accept the viewpoint that slavery, as practiced in the South, is completely and utterly unscriptural. However, were we born in the time of Furman our cultural conditioning and experience would be much different, and we would likely accept his exegesis of Scripture with little critical thought."

ds0490, this is simply not true. There were many theologians making alternate cases from Scripture at the time. I know because I've read them, and Noll, among others, documents them. The problem at the time of the Civil War was that there was a multitude of voices, all arguing from Scripture, but all disagreeing in the particulars. It's not as if there were only two sides. The continuum ranged from those like Furman, on one side, to progressives who wanted to throw the Bible out altogether if it could be used in any way to support slavery, on the other, with lots of points in between the two.

Again, using this argument as a parallel to arguments against homosexuality is tenuous at best.

---------------

Rob G., you are correct that there were a number of voices being expressed during this time period. But, the fact that Furman's position was expressing the position of that state's Baptist convention demonstrates how widespread it was at that time.

Your position does not invalidate my comparison of the two time periods and the arguments made therein. It simply points out yet another parallel. As we moved from the late 1700s to the early 1900s we saw a transition in accepted belief regarding the holding of slaves. Early on the majority saw it as a moral good, and pointed to the Bible to justify it. In the latter part of the period the majority saw it as a moral evil, and pointed to the same Bible to justify abolition of slavery. What changed? It wasn't the Bible, but rather the interpretation of it.

Today we are in the midst of a similar transition. More and more theologians, ministers and laymen are pointing to the Bible to justify the inclusion of homosexuals in ALL aspects of our social contract of marriage, and fewer are pointing to the Bible to oppose such inclusion. The populace is becoming more accepting of the inclusive viewpoint, and soon enough it will be the accepted interpretation of the Bible. Again...it is not the Bible that will have changed, but our interpretation of it.

To Furman, Truth dictated the moral good of slavery. To Falwell, Truth dictated the moral evil of homosexuality. We look on the former with pity and a touch of scorn that he would pervert the Scripture to his viewpoint. In 50 years people will look at Falwell's position in a similar light.

Homosexuality has been a universal taboo. Reference how the atheistic communists treated it.

Hey, MZF, wanna join the newly-created Homosexual Marriage Is An Offense to the Most High discussion group at sefoley@foleyfoleylaw.com?

Rob, who as we see has some (well considered) reservations about taking me on, is the other prospective member. Haven't heard from him, actually. He attempted to fob me off on someone else (anyone else?).

Y'all gotta realize that I'm going on retreat in an hour. Leave your messages, back to you next week.

"I am a traditionalist on the question of marriage, as regular readers know, but by now it is impossible for a Republican candidate for office to move me on the question of what he's going to do to protect traditional marriage."

Rod, "traditional marriage" is not under attack from loving, committed gay or lesbian couples. It doesn't NEED "protection" from US. It needs protection from 55 hour marriages, from heterosexuals turning it into a TV game show prize. It isn't in any way endangered by letting gay people marry the person they love. I know this to be true, because literally thousands and thousands of heterosexuals have gotten married without any impediment whatsoever since I did way back in 2004. Not a single heterosexual couple has been denied the opportunity to get married.

"If the politician is a Southern Baptist pastor, I can believe that he really believes what he's saying"

You CAN??? Mr. Huckabee has said he would alter the Constitution in order to enshrine discrimination against gay American citizens and prevent them from being treated equally before the law (which is really what same-sex marriage ultimately amounts to). I'm sorry, but I really don't think he can be 'believed'. It doubt very strongly that he would, in fact, attempt to do it, and even more strongly that Congress and the Senate would allow it to happen.

"Nowadays, whenever you hear a Republican politician endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, you can be sure you're in the presence either of cynicism or naivete."

Isn't this a direct contradiction to your statement that you can believe Mr. Huckabee?

"The FMA is the only measure that would have prevented courts from imposing same-sex marriage."

"Impose" it? You make it sound like they would have made SSMs mandatory for all people. That's simply not the case.

"This is an issue that cultural conservatives have lost."

Agreed. It makes me wonder why you create so many posts about it.

"And if you look at the polls, majorities of younger voters back same-sex marriage."

Actually, if you look at the polls, the majority of ALL Americans (not just the young) are in favour of either full and equal marriage or "civil unions". Besides, why should anyone's freedoms, liberties or rights be subjected to popularity contests? Your ability to marry isn't.

"Like it or not, same-sex marriage is one day going to be the law of the land, either by judicial fiat or (much better) legislatively."

Amen. And that day can't come soon enough. It truly will be the embodiment of the promise that ALL men (and women) are indeed created equal and should be treated that way before the law.

"You know, I agree with Huckabee and others that if the legal and cultural definition of marriage is taken to be fluid and entirely subjective, that there's no limit on how far we can take it."

Does this mean you agree with Mr. Huckabee's likening my partner to an animal or a child, or as one of your regular posters puts it, to a plant? (And how is making that comparison NOT "personally insulting"?)

"In the 1960s and since, marriage as an institution was revolutionized. No longer did people think of it as having an essential sacred meaning."

Sorry, but I have to disagree, especially since I was married under a Sacrament of my Faith. Perhaps you might want to qualify your statement as 'No longer do SOME people ...'. It would surely be more accurate and not nearly as disparaging to those of us who are people of faith and embrace the equality SSM enables.

"Opposition to gay marriage looks to many SSM proponents like irrational prejudice because so many Americans long ago conceded, whether they knew what they were doing or not, that marriage is essentially contractual, and has no organic connection to transcendental values -- at least none that should be reflected in the law."

I disagree. It certainly is not the reason to me and to other people of faith in gay-positive Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Temples. To us, to use your own words, it "looks ... like irrational prejudice".

"To put it another way, if most heterosexuals considered traditional marriage to be sacred, there wouldn't be so much divorce, and there wouldn't be so much cohabitation. I think SSM proponents understand this intuitively, which is why the more fair-minded of them believe anti-SSM folks argue in bad faith."

Correct, Rod.

You go, recovering.

MarkV,

"I think if traditional marriage proponents were smart they would go for something like this [getting the government out of the marriage business, limiting it to "civil unions" and leaving marriages to "the Church"]. It would make everyone equal before the law and churhes would be able to keep their heartfelt definintion of marriage."

Except, the government legally recognizes the marriages performed in Churches, and SOME Churches will (already DO) marry gay couples. The "heartfelt [i.e. "traditional"] definition" will never be 'lost' to the 'traditionalists' - heterosexual couples still can (to use your word) still "keep" it. They can, will (and DO) get married in Churches and they will still be considered married - just as it already is today. That is why I say that "traditional marriage" is NOT endangered by gay couples marrying. "Traditional marriage" is NOT under attack, and it doesn't need "protecting" (well, not from US, anyway).

I do agree that Churches can, will, do, and should be able to set their own standards. Under the CURRENT laws, SOME Churches can NOT. Therein lies the inequity, the injustice.

Erin: "I firmly believe that civil marriage will be destroyed completely along the lines I've discussed above, and that this will be seen by most of society, ultimately, as a good thing. Those of us who disagree should be prepared for the marginalization to come."

But Erin, liberals are such NICE people! They'd never think of marginalizing someone who disagreed with them, would they? I mean, they're so TOLERANT!!!

I'm getting prepared for it, Erin. I have no doubt that a certain measure of 'soft totalitarianism' is on its way.

Francis Beckwith,

"We live in a strange world, one in which you can do practically anything in a men's room on Castro Street except smoke."

I assume you know that heterosexuals likewise misbehave in washrooms. Some of them are so proud of it, they video themselves in the act and post it on X-Tube. Or are you saying gay people have a lock on that kind of behaviour?

"We live in a world where words like "ignorant" and "bigoted" are tossed out by people--like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens--who don't believe that minds and persons have any intrinsic purposes."

Actually, both Hitchens and Dawkins encourage people to use there minds instead of blindly believing received dogma. When we (they) toss out words like "ignorant" and "bigoted" it is usually in response to ignorant and bigoted statements, (see above references to likening my partner to an animal, a child and a plant) in which case I believe they deserved, no, earned the epithet.

Rob G,

"Thing is, the homosexual lobby does not see civil unions as an end but as a means -- the end is the acceptance by the culture-at-large of homosexuality as being normal."

The thing is, Rob, that homosexuality IS normal - perfectly normal - for homosexuals.

"Some of us in the culture will never accept that"

We really don't care if you accept it, Rob. We DO care that the Government accepts - and treats - our relationships as equal before the law to those of heterosexuals. Nothing more, but most assuredly nothing less, either.

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.

recovering ex-Pentecostal,

I probably should have said:

It would make everyone equal before the law and churhes would not fear losing their heartfelt definintion of marriage."

I think their fear that they would be forced to perform same sex marriages is real and shouldn't be discounted.

In case Susan is still reading, I would not advise anyone to waste their time in the comments section at Touchstone. Rob is one of the more decent people you'll encounter there, and there are a few other decent fellows (I say fellows deliberately, because women are few and far between, and with a few exceptions, are condescended to and sneered at regularly.) But, for the most part, there's an atmosphere of venomous self-righteousness that feels to me like an unwritten chapter out of "The Screwtape Letters." All presided over by a small contingent of G.K. Chesterton wannabes with all Chesterton's faults and none of the generosity, humor, wit or imagination that constituted his virtues.

Sheilagh,

"the general populations of Massachusetts and of New Hampshire have yet to express their own opinions on these questions directly. I believe they have a right to vote on this"

And we, of course, don't. Did the general population get to vote on whether or not inter-racial marriage should be allowed?

You tout democracy, but who protects minorities against the tyranny of the majority in such a democracy?

Mass., NH and California legislatures all voted in favour of what is just, not what is popular.

"I think their fear that they would be forced to perform same sex marriages is real and shouldn't be discounted."

There is actually no reason to assume that this will happen in the United States, as Rod points out. Examples from Canada or Europe suggesting such a thing are unpersuasive since the U.S. Constitution and our freedom of religion have no parallels in Canada or most of Europe. To suggest "it could happen hear" is disengenuous.

I think this is the first rational argument I've heard, so far, against gay marriage. Albeit I'm for gay marriage, I agree with you 100%.

I have no objection with people wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage; however, if you believe that gay marriage is what is going to destroy it, then you are delusion or do not recognize divorce as a "home wrecker" (of sorts).

Personally, I would be interested in hearing the debate that would ensue if someone were to make divorce illegal and bring marriage back to solely a religious concept. This includes detaching all civil ties to marriage, - including all state/federal benefits.

Once done, if at all, then I will gladly acknowledge the argument that gay marriage, if brought up, will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Granted I don't believe it is the case, but only when marriage is sacred again, can we debate whether or not gay marriage removes the sanctity that marriage has. For currently, I don't see marriage as a sacred entity because the number of people who willing "get out of it".

And we, of course, don't.

If you are part of the general population (ie not just the legislature)then yes you would.

Tyrannists make pronouncements. Americans vote.

Pax

Rod
But let's get real here: gays and their pro-same-sex-marriage allies are only lagging indicators of a vast cultural shift that, yes, heterosexuals forced. In the 1960s and since, marriage as an institution was revolutionized. No longer did people think of it as having an essential sacred meaning. Rather, people came to think of it as a contractual agreement between willing parties.

Marriage only had a 'essentially sacred meaning' for maybe a thousand years, when the Catholic Church seized control of it as part of its ongoing power-struggle in the Middle Ages.

Before that, marriage was simply a property transfer. After that change, it was a property transfer...allowed by God. It's always been a contract, it's just recently turned into one between two equals, instead of one involving an old owner and a new owner of a woman.

Susan
Speaking of the young, someone else made this observation, but I'll make it too. Many younger people can't figure out what's going on here. One of my own children, an adult, came to me and said, "Can you explain what the problem here is about same-sex marriage? Why is this such an issue? Is it anything like the Civil Rights Movement?" He really doesn't get it, and when put to it, I really can't exactly explain it either. The friends of my youngest, now 23, are really in the dark. Most of them can't even figure out what the controversy is about. They mix their crowds of friends between gays and straights and think nothing of it.

Ages 25-35 don't care about the issue of gay marriage. We've mostly run into gay people by now, and they seem okay people, and if they want to get married, who cares? We might not tell our parents we're going to their wedding, but we'd go.

People under 25 often don't understand the issue of gay marriage. I mean, literally, cannot grasp any objection to it. They get that you can object to homosexual activity on Biblical groups, but you can object to sex outside of marriage on the same ground, and that appears legal.

Zach
if Jesus found a sick man in need of healing, and knew that the man was a homosexual, would Jesus still help him? I've had a few priests tell me "No" outright, but most evade the question.

I believe was Isaac Asimov who said that story of the Good Samaritan doesn't work anymore. You say 'Samaritan' and people think 'good', not 'weird outsider who isn't one of us'. (Incidentally, a Samaritan community still exist today. I wonder how they feel about that story.)

He said, and this was back in the 70s, that if you want the story to have the same impact, you need to replace 'Samaritan' with 'African-American'.

I think a good replacement would be 'homosexual'. An even better one might be 'Muslim'.

"[L]et's get real here: gays and their pro-same-sex-marriage allies are only lagging indicators of a vast cultural shift that, yes, heterosexuals forced. In the 1960s and since, marriage as an institution was revolutionized. No longer did people think of it as having an essential sacred meaning." Rod

Not to deny the "sacredness" of marriage, but it might even have slowed or stopped the revolution if marriage merely had continued to be recognized as procreative, and had still been seen as a sort of three-way contract (insofar as "contract" describes marriage) with society in the form of the state as a party. Contraception undermined the former, no-fault divorce shattered the latter.

Erin:

I'll keep my comments brief.

I think, if you are going to make the case that feminism (or "radical feminism" as you call it) destroyed an institution in marriage that protected women (IYHO), you at least owe a cursory explanation of why so many women (and not just Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and Maude Findlay) thought and still think marriage in the "man is head of the household" sense you are describing actually patronizes women instead of protecting them.

As far as your argument today that feminists are life-destroying and hate men ... well, the former, from your religious perspective, I can't deny. Although from the perspective of most young women who are not deeply religious, the idea that contraception is murder because it prevents sperm and egg from uniting is literally an "ERROR/DOES NOT COMPUTE" message. Just as so many other young people (as described by numerous posters) literally cannot comprehend in what they see as the prejudice against gays inherent in opposition to gay marriage.

And as for feminists hating men ... not likely. Otherwise, "Sex and the City" would never have become such an enormous hit.

Erin, you clearly have an incredibly dark view of human nature (one, ironically, I don't disagree with as much as you might think).

When you first made the outrageous comment you did the other day, from you, I was willing to take it as something in the heat of the battle, horrendous though it was.

With further reading today, it seems clear your very dark view of human nature comes at least in part from your very dark view of certain humans -- namely, those whom you describe as being of the ficus tree variety.

It truly saddens me :-(

Oh, shucks! I meant "we don't have to build on bad precedent ...."

susan said:

"Jesus claims that all the law and the prophets are summed up in the two great commandments. Love God. Love your neighbor.

Deceptively simple. Frighteningly so. It is for us to work out this hard law in the realities of our own time and place."

Posted by: Susan | January 18, 2008 1:59 PM

autonomo replies:

"I don't think Jesus can be boiled down to those two soundbites. The Gospels are far more complex documents than that."

Posted by: autonomo | January 18, 2008 2:02 PM

Sorry autonomo, but susan is correct. The Scripture says the "Do unto others" commandment IS "the SUM of the laws and the prophets". Christ Himself said the 2 laws susan referenced were the ONLY two. It is written, literally.

Autonomo said that Jesus can't be boiled down into what Susan is quoting, which is how Jesus summed up the law and the prophets.

On that point, he's absolutely correct. Jesus and the Gospels are much more complex than that.

Susan didn't read what he said.

ann gibson,

"I've always wondered why so much is made of the "evil of homosexuality" when little of it is said in the bible, when there are so many greater evils and they are repeated again and again in the bible."

Point well taken. Even murderers, rapists and abortionists (the ultimate "evil" for some) are allowed to marry, so long as it's heterosexually.

Reader John,

"But in my lifetime, we've gone from "the love that dare not speak its name" to proposing marriage licenses for intrinsically, 100% non-procreative relationships."

No, those "marriage licenses for intrinsically, 100% non-procreative relationships" have been around since the first sterile or infertile heterosexual couple were allowed to marry. It was well before your lifetime, I'm sure. And had nothing to do with whether OTHER non-procreative relationships (i.e. mine) ought to be similarly licensed.

Hum, there's just so much here, and so many directions to go...so I'll apologize for the length of this now.

As tends to happen, I think there are often people talking past each other due to differences in definitions. Here's my understanding, informed by Christian teachings from the beginning. I understand not everyone will agree on either side, but here it goes.

I would suggest that marriage operates on several levels, interconnected. There is the social level, the Faith/theological level, and the legal level.

The social level originate primarily in a family unit, and this is founded upon procreation. I'm speaking in general here, not specific individuals. Two people become "one" through a physical union which produces a bond, a child, which connects them forever. That child has something of each person in a unique fashion. And that child must be cared for in the early years of its life, or it soon dies. At its foundation, the family unit is built upon that reality of the two becoming one. The fact that some don't have a child or parent other people's children doesn't negate that. If there were no procreation and children that depended upon their parents to care for them, there would be no family and no marriage.

And that is based upon the fact that two people can produce a child that is from each, the biology is there for it to happen, whether it actually does in any specific instance or not. Likewise, you can have a million homosexuals attempting the same thing for 2000 years plus, and none of them will ever produce one child, because it is impossible biologically for it to happen.

For that reason, no matter what legal issues are involved, no matter what civil rights we might be talking about, a homosexual couple can never be married in that way. They can never produce a child they can hold up and say, "This child is from both of us and so unites us in a way nothing else can." That is obviously not a union available to a homosexual couple.

Another aspect of social marriage is the intimacy of the two. By definition, procreation involves a very intimate act. This is something that a homosexual couple could participate in, and in fact is essentially the difference between a really "best friend" and a homosexual partner. It is a degree of intimacy that is absent in friendship. Even for heterosexual couples, once that line has been crossed, they are into a marital intimacy.

And actually, the destruction of that intimacy is what Rod is referring to as the destruction of the traditional marriage. For it is that intimacy of union between two people that Biblically and historically in Christian teaching that provides a parallel participation in our union with God (Eph. 4). Premarital physical relationships, fornication, adultery, all destroy that intimacy. The more you share it, the less intimate it becomes, and the less of a union it creates between two people due to its abuse. While that has always been going on in history, there was indeed a shift of attitudes and movement toward that acceptance in the USA in the 60s in a big way, and that disconnected marriage theologically from the intimate union with God, and the reason Biblically that God blesses marriages (within a Christian context).

And so I've already mentioned, at least from a Christian pov as I understand it, the theological connection to marriage. It is to foster participation and understanding of our union with God, the two becoming one, which is a topic too big to expand on much here.

Then you have the legal aspect of marriage. There has been for much of history a legal contract type of marriage. I recall Meyendorf in his book on Marriage, Rod, speaks of the Byzantine system being just that. In the Church, marriage blessed by God was a separate thing from the legal connection, but during the Byzantine period there was a joining of the two, and Meyendorf argues that this did more damage to the Church's understanding and practice of marriage than it helped.

But, in USA history it has been traditional to not so much equate legal marriage with the actual marriage of two people both physical and theological, but that it is founded upon them, to support them and strength the family unit through tax credits in some cases, custody of and care of children, etc.

However, legal marriage can never define what marriage is anymore than the law saying that a fetus isn't a person can define whether that fetus is in reality, a person. As I've mentioned before, laws are a reflection of the moral codes of a people, and that can change over time, and we see it changing today. But they don't always reflect the truth or reality of a situation.

For me, the morality of homosexual acts (and I specifically reference the acts, not the person's desires and feelings themselves) are not defined by legal codes, letting them call a relationship together a "marriage" and having the same "rights" as a heterosexual marriage. No amount of law can make it moral or immoral. And I can certainly understand why two people, especially if they are caring for a partner and/or children, would need and want some of the same legal benefits of a traditional married couple.

And I think these things would extend not to just homosexual couples, but good friends who may not have a physical relationship with each other, but live together and need to care for one another. However, for there civil rights to be protected, it couldn't be called a "marriage" because such friends wouldn't consider themselves "married." Yet, they may require the same benefits as a married couple, so really calling for gay marriage is in a way discriminatory to those people. What perhaps one should be calling for is simply the same rights for anyone who lives together that may need to care for one another, whether a physical relationship is involved or not. Maybe it should be called something along the lines of "Caregiver Benefits" and apply instead to all such situations whether it is labeled as "marriage" or not. After all, is the title "marriage" important or the rights associated with it no matter what one calls it?

Legally, I wouldn't have a problem with all that. That, however, doesn't mean I would consider the act moral anymore than I would consider adultery moral, or premarital physical relationships. That doesn't mean the person is immoral, mind you, for we all do immoral things so no one can cast any stones, but traditionally, Christianity has always viewed it as an immoral act.

And I think the whole slavery thing is comparing apples to oranges on this point. There is nothing in the Bible that says, "Having slaves is blessed as good by God" nor the opposite. Jesus didn't speak to that issue, nor to the issue of polygamy. Yet, there are clear readings that say homosexual acts are immoral. I know some will interpret them away, but as far as "plain readings" go, the arguments from Scripture are not the same for slavery (an argument from silence) as it is for homosexual acts (a direct statement which says it is wrong). And historically, traditional Christianity has always said the acts were immoral and sinful, until recent times (the last century) and then only with certain groups.

But, in my understanding, that it is immoral doesn't mean two people who do that and care for one another should be denied benefits designed to aid those who live together and care for one another and/or children. We are all sinners and should be treated equally as far as legal status goes.

I should add too that the legal marriage side of things defines what happens at "divorce," should that occur. A couple not married have an easier time separating, but there is less claim on shared assets that one would then get a part of, or custody of any children becomes a bigger issue. So, legal marriage is also seen as a protection for a shared living arrangement for each party should things go south.

But, and here is the only point I would have that would involve an imposition upon me for the legalization of gay marriage...and I should say this is only one in a series of many that is causing this, not an causative or even the primary cause of this, but a contributing to it nonetheless.

Every great society has fallen first from internal moral decay, that allows those on the outside to eventually break in. Every major society starts out with very strict moral codes that lessen over time. We are currently on that track, and we even have our equivalent of the Germanic tribes which eventually invaded the Roman empire, the terrorist, who will keep beating on our door until we fall. The more corrupt we become inside the easier it is for them to knock the door down. I have no idea how fast that will happen. May or may not happen in my life time. But eventually that's how the USA will fall, and we are on that road, which seemed to have really accelerated in the 50s and 60s of the last century.

What legalization of gay marriage will do, from the traditional Christian pov, is affect the culture to make that form of immorality more acceptable, or more accurately will reflect the moral acceptance of it within the culture. But it will in a sense put a legal stamp of approval on it. So, for Christians, in general, it is as if saying that is okay will be a tactic acceptance within our culture of immorality, and thus hasten the decline of our society. That's all in a general way, and not specific situations, but that would be a valid fear of the more traditional Christians on that point.

However, as Rod points out, the acceptance by society of other immoralities, so that even many here don't consider them immoral, started a while back and this would just be one more notch down that line.

Also, I think Huckabee's lumping of homosexual marriage with bestiality and other stuff is being misconstrued. I understand how it would be easy to say he is equating them, but I don't think that is the case. He could have said it better, too, I would agree. But, what he is getting at is for the history of the country, a marriage has been understood primarily in one way, the biological family unit whether that was a husband and wife who potentially could produce a family, whether they ever did or not, or whether they did.

By legally defining marriage differently, that legal definition is now history, and in reality becoming more reflective of the cultural definition of marriage, which ditches the biological part of the equation as "necessary" demonstrated by some comments here. It used to be considered necessary, and legally, that was what "marriage" was. Now that culturally so many don't see biology as playing into that definition, the legal definition appears to be "out of date" and unnecessarily excluding others from certain benefits.

So, Huck's saying we have ditched that legally, then were do we draw the line? Okay, some say with consenting adults, putting into play homosexual and polygamy as viable marriages in the law's eye. But his point is, while those here or homosexual would not want to move further down the lines he draws, others will come along and say, "Well, why should sex with consenting adults be the definition of marriage, I believe me and my dog are being discriminated against simply because the dog is an animal (I could see some animal rights activist making that claim if they also did that kind of thing...not equating animal right activist as generally holding to that, just they would be the most likely group to have someone in their midst holding such a view). So, I don't see Huck's statement as saying homosexuals would approve of or end up sending us down that road, but once the accepted definition of marriage legally has changed, based upon the morally accepted lines drawn among our culture, it would set the precedent for later groups, when the culture shifts again, to redefine marriage to include their practice.

So I understand how a surface reading of his statement could be construed as equating all these things, I don't think he did equate them as the same. However, the slippery slope argument, while maybe true in some cases, usually isn't an effective argument. That said, that's where he's coming from, he wants to codify the understanding of what is (or has been in some cases) the legal definition of a marriage as a biologically connected couple/family for the history of the USA because he sees it changing in the culture and wants to protect that.

Personally, I don't really agree with that. One, because that won't arrest or change the cultural perception of marriage. Yes, the legal change in definition could hasten any impending inner moral corruption, maybe, but the damage is done. Assuming he could even get such an amendment passed, that amendment could be annulled by later folks, like the prohibition amendment was when the cultural views shifted enough to do that. I don't see that as a means to protect that definition legally. As he said, the Constitution can change, and will change. It will reflect the moral values of the people, to some degree or another, but only the Bible's inasmuch as the views of the people reflect the Bible's.

But even if such an amendment was enacted, I'm not so sure that would prevent homosexual couples from getting the same benefits. So it wouldn't be called "marriage," but would apply to anyone who lives together married or otherwise. Who cares as long as you get the benefits legally? Right? Otherwise, this is more about legitimizing an act as moral, legally, than about civil rights. You don't have to redefine marriage to get the same benefits as those who are labeled as married. Those benefits should be based upon need resulting from the need to care for others, and not the definition of what one considers marriage to be.

And, if homosexual marriages get legally approved, it won't change anyone's understanding of what real marriage is, or change their minds that it is moral or immoral. So, it seems to me you've gained nothing culturally. Why not shoot for simply getting the same benefits of the married rather than trying to get the state to apply the label of "married" to you? If you consider yourselves married, does it matter if the state calls it that if you get the same benefits?

So, I guess to me, it seems the whole thing is being attacked the hard way. Instead of getting the same rights applied to other relationships that have equal need (where civil rights really come into play), you are attempting to redefine the legal definition of marriage to include that relationship. It would seem the first easier to accomplish, be more in line with your stated goals of civil rights, and cause less friction with those whose understanding of marriage is still traditional, and so are concerned about the imposition upon them legally of a different definition. Or, what is it about the word "marriage" that becomes a legal necessity to have applied to your relationship?

I guess a book could be written on all this, and I'm sure many have on both sides of the fence. But, for what it's worth, that's my view of the whole thing. Interesting discussion.

Wow. I go work in the woods for a day, ya'll should have been there, ton of fun even though we had a snow flake or two and more than three ice pellets drop in to see what we were doing, and ya'll get all in a tither over homosexuals marrying.

There's one reason above all others that has convinced me that we need marriage for homosexuals.

Marriage works if it's used as designed.

If we look at situations where marriage is discouraged in heterosexual relationships, military locations, college institutions, etc we see the problems inherent with promiscuity. When we look at those problems inherent with heterosexual promiscuity, both social and physical, we see them rampant in homosexual communities, especially male homosexual communities.

Society over the years has created scenarios to diminish promiscuity because it's harmfull on every level. One of these is marriage. It works.

It will also work with homosexuals. They're not any different from us, really, I promise you, I know, our son is gay.

Timothy,

Interesting arguments. Couple o holes though ...

"The social level originate primarily in a family unit"

I presume you consider a married couple NOT to be a "family unity" if they do not have any children. Please correct me if I am wrong.

"and this is founded upon procreation."

Not for ALL heterosexuals. Certainly not for 1 of my 3 (Very) heterosexual sisters and for quite a few of my heterosexual friends.

"Two people become "one" through a physical union which produces a bond"

Does this not apply to homosexual couples?

[which produces ...] "a child"

Not always. Nor has it EVER been a requirement of marriage. Plus, it doesn't address the many, many children born outside of marriage, to both gay and str8 people, couples OR singles.

"which connects them forever"

It may "connect" them forever, but it sure doesn't always maintain the bond between them. Otherwise there wouldn't be children given up for adoption, nor would there be as many divorces.

"And that child must be cared for in the early years of its life, or it soon dies. At its foundation, the family unit is built upon that reality of the two becoming one. The fact that some don't have a child or parent other people's children doesn't negate that."

I don't follow your logic. If there IS NO CHILD, have the two NOT "become one"??? If there is no child, no child "must be cared for in the early years of its life". If people parent other people's children, where is this 'necessity' of "becoming one" (i.e. having procreative sex)?

"If there were no procreation and children that depended upon their parents to care for them, there would be no family and no marriage."

I disagree entirely. My non-procreative sister absolutely WAS married. Twice, in fact. How can you say there was "no marriage"???

"And that is based upon the fact that two people can produce a child that is from each, the biology is there for it to happen, whether it actually does in any specific instance or not. Likewise, you can have a million homosexuals attempting the same thing for 2000 years plus, and none of them will ever produce one child, because it is impossible biologically for it to happen."

You ignore the fact that procreation is not a requirement of marriage. You likewise ignore the fact that NO sterile/infertile heterosexuals "will ever produce a child because it is impossible biologically for it to happen" yet somehow are still allowed to marry. 'Splain me that.

"a homosexual couple can never be married in that way"

First, I'm not sure that many homosexuals WANT to be married "in that way". Likewise, a fair chunk of heterosexuals do not want to be married "in that way". It certainly isn't a requirement for either type of couple.

"They can never produce a child they can hold up and say, "This child is from both of us and so unites us in a way nothing else can." That is obviously not a union available to a homosexual couple."

Nor is it to infertile/sterile heterosexual couples.

"And actually, the destruction of that intimacy is what Rod is referring to as the destruction of the traditional marriage."

Well then Rod is wrong. Just because I and my husband have achieved that intimacy (as you have admitted is possible), I don't see how that "destroys" heterosexual couples achieving the same intimacy, nor how it accounts for the "destruction" of heterosexual marriages. 'Splain me that, too, while you're at it.

"What perhaps one should be calling for is simply the same rights for anyone who lives together that may need to care for one another, whether a physical relationship is involved or not."

Agreed. Except, of course, that having "the same rights" implicitly means the right to marriage.

"but traditionally, Christianity has always viewed it as an immoral act"

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But ALL American citizens aren't Christian. Changing the Constitution negates THEIR rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, at least if Huckabee were to get his wish and change the Constitution to be more in line with HIS version of theology.

"as far as "plain readings" go, the arguments from Scripture are not the same for slavery (an argument from silence) as it is for homosexual acts (a direct statement which says it is wrong)"

Hmmm. There are also "direct statements" in Scripture that say eating shellfish is wrong (an "abomination" actually). Do we outlaw that? Likewise there is a "direct statement" from Scripture (from Christ's mouth, no less) that says divorce is wrong. And we certainly do not (have not) outlawed THAT. To me, this seems little more than selective fundamentalism.

You were right, Timothy. Your post was too long. And it contains too many arguable points to refute them (so easy to do). More later.

"And I think the whole slavery thing is comparing apples to oranges on this point. There is nothing in the Bible that says, "Having slaves is blessed as good by God" nor the opposite."

Actually there are instructions given in the OT as to how the nation of Israel was to obtain slaves. Within the NT stands Paul's letter to Philemon in which Paul urges Philemon to not punish the runaway slave, Onesimus, but to accept him back into his service.

"Jesus didn't speak to that issue, nor to the issue of polygamy."

Neither did he speak on the issue of homosexuality.

"Yet, there are clear readings that say homosexual acts are immoral. I know some will interpret them away, but as far as "plain readings" go, the arguments from Scripture are not the same for slavery (an argument from silence) as it is for homosexual acts (a direct statement which says it is wrong)."

There are "clear readings" in the Bible that endorse both slavery (a couple of instances are mentioned above) and polygamy (the most clear involves David, his first three wives, and the wives/concubines he is given by God when he succeeds Saul as King). These are interpreted away quite frequently as they do not fit our current societal structure, but they remain there.

"And historically, traditional Christianity has always said the acts were immoral and sinful, until recent times (the last century) and then only with certain groups."

"Traditional Christianity" that is often pointed to is really an amalgam of several hundred years of practice that often has its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. Early Christian Tradition held that priests of the faith could marry, but that was changed by edict of the Catholic Church. Traditional Christianity held, prior to this, that the act of sex with a woman defiled a man so much that the married priest could not celebrate communion (consecrate the host) for a day after having sex with his wife.

A study of early church tradition will show that tradition is fungible, and easily adapted to meet the needs of the adherents of the faith at a particular time and place. Are the clerics becoming too wealthy and powerful? Whammo...impose celibacy as the new tradition so they cannot pass wealth on to heirs. Does the king wish to divorce his queen because she does not produce a male heir? Whammo...go schismatic and declare yourself head of your country's religion (while maintaining apostolic authority, of course) and divorce her.

Even if we accept that the passages you point to in the Bible really do condemn committed, monogamous homosexual relationships (and there is MUCH dispute about that), the various other teachings in the Bible that have been ignored by the church over the centuries demonstrates that Holy Writ only has power when it supports the position you hold.

Could someone please explain to me what lengthy posts on Islamic violence, the Inquisition, the Q'uran, etc. have to do with "Straight talk on gay marriage"???

sigilaris: I want to disagree strongly with what you said above about the Touchstone blog, 'Mere Comments.' While there are a few tough and prickly characters there, they are of the sort, for the most part, who are rigid in their intellectual honesty and thus, do not respond well to emotional, non-rational arguments, and do not suffer fools gladly. Do I wish that sometimes disagreements there were expressed with more charity? Yes. But given the intellectual firepower over there (and the sometimes related egos) I don't mind it so much. If you have a tough skin, go for it. And there are women who post over there regularly, and who can dish it out as good as the men.

ds0490: on the supposed parallels between slavery and homosexuality vis a vis scriptural interpretation. Re: slavery, at the time of the Civil War there was a continuum of views on what the Bible said about slavery. On one end were those that said that the Bible proscribes it, on the other were those who said that the Bible sanctioned it as practiced at the time. Between these two extremes were various 'moderate' views, like that of those who taught that the Bible allowed slavery in general, but that the slavery of the Southern states, with its basis on race, its cruelty, its dividing up of families, etc. could not be reconciled with what the Bible taught about it. Therefore Southern slavery was unbiblical.

Another 'moderate' view was that while the Bible allowed for slavery as the South practiced it, the Southern slave-owners were not living up to Biblical standards of treating slaves, therefore Southern slavery needed not to be abolished, but reformed. All of these various views were ostensibly Bible-based. The problem was that the cacophony of noise generated by the extremists on both sides tended to drown out the moderate views.

Because the Bible was 'silent' on the issue of slavery per se (it's nowhere commanded, but neither is it proscribed -- it's simply taken as a fact) there was a certain amount of hermeneutical freedom involved in applying Scripture to the problem. One can make the same case for, say, polygamy:

The Bible nowhere explicitly condemns slavery, therefore it is allowed.
The Bible nowhere explicitly condemns polygamy, therefore it is allowed.

Likewise, one can make the converse of the same arguments:

The Bible nowhere commands or recommends slavery, therefore a culture or state can proscribe it.
The Bible nowhere commands or recommends polygamy, therefore a culture or state can proscribe it.

(Both of these latter things happened over time, as you're well aware.)

Now the difference between these things and homosexuality is that the Bible does, in fact, explicitly proscribe the latter, in both the OT and the NT. The freedom for multiple interpretations isn't there for homosexuality like it is for slavery and polygamy. No amount of twisting by liberal Scripture scholars can make it otherwise. It is far more honest to say "the Bible is against homosexuality and we don't agree with it," than to say that the Bible really doesn't teach it. Honest Scripture scholars, whether liberal or conservative on this issue, will admit that.

This is why the Furnum and Falwell hermeneutics are different: the former is dealing with an issue on which the Bible does not speak specifically, while on Falwell's issue it does. There is absolutely nothing wrong, from this point of view, with moving culturally 'beyond' things that the Bible allows, but does not command: polygamy, slavery, capital punishment, etc. But it is a different thing for a culture to embrace something that the Bible explicity condemns or proscribes.

Now of course all of this is meaningless for those who don't believe the Bible, and I'm not at all saying that the Bible should be the guiding force for policy on this issue. What I'm saying is that you cannot make the case that the Biblical arguments about slavery and the Biblical arguments about homosexuality can be parsed and applied in the same way. (Well, actually you can make the case, but you will end up being inconsistent.)

Rob, your hermeneutic fails on a couple of counts that quickly comes to mind.

Deuteronomy 17

14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

The admonition in verse 17 (He must not take many wives...) would seem to forbid polygamy within the royalty of the nation of Israel. Although there are arguments as to what the word "many" means (some that would make Bill Clinton blush), it should be easily assumed that many would mean less than five hundred.

2 Samuel 5:8 - And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Samuel, speaking as prophet of God, states that God gave David all of Saul's wives.

2 Samuel 5:13 - And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

David adds to the number that God gave him (and the three wives he had before ascending to the throne).

In none of this is there a condemnation of David for having these many wives, nor is there a condemnation for him taking more after God had given him Saul's. The only time that David was punished was when he sent Uriah to his death so he could wed Bathsheba. Nowhere is David punished for having "many" wives. By some counts he had only eight, but by other counts he had over a hundred, with several hundred concubines.

Yet this stands against the command of God in Deuteronomy 17 unless you interpret "many" in a Clintonian manner.

Paul's instructions to Timothy regarding the selection of elders who are "the husband of but one wife" would also lead one to believe that polygamy was present in the NT church.

Polygamy was present, and apparently not sanctioned, according to these passages.

As for slavery, there were explicit instructions on how slaves were to be treated. Leviticus 25 gave instruction on where slaves were to be taken. Exodus 21 describes the slave as property. The same chapter outlines how male and female slaves from within the Hebrew tribe were to be treated, and stated that fathers could sell their daughters into slavery.

Ephesians and Colossians in the NT give instructions to slaves to obey their masters and for masters in the way they are to treat their slaves.

Slavery is not condemned in the Bible, but the various instructions on how it is to be handled would seem to be a tacit endorsement of the practice. It is these passages that were used by Christians in the South to justify slavery.

recovering ex-Pentecostal, right backatcha. I was just marveling at your indefatigable point-by-point rebuttals and feeling grateful for the time and energy you've spent.

Rob, I appreciate your nicely expressed defense of Touchstone. But I'm afraid we'll just have to differ on that. I went over there before posting my comment, just to be sure I was not being unfair to them, and unfortunately read a couple of articles that made me feel sick. In the interests of not having my blood pressure actually blow the top of my skull into low-earth orbit, I think I'll pass on further participation. Show me where Jesus says that "intellectual firepower" and "ego" are good excuses for lack of charity! I have plenty of both and would love to justify myself in using them without mercy!

With regard to the Bible and slavery, I don't see how you can say that the God of the OT never commands slavery. What about Numbers 31?

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

This is exactly--but exactly--the same scenario you see among the Homeric Greeks. Destroy the city, kill the males, take the females into slavery. Nobody argues that somehow the Greeks were not taking slaves, simply because some of the virgin females were "married" by their captors. And this is commanded by God.

Likewise, I do not see how you can argue that the slavery practiced in the OT was a benign, benevolent form of slavery, such that it was superior to that practiced in the American South. Yes, the regulations for how to treat slaves of Israelite origin are more beneficent than the practices of American slaveowners. But I think that one must question whether these regulations were actually practiced in Israel. In any case, the OT is full of cases where the Israelites overran the surrounding peoples, slaughtered some and enslaved the rest, all at the behest of God. And those cases are exactly parallel to the treatment of Africans who were kidnapped, brutally treated and enslaved against their will. I don't think it was much of a stretch for Christians to identify themselves as the Israelites and the Africans or Indians as the heathen enemies who were to be dispossessed. The precedents are all there.

Sigaliris,

Thanks and right backatcha yerself. Thanks for the compliment: "I was just marveling at your indefatigable point-by-point rebuttals and feeling grateful for the time and energy you've spent."

Some here feel I don't rebut their points, so I appreciate hearing an affirmation that I do. (And a nod and tip o' the hat to Franklin Evans who has done likewise!)

I do it because I refuse to be silent when others continue to bear false witness against me and others like me. And I abslutely will not remain silent in the face of a RRR pastor who insists that his interpretation of Scripture should be enshrined in the Constitution.

I see no one ever answers my question about how people on the 'right' would feel if it were a 'leftist' or liberal pastor trying to do that. Freedom of religion and all that, eh?

I'm of the younger generation and I honestly don't see the big deal with allowing gay marriage, but I can see why people might have a problem. I'm a Catholic but I don't agree with making laws based on a religion. CS Lewis said something to the effect of not making christian laws when not everyone is a Christian(I paraphrased badly, the quote is in "Mere Christianity" but I'm in Drill Sergeant School and don't have a copy with me". One of the reasons we live in a representative republic and not a true democracy is too protect the minority from the majority. Since the state makes marriage into a legal contract, I don't think we should be discriminating against two consenting adults. I recognize some of my own hypocrisy in that I don't believe abortion should be legal, I think that once a child is conceived, killing him or her is murder.

Also Rod, thank you, your book helped change my life.

Chris

Dale Price: "Except for Christians, apparently--always and everywhere Godbots assured that the Prince of Peace was giving them the thumbs up for every atrocity under the sun. But Islam gets the "I accept the Press Release at Face Value" treatment. Fine--your prerogative."

Hardly, Dale. I merely dismiss the excuses that Christians offer for the violence within their tradition with the same flippant attitude that you use in dismissing the excuses offered by Muslims.

You seem not to want to explore the violent past of Christianity, and instead want to focus only on what is happening in the hear and now, some 2000 years after the Christian faith was born. You fail to see the connection between the beliefs of John Calvin and Paul Hill, or between Pope Martin V and Pat Robertson. But that is fine. You go right on burying your head.

Islam is merely acting in the present time in ways that Christianity acted in the past. John Calvin and Pope Martin V have their counterparts in any number of Islamic clerics. The underlings who carried out their orders in the middle ages are no better or worse than the followers of today's tyrants in Muslim garb who believe they are doing their god's will by killing unbelievers.

Your argument is that the core teachings of Christianity do not condone this. That is irrelevant. It is the actions of the believers that must be observed. John Calvin believed that God placed him in Geneva to help "reform" the faith by removing heretics from it. Pope Martin V believed likewise, so much so that he exhumed a man who had lain 40+ years in his grave in order to make an example of him.

These are but two examples. A study of history and current events could add to that list. And, as I am certain you will point out, current events give us plenty of Muslim names to point to with similar dismay and disgust.

You state: "But Islam gets the "I accept the Press Release at Face Value" treatment." This is laughable at best. Were the dominant religion in this country Islam I would be speaking out with the same fervor and, in all probability, I would be executed. Put me in Geneva under Calvin's rule and I would meet the same fate.

The propensity for violence is equal among Christians and Muslims. Human history demonstrates this quite clearly. In that they are peas in the pod. Christianity, by virtue only of the influence of outside philosophies, has set aside violence for the most part. Only the "extremists" in the faith resort to violence today. But if situations should change and Christians gain control of our government as Muslims have control of several governments in the Middle East, I have no doubt we would see varying levels of oppression from the Christian leaders of this country. We would see unbelievers prevented from renting or buying homes, obtaining jobs, or engaging in commerce. And eventually we would see these unbelievers die under the order of the Christian magistrates in charge of the governments.

It's not Christianity or Islam per se, but the power that is obtained by those adhering to it. The idea that they are acting under the authority of God becomes an undeniable point in their minds, and it leads them to commit murder in the name of God.

Unbelievers are infidels. God will cast unbelievers into the lake of fire. Unbelievers are to be cast out of your cities. Have nothing to do with them. They have been given over to the perversions of the devil. They are less than human. They can, and should, be killed lest they lead the faithful astray.

Face it, Dale. You believe that some day your God will commit me to an eternity of punishment for my denial of his authority in this world and in my life. You say you are not "sola scriptura" in your theology, so I am guessing you are Catholic, Episcopal or Orthodox. Each of those traditions holds to the condemnation of the unrepentant unbeliever, do they not?

How far a step is it from believing that God will get the unbeliever to believing that the unbeliever needs to be expunged lest he influences others? For John Calvin, it was not a big step at all. Neither was it for the numerous other Christian leaders throughout history who ordered the torment or death of unbelievers.

Islam is no better or no worse than Christianity, Dale. The fact that Christian leaders today do not order the death of heretics does nothing to change the fact that such leaders did in the past, and could easily turn that direction in the future.

"But if situations should change and Christians gain control of our government"

"if"? "IF???!!! Where have you been the last 7 years???

"I have no doubt we would see varying levels of oppression from the Christian leaders of this country. We would see unbelievers prevented from renting or buying homes, obtaining jobs, or engaging in commerce."

And gays - believers OR unbelievers - excluded from equal participation in society, most assuredly from the institution of marriage (the point of this thread, y'all remember? - i.e. NOT Islam!), possibly even to (as you said) the point of death. (Not exagerating, since Huckabee wanted to start with 'merely' a quarantine for people with AIDS, don't forget.)

"I'm genuinely sorry your regard for Christians is this small"

Face it, some Christians EARN that "small regard". (Huckabee sure does imo. Falwell did too, as did Haggart, as does Dobson, Perkins, and the list goes on and on) Many seem to have forgotten Christ's admonition that "as much as ye have done it to the [ahem] least of these, ye have done it unto Me".

"while many conveniently (and short-sightedly) may point to the Sixites as the font of their discontent, it was a process well underway before the generation that came of age in the Sixties took interest."

Right. The Kinsey studies were done in the late 1940s and the early 1950s. The Middletown studies, which also discussed the increasing prevalence of divorce, were done in the late 1920s and early 1930s. All three of my mother's sisters, born between 1900 and 1920, were divorced. Those who will not study history should be condemned to repeat the course.

"Is there a Catholic saint that the Vatican would be willing to hold up as a gay role model for its children?"

Like Father Mychal Judge, who died on 9/11 ministering to the victims in the collapsing building? Is anybody working on canonizing him?

"We live in a strange world, one in which you can do practically anything in a men's room on Castro Street except smoke."

Catchy line. But it ignores the fact that people can and do die from second-hand smoke, a lot more often than they die from HIV.

Also, a bit of biblical interpretation--I think it means something that G-d says "It is not good for man to be alone" well before telling Adam and Eve to "increase and multiply." Furthermore, "increase and multiply" is followed by a limiting clause "and fill the earth." I think this sequence tells us 2 things: 1) companionship is a more important purpose of marriage than procreation, and
2) once we've filled the earth, we can quit with the increasing and multiplying.

What has to be preserved is the freedom to believe that marriage is transcendental and at least in religious context that it may be reserved to people of different sex. Otherwise, the door is open for hate laws and anti-discrimination suits against people of faiths that do believe this.

The only clean way out is to allow for civil unions and all contractual elements of what is now marriage lie within that framework. Marriage would be a subset of types of civil unions. There would be able to be no claims of discrimination and people would be be able to believe that marriage is between a man and woman only. Religious elements and beliefs of marriage could in this kind of scenario remain separate and free from government interference.

Otherwise we will have all types of beliefs about marriage being lawful except the Christian ideal of an union between man and wife.

To those who would argue that it is wrong or discriminatory or hateful for a religion to teach children that sex is reserved to a man and woman, one can make the analogy that the Catholic faith does not recognize divorce, yet that does not in any infringe upon the rights or liberties of divorced non-Catholics or even Catholics except within the narrow context of the practice of their faith. There is no reason to define belief in the exclusivity as necessarily hate speech. It is a choice to belong to religion and to exercise it. All religions have tenets and rules that may be more or less restrictive than those in civil law. As long as the person is free to walk away from the faith, there should be no reason for hate laws like those being instituted in Canada and Europe that prevent the reading of sections of the bible that restrict marriage to a union between a man and woman.

Maryck: "To those who would argue that it is wrong or discriminatory or hateful for a religion to teach children that sex is reserved to a man and woman, one can make the analogy that the Catholic faith does not recognize divorce, yet that does not in any infringe upon the rights or liberties of divorced non-Catholics or even Catholics except within the narrow context of the practice of their faith. There is no reason to define belief in the exclusivity as necessarily hate speech. It is a choice to belong to religion and to exercise it. All religions have tenets and rules that may be more or less restrictive than those in civil law. As long as the person is free to walk away from the faith, there should be no reason for hate laws like those being instituted in Canada and Europe that prevent the reading of sections of the bible that restrict marriage to a union between a man and woman."

What you seem to be saying is that a religion should be free to set its own rules for conduct within its sphere of influence, and that people can choose to remain within that sphere or move outside of it. If that is correct then I would agree with you completely.

Churches should not be forced to officiate at same sex marriages if these unions are against their teachings. The law should not try to force churches to engage in practices that are against their teachings.

However, neither should the churches seek to impose their religious doctrine, through the power of public law, upon those who do not choose to belong to/believe in their doctrine. This is the case here in the US. We have opponents of marriage equality making an argument that the law must reflect their religious teachings, and those who might disagree or who do not hold to those religious teachings do not have an alternative other than to obey.

Ideally the concepts of civil marriage and religious marriage should be separated. Those wishing to observe their religion's teachings concerning marriage could have their civil marriage "blessed" by their religious leader, and could then choose to live under the teachings of that religion. Those who belong to a religion that does not prohibit same sex marriage between consenting adults could have their marriage "blessed" by their religion.

The rest of us could simply sign the civil contract and go on about our lives.

Before this topic goes south for the winter, I must report on my further research related to Erin Manning's comment on the now defunct, but related "Huckabee's Beliefnet Interview" topic. There she said:

Just don't expect me to recognize your marriage, because I actually believe that words mean things, and that deciding that you can marry a member of the same sex shows no more understanding of the whole concept of the word "marriage" than deciding you can marry a plant, a teapot, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue.

I replied that I would love to date a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, and John E. said they were very high-maintenance.

I am happy to report that this bit of frivolity has been taken seriously in a lovely poem, "Cobalt," by Rolf Jacobsen, included in Czeslaw Milosz's beautiful anthology of world poetry, "A Book of Luminous Things." (A book I highly recommend, by the way.) Here's a link to the poem online:

http://wordtickets.blogspot.com/2006/01/cobalt.html

And here are a few lines:

I’m very close to young Crimson, and brown Sienna
but even closer to thoughtful Cobalt with her distant eyes and
untrampled spirit.
We walk in dew.

Read the rest of it. Yes indeed, with love (and a little imagination) all things are possible.

ds0490: "However, neither should the churches seek to impose their religious doctrine, through the power of public law, upon those who do not choose to belong to/believe in their doctrine."

Why not?

Note that in this case, I'm not thinking of churches as corporate entities but communities of people with common interests.

All moral systems have non-objective belief components. As humans with a common biology we also share some behaviors and preferences (Excepting those with developmental problems or brain lesions). Some of those recurring similarities, with biological underpinnings, include an underlying sense of 'proper' relationships between other people. How those impulses are prioritized is one thing that can determine the finer details of a society's moral system*. Why anyone should choose one set of priorities over others can be subjective. Whether someone prefers a set based on religious dogma or based on a lifetime of experience, those preferences are similarly opaque to evaluation. But societies have to pick some set and there is no a priori reason why those from religious dogmas should not be allowed (I at least agree with Francis in that though I differ with his belief that Christian dogma is necessarily preferable or empirically justifiable). Thus I don't think religious doctrines should necessarily be dismissed as out of bounds. We all have preferences that are based on some form of belief or faith, even if the faith doesn't involve a deity. They have to be accepted "as is".

At some point, any law that impinges on behavior will have some basis in a set of underlying moral codes that are determined, in part, by the will of the populace. That makes it a collective outcome which includes the opinions of people who believe in religious dogma. Somewhere, sometime, society will inevitably impose a public law on those who do not believe in the basis of that law. If someone finds a law or situation they think is ultimately intolerable, they are certainly free to challenge it in the political arena. They may fail to convince most others** but they have just as many rights to try as anyone else, irrespective of where their opinions originate.

I do agree with you that civil and religious marriage concepts should be disentangled. The thing is, I think they were already split. It's just that the concept hasn't entirely sunk in.

* These priorities change over time. What some perceive as 'decay' -- and there is certainly a religious predisposition among some to see things in that light -- is actually flux from one set to another.

** There is something to be said for picking your fights wisely. Sometimes it is better to simply clam up than tilt at windmills.

>>>>
I replied that I would love to date a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, and John E. said they were very high-maintenance.

I am happy to report that this bit of frivolity has been taken seriously in a lovely poem, "Cobalt," by Rolf Jacobsen, included in Czeslaw Milosz's beautiful anthology of world poetry, "A Book of Luminous Things." (A book I highly recommend, by the way.) Here's a link to the poem online:

http://wordtickets.blogspot.com/2006/01/cobalt.html

And here are a few lines:

I’m very close to young Crimson, and brown Sienna
but even closer to thoughtful Cobalt with her distant eyes and
untrampled spirit.
We walk in dew.

Read the rest of it. Yes indeed, with love (and a little imagination) all things are possible.
Posted by: sigaliris | January 19, 2008 10:14 PM
>>>>

Thanks Sig, so my old flame hooked up with a Norwegian poet. Funny old world...

>>>>
Fact is, gays want to rub their gayness into the faces of every Christian they can corner.
Posted by: Marvin Wilcox | January 19, 2008 10:18 PM
>>>>

(Must not go there...must not go there....)

There have been three responses to what I wrote, and I can't respond to all of it without making a super-mega post (looks like I've done that anyway). Hopefully my selective responses below and general comments will catch most of the points.

Ex-pentecostal said,

[[Interesting arguments. Couple o holes though ...
"The social level originate primarily in a family unit"
I presume you consider a married couple NOT to be a "family unity" if they do not have any children. Please correct me if I am wrong.
"and this is founded upon procreation."
Not for ALL heterosexuals. Certainly not for 1 of my 3 (Very) heterosexual sisters and for quite a few of my heterosexual friends."]]

I think you (and others) have missed my point. I explicitly said that particular instances didn't prove or disprove, rather it had to be taken as a whole, on this point of union between two people. Biologically, the point of sex is procreation. It is that with with most every animal who has sex. While in some, maybe many cases, sex doesn't result in the creation of new life, the design is still there and its use constitutes a union between the two on the physical level. The potential for a child to be produced as the function is designed to do, is the point, whether or not any particular is able to do so either because of coincidence, damage to the sexual organs, or other reasons. A couple who is married biologically with no kids is just as married as one with a kid. But, the kid is indeed a union of two people that is produced by that sexual act, and is a union homosexual sex will never be able to produce.

Taken on the general level, not particulars, if sex never produced a child for anyone, there would be no reason for family units. Procreation is the biological foundation of marriage, whether it ever happens in any one specific instance or not, for the care and nurture of those that produce that offspring.

It's the function of the biological act which brings about the need for marriage on the biological level (theological and legal are different animals), whether any specific instance sees the results of that or not. Thus, giving me examples of people who can't or have never had children doesn't address my point, only serves to prove it. Biological marriage for everyone is founded upon the need to care for the offspring such acts tend to produce whether or not specific people end up doing so.

[["Two people become "one" through a physical union which produces a bond"
Does this not apply to homosexual couples?]]

This level of union, which defines the need of marriage, does not apply to homosexuals because such sex cannot ever produce a child. That's the diff. Take a million heterosexuals having sex, and a million homosexuals having sex over the same period of time, and a certain percentage of the heterosexuals will have children but homosexuals will consistently produce zero children, because that takes a man and a woman. But, you have already said you don't want that kind of union, so enough said. Yet, that has been the basis upon which marriage has been a necessity.

And on another related point, even if a couple divorces, the child always keeps them as part of each other. Even if they never make contact again in this life, the child has both parents in him/her and will always serve as a reminder and reality of their union. Short of killing the kid, that can never be dissolved. That's what I call full union biologically speaking.

[[You ignore the fact that procreation is not a requirement of marriage.]]

In one particular instance, correct. But I wasn't talking about that, as I hope you can understand from above statements. I was talking about the basis for the whole biological necessity. Because there is that necessity due to the biological reality, two people who come together and do the act which produces children, whether it does or not in that instance, are united into one. As the basis upon which marriage is marriage, procreation is at the heart of it, biologically speaking. If the act never procreated, marriage would not exist. Not to say that close relationships wouldn't, but it wouldn't be marriage biologically.

[["And actually, the destruction of that intimacy is what Rod is referring to as the destruction of the traditional marriage."
Well then Rod is wrong. Just because I and my husband have achieved that intimacy (as you have admitted is possible), I don't see how that "destroys" heterosexual couples achieving the same intimacy, nor how it accounts for the "destruction" of heterosexual marriages. 'Splain me that, too, while you're at it.]]

We'll, I certainly can't speak for Rod, I should have said that is what I interpreted as him saying. He'll have to chime in as to whether that statement is close to what he was saying.

But, the point I am making (and I'm not sure it is the point you are responding too, so I have no idea whether we are talking about the same thing here) is that social marriage involves intimacy, and that sex is the ultimate physical intimacy. Fact is, intimate means limited, restricted. The more public and shared something is, the less intimate it becomes. The more people someone has sex with, the less of a uniting force it becomes between two people socially and emotionally.

Sex is suppose to be an intimate encounter socially between two people. What I believe Rod was referring to as the move in the 60s, while gaining steam previously, was the more public acceptance that it was okay to have sex with whoever and how many ever as much as you want. What that does is destroy the intimacy of that act, to so share it, and so a person loses the uniting aspect of that socially shared intimacy. Thus, on the whole, that move which hit a tipping point in the 60s and is now generally accepted as "normal" now, much like in the Roman times, but that attitude has destroyed the social value of that intimacy. Now, sex isn't an intimate act in many circles. Maybe still to some degree, but for the guy or girl who has had multiple partners, it holds less of a union in that act as it would have had that person had been the only person he/she had ever shared that with.

And to clarify, I believe that is the same whether the sex is heterosexual or homosexual. Likewise, the social uniting aspect of that sex is the same for both parties when it is restricted. But Rod's point there wasn't specifically about homosexual sex, but about the culture of sex in general, and its effect upon the meaning of marriage.

[["What perhaps one should be calling for is simply the same rights for anyone who lives together that may need to care for one another, whether a physical relationship is involved or not."
Agreed. Except, of course, that having "the same rights" implicitly means the right to marriage.]]

Problem is, marriage is a description of a biological necessity and reality, and for Christians a theological issue as well. It isn't a right. You might as well be calling for the "right" of a hamburger to be called a casserole by the majority of English speakers.

The reason, I am intuiting but you can correct me, is you see this as a "right" issue because you deny the biological need and function of marriage as described above, and the social, both culturally and in many individual cases, has been minimized as needless, and theologically it isn't seen as a representation of our union with God, and so all you are left with is the legal understanding of marriage which then to you becomes a civil rights issue.

In my above presentation, marriage isn't founded on the legal, the legal is there to support and strengthen marriage. I don't care if the legal aspect is changed, it doesn't change what marriage is.

You or someone mentioned the instances of civil unions being a problem. I agree, it looks like they didn't address the situation totally. But I was arguing for a change so that the definition of a civil union would apply to all equally, whether they are married or not, but have that need due to caring for others in a live-in situation. If, and note I'm saying if, the legal aspect of civil unions are applied equally, then what is it about the word "marriage" that is important? You can say the right to be married, but what does that mean if there is no difference in reality between being married or not if the legal realities are the same? Or, to ask this another way, what right that is not legal, that would be granted to you in such a scenario that you would get to be called "married"?

It's a word to describe a reality, not a right the state can grant anyone. By redefining what a marriage is, you are trying to get the rights of those labeled as married to be applied to you. Okay, but if the legal rights were granted to you apart from that label, then, what's the beef? Why does it matter one whit if you are called married?

So, it seems to me that the easier road would be to get the legal issues fixed, cause that's really what you're after, than to attempt to change the legal definition of marriage. Cause it results in the same thing, but doesn't change what marriage really is. All it does is make the legal definition of marriage inaccurate. The only reason you're view makes sense is if the whole of what it means to be married is defined by the legal. But, in my understanding, it never has been that way.

For me, it matters little really whether you do it one way or the other. There is no reality beyond the legal that will change either way. It just seems you would have a better chance of success dealing with the legal equality than trying to change the legal definition as if a definition was a right. It is not. It is a definition, and nothing more. If you have the full legal rights of those who are married, then it doesn't matter what it is called. There's nothing more legally to be gained by calling it a marriage.

[["as far as "plain readings" go, the arguments from Scripture are not the same for slavery (an argument from silence) as it is for homosexual acts (a direct statement which says it is wrong)"
Hmmm. There are also "direct statements" in Scripture that say eating shellfish is wrong (an "abomination" actually). Do we outlaw that? ]]

What does that have to do with it? We're talking about slavery and homosexual acts, and the reality is the cultural acceptance of a form of slavery (mostly due to financial debt and not permanent, the OT I recall said slaves would be released every seven years, and it wasn't so much a race-based thing, but that's another discussion) was not directly addressed, as I said, Jesus never said it was good, he never said it was bad, it was something he didn't see needed to be addressed as it was practiced. Doesn't necessarily mean he agreed with it. There are things, no doubt, we've taken as "normal" that he doesn't agree with now as well. The point being, it says in the Bible that when a man lays with another man as with a woman, it is immoral. St. Paul says it is immoral. I know there are attempts to explain that away and that you wouldn't agree with that. That's fine. I'm not saying you need to. The fact is, one is a plain statement about homosexual acts, but there is no corresponding plain statement about the good or bad of slavery. Just tactical acceptance of the status quo. And being that slavery then wasn't usually race based, there's little comparison to what those in the south were trying to say, that a race was inferior to another and could be as a rule owned by another. That wasn't the case in Biblical "slaves," who were paying off a debt or won in a war.

Point being, there is more leeway for interpretation in the case of slavery than there is for the acts of homosexuals, which really has nothing to do in my mind with legal equality. I commit sins as we all do, and mine are not lesser than yours. So indications of immorality in the act is not a condemnation by me of you or others. And I understand from a non-Christian, and some Christian points of view, it isn't an immoral act. But it is from most of Christian history and in the Bible. We can differ on that point.

My position is, I don't agree that the act has no consequence of the continuing slide of our country in general, and right now it is not the primary issue of that slide, which involves immorality among heterosexuals, and yes, Christian heterosexuals. I agree that the fault is the Christians who have as high a divorce rate and such, that we are not being the salt and light to the world that we are called to be, as a whole, though instances of that could be found. IOW, there are a lot of people in the Church not living according to the Gospel. But since you don't share my understanding of all that, I understand it makes little difference nor is it swaying. Nevertheless, that's my understanding, which I believe to be informed as one who has studied the Bible and involved in Church history on a broader scale, i.e., not just the Western version of it.

In another post you write:
[["I don't see Huck's statement as saying homosexuals would approve of or end up sending us down that road"
Um, it isn't homosexuals that "approve of" this comparison, and it certainly isn't homosexuals who believe it WILL "send us down that road". It is the anti-gay crowd that say it, approve of the comparison, and "believe" it will.]]

I see you didn't get what I was saying, evident in that you ask for me to explain it to you, and I did, but for some reason that didn't register.

I understand that some out there do hold that accepting homosexual marriage will send us down such a road. From my point (and what I see Rod saying), too late. That road was taken a long time ago.

Maybe Huck is saying what you think. It isn't how I read it. And I agree, he shouldn't have said it the way he did, because obviously it is so easily misunderstood. But that happens. He holds to a certain definition of what marriage is, as it has been understood in USA history. He sees people threatening that definition of marriage. Once it is changed, it can be changed further by future groups. Thus, the "future groups" are not homosexuals, who would want to stop with homosexual acceptance. It has nothing to do with likening you to bestiality. What he is saying, is next will come those who approve of bestiality, and claim that marriage should apply to their situation as well, and it will be easier for them to do so since it has changed once before than if it had never changed within USA legal definitions. That's what he is saying.

But I understand that the close association of the words together can make it appear he is equating them, which is why I agree he shouldn't have said it. Additionally, I think he is wrong for thinking that a constitutional amendment will enshrine said definition into an unchangeable status or protect it. Also I don't agree with his idea that going that next step, calling homosexual unions as "marriage" will necessarily lead to bestiality. Not likely. I can see polygamy making a comeback, perhaps, due to that change in definition, and like two friends living together w/o sex, I wouldn't see any legal reason to deny it once the definition has been changed to include homosexuals.

And I think the definition has already culturally changed for most people. That is why young one's have no idea why such things as premarital sex is wrong, among other things. Because, if marriage is all about having sex, which seems to be the dominate view now days, then what's the point of a piece of paper that says we're married? It becomes meaningless. Marriage is meaningless, and so why not have sex before marriage? It's because the understanding of what marriage is has changed, the point Rod makes, and so we are at this stage of the process.

But, that's what I understood Huck to mean. By quoting him and explaining what I understood him to say, which isn't how you are reading it, I, personally, am by no means equating homosexual sex as the same a bestiality, and I agree if that was the intended meaning, I think he would be wrong to say it and I would understand your offense at it. I'm not denying your offense at your reading of his meaning, I just don't think that's what he meant. I think the reason you are reading it that way is your view of marriage isn't one of definition, but some abstract and undefined legal right that can't be granted to you any other way than to change the definition to include you. His understanding of marriage (I believe, he would have to confirm this) is that it is a definition of a state of union, not a legal right, and so he is talking about something different than how you would take it.

But, until he clarifies it further one way or the other, if that ever happens, we'll just have to disagree what we feel he meant by those words.

[["Or, what is it about the word "marriage" that becomes a legal necessity to have applied to your relationship?"
Answer me this, Timothy: would you mind if I asked you the exact same question about your "marriage"? Why is it a "legal necessity" to have it applied to YOUR relationship? And then, whatever reason you come up with, gay citizens will say we want the exact same things and for the same reasons.]]

There really isn't a legal reason for it. What it entails is that the state wanted to support what was understood as central to the family unit to help those who produced, cared for, and nurtured our future generations. If they were to change the name from "married" to "civil unions" tomorrow, I wouldn't care or bat an eye. If I lost those benefits, well then, I don't get them. It doesn't make my union with my wife less or more married than it was before. Cause, that's what it is and the state doesn't define that reality.

Like I said, its a description, not a right or something granted to me by the state. It's a union between me and my wife, and part of that union is founded upon the biological marriage as I've described above. Homosexuals can share the social intimacy union, if they don't abuse it like many heterosexuals do, and can care for children adopted or from one of the spouses, but they will never be able to share the union that says "this is both of us, the final realization of the two shall become one." I don't share the view that the state grants me a right to be married. It can only afford me certain legal benefits for that classification; benefits that can be granted to other classes just as easily without the need to redefine what marriage is.

So, maybe you can see, from my point of view, your question makes little sense. I don't see what you would gain from having it called a marriage anymore than if the state no longer called mine a marriage. What I do agree with you on, is that you should have the same legal benefits and help for the same reasons a married couple are getting it. That is, two or more people living together for mutual care. And I believe those benefits should be applied whether sex is even involved, so that two friends living together to care for one another should also get those benefits. And so, I would suggest that by only changing the definition of marriage to those who have sex together excludes those people and denies them their civil rights, which I would say is based upon equal treatment for equal situations. Legal benefits granted to married people because they live together and care for one another should equally be applied to all in that same situation. So, I sort of feel that unless you are ready to redefine marriage to include friends who live together, that your definition based upon your own reasoning, is a violation of other's civil rights.

I also understand there are Christians who wouldn't agree with me. I don't even know what Huck would say to that. As I laid out, he's just protecting a definition of marriage, and that really has little to do with civil rights unless certain rights could only be granted under that designation. But I don't think that is the case, and focusing on the civil rights issues of it, instead of a definition of marriage, would make any amendment meaningless (and why I'm against the amendment, we don't need to enshrine a particular definition of marriage in the constitution, that seems pointless to me), would focus on what this is really about, equal treatment under the law, and include other groups in the same situation but who would not be classified as "married" under the homosexual definition of it, simply because they don't have sex. So you avoid a potential civil rights violation in your zeal to fix your own.

I know some of my views you will not agree with, but hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from and I hope, at least appreciate it. Thanks for the comments.

Anybody is entitled to believe that active homosexuals are sinners and destined for damnation. Anybody is also entitled to believe that people who think that way are bigots. A gay person who chooses to live with the person s/he loves and not hide the nature of their relationship is not "rubbing...gayness into the faces of Christians," any more than the heterosexual who lives with openly with his or her spouse and family, or for that matter, the Christian who believes that gay people are damned, is rubbing his heterosexuality, or his beliefs, into the faces of his gay neighbors.

It sounds as if what social conservatives are really worried about isn't behavior that they define as sin, but the fact that the "sinners" aren't willing to hide it. And similarly, I think the social conservatives who feel "oppressed" by the sinister forces of political correctness aren't worried that anybody might discriminate against them for their beliefs, but rather that somebody might expect them to behave courteously to people they disapprove of.

Marian, to follow up on Cleveland's remarks (and I'm not someone who generally agrees with him; moreover the gay-marriage threads are my least favorite on this board because of their contention and restatement of the same points by both sides over and over and over again at unwieldy length), which "Brand X Catholic churches and Orthodox churches have already named him a saint and martyr"? In my admittedly cursory Google search, I couldn't find them. Are they real organizations of any size or individuals with a web page?

Cleveland is factually correct in saying that whatever Mychal Judge's orientation may have been, he was expected to honor his vows of celibacy.

Timothy,

I feel like I should provide a point-by-point rebuttal to your well thought and obviously laboriously constructed post. The best I can do is honor your effort, because the whole issue of homosexuality and Christian belief boils down to one chain of logic.

1) Christians believe that homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion of normal sexuality, and it is imposed from the outside in (we'll stipulate the various arguments about source, like Satan).

2) This is further corroborated by the fact that a celibate homosexual can be accepted into the Christian community, and even gain distinction q.e.d.

3) Homosexuals who act on their desires are sinning, and are capable of redemption in the usual way, but only so long as they either remain celebate thereafter or are "cured" and become heterosexual in their behavior.

It is simplistic, but not too oversimplified -- methinks -- to say that Christian belief rejects any possibility that homosexuality is naturally inherent. They'd have to then admit that scriptural teaching is (has turned out to be) wrong in this regard, if they were to compromise in the slightest.

Does believing you're the last sane man on the planet make you crazy? 'Cause if it does, maybe I am.

-- Will Smith as Spooner, "I, Robot".

Hearing or seeing that line, I can well imagine any of my homosexual friends thinking it on a regular basis.

There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic.

While we're at it, there is no "proof" in the theory evolution, nor is there "proof" in the law of gravity nor that theory of heliocentricity.

What the scientific community says is that there is strongly supported evidence that there are genetic links to sexuality, just as there is strong evidence supporting evolution, just as there is strong evidence supporting the law of gravity and the theory of heliocentricity.

I am going to assume that you are heterosexual. Well then, here is a simple test to figure out of it is a choice. Take a look at a picture of someone of the same sex and try to get aroused. Now take a look at a picture of someone of the opposite sex and try to do the same. If you can get aroused by looking at the first picture and the second picture, then you have two choices:

1.) Sexuality is a fluid choice that anybody anywhere can make at anytime, or
2.) You are bisexual.

Of course, in order to lend support to your hypothesis that sexuality is a choice, it would have to be repeated by a large enough sample of people to achieve statistical significance which, given studies by the Kinsey Institute, you would have to come up with an almost universal experience of people from every demographic available in order to lend support to the first option and not simply the second option, which is to say that most people fall on a scale from 0 to 6.

maryck,

"What has to be preserved is the freedom to believe that marriage is transcendental and at least in religious context that it may be reserved to people of different sex. Otherwise, the door is open for hate laws and anti-discrimination suits against people of faiths that do believe this."

There are (at lest) 3 faults in the 'logic' behind this. First, you ARE free to believe whatever you want. We want the same freedom, thanks in advance. Second, since you specified "in religious context", marriage is NOT restricted to 1 man, 1 woman in my religion. Why would your religous freedoms and tenet trump mine? Third, as for "anti-discrimination suits" specifically as regards to religions, The Catholic Church refuses to marry divorcees and THEY haven't been sued yet. What you fear simply ain't gonna happen.

"The only clean way out is to allow for civil unions and all contractual elements of what is now marriage lie within that framework."

Again, at least 2 faults in 'logic'. First, CUs are NOT "the only way" - marriage works just fine. Second, we already know from experience that CUs do NOT bestow "all contractual elements of what is now marriage". In fact, many States have either passed laws or altered their Constitutions to PREVENT CUs - or ANY OTHER institution that might 'resemble' marriage OR that WOULD bestow the benefits you claim CUs would (but don't) deliver.

"Marriage would be a subset of types of civil unions."

And unnecessarily so! Grant marriage to all and any problems are solved.

"There would be able to be no claims of discrimination and people would be be able to believe that marriage is between a man and woman only."

The only such "claims of discrimination" that I know of are against marriage commissioners - who are paid to do a secular job (perform civil marriages). They are not acting in the capacity of a clergy person. Clergy already ARE exempt from 'having' to marry ANY couple, not just gays but 1 man, 1 woman who might, say, be divorcees, in the Catholic example, or an inter-racial couple if such a "Church" is 'against' such. Many folk (both gay AND str8) have civil marriages BECAUSE they don't want a religious element. Have you confused "civil unions" and civil marriages?

"Religious elements and beliefs of marriage could in this kind of scenario remain separate and free from government interference."

They already ARE and are not in danger of having them stripped away.

"Otherwise we will have all types of beliefs about marriage being lawful except the Christian ideal of an union between man and wife."

Well, that would be a good thing, imo, since Americans are not JUST of the Christian faith, and since not all Christians agree with you that "the Christian ideal" is or should be limited to 1 man, 1 woman. Don't forget that the "Christian ideal" not that long ago was 1 WHITE man and 1 WHITE woman.

"To those who would argue that it is wrong or discriminatory or hateful for a religion to teach children that sex is reserved to a man and woman, one can make the analogy that the Catholic faith does not recognize divorce, yet that does not in any infringe upon the rights or liberties of divorced non-Catholics or even Catholics except within the narrow context of the practice of their faith."

You make my point precisely. The discrimination that remains is for divorced Catholics to get re-married "within the narrow context of the practice of their faith", and allowing same-sex marriage ain't gonna change THAT since religions ARE free to set their own parameters. Well, all religions EXCEPT those that would marry same-sex couples. Explain why THEIR freedom of religion is limited.

"There is no reason to define belief in the exclusivity as necessarily hate speech."

That isn't what gets labeled "hate speech". Hate speech is when there is a call for harm (or death). When people are diminished, demeaned, debased and dehumanized (read above for comparisons of my spouse to an animal, a child, and a plant), or when my love gets compared to necrophilia, rape, incest, beastiality, cannabalism, theft (all of which has appeared here on B'net boards, btw), it certainly isn't "Christian" speech, not under the "Do unto others" principle, anyway.

"It is a choice to belong to religion and to exercise it."

How come those that choose to belong to religions that DO accept and marry gay couples aren't given similar freedoms to exercise their beliefs (and have them recognized by the Government as those heterosexual marriages performed in non-gay-accepting are)?

"All religions have tenets and rules that may be more or less restrictive than those in civil law."

Precisely. Every Church gets to decide for itself. Not a one is being 'forced' to marry people against their own tenets. Ours simply wants the same recognition by the government as yours already has.

"As long as the person is free to walk away from the faith, there should be no reason for hate laws like those being instituted in Canada and Europe that prevent the reading of sections of the bible that restrict marriage to a union between a man and woman."

That's nonsense. I'm from Canada, and what you typed has not - and will not - happen. Now, as for the Scripture verses that say I should "surely be put to death", well, on that we can have an entirely other conversation. Should I assume you are 'for' that?

"Slavery is not condemned in the Bible, but the various instructions on how it is to be handled would seem to be a tacit endorsement of the practice. It is these passages that were used by Christians in the South to justify slavery."

Ds0490 your post proves my point. Tacit 'endorsement' is not the same as commendation or prescription, whatever some of the Southern theologians said -- the equating of the two was their very mistake. Slavery was tacitly allowed; homosexual behavior was proscribed. Like it or not, that is a difference.

REP, I am fully aware of the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality. Christianity is too, which is why the Church calls homosexual people to celibacy.

"What will the churches do when the genetic basis of homosexuality becomes a scientifically accepted fact?"

This matters not one iota. There are married men with high testosterone levels (which is a genetic trait) and are more prone to "wander" sexually, yet they are called to monogamy just like their brethren that don't have that temptation. They don't get a pass on morality just because they may be more apt to commit adultery.

Likewise, there are men who get into pornography and become addicted, and there are men who can look at it and not be bothered in that way at all. Whether that's a psychological or genetic difference is unclear, yet both groups of men are instructed to shun porn. For neither group does the essential morality of the thing change (although the pastoral response to each might be different.)

What is of more interest to me is what will happen if homosexuality is proven to be genetic, and it is able to be genetically tested for. There are people who may not want a homosexual child and will choose to abort. Whose side will the pro-choice, pro-homosexual crowd take? On the personal level I will hate to see the results of this, no matter which way it falls, but in any case it will be gratifying to watch the 'sexual revolution' continue to devour itself.

"It is simplistic, but not too oversimplified -- methinks -- to say that Christian belief rejects any possibility that homosexuality is naturally inherent."

Wrong, Franklin. It may in fact be inherent, but this doesn't make it natural. The mistake that you and the others are making is equating "inherent" with "natural." And "naturally occurring" doesn't mean "natural" either.

Marvin Wilcox,

"I'm not for it. I think that gay marriage is ludicrous."

Then don't have one. No one is forcing you to. Are they?

"The idea is ludicrous."

Sez you. Others disagree. It's a 'free' country.

"I don't see why gays have pressed for it"

For the same reasons betterosexuals desire marriage. That, and because equality before the law is a 'guarantee' of the Constitution (at lest until Huckabee changes it).

"they want everybody to pretend to be completely accepting of their fundamentally disordered conduct."

You may believe it to be so, but we don't, of course. Be that as it may, we really don't want your "acceptance" (nor even really your pretense at acceptance); we want the Government to treat us equally.

"I really do not care one bit what gays do or do not do."

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

"If gays were being honest, they'd be happy with civil unions."

In what way have I been 'dishonest'? And I already AM married, so why would I settle for 2nd best and be "happy" with it??? That's just delusional thinking.

"Civil unions give them all that they really need."

This is not true. There are some 1,138 rights, benefits, freedoms and obligations that come with marriage that are denied to us. What we "really need" is equality, so if YOU are willing to give those benefits up (because obviously heterosexuals don't "really need" them), you would have a point.

"Fact is, gays want to rub their gayness into the faces of every Christian they can corner."

The way you type, one would get the impression you believe that gay people can't be Christian. Sorry but I am, as are many others. We hardly 'rub our gayness into anyone's face' (in fact, that sounds kinda kinky, but it certainly is far from the truth).

"The Bible is clear on homosexuality; of this there is no dispute."

Funny, but there's hundreds and hundreds of websites, blogs, threads, discussions (and religions!) that disagree with you on the "clarity" of the Scriptures on the topic. However, since not all Americans are Christian (nor are they required to be), it would seem we value freedom of religion a bit more than your side.

"The intellectually corrupt/deficient can take issue"

Would that be an ad hominem? Just who are you calling "intellectually corrupt and deficient"?

"Homosexuality is universally frowned upon."

Not on these boards it ain't. Maybe in DelusionWorld.

"All of the major religions look down on homosexuality."

Demonstrably false. The largest Protestant denomination in Canada marries gay couples. Both the Reformed and the Conservative (!) branches of Judaism do too. As do the Quakers. And many Anglican dioceses. You are just plain wrong. (I believe that is referred to as the bearing of false witness - aka a sin.)

"Ministers should be allowed to preach what they truly believe"

So why would you stop OUR ministers from doing that? Because, as you, youself, said: "anything that interferes with this is Fascism." Agreed.

"Gay militants are the worst of Fascists. "

I think that's another ad hominem, no?

"Take it to a vote, I say."

And I say, "Only if we can vote on YOUR rights and freedoms." Actually, several legislatures already HAVE put it to a vote - and it was approved - TWICE, in California! Be careful what you wish for...

"The majority of people do NOT want gay marriage; of this I am confident."

Then by all means the majority of people should NOT have one. In fact, I think if you were to calm down, you would find that this is precisely what is happening - the majority of people AREN'T having them. Of this I am confident.

"Gays can play house, no problem."

Well, actually, yes that WOULD be a "problem", at least for me, since I am already married. Legally.

"But when you start talking about marriage and kids, I'm sorry, it's just beyond the pale."

I ain't talkin' 'bout no kids, trust me. Seems only the anit-gay crowd insist on that, since it isn't a requirement of marriage. I'm sorry too, but what you typed - it's just beyond the pale.

Blessings on you too.

"[W]hich "Brand X Catholic churches and Orthodox churches have already named [Mychal Judge] a saint and martyr"?.... Are they real organizations of any size or individuals with a web page?"

One is The Orthodox-Catholic Church of America, about which I know absolutely nothing else except what's on their web page. Another is the Old Catholic Church, which actually has fairly respectable schismatic antecedents and has been around for a while. I apologize to the membership of both churches for referring to them as "Brand X." I was being unnecessarily frivolous.

"There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic

"There is no proof that heterosexuality is genetic, either."

I'm not so sure about that. I think we can reasonably presume that heterosexuality is hard-wired into most of us, because if it wasn't, given the way males are raised to despise females, and females are raised to fear males, if it WASN'T, we'd be lucky if 10% of the population was straight.

>>>>
because if it wasn't, given the way males are raised to despise females, and females are raised to fear males, if it WASN'T, we'd be lucky if 10% of the population was straight.
Posted by: Marian Neudel | January 20, 2008 6:29 PM
>>>>

Come again? Is that how you were raised? It wasn't how I was raised.

The business about boys being raised to despise girls is, I think, so deeply ingrained into all human culture that nobody notices, [as in whoever discovered water, it wasn't a fish.] But I suspect all halfway-competent mothers have The Talk with their daughters, right around the approach of puberty (or maybe even earlier these days.) You may know of it if you have daughters. You know, the stuff about "don't go out alone after dark; the first time you go out with a boy, double date and go to a public place; don't let your drink out of your sight at a party [that's a new one since my own girlhood]"and so on. The closest to it that any males ever get it, so far as I know, is the advice given to newcomers in the prison system on avoiding rape and upleasant situations.

Christianity wants to acknowledge that people are hungry, but deny them food under arbitrary circumstances. That is the logic I see, Rob.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | January 20, 2008 5:14 PM

Thank you, Franklin!

That's like saying, "It's okay to be a cat, just as long as you don't meow".

This is going to be a very long post, but it should be thought-provoking. I urge you to be patient and read it with an open heart.

Denying food -- or denying the emotional health and stability of a loving relationship -- is a major matter. Maybe folk don't think it is important if one is hungry, but Jesus thought it was so important that He said human need trumped the Law of God, "Human beings were not made to serve the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for human beings".

Jesus' disciples were plucking grain on the Sabbath because they were hungry. He defended them by referring to the story of David and his men who were given the holy showbread by Abiathar the priest, simply because they were hungry. Now, that bread was holy, only for the priests. If you don't think holiness was important to the Hebrews, remember that Uzzah died just from touching the Ark of the Covenant to try to keep it from falling. Holiness was a serious matter. Yet Abiathar gave them the holy showbread just because they were hungry. He could have said, "Listen, guys, God's honor will not permit you to eat this holy bread; you must search elsewhere for food. Trust in God. Your rumbling bellies are not of ultimate importance, you can go without food a while longer, for we dare not break the holy laws of God." But he didn't. He fed them the holy bread, and Jesus said he was right to do so, just because they needed it. Guess what, folks? Some of us do not have the gift, anointing and calling to celibacy. It is not good for us to be alone. We have a need for romance in our very bones; we need a mate. Is that less important than the temporary rumbling of bellies?

Paul advises that believers without the gift of celibacy should marry; I take him at his word, and would like to marry a guy.

Listen, folks. I am in my 40s. I tried for over half my life to remove my same-sex affectional orientation by prayer, counseling, fasting, denial, you name it. It doesn't go away. Do you hear me? It does not go away. I lived for much of my life in self-loathing because I was taught I was an abomination to God. I now believe that is just wrong, and a horrible misunderstanding of Scripture. I now am at peace with myself as a human being, and I believe in myself again as a gay man who is loved by God.

I am a Christian. I love the Lord very much. I trust in Jesus Christ. I am a man of prayer and strive for integrity.

I also know that I have tortured myself for decades, robbed myself of much emotional energy, and plumbed myself into clinical depression by denying who I am.

Folks, do you know what I have wanted during that time? What I have yearned for? It's really very simple.

I have been dying for something lots of you heterosexual married folk take for granted. I would like the wholeness and peace of loving a wonderful Christian guy, of kissing and hugging him, of cuddling with him on the couch, working and doing hobbies and paying bills together, washing dishes, planting a garden, voting, doing volunteer work, and owning a home together. And yes -- admit it, you married folk do this too -- I would love to sleep naked with that nice guy and hold him all night long. My God, is that so horrible, to hold another human being and sleep with him? Will the world come to an end? Will God's wrath send flames down upon your house if I were to love another man in faithfulness and truth?

You bet I'd love to be married or enter into a civil union with another fine man who loves God and people.

And I'm not saying they had a sexual relationship, but listen again carefully -- just as Jonathan and David entered into a sacred covenant together, to the point where Jonathan was willing to hand over his entire kingdom to this handsome young guy he loved as his own soul -- I would like the opportunity for such a lifelong covenant also.

And yes, it would be nice if such a sacred covenant was recognized legally, because it would come from my deepest heart, mind, soul and loyalty.

Might I address some arguments against this I have heard?

--Some people claim that gay and lesbian people can't enter into monogamous relationships. Well, that is incorrect. I know dozens of same-sex couples who are monogamous and intend to be together for life, and who love God. You can argue with me, but I know these folk personally, and many of them have been together ten, twenty, even thirty years. That's longer than many married couples I know.

--Others say that the Bible prohibits same-sex union. Well, I don't know about that.

1. Romans 1 is written against people who knew there was a God but who instead worshiped four footed beasts and idols and then dishonored their bodies, males and females exchanging identities, and finally landing in every sort of sin. Folks, did you realize that in Rome (where Paul was sending his letter) and Corinth (whence he was sending it) there were temples of Cybele the Mother Goddess, and her priests were the castrated Galli who played the part of women in temple prostitution and priestesses were fitted with artificial organs to play the part of men? In that light, does the passage perhaps ring a bell?

2. Likewise the Canaanite qadesh were male prostitutes involving Israelites in idolatry, that is why the word "abomination" (towebah) is used in Leviticus, a word which 85% of the time refers to idolatrous practices.

3. And the word arsenokoites (wrongly translated homosexual in 1 Corinthians 6:9) is used in 125 A.D. by Aristides to describe the boy Ganymede being abducted by the god Zeus so that Zeus could have Ganymede as his sexual servant...we're talking about abduction and sexual subjugation of youngsters, people...that is what the word means.

4. The fact is, the Bible has lots of relationship models: concubines, levirite marriage (widow marries her dead husband's brother), a raped unbetrothed virgin marries her attacker; and on the other hand the famous romantic couple in the Song of Solomon (which Christians interpret in terms of Christ and the Church) enjoy each other's carresses without being married -- they have to sneak around to find a place for their trysts, but the point is simply that they give each other joy. Professor Walter Wink has done a good job of pointing out that the Bible has no one sex ethic, but it does have a love ethic which we are all called to apply.

5. I would argue that, because it is not good for many of us to be alone, gay and lesbian people also may share love and care. And it is true that Genesis 1:27 refers to "male and female" as being the typical marriage bond, but then read Galatians 3:28 which quotes Genesis "male and female" only to overturn it and toss it aside as having no salvific value. As shocking as it may seem, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart".

6. Because heterosexual reproduction is mentioned in Genesis 1 doesn't mean it must always be normative. Consider that lifelong celibacy is never mentioned as an vocation in the creation stories. And then realize that there just might be room for one more vocation that the Holy Spirit is showing us in the lives of homosexual believers, namely, two men or two women joined together who walk in the Holy Spirit as equals, as an embodied foretaste and sign of the eschaton, in which heterosexual marriage will be no more, but there will be love that will remain forever. Holy celibacy embodies exclusive dedication to God the Father with no human partner, a calling in which God sanctifies us by Himself alone. Holy marriage embodies the union between Christ and the Church as Bride and Bridegroom, in which relationship Christ sanctifies the couple. Holy union in the Spirit would complete the triad as a third holy vocation, embodying life in the Spirit as a foretaste of the life to come.

--Yet others say that homosexual sex is unnatural. I guess I will believe that when all married couples must give up oral sex and are allowed only the missionary position. I fail to see why if a woman gives oral sex to her husband this is seen as good, but if a man does the very same thing as an expression of faithful affection he is mocked and called filthy names. Gee, that makes a lot of sense.

--Finally, I read that children will somehow lack something growing up with two parents of the same sex. But please take into serious consideration that this is already happening all over the place, and the young people seem to be quite normal. I know a brilliant young man about to graduate from college into engineering; his dad has been faithfully with another man for at least 15 years, and they are a praying and churchgoing family, believe it or not. Oh, and the son is heterosexual and has a lovely girlfriend to boot.

--There are a lot of us gay and lesbian Christians out here. We are your neighbors and your fellow workers. Do not deny us basic hospital visitation rights, the right to hand on our property to our beloved partner, the right to be safe and treated with dignity. We don't want to overthrow holy marriage. We want to love and serve God and to care for our neighbors. We want to be faithful to our partners in sacred covenant. We are your sons, your daughters, your cousins, people in your church who are afraid to speak out or let you know we are gay because we think you might well reject us for it.

Thank you for your patience in reading this long message. Folks, I don't know why I am gay; it may be a combination of genetics and hormonal factors in the womb during pregnancy. It may be early experiences. But I know it does not go away, and I also know I am a person of honor, high intelligence, honesty, generosity, and faithfulness. I am a Christian man. Believe me, I will not destroy your marriages.

God bless you,
Mike

Dear Mike,

Your very long post is thoughtful, heartfelt, very intelligently written. My feeling is that gay marriage will eventually be a reality for you no matter where in the United States you live, but let me focus on another aspect of what you have written.

You seem to assume that everyone ("you heterosexual married folk") who wants to be married is already married and will stay that way forever. (The hugely prolific poster recovering ex-Pentecostal does this here, too, and I've seen many similar arguments elsewhere.) You don't indicate whether you are currently in a relationship with another man.

No matter what your sexual orientation, you still have to find this wonderful partner, get married, and then stay married. For some of us, this hasn't happened. Maybe I'm about your age (I'm in my late 40s). I too ache for the "wholeness and peace" of everything you mentioned about being married--but it hasn't happened.

The fact that it hasn't happened has caused me excruciating pain. "It doesn't go away. Do you hear me? It does not go away."

And I also would describe myself, or at least hope that others would describe me, as "a person of high intelligence, honesty, generosity, and faithfulness." It still hasn't happened for me.

As I say, I hope you get the legal solution you want. But there's no guarantee about the rest of the story.

Dennis,

As chance would have it, the theme of this week's Law and Order episode, "Misbegotten" was that a bomb goes off and injures a pregnant carrier for a messenger service for medical laboratories. A full recap of the episode can be found at: http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/Shows/Law--Order/Stories/Misbegotten?currentPage=1.
After some investigation, it appears that a scientist that developed a test that would identify the genes that cause homosexuality was the real target for the bomb. He became the target of death threats so he leaves the university he works at. A Christian had been targeting him because being gay would no longer be a choice but rather genetic. So the scientist leaves the university and goes to work for private industry. The Christian in the meantime had a conversion and decided that violence would be wrong and the viewer finds out that he never went beyond paper threats. The scientist eventually develops the test and is doing trials to identify babies in the womb. The gay community is now targeting him as they do not want to have a "holocaust in the womb." There are several subplots in this piece including the fact that the woman had been one of his test subjects and she is carrying a gay baby. Her husband's brother is also gay. She only has a 5 percent chance of coming out of a coma and living but the baby should be able to be delivered full term. I won't go into the rest of the details, but I think everyone who has watched any television crime shows(especially during January), they can recall being bombarded with the obligatory crazy Christian episode whereby the Christian is bombing abortion clinics or doing some other violence against those who want to abort. The cumulative effect of all these episodes on different shows is that viewers start to believe that this type of crime occurs much more often then in reality and that there are more of these crazy religious extremists than there really are.

Well what was interesting in this episode was watching the writers try to uphold the right to abort (there are some other subplots including a woman who aborted a normal baby because of a lab error that said that it had Down's syndrome) and yet argue strongly to protect homosexuals in the womb from a holocaust.

So the episode proves my pet theory: You can try to suppress the Truth but it is so pervasive that it will be made manifest. It only takes the tiniest glimmer of light for the darkness to be pierced. A holocaust is a holocaust regardless of whether it is women or homosexuals or disabled or healthy babies losing their lives.

Recovering ex Penecostal,
I originally wrote: As long as the person is free to walk away from the faith, there should be no reason for hate laws like those being instituted in Canada and Europe that prevent the reading of sections of the bible that restrict marriage to a union between a man and woman."

You responded: That's nonsense. I'm from Canada, and what you typed has not - and will not - happen. Now, as for the Scripture verses that say I should "surely be put to death", well, on that we can have an entirely other conversation. Should I assume you are 'for' that?"

My response: the Bible (Old Testament) also mandates stoning for adultery. No one is concerned that Jews or Christians will read those lines and start throwing stones at those having affairs or living "in sin."

You complain that the Bible lumps homosexuality with other sins. It also does that for fornication and adultery. No one worries about Christians discriminating against fornicators or adulterers anymore. No one is asking us to stop reading those sections of the Bible.

Parts of Canada and the European Union are prosecuting Christians for reading these sections of the Bible. There is indeed something for Christians to fear. When the gay community co-opts the terminology of Christians for marriage which has been restricted in that context to one-man and one-woman, you are forcing a cultural shift in the meaning of the terminology and the idea that any restriction on the meaning is discriminatory. This becomes thought police.

Your post made the argument that because some Christian Bible lists homosexuality as a sin that it is discriminatory as it equates it to other sins like lying and murder. If you are honest you will admit that this argument if it were to prevail would result in all passages that declare homosexuality a sin to be ipso facto hate speech.

Christians will not be able to say that it is a sin without being accused of hate speech. Never mind that Christians call adultery and fornication sins and no one things that they are hating the large number of people living together without benefit of marriage. Yours is an argument designed to destroy the Christian concept of marriage being between a man and woman exclusively.

If all the rights of marriage are moved to civil unions, then there is no need to redefine "marriage." (Which is what I was proposing -- not the current version that you correctly note does not confer the same rights) Marriage then becomes a term for a specific type of civil union. A civil union becomes what marriage has devolved into: a usually poorly understood civil law contract that can provide certain financial benefits while the union exists but when the union is dissolved it becomes an instrument for voluntary but more often than not involuntary wealth redistribution between the parties and various third parties (children, lawyers, real estate agents). What couple truly understands all the legal ramifications of dissolving the contract when they say 'I do?'

As a person who is single and given that the marriage contract has devolved to the state it is today, I personally feel that it is discriminatory to give preferential benefits to people solely because they are engaging in contractual sex. Why can't I pick a person to give my estate to without tax consequences? Why can't I share my medical benefits at work with a person (maybe a parent or sibling or friend) of my choosing?

[[Timothy,
I feel like I should provide a point-by-point rebuttal to your well thought and obviously laboriously constructed post. The best I can do is honor your effort, because the whole issue of homosexuality and Christian belief boils down to one chain of logic.]]

Thanks, Franklin, for your comments and respect, and mostly for reducing the need for a long answer. I'll try to keep it short.

[[1) Christians believe that homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion of normal sexuality, and it is imposed from the outside in (we'll stipulate the various arguments about source, like Satan).]]

Hum, I know there have been statements to this effect. In my own tradition, which I'll say is the same as Rod's, Orthodox Christian, our whole fallen state is "unnatural" if we take as "natural" how God created us. And all sin is a manifestation of that unnatural fallen state. So, if I blew up at someone, that would be just as "unnatural" and a sin as a homosexual act, as I understand it. Even married sex, as practiced, isn't totally "correct." But, it is necessary within this fallen condition to live here and be redeemed back into that pre-fallen and eventually resurrected glory where the desires of this life are drowned out by our love and desire for God and His joy and glory, which is our "natural" and created state.

As far as God's purpose of human sexuality within this fallen state, though, theologically, any union which doesn't reflect Christ and our union with him, is a perversion. It is the basis for fornication, adultery, and yes, homosexual acts being a perversion. Because it perverts that icon of Christ imaged as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride, to essentially say that Christ unites with himself or the Church with itself as a valid means of salvation, and that is a perversion of the Gospel.

Granted, many Christian groups do not have this exact theology in mind, but that is the basis we have had from early Church onwards. And, I should mention, we have always had married priest...I think someone said something about that. But the theology behind the "unclean" aspects of certain things would take some explaining, more than we want to do here, but suffice it to say, it is not the same as saying something is immoral or sinful (though I know preachers have said as much in many places).

[[2) This is further corroborated by the fact that a celibate homosexual can be accepted into the Christian community, and even gain distinction q.e.d.]]

Yes, I would hold that because someone has desires for the same sex, doesn't in and of itself mean they are sinning or immoral. After all, most all of us have close friends of the same sex, just most don't have sex with them, which is a more intimate relationship that just friends, though some very close friendships can be much more intimate than many homosexual or heterosexual ones.

[[3) Homosexuals who act on their desires are sinning, and are capable of redemption in the usual way, but only so long as they either remain celebate thereafter or are "cured" and become heterosexual in their behavior.]]

Yes, though you would have some debate about the "cured" part depending on what groups you were talking to. The cure is salvation, union with Christ, and redemption completed into the next life. Until then, we will all be dealing with urges and desires that are not proper to fulfill.

[[It is simplistic, but not too oversimplified -- methinks -- to say that Christian belief rejects any possibility that homosexuality is naturally inherent. They'd have to then admit that scriptural teaching is (has turned out to be) wrong in this regard, if they were to compromise in the slightest.]]

Based on what I've said above, our whole situation isn't naturally inherent. Homosexual desires are as fallen as heterosexual ones. What isn't fallen is the desire for love, a close relationship, and those kinds of things. They image our love for God, and God uses that to show love to each of us. Using these to illuminate God in our lives, or to abuse them by illuminating ourselves trapped by our own physical desires, is the issue of what is proper. But God will aid us in deal with them, in time overcome their control by a union with him growing stronger and overpowering those pulls.

My own failure to live up to that damns me as much as any homosexual act. So no stones are being cast here. But acknowledging that, and dealing with it as best we can and as God gives us strength is the path to a full healing of the whole shebang through union with God. So, yes, God continues to call all of us to repent of all our failures to live as God created us. The real lie is that this is activity is "normal" and this one isn't. So I guess I would say it isn't really a perversion of marital sex, but a perversion of our union with God, as is my failure in other ways.

[[Does believing you're the last sane man on the planet make you crazy? 'Cause if it does, maybe I am.
-- Will Smith as Spooner, "I, Robot".
Hearing or seeing that line, I can well imagine any of my homosexual friends thinking it on a regular basis.]]

Most people think this about something. I recall the prophet Elijah thought that too, God showed him he was wrong. Such a statement really is placing ourselves on too high a pedestal, one we will likely fall from. I'm not that important.

'Does believing you're the last sane man on the planet make you crazy? 'Cause if it does, maybe I am.'

-- Will Smith as Spooner, "I, Robot".
"Hearing or seeing that line, I can well imagine any of my homosexual friends thinking it on a regular basis."

"The time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'" --- St. Anthony the Great of Egypt

And Rob, celibacy continues to be a matter for argument within Christianity. Not within sects, perhaps, but definitely for the religion at large.

ds0490 said: "However, neither should the churches seek to impose their religious doctrine, through the power of public law, upon those who do not choose to belong to/believe in their doctrine."

Unsympathetic Reader replies: "Why not?"

Um, for the very simple, very basic idea that in America, citizens are supposed to be "guaranteed" have FREEDOM of religion. That's why not.

"Note that in this case, I'm not thinking of churches as corporate entities but communities of people with common interests."

Except, of course, not all citizens are members of your (or any) particular [faith] "community". My [faith] community certainly believes differently than Mr. Huckabee's.

"societies have to pick some set and there is no a priori reason why those from religious dogmas should not be allowed"

Once again, yes there IS. it's called freedom of religion. What part of that don't you understand?

And by the way, what is "progressive" about taking us backwards in time to the immorality and sexual licentiousness of Sodom, Greece and Rome?

Cleveland asks a very important question:

"Is homosexuality in keeping with His law?"

Well, since homosexuals are part of God's creation, I would have to say, "YES!"

But the more important question is, "Should any one set of religious tenets, say Mr. Huckabee's - or howabout, um, Mr. Romney's??? - , be imposed onto, and thus alter, the Constitution of the Unites States of America?"

The answer must be an emphatic "NO!"

Timothy,

At 9.5 screens full of post, yes you did create a "megapost". so much bandwidth, so little ...

"Biologically, the point of sex is procreation."

Many would disagree. I think many would say the physiological point of sex is FUN, the emotional point is connectig with another human being, expressing affection, tenderness, caring, gosh, maybe even LOVE. Since procreation results from less than 1% of all sex acts - even within marriage - your "point" seems moot at best.

Besides, I'm not sure howmy marriage prevents heterosexuals from procreating?

"Procreation is the biological foundation of marriage"

Not for the infertile heterosexual it isn't. Not for the elderly heterosexual it isn't. Not for those heterosexuals who do not wish to bring a child into this over-populated world it isn't. Why would you restrict their freedoms? Oh wait, I forgot, you have no intention of restricting THEIR freedoms, only the freedoms of homosexuals.

Timothy, you cannot talk of unitive bonds and then say, "This level of union, which defines the need of marriage, does not apply to homosexuals because such sex cannot ever produce a child." when it also does not apply to non-procrative heterosexuals.

"I was talking about the basis for the whole biological necessity."

Um, we kinda got that. Trouble is, it is NOT a "necessity". Procreation is NOT a requirement of marriage. Nor, btw, is it a "necessity" to BE married to procreate.

"If the act never procreated, marriage would not exist. Not to say that close relationships wouldn't, but it wouldn't be marriage biologically."

That's a gross insult to my heterosexual relatives and friends who do not/can not/ chose not to procreate and somehow managed to get married.

"the point I am making ... is that social marriage involves intimacy, and that sex is the ultimate physical intimacy. ... The more people someone has sex with, the less of a uniting force it becomes between two people socially and emotionally."

You seem very confused. I was speaking of intimacy between two people that are married to each other. Then you break off into talking about "the more people someone has sex with ...". They aren't the same thing at all. You've already admited that gay couples ALSO share intimacy. Please at least stick with and discuss the topics you bring up, not some tangent about having sex with "more" people. Or is that what YOUR marriage means?

"Sex is suppose to be an intimate encounter socially between two people."

As if that can't/doesn't apply to gay couples. Besides, heterosexual swingers might disagree with you over what "sex is suppose [sic} to be", and they're still allowed to marry the person of their choice.

"Problem is, marriage is a description of a biological necessity and reality"

That's yet even more of the same circular argument, and it still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you repeat it.

"and for Christians a theological issue as well"

Except not all American citizens are Christian, and even Christians don't agree on same-sex marriage.

"It isn't a right."

If it isn't a "right" for gay citizens, neither is it a "right" for heterosexual citizens, all of which is moot if all citizens are 'guaranteed' equal treatment under the law. If marriage isn't a "right", surely it is a "freedom", a "liberty". Used to be a time in America when you would sing hymns about that "sweet land of liberty" and "the home of the free", and the "pursuit of happiness", yet you would restrict those liberties and freedoms and pursuits to Christian heterosexuals who agree with you.

"you deny the biological need and function of marriage as described above"

I dney that you get to define it as such - for other people, And I also deny that what you see as the "need" and the "biological function of marriage" as you describe it is shared by all Americans, heterosexual or hmoosexual, procreative or non-procreative, married or not, Christian or not. Under Mr. Huckabee's intentions, their beliefs, liberties, freedoms, rights, pursuits will be un-Constitutionaly (as it is NOW, not the one he wants) trampled.

"theologically it isn't seen as a representation of our union with God"

And when did America become a theocracy? What you realy meant is 'What I beleive theologically it isn't seen as a representation of our union with God'. And that is precisely the trouble with Huckabee's proposal. Not everyone shares his (or your) theological beliefs.

"I was arguing for a change so that the definition of a civil union would apply to all equally"

Yes, I know. And I said it was unnecessary - marriage works just fine.

"If, and note I'm saying if, the legal aspect of civil unions are applied equally, then what is it about the word "marriage" that is important?"

Yes, I noted, and am glad you used the word "if" because it AIN'T that way now. What is important about the word "marriage" for YOU? Apart from the "necessity" of procreation (which is a fallacy - it AIN'T a requirement), the exact same things that are important for you are important to us too, I assure you. Or, to use your own words, Why does it matter one whit if YOU are called married?

Besides, under your definition, the children of gays (some of us do have 'em) are denied the exact benefits, rights, freedoms, privileges they are automatically given to the children of heterosexual parents. Won't somebody think of ALL the children?

"The point being, it says in the Bible that when a man lays with another man as with a woman, it is immoral. St. Paul says it is immoral."

Well St. Paul ain't my Saviour. Paul also had problems with women preachers, and I sure as heck don't. You dismiss the "eating shellfish is an ABOMINATION" too easily - it says so IN Scripture. If you can reject that part, but insist on Paul's definition of immorality, then I can reject Paul's teachings on human sexuality. The ACTUAL point is that Huck's proposal sys HIS interpretations of Scriputer will be ensconced in the Constitution, and not all America citizens follow Huck's Church's tenets. We all believe differently. That's the danger in having a theocrat as President - the liberties, rights, freedoms of THE REST OF US are trample.

As for your contention that "there is no corresponding plain statement [presumably from St. Paul] about the good or bad of slavery". This, too, is incorrect. "Slaves obey your Masters" is attributed to Paul. Surely it is more than even a tacit approval of the institution of slavery. But slavery ain't the topic of this thread - gay marriage is.

"IOW, there are a lot of people in the Church not living according to the Gospel. But since you don't share my understanding of all that"

I 'understand' it completely, Timothy, and happen to agree with the statement. (Please don't be so condescending. You DID notice my handle, no?) But what other people's immorality and lack of living according to the Gospel has to do with equality for homosexuals before the (secular) laws, escapes me.

"[Huckabee] holds to a certain definition of what marriage is"

And wants to impose that on all Americans, many of whom disagree with him.

"He sees people threatening that definition of marriage."

Are you that worried over a definition instead of the actual institution? Loving, adult gay couples wishing to commit to one another in no way "threatens" the institution. Heterosexual couples will still be able to get married in their traditional configuration after gays can similarly commit.

"Once it is changed, it can be changed further by future groups. Thus, the "future groups" are not homosexuals, who would want to stop with homosexual acceptance. It has nothing to do with likening you to bestiality."

Well, the beastialists are, apparently one such group, so yes, he DID "liken" my relationship to beastiality. And to pedophiles, don't forget THAT comparison. If you actually believe they can (or more specificall, will) change it further, then your understanding of legal consent is delusional.

"What he is saying, is next will come those who approve of bestiality, and claim that marriage should apply to their situation as well, and it will be easier for them to do so ... That's what he is saying."

Then he's even more deranged than I thought. If the beastialists want to put forth their 'arguments', they are going to have to address the issue of legal vconsent. Since there is none (with animals, OR children OR plants OR teapots), they will be laughed out of the courtroom. I will take a moment to thank you for (subsequently admitting: "I agree if that was the intended meaning [the beastiality and pedophile comparisons], I think he would be wrong to say it and I would understand your offense at it. I'm not denying your offense at your reading of his meaning". I DO take great offense at it because it is false, and I'm sure you would too.

"Because, if marriage is all about having sex, which seems to be the dominate view now days, then what's the point of a piece of paper that says we're married? It becomes meaningless. Marriage is meaningless"

Sure Eri... oops, I mean Timothy. NOT! Marriage is neither "meaningless" nor "all about having sex". Please actually read some of the posts from people who disagree with you. That is NOT what we are saying, and I challenge you to find ONE poster from the 'left' on this issue that says it is.

"What it entails is that the state wanted to support what was understood as central to the family unit to help those who produced, cared for, and nurtured our future generations."

The thing is that that "support" extends to heterosexual couples who do NOT 'produce, care for and nurture future generations'. We wish to be treated the same as those.

"If they were to change the name from "married" to "civil unions" tomorrow, I wouldn't care or bat an eye. If I lost those benefits, well then, I don't get them. It doesn't make my union with my wife less or more married than it was before."

You neglect to say if you have children. That you now concede you and your wife make a "marriage", ought that not apply to lesbians and their wives, and to gays and their husbands? If not, why not?

"unless you are ready to redefine marriage to include friends who live together, that your definition based upon your own reasoning, is a violation of other's civil rights"

I'm not sure that's true. "Friends who live together" have the OPTION of getting married - if they're heterosexual and of the opposite sex. Gay "friends" (another diminishment of my relationship - sigh!) or even str8 friends of the same sex do not have that option. But hey, maybe you're on to something - "Same-sex marriage - it ain't just for homosexuals anymore!" Great slogan.

"I also understand there are Christians who wouldn't agree with me. I don't even know what Huck would say to that."

My fear is that he might say something like, "I'm the decider." And that is what scares me.

Likewise, nice chatting with you.

Rob G,

"I am fully aware of the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality."

Your awareness of the difference doesn't come across in your posts.

"Christianity is too, which is why the Church calls homosexual people to celibacy."

YOUR Church may do that; mine certainly does not. Why should your beliefs trump mine in a court of law?

"It may in fact be inherent, but this doesn't make it natural."

Not according to Webster's: "belonging by nature". It certainly IS natural - for homosexuals.

Marian Neudel,

"The business about boys being raised to despise girls is, I think, so deeply ingrained into all human culture that nobody notices"

Wait a minute. I'm a guy and not only do I NOT "despise girls" OR "hate women", but neither was I raised in such a culture. Do you think my lack of hatred for women has anythingg to do with my homosexuality? Maybe we're jsut nicer people in general.

Mike,

Thank you for your powerful Christian witness of January 21, 2008 12:36 AM.

May I gently correct one of your statements though?

"I fail to see why if a woman gives oral sex to her husband this is seen as good"

Trouble is, it ISN'T seen as "good" by a LOT of people of faith. It is non-procreative and thus, (in their view) unnatural. In fact, I heard on more than one occasion during the Canadian Parliamentary hearings on same-sex marriage from "good Christians" (TM) that they considered the practice (heterosexual oral copulation) vile and wanted it stopped.

Good comment about all the parents, uncles, aunts, cousins and friends of gay/lesbian people, mom4v. There are more people touched by gay and lesbian loved ones in our families, communities and churches than we can shake a stick at! And I say that with a glad smile.

Rob G, you believe it is incorrect to say that a "normal" person is sexually active, and that celibacy is abnormal. May I gently disagree with you? The Creator must have had some wisdom when he said, "It is not good that the man should be alone". And to put a turn on an argument I sometimes hear, God could have made Adam a platonic buddy named Steve to pal around with, but instead God made Adam an Eve to live with, work with, converse with, play with, sleep with, and even make love with. Flesh of my flesh. God does seem to think that it is a normal part of human life to be in a relationship that includes sex.

And as for celibacy being abnormal -- well, it is! I believe it is heavenly, supernatural, a high gift flowing from God that is a spark of the new creation. It sure isn't typical of earthly life, and as Paul reminds us, not everyone has that charism. I certainly question the idea that all gay and lesbian people automatically have the gift and anointing of celibacy.

Short of nationally enforced monasticism, the cat is going to keep on meowing.

Dennis Marx,

"If people had the choice to abort a child, knowing that the child would likely be a homosexual, I'll bet that 99% of the parents would abort. This would certainly throw a wrench into the agenda of the pro-choice liberal crowd."

Actually, it would throw a huge wrench into the agenda of the pro-life crowd - THEY are the ones wanting to eliminate abortion.

"In this instance, you can bet that they would suddenly become screaming pro-lifers!"

Wrong. I, for one, would certainly leave the choice up to the mother. See, no "screaming" and certainly not what you expected, apparently.

"PC is a funny thing."

Not really. It's all about not wanting to intentionally hurt otehrs. It is the embodiment of the "Do unto others" principle. Try it sometime.

"Homosexuality will never be mainstream."

No one is arguing that it will nor that it needs to be.

"By definition, 2% of the population will never dictate policy to the other 98%, though they are trying like hell."

I question your statistics. The "98%" you invent is quite fictional, considering that the CBS News/New York Times poll of April 2007 found 28% of Americans thought gays should be allowed to legally marry and a further 32% were in favour of "civil unions". That's 60% in favour, for the mathematically challenged, and only 35% wanted no legal recognition. Sorry, but you are simply wrong.

"I have a live and let live attitude"

I sure didn't see that in what you posted.

"It has nothing to do with "civil rights." That's a slap in the face to black people."

Not according to ACTUAL black leaders like Coretta Scott King, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, or Julian Bond, or Jesse Jackson, etc. Once again, you are simply wrong.

"The Bible is clear on the issue of homosexuality."

If it WERE "clear" these debates wouldn't be happening. Having said that, America is not a theocracy. Yet.

"I don't much care what people do as long as they leave me alone"

Thiss too does not come across in what you type.

"do not try to force me to accept things that I am not able to accept. Call me a bigot. What do I care?"

No one HAS called you a bigot here, have they Dennis? And I predict that so long as you refrain from saying bigotted things, that situation will remain the same, even if you cannot "accept" the legal equality of gay and lesbian citizens.

Dear your blue eyes aren't like mine?,

"You seem to assume that everyone ("you heterosexual married folk") who wants to be married is already married and will stay that way forever. (The hugely prolific poster recovering ex-Pentecostal does this here, too"

I DO???? Where have I ever stated anything even close to that sentiment? On the contrary, a little touted part of Mr. Huckabee's announcement of his desire to make the Constitution look more like the theological tenets of his faith's beliefs was the inteintion to enshirne into the Constitutio marriage defined as" 1 man, 1 woman - FOR LIFE".

I certainly do not agree with those sentiments, which you have falsely put in my mouth. Many people aren't old enough to have "already married". And as for "will stay that way forever", I often cite my 3 sisters - all of them heterosexual, but 2 of them divorced and re-married, albeit outside of their original Churches which forbade them from re-marrying (despite late changes to that tenet). What on earth makes you think I believe such a fairy tale?

Meanwhile, when you say "It still hasn't happened for me.", my hope, my prayer for you is that it WILL happen (it did for me), and, that when it DOES happen, it will be legally recognized by your government, as it has for me under mine. I had to work hard for that to happen. I hope you (and Mike) will too. Don't ever let them bear false witness against you.

Dear Rob,

Okay, I do agree with you that celibacy is not malignant.

But just being truthful, some of us have an easier time keeping our pants on than others. That's why Paul counseled marriage for those who burn, and why I would like to take him at his word.

Somewhat similar to you, Judah in Genesis 38 was a widowed middle aged heterosexual male. He saw Tamar dressed as a prostitute on the street corner and decided she looked good and slept with her. Maybe not the best choice, and he sure was embarrassed later to realize she was his daughter-in-law. He had a tough time keeping his pants on, and in this case sure got caught with his pants down! But it wasn't all bad. The child of that union became the ancestor of Jesus.

Maryck,

"the Bible (Old Testament) also mandates stoning for adultery. No one is concerned that Jews or Christians will read those lines and start throwing stones at those having affairs or living "in sin."

Perhaps, perhaps not . It certainly DOES happen in other non-Christian and non-Jewish faiths in other parts of the world. Plus, American "Christians" certainly do "throw stones" at sinners, they're just metaphorical stones (usually).

"You complain that the Bible lumps homosexuality with other sins. It also does that for fornication and adultery. No one worries about Christians discriminating against fornicators or adulterers anymore."

Hmmm, maybe that's because fornicators and adulterers AREN'T discriminated against like gays are - they're STILL ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED.

"When the gay community co-opts the terminology of Christians for marriage'

Maryck, Christians don't OWN the terminology. I have some non-Christian friends who are married. Did THEY "co-opt" the terminology???

"Your post made the argument that because some Christian Bible lists homosexuality as a sin that it is discriminatory as it equates it to other sins like lying and murder."

Yes it did. And then it went further and asked why thieves and murderers are still allowed to get married (heterosexually), despite their "sinful" state. No one has bothered answering me.

"If you are honest you will admit that this argument if it were to prevail would result in all passages that declare homosexuality a sin to be ipso facto hate speech."

Of course, not all passages in the Bible that refer to homosexuality DO "declare" it to be a sin. Nor do I see anything hateful about the beautiful, tender homosexual love story of Jonathan and David ("surpassing the love of women" and all that). I do kind of see some, er, antipathy, in the "and they shall surely be put to death" call, though.

"Christians call adultery and fornication sins and no one things that they are hating the large number of people living together without benefit of marriage."

Nor are they forbidding adulterers and fornicators the option of GETTING married, heterosexually.

"Yours is an argument designed to destroy the Christian concept of marriage being between a man and woman exclusively."

Two parts. I in no way wish to "destroy the concept" of marriage, but I would like some acknowledgement that it doesn't belong solely to "Christians". Nor does anything I have posted indicate the desire to take away from the traditionalists the concept of it being between one man and one woman - it always will be for them anyway. (And you, too, seem to have convenitently dropped the Huckabeeism "for life" - why that?) But I Do have a problem with the "exclusively" part. It never "always was" 1 man, 1 woman, let alone "for life" in many cultures. I'm for inclusion, not for exclusion. You don't like smae-sex marriages? Then don't have one. Don't deny me/us equality before the law though.

"I personally feel that it is discriminatory to give preferential benefits to people solely because they are engaging in contractual sex. Why can't I pick a person to give my estate to without tax consequences? Why can't I share my medical benefits at work with a person (maybe a parent or sibling or friend) of my choosing?"

Good questions all. And they have all been denied to gays. Let's look at them: The "preferential benefits" ARE given "to people solely because they are engaging in contractual sex" NOW, already. But only if they're heterosexual. You CAN "pick a person to give my estate to", as can gays. WE have tax consequences when WE do; not sure why you want that special right. You CAN "share [your] medical benefits at work with a person (maybe a parent or sibling or friend) of [your] choosing" if your employer allows it and you go through the same legal hoops gay people have to go through to do it. Why either of us - you, specifically or me (and gays generally) - should have to jump through legal hoops is the double standard I constantly question.

Timothy,

In order to make a short reply to your lenghty post, let me put it this way ...

When you speak of lofty ideals (and there's nothing wrong with that), and pepper your post with so much 'God talk' (eg. "that icon of Christ imaged as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride"), etc. it ignores the very basic belief that in America, people have freedom of religion. That means they don't have to accept what you happen to beleive. I'm not trying to take away your beliefs. I am trying to say that gay citizens (and str8 ones who hold other beliefs) should not be forced to abide by them. And THAT is Huckabee's intentions. And THAT is what scares me. In my not so humble opinion, it should scare ALL Americans who beleive in liberty, in freedom, in equality, in justice for ALL.

Peace to you on your journey.

Well, this was a long read but i also wanted to add my thoughts on this issue as well.
I still hope that the day will come when I can marry. Not so much for having my marriage recognized by others, I really don't care if they approve or not but to have the legal benefits that such carries. I have seen too many situations where a gay couple has been together for many years, bought a house, land, shared bank accounts, etc. and when on individual died, the family came in, took everything and left the other with no options and nothing from the relationship. This simply isn't right.
1. We are supposed to be a Republic NOT a Democracy. This means we are governed by laws, for the benefit of all its citizens, not just the majority or the minority. Laws, which dictate fairness for all and are not governed by a whim or religious beliefs. The fact that gays are not entitled to marriage automatically creates a second-class citizenship for them.
2. Many people site their religious beliefs as reason for not allowing gays to marry. If you believe this, fine, you're welcome to your belief. But by the same token, we are not a theocracy that dictates the laws based on one religions belief. While I’m not Christian, to claim that Bible points against homosexuality, really doesn't hold water. There are Christian sects that are for and against gay marriage, both using the same Bible to support their claim.
3. If marriage were so sacred, there wouldn't be the divorce rate that there is. To say that gays are going to destroy the institution of marriage is ridiculous. I think that those who are or who are now divorced have done a wonderful job at destroying the "sanctity" of marriage. How many of the heterosexual community, religious or otherwise have divorced and then remarried, countless times? The word that comes to mind is hypocrisy! Then, there's always the argument (slippery slope argument) that if gay marriage is allowed, people will try to marry their pet, or a child...is that stupid or what? Animals and especially children do not have the right of consent to such a situation. It's become very tiring to listen to the same slippery slope arguments. They have no real purpose other than to create fear in people. Unfortunately, too many people are willing to live or base their feelings/thought s in fear. “What ifs” and “might happens” are all political tools used to instill fear. Then there are those who say that the union doesn't create children. There are many hetrosexual couples who either can not have children or choose not to have children. With this thought in mind, should their marriage be nullified...no.
4. The claim that “marriage was instituted by God” only works if one chooses to believe it. There is no place in the Bible where it specifically states, “God says marriage is between a man and woman”. This is an excuse used to justify discrimination. In genesis, it said that God created woman to be a helpmeet or mate (depending on the version) for man. Doesn’t claim marriage. It is assumed as such or at least used to support the notion. If one really wants to get to the marriage of the Bible, men would be polygamists. Men had many wives. Also, during the time when Jesus is said to have lived, it was common for the woman to live with the man in Hebrew society to see if she could conceive a child. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout the centuries. To say that marriage, as it is recognized today, has never gone through changes, is not true.
Gay marriage will eventually happen because it is the fair and right thing.
”Liberty and Justice for all” will prevail.

Rob G,

"I will not discuss this with you, as you have a strong tendency to twist what your opponents say and to read things into their statements that aren't there."

For instance ... ?

"You also tend to think that your own personal, subjective, individualistic take on Christianity is as valid as anyone else's."

And YOU don't???

"Something can be abnormal in a benign sense or abnormal in a malignant sense."

And it's pretty hard to tell by reading typed posts without any inflection. Let's see how this works:

Person A: "I think you are abnormal."

See how hard it would be for Person B not to take offense?

"Celibacy can be called 'abnormal' in that it is outside the norm, but it is not 'abnormal' in the sense that it is malignant."

Celibacy is one of many spiritual gifts. Not all of us have the same spiritual gifts ("charism") and it is unrealistic to expect it of or to impose it on others.

"all unmarried Christians are called to it"

Only in certain sects. Certainly not in all.

What's so great about being "normal" anyway? Could someone tell me?

But I must admit I was a bit shocked when I read,

"I am a middle-aged, divorced heterosexual male. I may marry again someday, I may not."

Hmm, Jesus said divorce was a no-no. The RCC says re-marriage after divorce is likewise a no-no. Pretty selective, imnsho. Not a Catholic? Wouldn't matter under a Huckabee Presdiency - you'd be forced to abide by his Baptist beliefs, and he calls marriage (and I quote) "1 man, 1 woman - FOR LIFE".

Do you GET it yet???

recovering - The fact that Jesus said divorce was a no-no doesn't matter to these people. They will never "get it". When I heard pastors preaching on Sunday that you shouldn't vote for so & so because they think gay marriage is okay. This was before I found out my son was gay, I would sit & think what about all the other issues. We should just vote for so & so because of one issue. It never made sense & still doesn't. Look at the situation our country is in, it sure doesn't have anything to do with gays wanting to be married. It is poor budgeting, & everything else.

I will say on the record that marriage is NOT always easy. I have been married since 1984 & let's face it you have good times & bad times. We have managed to prevail, but not for one second would I tell people who want a divorce not to. Whether I believe in it or not, it is not up to me to tell someone else what to do. Could you imagine the government telling people they couldn't get divorced (or even churches for that matter)? It would be ridiculous!

At any church, there is at least the same if not more people divorced. If priests/pastors started preaching that divorced people were sinners then half the congregation would leave. That is why you won't hear it there. It is much easier to choose the worst sin when there are fewer people with that so-called sin.

Mike, I cannot tell you the pain that I felt when my son told me that he cried for years. It was the most awful feeling that I wasn't there for him. He had heard through the grapevine that so many gays/lesbians had been kicked out of their homes, etc. This is one thing that really ticks me off when all the self-righteous people talk about family & family values. My family should be supported just like anyone elses. People think that I am an awful parent because I support my son. How in the world could this be bad?

With regard to the comments about percentages, my husband, Mr. Sig, who does a lot of statistical analysis in his work, has provided me with this useful mantra:

"It is perfectly normal to be abnormal."

Statistically speaking, "normal" does not mean good, better, or right. It merely makes you one of the little data points that cluster around the statistical mean. Every bell curve has two ends and a middle, and where you fall therein says nothing about your moral value. In terms of intelligence, I am in a category that covers less than one percent of the population. So I'm as abnormal as any gay person. I'm a tiny little dot way out on the tail of the bell curve. Does that mean I should be shunned, mocked, expelled from church and subjected to special discriminatory laws? Or told that my rights and wishes should not be considered by "normal" people? I certainly hope not. ; )

Ben Stiles: I wish you were joking. You are certainly sadly mistaken. Unfortunately, I can no longer bear children, but I can assure you that if I were told that I were pregnant with a genetically homosexual child, I would welcome him or her joyfully into this world. If one of the children that I already have, or my grandchildren, turned out to be gay, do you think that I could ever love them less? I feel very sad for you, but sadder for the people in your family who can't count on you caring for them if they don't meet your expectations.

**Short of nationally enforced monasticism, the cat is going to keep on meowing.**

Mike:

Your life story is harrowing and touching.

Your closing thought hits the nail on the head. With the logic that justifies them coming after you, they can come after me (a divorced, heterosexual male who does not want children). Eventually, by this perverse "logic" of what is necessary to guard the "sacredness" of marriage (in a country with a First Amendment, no less!), you get a list as long as Martin Niemoller's.

Ben Stiles:

Good to hear Rev. Al Mohler has a co-conspirator in his genetic engineering project. But what is "Christian" about it, given the near-universal opposition by the devout to other genetic research (e.g., ESCR) that alters embryos, I have no idea.

"There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic

There is no proof that heterosexuality is genetic, either."

Posted by: I_Like_Dragyn | January 20, 2008 12:18 PM

///

I hate to be the bearer of reality where homosexuals are concerned, but "scientifically," genitalia points to genetic sexual orientation.

"Are you smater than than a fifth grader?" I guess Liberals, Progressives, Humanists and Democrat presidential candidates are not.

Larry, not looking for a fight, but I honestly don't understand why the theory of homosexuality being a natural development in humans, and the evolutionary theory of the survival of the fittest, are not mutually exclusive.

Seems that only one of those contradictory theories can be true, nes pa?

'Monkeys (and countless other animals) routinely engage in homosexuality despite the canard that "the parts don't fit."'

Other animals also eat their vomit, play with their feces, practice cannibalism, kill weak and unhealthy newborns, leave the old, sick, and injured to die, etc., etc. The mere presence of an activity in the animal kingdom does not equate with a stamp of approval for like behavior in humans.

Mmm . . . smells like the Curse of Ham . . . wonder if we could have some smells like the Curse of Sweet Potatoes to go with it. ; )

Wow, this is like the Mother of All Energizer Bunnies Thread. I love it.

Rob, I think you're missing the point of REP's comment on divorce. Your church allows it, and you have chosen to belong to this church. If you were a Roman Catholic, your divorce would not be considered valid. You choose to believe that the theology of your church is correct. Thus, you are a member in good standing in spite of your "lifestyle," whereas in some other churches, you'd be condemned.

Similarly, REP is validly married to his same-sex partner, by the standards of the church he belongs to, even though your church would condemn his marriage. The question is, why is your divorce (and hypothetically re-marriage) more acceptable than his? You picked a church that would accept you; he picked a church that would accept him. On what grounds do you now play the game of "My theology is better"?

sig, I chose the Church I did because I became convinced it was TRUE, regardless of my opinions. At the time I was still married. After my divorce I stayed in the Orthodox Church, not knowing whether it would be possible for me to marry again, since in the Orthodox Church requests for remarriage are examined on a case-by-case basis by the priest and the diocese. So in no sense did I pick a church because "it accepted me."

As far as natural law arguments go, you'll have to take that up with someone else. They are something I don't know all that much about, hence I don't use them.

Re: biblical analysis of SSM: anyone really interested might want to look up "Adam and Steve, Lilith and Eve," in http://wiredsisters.wordpress.com

"Instead, they sought to have the same rights apply to blacks as they did to whites. That seems to be the approach you should be taking as well"

Gee, Timothy, all this time I thought it was the EXACT approach I was taking. I do not seek to be called heterosexual. I DO seek "to have the same rights apply to [gays] as they did to [straights]".

"It's like you want your definition of marriage enforced upon others...because that's all it will be."

Reductio ad absurdum. For traditionalist heterosexuals, marriage will always be 1 man, 1 woman (even if not "for life", the way Huckabee says it should be). That simply will not change. The way you position it, you make it sound like we want all marriages to be same-sex marriages. Absurd. And it will not happen. How is that "enforcing" anything?

"A legal definition of marriage redefined to include homosexual unions. And I have to ask why?"

To quote JFK, maybe you should be asking "Why not?"

"What rights beyond legal will you get?"

You don't get it, do you Timothy. We DON'T want ANY "rights beyond legal" equality. Why would we? We arne't asking for special rights, and never have been. We want equal rights. Currently it is heterosexuals who DO have special rights - some 1,138 of them.

"I wouldn't lose any rights other than legal if the state no longer called my union a marriage."

Actually, Timothy, you WOULD. Those 1,138 rights are ONLY accorded to legally married people. They are not accorded to people in "civil unions". Perhaps you didn't know that. Besides, I'm not sure what "rights" you are imagining when you use the qualifier "other than legal". Perhaps you could clarify.

"Is this all about acceptance?"

No. I am not foolish enough to ever think that I will make the likes of "Donny" or Rob G "accept" me, and frankly I don't care if they ever do. I DO, however, want the State to treat me equally before the law - something that is allegedly 'promised' to all citizens. Hope that clarifies it for you.

"You just want everyone to accept it as "normal" whatever that may be"

Again, no I don't, so stop putting words in my mouth. Homosexuality IS perfectly normal - for homosexuals. Taht you have to qualify the word "normal" with "whatever that may be" means even your side isn't in agreement in what that word means, so perhaps you could refrain from implying we somehow aren't "normal".

"and you think you can legislate that morality to others and change their minds?"

Ni I don't. Huckabee seems to think HE can legislate HIS "morality" though, and wants to try. As for changing people's minds, I've done plenty of that already by speaking out against the injustice of inequality. Will I change yours? Rob's? "Donny"'s? I doubt it. But that won't stop me from speaking out against injustice and inequality.

"Doesn't work for Christians"

You seem to keep forgetting - I AM a Christian, and that many Christians agree with me and not you. So you are simply wrong - my arguments aginst injustice and inequality HAVE worked for Christians.

"Nor will I think of or call a homosexual union a marriage."

Then you will simply be in denial of reality, for I am married. It's a symptom of delusion to deny reality.

"I'll be glad you'll have the state's support to get treated equally under the law. Cool. But you can get that just by going the civil rights route"

Hasn't worked so far, so please forgive me when I say I don't believe you.

"that would be easier in my opinion than fighting 50+ legal battles in the states to get the right to call yourselves married"

Hasn't been "easier" in the 50+ legal battles in the states to get the right to call us "civilly united" either.

"You're saying the ability to have a kid (irregardless of whether one is produced or not) is not a type of union of any kind not already had in any other way?"

I AM???: Please show me where. Then explain what the heck that even means.

"Biologically, not emotionally or socially or legally, etc., at the heart of the nature of the biological function of sex is procreation."

That only holds true for heterosexuals and only SOME heterosexuals at that. However, it is still not a requirement of marriage.

"You know there are people who still believe the world is flat?"

Yes, I encounter quite a few of them on these boards ;{O)

"all through nature, consistently, that act is done to reproduce."

But that is not the SOLE reason people have sex. And 99%+ of sex acts do NOT result in procreation. Surely they must be doin' it for some OTHER reasons, no?

"Specific instances where it doesn't or can't doesn't negate the reason for a function's existence biologically. It only has to be able to happen"

It most certainly does NOT "have to happen" to get married. That's simply more delusion.

"If ... you cannot grasp that type of union, I'm not sure how else to say it. You're free to disagree that marriage is about the union of two (or in some circles, more) people, but if you do accept that, I don't see how you can deny that this is one level of union between two people that cannot be shared in any other way."

Timothy, I DON'T "deny it". It IS "one level of union", but it is NOT a REQUIREMENT of marriage. People, both heterosexual and homosexual can and do 'unite' OUTSIDE of marriage and procreate. Some heterosexuals have the physical "union" you describe and do NOT procreate. Some heterosexuals CANNOT procreate - and are still allowed to marry. Or do YOU "deny" THAT? Can you not "grasp" THAT?

"If a man's seed is implanted in a woman, they don't have sex, then they are still biologically united because of the mixing of life-giving fluids, the potential for it to create a child, and if it does, that child is the same as if they had sex and he/she came out. Such a union would be minus the emotional, social, and some theological aspects of union as well. But it would be a biological union nonetheless. I wouldn't call it a marriage though"

Nor would I. But you DO realize (I hope) that what you have just described is, in fact, the process many gay couples (and singles, for that matter) go through to concieve a child - whether they're married or not - just as many heterosexual couples (and singles, for that matter) likewise go through the exact same process to conceive a child whether THEY are married or not. It simply is APART from whether or not the people involved are married.

Through all your lengthy posts, I still see no reason to accord gay citizens the exact same rights, freedoms, benefits, privileges and obligations as those granted to heterosexuals.

I have seen too many situations where a gay couple has been together for many years, bought a house, land, shared bank accounts, etc. and when on individual died, the family came in, took everything and left the other with no options and nothing from the relationship.

Gah! Until/unless SSM is legalized, people in committed same-sex relationships MUST protect each other through wills, powers-of-attorney, co-owned assets and so on. Not to do so is a terrible failure to protect the security of your loved ones. Sure, it's a pain, but everyone who sets up shop as a family unit (even straight married people, if they're wise) has to take care of these details. And before someone makes it, I don't accept the argument that it's too expensive to get your legal/inheritance affairs in order. Anyone who owns property can afford the few hundred dollars it take to have a competent attorney draw up the paperwork.

Mrs. Pringle

Mrs. Pringle, If only life was that simple.

Timothy, thank you very much for your personal acknowledgements. This thread requires much more time than I'm able to devote at this point, so I'll bow out and let others carry on.

I am very much in agreement with you about human nature. That is a perspective I try to invest in this and other discussions, and I write without any gratuity that I'm very glad to find another person who shares that perspective. When the feathers get ruffled and the fur flies, balance is the first and most important casualty.

Recovering, it is altogether mete to see some people as delustional or stuck in a delusion -- and I will immediately agree with you at times -- but it serves nothing and harms much to infuse such comments in your posts. People can be wrong, you and I included. Let them, and deal with it, I beg you.

Mrs. Pringle.

"I don't accept the argument that it's too expensive to get your legal/inheritance affairs in order. Anyone who owns property can afford the few hundred dollars it take to have a competent attorney draw up the paperwork."

Absolute agreement here. Our point is that marriage makes it unnecessary to jump through those costly legal hoops - which are often ignored in many States anyway, and are specifically denied in those States that have either passed laws or changed their Constitutions to deny us the legal trappings of marriage.

recovering ex-Pentecostal said: Absolute agreement here. Our point is that marriage makes it unnecessary to jump through those costly legal hoops - which are often ignored in many States anyway, and are specifically denied in those States that have either passed laws or changed their Constitutions to deny us the legal trappings of marriage.

I'm in favor of SSM, and I don't think that getting a will and POA adds up to the same thing. But as long as there ISN'T SSM, these things are doubly important. Why would you not get them?

It seems hard to believe that states just set aside legal wills and POAs because they involve a same-sex partner. Do you know that that's happened? If so, it's another huge argument in favor of the necessity of SSM.

Also, being married doesn't mean you don't have to have a will/POA. I suppose the laws differ from state to state, but a legal spouse can't always assume that they'll inherit everything unquestioned, especially if there's a former spouse or two in the background.

Mrs. Pringle

Recovering, it's a personal honor to share this space with you. I have what some see (rightly, at times, I'm sure) an obsession with balance. Keep on, my friend; I'll be back. :-)

Rob,

"Sorry, but some Johnny-come-lately group that's willing to overturn 2,000 years of consistent authoritative Christian witness on a moral issue hardly qualifies as a "church" no matter what it calls itself. It's more like Flip Wilson's "Church of What's Happening Now."

What neo said. Seems you do need some educating about Church history.

AND some compassion. I find your labelling Churches that hold tenets different from yours as "Johnny-come-lately group[s]" and as mere "church[es]" with snarky quote marks, and the "Church of What's Happening Now" to be gross, offensive insults. They certainly are NOT in keeping with the "Love thy neighbours as thyself" Commandment, or the "Do unto others" Commandment.

Many here obviously disagree with you.

I asked: "do you think those behaviours are somehow relevant to a discussion on gay marriage and treating homsoexuals equally before the law?"

You replied: "Please go back and read my statement in the context of the comment to which I was responding. The relevance should be clear."

"Should" being the operative word. The "relevance" was far from "clear" which is why I asked.

Neo, I have a summa cum laude B.A. in religion, with a concentration in -- guess what? -- church history. I was accepted into the masters' program in theology at a prestigious Catholic university. You wanna discuss church history here? Bring it on, dude.

'I find your labelling Churches that hold tenets different from yours as "Johnny-come-lately group[s]" and as mere "church[es]" with snarky quote marks, and the "Church of What's Happening Now" to be gross, offensive insults.'

Please read my statement again. I specifically referenced groups which attempt to overturn Christian morality, not all churches "that hold different tenets" from mine. You need an education in reading comprehension infinitely more than I need one in church history.

Rob G,

I'm glad you have a religion degree. And glad you concidered getting your masters. I'm glad you clarified your position on other churches, please be more clear the first time. I think our exchange has shown me that the greater church has a long, long, long, long way to go to heal from all the splitering of denomiations.

I don't think "bring it on"... will solve anything.

But please don't ignore the fact that the church has evolved. Many issues are different now. Usury(charging interest) used to be a sin, now its only if its excessive. I guess 20% isn't excessive I don't hear anything about credit cards. Slavery, and racism used to be condoned by most churches. See the curse of ham. The church used to think earth was the center of the universe and punish anyone that thought otherwise. The roman catholic church and many others have changed there definition on when life started. It used to be much later, when there was motion from the unborn child. Childern used to be punished much more harshly but now many churches concider that to be wrong. Not to mention all the changes from the reformation.

mom4vr61,

I'm sorry that your journey has been so hard. Please Don't give up on God and Jesus because of what any human has done. We dont understand him and that is part of the problem. We are all imperfect. Why God chose to make us imperfect is a mystery. But when we feel the most allienated is sometimes when whe need the imperfect church the most. I pray that your pain that you and your son have endure will heal, and you will find a community that supports you.

Rob G,

Most of yours are also either incorrect, overgeneralizations or valid explanations. And I agree that discussion will get us no futher.

'If you believe that your church is the "true" church then nothing anyone can say to you will make one difference in your thinking.'

I can see how it might look this way to you; but then again, why would anyone join a church if they didn't think what it taught was true?

"Can we each go in peace and believe what we believe and not snark each other to death?"

Fair enough. It seems that the thread is running out of steam and these latest back-and-forths aren't generating anything particularly trenchant!

Cheers, all.

Shucks! I was hoping this thread would continue till it got the all-time prize for longest-running thread ever. Like "The Mousetrap," or whatever currently holds that title on Broadway. I'm going to comment one last time, though, so at least we'll get up to an even 350 posts. ; )

mom4vr61, the problem of official non-acceptance of gay people in the church (unless they remained closeted and celibate, of course) was one of the reasons I find I can no longer participate as a Catholic. (One of several reasons--there were more!) I always assumed my fellow Catholics accepted the ban on same-sex love, even though I didn't. On two occasions, once at a Cursillo and once in a meeting of a small church group with older Catholics, my indignation got the better of me and I said clearly how wrong I thought the official attitude was. Much to my surprise, all the others I was with--more orthodox (I thought) and older than me, agreed heartily. To me this says that the leadership and the people are on different paths, just as they are about birth control, divorce, intercommunion, clerical celibacy, and how to deal with the molestation scandal. But the structure of the RCC is such that it doesn't matter what the people believe--there is no path at all for change from within. You can vote with your feet or give up your voice.

It is outrage, and I am there with you. I pray your son will find a community where he will be safe and loved.

Cleveland: "Larry, not looking for a fight, but I honestly don't understand why the theory of homosexuality being a natural development in humans, and the evolutionary theory of the survival of the fittest, are not mutually exclusive."

Consider "balancing selection". It's possible that selection can't eliminate certain alleles because they have a positive effect in other, more common contexts. We also know that homosexuals can reproduce. It's not that they're inherently sterile: Many gay men and woman have had children. Furthermore, homosexual behavior is not limited to humans.

The thing is, nobody knows the actual factors (genetic & developmental) behind homosexuality. You can't really say much about evolutionary pathways (pro or con) without that knowledge.

************************************************
Jim writes: "My feet have wanted to walk..."

"I've got two legs from my hips to the ground, and
when I move them they walk around
When I lift them they climb the stairs, and
when I shave them they ain't got hairs..."
- Monty Python, "I've got two legs"

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

sigaliris, you are so correct that the people in the pews, and often the priests, are in a much different place than the bishops and the pope on these matters. Bless your heart for sticking it out.

jim, you sound like a fine man. I'm glad you and your partner are in the church also.

The Law and Order episode simply points out the stupid hypocrisy of the left, in that unborn gays are somehow more deserving and a bigger issue to worry about, as opposed to say, normal healthy babies.
Someone mentioned that they do not regret having their gay child, but that really isn't the question if you're talking about a solid prediction of future gay offspring. Many parents are opting for abortion when Mongoloidism is found in testing, as well as other genetic problems. It would not be hard to predict what would happen if they actually did uncover the genetic markers for homosexuality, if such markers exist.

Rob G - So if I believe that SSM is okay then that means I am a liberal? Do you think all conservatives do not have some liberal views? Your comment is as "idiotic" as the comment you took offense to.

Even though I am no longer a Christian, I would really suggest that you go back & read what Jesus said while he was on Earth. I really have to say that for someone with such a vast education on religion it really left you with a hard heart. Perhaps because you got your education from a Catholic University you got a more slanted view?

I am not saying this with any anger, but it is your black & white view and the fact that you know without a doubt that your church is the only true church that really puts people off. The priests/pastors etc. that I spoke with all agreed (I am saying this with total honesty here & not making this up) that they think the church is making a huge mistake with their views on gay issues. Perhaps you ought to talk to someone about homosexuality w/o the bee in your bonnet (I mean a higher authority in your church). They will not volunteer their true feelings if you talk to people where they can clearly see what you think about it.

I think perhaps the reason that these priests/ministers have a different view than what they put out there because the church tells them what to say is because they have counseled these people. They have seen up front the agony/dispair that these people have gone through & are going through. Many people I know have went through everything possible to change who they were attracted to. Other than Dr. Dobson's Love One Out minister who claims 100% of the people who went through his program have been able to change. Yeah right.

I also want to cover the issue of gays in our society. If you were dying would you refuse that a gay doctor gives you care? If we only had gay people left to use as soldiers would you say they couldn't fight? Look throughtout history there are many gays who have enriched our society. If you believe in God then you have to believe that he created them & loves them too. After all, you believe he loves you. I have to tell you that I don't know one person that is perfect & who does not sin on a daily basis. Yet, He uses them why would He not use homosexuals too?

I am not sure why your church thinks it is okay to divorce, but many years ago I don't think that was the case. In the southern Baptist church if you have been divorced you are not allowed to have any ministerial duties. Do we are really think that just because one has been divorced that they should no longer minister. It is ridiculous.

Let's face it, the wealthier people in the RCC were able to get annulments when the lower class couldn't obtain one. I know many women who have left the RCC because priests told them that they contributed to the abuse their husbands did to them. The "true" church left these women down in a huge way. Why? Because they didn't think divorce was right.

"Someone mentioned that they do not regret having their gay child, but that really isn't the question if you're talking about a solid prediction of future gay offspring. "

As to this comment, you can't predict the future of ANY child. My son is brilliant & will be a contributing member to our society. He will be paying a large portion of taxes that will help take care of the less fortunate. He adds a richness to my life and many other peoples lives & it would be unfortunate for all if I had decided to terminate him because I knew he would be gay.

As a gay guy I agree with this article. In practice, "marriage" today, like it or not, is a set of rights and obligations between two people who love each other and who intend to spend the rest of their lives together.

Many straight long-term partners don't get married, and many married couples divorce with impunity.

If a particular church or synagogue or mosque wants to deny same-sex marriage, that's fine. It's their religion; it's their right. But secular "marriage" -- that is, the government's legal recognition of a union between a couple -- should be available to any two people regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or, yes, sex.

Opponents of same-sex marriage would have much more credibility if they were consistent about enforcing marriage as a biblical, transcendent religious communion endorsed by the state. They ought to lobby for divorce to be illegal and for marriage to be compulsory for all heterosexual couples who co-habitate for more than a reasonable period (say, five years).

If they are not willing to do that -- if, in other words, they recognize that AS FAR AS THE GOVERNMENT IS CONCERNED, marriage is a secular contract between two lovers -- then they have no legitimate grounds for refusing to extend the right to all couples.

I would respect a traditionalist who sought to outlaw divorce. I'd disagree with the position, but respect its consistency. By contrast, anyone who wants the freedom to divorce and co-habitate for themselves, while denying the freedom of marriage to other couples, is a hypocrite.

"I have seen too many situations where a gay couple has been together for many years, bought a house, land, shared bank accounts, etc. and when on individual died, the family came in, took everything and left the other with no options and nothing from the relationship.

"Gah! Until/unless SSM is legalized, people in committed same-sex relationships MUST protect each other through wills, powers-of-attorney, co-owned assets and so on. Not to do so is a terrible failure to protect the security of your loved ones. Sure, it's a pain, but everyone who sets up shop as a family unit (even straight married people, if they're wise) has to take care of these details. And before someone makes it, I don't accept the argument that it's too expensive to get your legal/inheritance affairs in order. Anyone who owns property can afford the few hundred dollars it take to have a competent attorney draw up the paperwork.

"Mrs. Pringle"

And now a word from our sponsor.

Rob G.:

I'll agree you didn't say it.

You sure as h*ll implied it, and extremely strongly.

And your last ad hom was VERY un-CC. Not to mention, well, idiotic.

Cleveland,

Why do you want to "Except ... homosexual clergy [who are] shining brightly"???

My Pastor shines very brightly. He was recently named to the Order of Canada. He has helped eliminate unjust laws. He has preached the Gospel faithfully for 30 years. His ministry includes helping the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. And I know many, many gay clergy who have done likewise.

Please elaborate. Thanx in advance.

Study the history of pederasty, both Sapphic and masculine. The whole issue of homosexuality is getting to an individual at the youngest age possible. Schools are the target zones. Always have been (study history.) Like pedophilia, homosexuality is spread through contact. Promoting same-sex marriage will continue to open the flood gates of perversions and abominations until society is completely like that of Noah's ot Lot's day. The Biblical stories were not just good advice. They were proper and dire warnings. We are just about at the way society was in the story in Judges where you can't be out at night for fear of being sexually assaulted and/or murdered. Can you imagine an innocent unsuspecting young man walking into a toilet in Palm Beach at night? And now young women are being raped and murdered at a rate rivaling the darkest of ages. Implementing same-sex marriage will take us backwards in time to Molech and Baal worship days. Nothing "progressive" about it.

Cleveland,

Sorry I wasn't clearer, but my Pastor is a Pastor in a gay-affirming congregation. I wasn't linking him (nor others like him) to any "predation involved cover up rings of clergy" that occurred (and continue to occur) in the RCC or any other non-affirming Churches.

As for your contention that the "U.S. Bishops' cover up, bad as it was, is dwarfed in ugliness by your country's experience, and is still largely ignored by your Catholic Church-hating media.", all I can say is BWAHAHAHHA. That is nowhere near the truth.

I don't think "the media" (TM) hate any Church in particular. I suspect that a lot of journalists and reporters DO hate child abuse, cover-ups, lies, deception, hypocrisy, etc. that seems to be rampant in a lot of denominations - and rightly so.

However, I fail to see what any of the many child-abuse stories, nor any of Donny's typical, delusional rantings ("young women are being raped and murdered at a rate rivaling the darkest of ages" yadda yadda - WHICH I'M STILL NOT SURE WHY ROD ALLOWS/ENCOURAGES) have to do with the subject of this thread - gay marriage.

Donny, you are so right. The gay activists want to spread their insidious disease all the way down to kindergarten. They want gay love stories to be taught to children, they want kids to smile kindly on homosex, they want kids to think it's cool. Teens today have been programmed to accept as normal, impulses that not long ago were termed evil.
The country is in big trouble, and it seems to be getting worse by the moment. The instant gratification syndrome is everywhere, and applies especially to the sexual acting out that we see, the vile criminality. Continue to stand for the truth, Donny. Speak your mind and do not fear the loony progressives.

Donthy (or should that be Canny?),

Hate sure is ugly when it comes out of the closet...

"The gay activists want to spread their insidious disease"

I believe that is against the RoCs here. Gay people do not hve a "disease", let alone an "insidious" one. Seek professional help.

"They want gay love stories to be taught to children"

Don'y YOU want betterosexual "love" stories to be "taught" to children? In what way is THAT not "indoctrinating" them? I guess you str8s need to "recruit" eh?

"they want kids to smile kindly on homosex"

No more than you want kids to smile kindly on heterosex. Selective much?

"they want kids to think it's cool."

As do you with heterosex.

"Teens today have been programmed to accept as normal, impulses that not long ago were termed evil."

"Not long ago"??? As in Donny's latest posts? Speaking of which, is hate such as you and donny express to be 'accepted as "normal"'? "evil"? Do YOU "program" your kids"?

"the vile criminality"

Are you suggesing tat consenting adult loving relationships are now somehow "criminal"? Or just that some of them OUGHT to be?

"Continue to stand for the truth, Donny."

Donny stands for delusion, not "truth". Heck, not even "truthiness".

"Speak your mind and do not fear the loony progressives."

Ah, now I get it, it's only the regressive loonies that should be allowed to have a say in America.

Rod, close this thread - it's gone WAAAY beyond hate and descended into vile, untrue accusations that have NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

People believe lies because they either want to believe them, or because they are afraid that they might be true.

Rational arguments usually fail in both cases.

Thanks for the insights from a Hindu perspective, Nate. Just a couple of quibbles ...

"if you want people to think about marriage as something sacred, something spiritual, you have to really invest in the language, symbolism, meanings, values, etc."

Many of us have certainly already done that and continue to do so. (I was married in my Christian Church.) And for us, our quarrel IS with a Government that selectively only recognizes SOME faith-based marriages - a true ignoring of the "promise" of freedom of religion - and selectively grants the con-committant benefits, rights, privileges and obligations. It is this discrimination we decry.

I, too, abhor the term "partner" and for pretty much the same reasons you do because I AM legally married to my husband. When I cross the border into the U.S. (as I will be doing next week) I give up so many rights and freedoms that it scares me because we are left in legal limbo, at the mercy of the prejudices of whatever institutional representative we may have to confront (border agents, health-care givers, etc.).

"I still don't want to waste money on something that I am not even sure I want blessed by God"

I certainly don't consider our legal struggle to BE a "waste [of] money", and I sure as heck believe it to BE "blessed by God". More power to those who only want a civil marriage, but marriage it must be in order for the "promise" of equality before the law to be achieved.

"It's up to the spiritual institutions not to fight government, but to lay out the path that is still sacred."

My "spiritual institution" HAS laid out such a sacred path and we call it marriage. I disagree that spiritual institutions ought not "fight government", especially considering that SOME such spiritual institutions - even the (imo) hateful ones already have their rites acknowledged by the government. All the affirming spiritual institutions want is equal treatment, the freedom to practise their tenets and to have their resultant marriages recognized equally before the law as those of non-affirming faith institutions.

Blessings to you.

As a gay male I am pleased to report that I no longer care if coservativism ever really succeeds regarding banning same-sex marraige or enforcing all of its tenets on society as a whole. I write this only to encourage other gays to try to do the same. We know that we are far more than our sexual preference (which they can't seem to see past) and our love is much too important to waste time defending the right to express it the same way heterosexuals have always enjoyed...and not enjoyed. Traditional marraige can easily be stripped down to a legally binding contract with or without a religious ceremony to kick it off, and heterosexuals really have done a lousy job of making the whole enterprise particularly appealing to me at this point. Oh sure there are plenty of success stories, and I would never want to undermine that wonderful and inspiring truth of love found and successfully shared. But they really don't seem to take it all that seriously anyway, given the high divoce rate that is incessantley spewed every time this debate is debated. So let's leave traditional marraige to the one's who really want it and can't bring themselves to share it with us. They have their reasons, as we all do for everything. Instead let's take FULL advantage of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the fact that life insurance policies allow for anyone to be the beneficiary. Indeed, if you do find love in this insane little world of ours then see to it that your signifigant other is protected by your last will and testament instead of taking it for granted that your blood relatives will do right by them in your wake. That's all it takes. Why get hung up on semantics? You can channel all that emotional angst that you would otherwise invest in fighting for your right to marry into something far more useful. Traditional marraige--let them keep it!

I think I am a bit late to join this conversation, but I went to great expense to make sure my parter was covered under my will and listed as my primary beneficiary. We are considering civil union and/or marriage and I thought this would solve the issue of taxes on any insurance payment in the event of my death. Unfortunately that is not the case. As my legal husband he would have to pay taxes that a "wife" would not. This is completely unreasonable and I would like some federal changes made to protect our financial interests. As for the "marriage" label, well, I will have to disagree with my gay and lesbian friends. When I came out 10 years ago, I never thought about marriage. No one ever talked about it. It was just not an option and even now I see very little support by the lgbt groups. Give me the same rights and call it whatever you want. I just think we are so caught up in this marriage war that we forget about the many many battles that we have won along the way. When most of the gay community stops deeming a 2 month relationship as "long term" then I might begin to understand the marriage point. Until then, I'm content knowing that I can visit my partner in the hospital and that he will be taken care of when I pass. You can say that the straight world doesn't understand or accept these as simple liberties and wants nothing more then to keep us apart, but have you ever asked your straight friends how they felt, or do you, like them, let the media and radicals on both side tell you how the other is thinking. We will get there. So what if it doesnt happen overnight. It will happen eventually. We are first and foremost human beings and humans are creatures of habit. Strip away the titles and labels, us against them attitude and it might just happen sooner then later.