Tell me what's wrong with gay marriage

[xenopulse]

I'm with the "government should stay out of marriage" crowd. The concept is just too loaded. Government could maybe give out Domestic Partnership licenses to any kind of couple instead. But this kind of fucked up discrimination we have going on now is all a result of religion and government mixing when it never should have.

And it may be driven partly by financial decisions, but also by those who call themselves fundamental Christians, who are really pick-and-choose Christians and lip service Christians.

Jesus says divorce is a sin and remarriage is adultery. Is anyone pushing to make divorce illegal? Hell no, that would make our straight lives inconvenient! But wait... in another account of the very same conversation, Jesus actually makes an exception for fornication. So one of the accounts is wrong, hence one part of the Bible is untrue. What do we do? Pick-and-Choose.

I've tried and tried discussing this with people, but it's really tiring. People think they're on the moral high ground. Let me quote Bill Maher for them:

"There's more to values than reciting things and praying and voting for Bush... being moral actually involves making choices guided by principles like fairness and tolerance."

That's where I'm at.

[Paul Hebble]

A couple of points.

First, the insurance question still amounts to discrimination, even if that's not the intent.  Think about it: everyone who has insurance already subsidizes heterosexual marriages.  Is it fair to leave gays out in the cold?  Plus, if you accept for a moment that gays make up 10% of the population, that means there would be about 9 times as many straight marriages as gay; the rational thing would be to support only the gay marriages and let the straights twist in the breeze, since it would be so much cheaper.

Seth: Exactly which verses in the Bible do you rely on for your certainty that homosexuality is a sin?  Because all the citations I've seen people give are surrounded by other laws that you probably don't follow anymore, because Jesus set you free of the burden of Old Testament Law.  I'm wondering what makes homosexuality special.

Also, it should be noted that marriage is a human institution that has undergone many changes historically.  Here's a link to a few:
http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=historical_look

[GreatWolf]

Seth: Exactly which verses in the Bible do you rely on for your certainty that homosexuality is a sin?  Because all the citations I've seen people
give are surrounded by other laws that you probably don't follow anymore, because Jesus set you free of the burden of Old Testament Law.  I'm
wondering what makes homosexuality special.

Gee, I thought that we killed this topic last year.  ;-)

This is a quick answer, because I'm at work and have some serious troubleshooting to be doing.  Plus, it's almost time to process Diplomacy orders.

If I have time later, I'll write something in more depth.  It won't be tonight, though, because Ralph (Valamir) and I have a game of War of the
Ring to play.  (This time the Free People will win through.  I know it!

Anyways, Paul, here's a New Testament citation for you:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to
nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:26-27)  

The issue of continuity/discontinuity of the Old and New Covenants is a difficult one, and therefore I will not attempt to address it now.  Suffice
it to say that the normative principle of marriage throughout Scripture is "a man and woman are joined together".  Some examples include:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

From creation, God's ordinance is one-man/one-woman.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."  (Matthew 19:3-6)

Jesus appeals to this principle when arguing against divorce, thus demonstrating that this is not an artifact of the Old Covenant.

And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.  Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. (Malachi 2:13-15)

One of the purposes of marriage is Godly offspring.  Biology demonstrates that this is only possible between a man and a woman.  (There are other
purposes, true, but this is one of them.)

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.  (Ephesians 5:22-33)  

Paul notes that marriage is a symbol of the relationship of Jesus and His Church.  Thus, the interplay of the male/female relationship in marriage is a picture of how Jesus relates to His special people.  It's important to note at this point that Paul's instructions in this passage (especially to husbands) is totally countercultural.  Often Paul gets a bum rap as one who is enforcing cultural norms, but a brief survey of the treatment of women in the Roman Empire should demonstrate that the command to "love your wives" was a radical departure from the common wisdom of the day.

So, those are a few passages that I might point at, without having to dive into Leviticus.  :-D  I'd write more, but you're probably already wondering how I could possibly think that this is a short post.

Hope that this is helpful.

[Vaxalon]

Thanks Seth...

To me, an excellent article that firmly supports my opinion that government should have nothing at all to do with marriage.

[xenopulse]

From creation, God's ordinance is one-man/one-woman.

Except here:

And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

And here:

Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

Here:

And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

Or in Jesus' parabel:

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. (...) And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage.

And Paul, of course, is not exactly a defender of Women's Rights:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Sorry, but IMNSHO, anyone immoral enough to condone oppression of women cannot be a moral authority.

[GreatWolf]

Xenopulse,

I'm going to be a little snippy here.  But I figure that I'm giving you fair warning, so it's okay.  ;-)

Ready?

<snippy>

Do you really think that I am clueless as to the content of the Holy Book of my religion?  Do you really think that I am now suddenly going to roll over and say, "You're right!  I had no clue that so many of the Biblical characters were polygamists!  Perhaps the entire content of my faith is wrong!  Perhaps Jacob's bigamy really does justify homosexual 'marriage'?"

Please give me some credit for being intelligent enough to be both aware of these issues and having reasonable responses.  Now, are you really interested in hearing them, or are you just looking to put another notch in your belt and feel good about telling off some clueless bigoted Christian?

</snippy>

That's a serious question, by the way.  I'm happy to engage in productive discussion, but, honestly, I'm a pretty busy guy, and I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's, either.  I'm married to a wonderful woman whom I love passionately, and I am the father of four children (plus one on the way) who keep me pretty busy.  So, seriously, are you interested in dialogue, or are you just looking to fight?

[Mike Holmes]

Don't know why I'm getting involved, but here goes.

Seth, the problem with your argument is that other people have just as much evidence and faith as you do in other beliefs. I accept that you believe as strongly as you do, but I also accept that others do as well. Where your beliefs and others conflict, how is the third party to choose between them when the evidence is essentially equal?

We're not moving to an Atheist America, we're moving to a secular government. There is a difference. The secular government doesn't say that action A or B is wrong, it only prevents individuals from harming each other. Because without that there is no society, and demand for having a society is what causes governments to exist in the first plce. So, since that's the only common ground we share, that has to be the only condition by which we judge what to create law about. All else should remain at the liberty of the individual.

Now, that means, in fact, that marriage should be dissolved as an institution supported by the state. Instead, as Fred suggests, people can make their own contracts - a contract being an agreement enforced by law in order, again, to sustain us as a society.

Now this is actually rather pie in the sky, I'll admit. I do see a use for government in supporting values that the vast majority seem to share. But in the long, long run, I'm a libertarian.

Now, here's the argument that I'd give to you, Seth, to try to convince you that this is all right and proper. If, in fact, you strip away the government of any association with religion, making it only a body intent on protecting individuals from the harms that others might put forth, wouldn't the truth then be allowed to come out? That is, if you believe in fact that the Truth you claim is true, then given an even playing ground, shouldn't that become apparent, and the truth win out? I think it's precisely because people do fear that government will force some particular way upon them, that they often fear to follow any religion that seems sponsored by it. Only by free choice can the faithful be called, no? You can't force someone to believe, right?

So why do you need the government on your side?

Mike

[xenopulse]

GreatWolf,

I wrote a long response and deleted it.

I did not attack you, I didn't even make an argument, except for my impression of Paul. I merely quoted the Bible.

I don't assume you're clueless. I just think your statement was not supported by the Bible. And that's best shown with citations. It's called the academic method with regards to primary sources.

Honestly, it'd probably be a waste of time to discuss this between the two of us. You have your arguments, based on the fundamental idea that the Bible is true and somehow all the contradictions can be solved. My fundamental point is that there are way too many contradictions (and different translations) to take that book literally, and that overall, I don't have the burden of proof to show that the Bible is wrong. You have the burden of proof to show that it's right, otherwise, all religions would be true unless proven wrong, which is obviously contradictory. The only reasoning I get from fundamentalist Christians is that it's God's word, which is not only tautological, but also refuted by the contradictions.

So, we can let it rest, or throw arguments back and forth, either way.

And I have a wife and three kids to take care of as well. Our marriage is based on love and equality, not tradition and oppression.

[GreatWolf]

Mike,

Thanks for your post.  Here's a brief answer, in bullet points, largely because I really do have stuff that I need to do.

--"Secular" is still a religious outlook.  You say, "The secular government doesn't say that action A or B is wrong, it only prevents individuals from harming each other."  I agree in a sense.  I believe that God established government to restrain evil and reward good.  (As a result, I disagree when you say, "Because without that there is no society, and demand for having a society is what causes governments to exist in the first place. ") I believe that God establishes if action A or B is wrong, and that the government is only to enforce that in the public realm.  However, a secular government does not look to God to determine what is right and wrong; therefore, it has a religious outlook.  Neutrality is impossible.

--I agree that the government does not define what marriage is.  However, in order for the government to do its work (restraining evil and rewarding good), it does need to have a definition of marriage.  Otherwise, there are a host of legitimate governmental functions that will not be able to be performed.

--I agree that the Truth is the Truth, regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with it.  I don't need the government to say that it is the Truth to make it true.  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.  (Philippians 2:9-11)

Oh yes, I'll end by responding to this

Seth, the problem with your argument is that other people have just as much evidence and faith as you do in other beliefs. I accept that you believe as strongly as you do, but I also accept that others do as well.

with a quote

"Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"

"My beliefs do not require that they do."
--Lock and Morpheus, Matrix Reloaded

[GreatWolf]

So, we can let it rest, or throw arguments back and forth, either way.

Let's just let it rest.  Probably better that way.

Besides, as someone noted to me in a PM, I still need to finish Alyria.  (I'm now officially requesting periodic nags to shame me into finishing.)

And I have a wife and three kids to take care of as well. Our marriage is based on love and equality, not tradition and oppression.

Cool!  Enjoy them.  It is a great thing to be married, isn't it?

[xenopulse]

It is a great thing to be married, isn't it?

It's wonderful. Any two people who love each other should be allowed to experience it :)

[Andrew Cooper]

Seth,

Consider this a nag.  Go finish Alyria.

[James Holloway]

The seperation of church and state goes both ways: the state can't tell churches what, within reason (First Amendment protection), it can and cannot do.

Speaking as a clergyman, I don't think there'll be any problem with finding religions willing to marry same-sex couples. I would do it, for instance.

And speaking as a recently married guy, it's the state that marries couples anyway. Clergy just perform a brief decorative ceremony.

[Danny_K]

People in the U.S. are feeling insecure and freaked out, and gay marriage gives them a handy way to smack back at the threatening world around them.  You can't legislate away Osama Bin Laden or rap music or globalization, but you can legislate that a marriage is a man and a woman, by God!  

In other words, the gay rights movement went for Martin Luther King when it should have stuck to W.E.B. DuBois.  They overreached, and now there's a backlash.

[Vaxalon]

James, I'd be curious what you think about my idea of divorcing (heh.  divorcing) the secular legal contract from the marriage sacrament.