Tell me what's wrong with gay marriage

[John Wick]

My God acts in perfect love and in perfect justice.

Hi there,

If God acts in perfect love and justice, can you please explain why he used such barbaric rules in the Old Testament?

I mean, if God knows everything, that means he knows 21st Century morality, too, right? That means he knows we don't stone children to death for being disobedient (as suggested in Leviticus), and we don't forbid short-sighted people or folks with moles on their faces from becoming priests and rabbis (as suggested in the same book). We don't punish people for eating pork or stone them to death for working on the Sabbath.

We don't endorse slavery (as the Bible does), we don't forbid women from entering the temple (as the Bible does), we don't call people who eat shellfish or rabbit or game birds "abominations" (as the Bible does). We don't do any of that.

But if we use the Bible as a source of argument against homosexuality, shouldn't we also use it as a source of argument for all these things?

After all, God knows everything, including 21st century morality. Didn't he understand 21st century morality in 1200 BC?

In other words, if we know slavery is wrong in the 21st century, if we know eating shellfish is okay and short-sighted people can be priests, and working on the Sabbath isn't a death penalty offense... if we know all of this now... why didn't God know it in 1200 BC?

And if we finally come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of genetics -- that God made them that way -- then how can we blame people for how God made them?

[Harlequin]

Forget the next generation being shocked.

We Canucks are already quietly, politely horrified to be looking south at such a mess.  You poor sods, eh?

[Sean]

I think it would be wrong for people who aren't gay or bisexual, or who don't want to get married, to enter into a gay marriage. I doubt in that case doing so would make them particularly happy. There's always the possibility that individuals are unclear on their actual needs and desires, but on the whole I think the above is a pretty good guideline.

[greyorm]

--"Secular" is still a religious outlook.

I know you won't agree with me when I say this, Seth, but that is not true. To require a religious outlook requires a religious faith. Secularity does not have a religious faith. The problem with your argument is that the absence of religious faith is not religion, therefore a secular government does not hold a religious outlook despite it not holding a religious outlook.

The argument you present, in fact, is precisely why atheists become so incensed when they are accused of holding a religious outlook, or having atheism referred to as a "faith", when it is quite the opposite. It is also why scientists (and biology majors the world over) become rather annoyed when science is referred to as "belief".

Science is not belief in the same way secular government is not religious. (And I'm certainly hoping the logic of the first portion of that statement is obvious enough that it doesn't need to be explained or defended.)

I know the above isn't popular on the bandwagon that proclaims "atheism and secularism is a religion, etc." line, but claiming the absence of religious outlook is just bad logic: it's like claiming that the absence of fire is a fire, too. Or that darkness is just light you can't see in.

And, at the risk of sounding like a religious nut (which, I guess I am), I also believe that everyone will discover the Truth at some point, although for some it will be too late.

Indeed, and, just to be snarky in a friendly sort of way because I'm quite possibly considered a religious nut as well in various circles, I want you to know that I am sorry you will not discover the Truth until it is too late because of your current insistence about the Truth. We here who know the Truth recognize your failing in this regard and are sorry for the consequences you have chosen for yourself by not choosing the Truth even though you believe you have.

For example, the fact that you fail to accept the Holy See as the voice of the authority of God means you have not accepted the Truth. Only the Pope and the Vatican, as the true descendants of the church founded by Christ himself, can interpret the Word of God. We hope that you will one day come to accept the authority God has invested in the Holy Father, and hear his words as the Word of God, for that is what it is.

Of course, I'm not Catholic, but you see the point.
And just to clarify, I don't particularly care what you, as a person, choose to believe in for yourself regarding the Truth. I'm all for agreeing to disagree on such issues, and being neighborly, because most people are very nice people despite their differences in beliefs about that Truth concept. That said...

"Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"
"My beliefs do not require that they do."

Right back at ya!

My stating of which directly after your stating of the same is, of course, the intended point of the original statement to which you responded. In other words, this question: does your belief that your beliefs are the Truth mean that you can step all over me because you believe you are Right and I am Wrong? Does that mean, conversely, that I can step all over you because (in fact) I am Right and you are Wrong?

(Of course, when I say "in fact", I am doing it to make a point, not because I'm actually that assinine to believe it. Even though it's true. Oh wait, I just made my point again.)

So, that is where I draw the line about respecting other people's beliefs: when they start hurting my family or I for no reason other than a disagreement about our respective beliefs and their attempt to enforce their own upon me and mine through government authority and other strong-arm positioning. Such tactics are, bluntly, unAmerican, as would be any form of government based upon a specific Truth.

Honestly, Seth, given what has happened to me and my family because of my religious beliefs, because of what happened to me because other people believe they are the ones who have God and Truth on their side, because I've seen what happens when you have people who claim to have the Truth in power over those who do not share their view, even flirtation with the concept of government sanction or concession towards any set of religious beliefs scares the hell out of me.

Given that, do you understand the objection -- not an objection to what you believe the Truth to be or your personal desire to live according to that Truth -- but the objection to its utilization as a basis for secular law, law over others who do not share your belief and thus personal desires?

[James Holloway]

My God acts in perfect love and in perfect justice.

I mean, if God knows everything, that means he knows 21st Century morality, too, right? That means he knows we don't stone children to death for being disobedient (as suggested in Leviticus), and we don't forbid short-sighted people or folks with moles on their faces from becoming priests and rabbis (as suggested in the same book). We don't punish people for eating pork or stone them to death for working on the Sabbath.

The spiritual nature of Christianity is basically historical -- it assumes that the relationship between God and Man has changed significantly, and bases its faith on an understanding of when and how that change happened. This is why the Old Testament is, er, called the "Old" Testament. The theory of the thing is that the relationship between humanity and God changes, with the sacrifice of Christ, from one based on ritual to one based on grace (and, depending on your denomination, morality and/or ritual, but not the elaborate ritual codes of Judaism).

Now, this raises two problems. The first is how to decide exactly which bits of the Old Testament are ritual prohibitions and which are moral prohibitions -- you will yourself have noticed that many Christians eat pork, shave, etc. These prohibitions, it was felt, were not really what the new dispensation is all about. But there are disputed areas, and the debate over them is, obviously, ongoing. Homosexuality is not really one of them. It doesn't turn up much in the New Testament, but when it does it is disapproved of.

The second problem, and the point you raise here, is attempting to reconcile the Christian idea of a changing, developing relationship between God and humanity -- essentially, the story of the Bible -- with the idea that God, being omniscient, must have known exactly what was going on all along. Reconciling divine omniscience and free will is the fundamental theological challenge of Christianity,and there's two thousand years of work on it. For my money, none of the responses are really satisfactory, but obviously people believe differently.

Of course, the Catholic church deals with the issue differently again. They don't have to resort to the Bible to defend all their positions, and are perfectly free to lay down blanket bans on things without being inconsistent.