Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is mista

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

Sure it is. I speculate that a lot of people used to be for gay marriage because it was the politically correct or trendy thing to do. Once they thought about the implications, I think reality started to set in.

Hey JoAnn....if I want to marry 3 more women in addition to my wife, should we allow that also? Who would it be hurting? As a matter of fact.....why can't I marry my dog?

You see the hornet's nest this would stir-up?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

I'll get back to you a year from now.

Personally, I don't see any problem with polygamy (other than an emotional one) as long as long as its between consenting adults.

Would that be a male dog, or a female dog? Seriously, our constitution doesn't protect the rights for dogs (except for the human kind). Bringing this up is just a standard straw man argument. I don't believe it has any bearing on the issue at hand. Moveover, I hope you aren't trying to offer up some sort of moral equivalency between gay marriage and humans marrying animals, because that would be despicable.

I think you have a good point about polygamy. I don't think from a totally egaltarian point of view we could prevent it. And yes, I'm actually biased against polygamies for purposes of raising offspring. (Purely an emotional bias I must add.) However, there would be no more of a slippery slope than the one created by sanctioning heterosexual marriage in the first place. This is a totally unfair redistribution of wealth into the hands of people who may never be parents.

 

But why is bestiality "despicable"? What makes it so? Or, for that matter, spouse-beating, gay-bashing, pedophilia, insider trading, or George Steinbrenner?

If you build your moral approval or disapproval on nothing more than personal whim or the momentary state of civil law, you are either pretty much talking to yourself or reading yesterday's newspaper.

That applies no matter what side you happen to take in the gay marriage debate.

Have fun.

 

Janko,

What makes slavery "despicable" (assuming you believe that it is.) It was condoned in the Bible, was it not?

And even if you can provide some justification for how "those" parts of the Bible should be ignored, where does the Bible specifically say that slavery is wrong? For that matter, where does the Bible say that same-sex marriage is wrong? (I'm not a Biblical scholar. I don't know. I'm just asking.)

Jeff

 

How should one ground their moral judgements and how should moral disagreements be resolved?

 

Christian law?

Another point that should be brought up here is that not everyone in the US is Christian. Not every culture or religion forbids same sex relationships.

This was one of the arguments for separation of church and state, so that the majority couldn't force their religion on others, which is exactly what is happening when law is based on any one religion.

 

Re: Christian law?

Yes, but it is the one true religion, so that is OK

 

Answer to Biblical Questions

To answer some of the questions regarding the Biblical prohibitions of homosexuality, let me start by saying that, for the purposes of this discussion, I will not be using the Old Testament. Many people, ignorant on the subject of Christian theology, attempt to attack the Bible's credibility by quoting from the Old Testament. They frequently quote passages that demand that homosexuals be put to death, or obscure passages that call for specific sacrifices, etc. Without giving a theology lesson, let me just say this: The Old Testament still has a valid place in today's society, but many of the laws, rituals, and practices, were meant only for the Hebrew nation, and only for a specific time period. The moral law (The 10 Commandments) was binding for all time. The New Testament says the following regarding homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"

1 Timothy 1:10 "and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"

I could probably go on but this should do. The Bible never actually prohibits homosexual marriage, it prohibits all homosexual activity. Unlike the Old Testament (intended for the Hebrews) that called for us to punish those that broke the law, the New Testament calls for us to reach out and help those around us that need help. It is a gospel of love, but love should not be confused with blind acceptance.

As for the seperation of church and state: The seperation of church and state was instituted to prevent a governmental church from being created (like the Church of England). It was never intended to mean what liberals have made it mean. God is in our pledge, our anthems, our money, our legal system, etc. It was the moral code that our entire legal system was drafted upon. DOn't like it? Oh well. It's history, not fiction.

 

God, state and church

God has only been on the money and in the Pledge since the early part of the 20th century.

Yes, the separation of church and state was to prevent a state sponsored religion. But isn't a religion that is ditating the laws to the government the same thing?

Which version of the Bible were you getting those verses from?

Here is what I have from the KJV:

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Tim 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Of course, this discussion has gone into the religious side of marriage even though marriage is not just a religious institution. Yes, it is for some people but there where just as many civil marriages in this country last year as church weddings.

Which begs again the question of why this isn't being treated as a legal fairness question? Why are we bringing religion, and one particular religion into it?

As for polygamy, many major religions support it. You can quote chapter and verse on it from several religious texts.

 

Cannot a dabbler in philosophy ask a question about how moral norms are arrived at?

There was nothing "Christian" in the observation I made in my last post. It is a wonderment arising from a basic question--what is the source of any judgment of right or wrong beyond individual preference or taste? Is there any source-beyond? As a Christian who is so conservative he thinks Robertson and Gibson are liberals--not to mention a nitwit in the first case and a hater in the second--I believe there is a transcendent source of information on such questions in the Bible. There may well also--independent of any religious belief--be a source for decisionmaking in "natural law" (not to be confused with "laws of nature" or a natural/unnatural trope). If--IF--you hold there is no source beyond preference or taste or an idle positivism based on ever-changing civil law, how do you make decisions on an issue like this?

Maybe all of you, regardless of position on gay marriage, hold to a transcendent source of ethical norms. If so, my question is moot for you.

__________


Jeff: As far as I know, there is no absolute condemnation of slavery as such in the comments made upon it in either the OT or the NT. Many have argued that "love one's neighbor" is inconsistent with "own one's neighbor." Many have seen Paul's grudging acceptabnce of slavery as a temporary concession. Perhaps the letter to Philemon is an exemplarist argument for emancipation. The NT clearly condemns slavetrading and selling oneself into slavery. Nothing in the NT envisaged race-based slavery, which was unknown in the Greco-Roman world. Bill Grover is a better Biblical scholar than I am, however. He could likely give you an answer more thorough and more expert than mine.

 

Biblical Answers

Deb:

The KJV is widely regarded as the most errant version of the Bible. It's an inadequate translation. Look at the New KJV (NKJV), NIV, NAS, NRSV, or vertually any other translation. They all translate the verses as I originally posted.

Yes, we didn't add God to our money or our pledge until fairly recently, but God has been a CENTRAL part of America since its creation. This can't be denied.

 

The question then is what relationship should the Bible have to American civil law?

Should we (or more accurately they, since I'm certainly not included) treat the Bible and its strictures as the foundational law of the land, as kind of a meta-Constitution above the Constitution?

Or should the Bible serve as a guide to those who choose to follow it and who may consider what it tells them when they are deciding how to vote? (While others of us choose to seek our guidance elsewhere.)

This is the difference between a Taliban-style system of religious law and American democracy as we know it, with its separation of church and state that creates a neutral forum to which all of us may bring our diverse moral sensibilities.

So how can such a natural law, supposing it exists, be known?

If it's known through man's mind and man's heart, then aren't we back at the position that you criticized, namely trusting human moral sensibilities and intuition?

I'm still not entirely clear why the Bible or natural law don't collapse into matters of preference and taste as well.

But to answer your question in my own case, I trust my mind and my gut in issues or morality. I use my mind to try to understand the implications of my positions and at least ideally I use my empathy, compassion and sense of fairness to tell me whether those implications are desirable. (In real life things like greed, pride and fear also insinuate their way in there. There's an element of inner work involved in being moral.)

Frankly, I'm not sure what the source is for these moral intuitions of mine. It may be your natural law. It may be some spiritual gnosis of the divine or something. But I'm inclined to think that it's most likely social instinct. Human beings have been living in social groups since before they were human beings. I expect that social instincts are innate with us.

Nope, I don't think that I do.

What's more, I'm not sure that transcendent sources really help very much. One can still ask whether the transcendent source is truly good. (That's not a silly question, given things like 1Samuel 15.) If we need a meta-transcendent standard to judge the morality of our transcendent standard, then we are off on an infinite regress.

It seems to me at least that at some point, you've just got to go with what you've got, accepting its imperfection, but willing to change and improve as circumstances warrant.

 

Bruce,

We will agree to disagree. Two gentlemen shaking hands. You have made valid points and I respect them. I know you respect mine...soooo we agree to disagree.

 

Bible

>>The KJV is widely regarded as the most errant version of the Bible. It's an inadequate translation. Look at the New KJV (NKJV), NIV, NAS, NRSV, or vertually any other translation. They all translate the verses as I originally posted.<<

Better not let you hear most evangelical Baptist hear that.

This actually kind of proves a point - if a religion itself can't decide on it's text, how can we base civil law on it?

>>Yes, we didn't add God to our money or our pledge until fairly recently, but God has been a CENTRAL part of America since its creation. This can't be denied.<<

Agreed. I was merely getting the timeline straight.

You could argue that has God been involved or Christian doctrine. Either way, it hasn't always been for the better, as with the way minorites and women have been treated in the name of religion.

At this point, as with all things that eventually come down to a religious view, I think we will argue ourselves in circles so it's best to just agree that we will never agree.

 

Hi Uncle - You know what is the most cool thing? This thread is itself the answer to your question. People talking to each other about how they feel, what they think, their beliefs, their questions, their confusion, their worries, and it gets passed along, from person to person to person to editorial to dinner table conversation to watercooler conversation to petition to ballot to voting booth.

This thread is perhaps the best thread in the history of this forum. Not only has it generated an entire range of responses (all of which are well thought out and well articulated) but these responses have been entirely respectful and tolerant. Uncle, this is how it happens! Good for us!
Jack

 

Hi Joann - Yes, of course, you're right. I would only argue that you have not gone far enough. You fail to mention that in many parts of the world there continues to be traffic in female slaves (usually sold into prostitution). You see, when you talk about ethics, and the chance for any sort of universal code of ethics, you must have a global vision. The problems that women face on a global scale make the US women's suffrage movement look like couch change. In many parts of the world the issue is a woman's right to live.
Jack

 

Re: History of marriage

The historical reality of the institution.

Reminds me of the first thing you learn in law school: The law does not seek justice, the law seeks to resolve conflict.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could it be...

3 women (wives). I would never have to fix myself something to drink then. I am sure one of them would be up, so I could say honey while you are up.

Instead of once a week maybe, it could be three times a week maybe. Hey, I am all for that.

Just joking around I am not for gay marriage or marrying animals, but polygomy, I'll have to get back with you on that.

 

Gee Dubya

It's an election year and "gay marriage" is a wedge issue that the Republican Party will use in the campaign. Bush has to play to his conservative base and his speech was an attempt to placate them. It's one thing to support a constitutional amendment and another to get it passed by super majorities in Congress and by State legislatures. They'll push hard to get it passed by Congress in late Summer or early Fall so it's fresh in the voters minds on November 6th.

 

Bill: if I were clear on the political translation of natural law issues, I'd be a lot smarter than I am. Not all questions are rhetorical (even from the ole Carpathian).
Jack: I agree entirely. This is a civil thread. Good for all of us.