Is there an argument against gay marriage that isn't faith based?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Peek a Boo We agreed that the younger generation is embracing the left ideals = more numbers against the Christian Right = higher chance of democratic change to churches losing religious liberty for the sake of "civil rights.'

 

 

It is my understanding that the left strongly believes separation of church and state. Therefore, I disagree that the left will cause a loss of religious liberty for the sake of civil rights IMHO. Our country in my simple understanding was founded on principles of religious freedom and I do not see that going away. Also, I am more afraid of loss of religious liberty from the Christian right since IMHO it seems that some, not all, on the right would want to establish a Christian theocracy based on what I have seen in the past.

 

I see the argument that gay civil unions and marriage will force all churches to honor gay marriage as another slippery slope argument which I think are weak arguments IMHO. I think any politician who tries to breach separation of church and state would quickly find himself out of office or facing a bunch of unhappy campers.There are already churches who would be willing to marry gay couples so I cannot imagine a gay couple wanting to force a particular church to marry them. Churches have always had the deciding say in who they will marry based on their religious beliefs and I do not see that changing.

 

Just my 2 cents:).

[theresatwist]

It is my understanding that the left strongly believes separation of church and state. Therefore, I disagree that the left will cause a loss of religious liberty for the sake of civil rights IMHO. Our country in my simple understanding was founded on principles of religious freedom and I do not see that going away. Also, I am more afraid of loss of religious liberty from the Christian right since IMHO it seems that some, not all, on the right would want to establish a Christian theocracy based on what I have seen in the past.

 

I see the argument that gay civil unions and marriage will force all churches to honor gay marriage as another slippery slope argument which I think are weak arguments IMHO. I think any politician who tries to breach separation of church and state would quickly find himself out of office or facing a bunch of unhappy campers.There are already churches who would be willing to marry gay couples so I cannot imagine a gay couple wanting to force a particular church to marry them. Churches have always had the deciding say in who they will marry based on their religious beliefs and I do not see that changing.

 

Just my 2 cents:).

 

I think you're probably right. I certainly don't think we'd ever see a challenge from the top. I think if change happens it is most likely to start within the church due to evolving public opinion. I don't know if a legal argument could be made given the separation of church and state. Churches are not immune to laws, despite our separation of church and state. I wonder if a discrimination case could be successfully filed. I could see that happening for instance with a Black church that refused to admit white members or vice versa. I may be way off. I don't know nearly as much about the law as I should.

 

It's interesting to me that the idea that legalizing gay civil unions is seen as such a threat in parts of the Christian (right) community. (I'm assuming that this is a genuine fear and not just a tactic.) I now feel kind of dumb, but that they might see legalizing civil unions as a threat to the church's beliefs/policies hadn't occurred to me. Of course, it now seems obvious. I thought the main objection was that they didn't want gay civil unions legalized because they don't approve and so think such a law would be immoral or whatever (which I see as forcing the church's views onto people who are not members).

[theresatwist]

I think the business with Gloria all started with my old sig line

 

"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist."

 

:D

 

~ hornblower, in Vancouver, where we just had a huge pride parade last weekend, sponsored in part by our national broadcaster the CBC. Gotta love Canada.

 

I like that. Vancouver IS wonderful. I'm a bit jealous.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Another area in this discussion....why should the gov't be involved in marriages, anyway? We have to be licensed and there are a zillion laws that give married people rights (mentioned earlier in this thread). According to the establishment here (that marriages are religious in nature), then aren't we already walking in the muck of church and state mud? Will this existing relationship allow the doors for those churches to lose their liberty.

 

Thanks for the discussion, btw. It's a nice pleasure to have reasonable conversations. Truly.

[theresatwist]

Another area in this discussion....why should the gov't be involved in marriages, anyway? We have to be licensed and there are a zillion laws that give married people rights (mentioned earlier in this thread). According to the establishment here (that marriages are religious in nature), then aren't we already walking in the muck of church and state mud? Will this existing relationship allow the doors for those churches to lose their liberty.

 

Thanks for the discussion, btw. It's a nice pleasure to have reasonable conversations. Truly.

 

There are plenty of heterosexual civil unions in the country. Freedom of religion also means the freedom not to be religious. Non-religious people fall in love and want to get married too! No, marriage is not necessarily religious in nature. We do have separation of church and state. But that doesn't mean that the two institutions can't have overlapping roles.

[Peek a Boo]

It is my understanding that the left strongly believes separation of church and state. Therefore, I disagree that the left will cause a loss of religious liberty for the sake of civil rights IMHO.

---------

I see the argument that gay civil unions and marriage will force all churches to honor gay marriage as another slippery slope argument which I think are weak arguments IMHO. I think any politician who tries to breach separation of church and state would quickly find himself out of office or facing a bunch of unhappy campers.

 

if we didn't already have religious liberties being threatened outside the US, I'd normally agree with you. precedence is pretty strong, and "separation of church and state" doesn't always mean the state has no control over the church. as theresatwist mentioned:

Churches are not immune to laws, despite our separation of church and state.

 

so I'll simply disagree that the possibility is weak. Legislation usually only increases.

[JFSinIL]

 

But yes, also in other ways they don't go together. As a woman - I feel like there are emotional and physical (and maybe something else) things that I can only get from a man... I don't know quite the best way to explain what I mean. I just feel like I wouldn't feel as fulfilled in various parts of my life if I was just with another woman... That's my opinion though.

!

 

That just means that YOU are not gay. Obviously some folks must feel more fulfilled with a same-sex partner. I figure, live and let live.

[Peek a Boo]

 

Okay, we're not going to agree on the question of what the courts count as...as I see it there would be no court cases unless citizen brought those cases to the court. .... Still, in my view the issue of gay rights will reach the Supreme Court only if ordinary citizens decide to bring it there.

 

On Roe v. Wade: yes, the Christian Right is still a minority, but they are a very impressively organized minority. You folks make me jealous! As Will Rogers said, "I belong to no organized political party --I'm a Democrat." I think the Christian Right has lost some of its might. I'm not sure when that started, but to me that seemed clear in the 2008 election. ....

 

On disagreeing: I've thought about adding a signature, "In my heart, I think Gloria Steinem is a genius," but I don't think the moderators need that.:lol:

 

(That last comment is totally a joke. I have don't actually want to argue about it. Healthcare is plenty.)

 

well, the Supreme Court was written into the Constitution as one of the checks and balances IN our gvt [and are subject to those checks and balances as part OF our gvt], even tho it is accessible by the people. so that doesn't seem like something that one can re-define, but whatever. ;)

 

and gosh -even Rush has remarked bout the organization of the Democratic party [and lack of leadership/organization in the Republican party] for quite some time.

 

disclaimer: can't stand the guy, but i'm subjected to him quite regularly via dh :D

 

and hey --go ahead and add the Steinem remark. The only time the mods mind is when people whine.

that's it!!

"Posters whine, mods mind."

how's that? lol!

I don't whine. i just say you're wrong ;)

[Tea Time]

Another area in this discussion....why should the gov't be involved in marriages, anyway?

This is at the very heart of the entire marriage debate. Why does the gov't have any interest in marriage?

 

The answer goes back to the basic fact of reproduction and it is the argument against gay marriage (as the State is interested in it) for what it is worth.

 

The gov't has no business in personal relationships except it has a huge interest in children being raised in healthy, strong families. The reason is that if they are not, then the gov't becomes responsible for them. We see this with the alarming rate of unwed mothers. The issue of gay marriage within the framework of gov't involvement need not be about morals or religion but rather economics. There are limited resources for the gov't to work with (contrary to popular belief). Those resources should be used carefully to promote the strongest social structure possible, and history and science have shown that the very best situation for children is to be with parents (probably biological parents - evolution is a mean and thoughtless master), so the gov't has an interest in promoting that type of union even to the exclusion of all other types.

 

It isn't about putting those other types down so much as it is about recognizing the unique characteristic of the one type and attempting to support and encourage it on the large scale for the benefit of children:

 

man & man / woman & woman / grandparents / aunts & uncles/ These are all family situations that can indeed support children, but it is not the business of the US gov't to throw the full force of its resources behind every single possible combination in which adults might find themselves or might fancy.

 

The personal sector should remain free to support and encourage whatever family structures they desire. Private entities can recognize and provide benefits for various family structures to the extent they are able and desire. Churches can do whatever they see fit - or not do what they disagree with as well. That is freedom. But no one should be strong armed into going past the natural, biological boundary of man/woman definition just because it seems to hurt the feelings of someone else. As I said before, it is not a putdown of those other relationships, it is recognition of the unique character of the man/woman relationship, and it is recognition of the limit of resources. There is a BIG difference! I am not saying it is perfect, who would not want to give more to everyone always? But much like the tough decisions that need to be made in other areas of life, when it comes down to it, marriage between a man and a woman is unique, not because I say so, or anyone says so, but because biology says so. The federal gov't should stay out except where it has an interest.

 

Where is that interest? Well, as an example, look at the military. If all types of unions are recognized by the gov't, then the gov't must provide housing, medical benefits, moving benefits, schooling benefits, life insurance to anyone that declares themselves "family." This is no small thing. We have an all voluntary military because it supports families. This has the potential to destroy the military, to crush it under the cost and burden of much more than it can really provide. It is already over burdened. So when the military can't afford it anymore and the benefits disappear for everyone because not every type of union can have them, then it can no longer attract volunteers. This undermines the strength of the country and places it at risk.

[Erica in PA]

The gov't has no business in personal relationships except it has a huge interest in children being raised in healthy, strong families.

 

It isn't about putting those other types down so much as it is about recognizing the unique characteristic of the one type and attempting to support and encourage it on the large scale for the benefit of children:

 

man & man / woman & woman / grandparents / aunts & uncles/ These are all family situations that can indeed support children, but it is not the business of the US gov't to throw the full force of its resources behind every single possible combination in which adults might find themselves or might fancy.

 

But no one should be strong armed into going past the natural, biological boundary of man/woman definition just because it seems to hurt the feelings of someone else. As I said before, it is not a putdown of those other relationships, it is recognition of the unique character of the man/woman relationship, and it is recognition of the limit of resources.

 

 

 

:iagree: Very well said!!!

[johnandtinagilbert]

There are plenty of heterosexual civil unions in the country. Freedom of religion also means the freedom not to be religious. Non-religious people fall in love and want to get married too! No, marriage is not necessarily religious in nature. We do have separation of church and state. But that doesn't mean that the two institutions can't have overlapping roles.

 

I understand that, and am in favor of civil unions, as opposed to "marriage." I do think marriage, the wedding in church, etc. is religious in nature and I don't think the state or fed. govt should have a thing to do with marriage (according to that definition), although I have no problem for the state to recognize civil unions, esp. to handle all the legal matters. I was going by that pseudo-definition as it was previously laid out in this thread.

 

if there were a clear distinction in the two, I believe it would aid with a clear distinction b/t church and state.

[johnandtinagilbert]

This is at the very heart of the entire marriage debate. Why does the gov't have any interest in marriage?

 

The answer goes back to the basic fact of reproduction and it is the argument against gay marriage (as the State is interested in it) for what it is worth.

 

The gov't has no business in personal relationships except it has a huge interest in children being raised in healthy, strong families. The reason is that if they are not, then the gov't becomes responsible for them. We see this with the alarming rate of unwed mothers. The issue of gay marriage within the framework of gov't involvement need not be about morals or religion but rather economics. There are limited resources for the gov't to work with (contrary to popular belief). Those resources should be used carefully to promote the strongest social structure possible, and history and science have shown that the very best situation for children is to be with parents (probably biological parents - evolution is a mean and thoughtless master), so the gov't has an interest in promoting that type of union even to the exclusion of all other types.

 

It isn't about putting those other types down so much as it is about recognizing the unique characteristic of the one type and attempting to support and encourage it on the large scale for the benefit of children:

 

man & man / woman & woman / grandparents / aunts & uncles/ These are all family situations that can indeed support children, but it is not the business of the US gov't to throw the full force of its resources behind every single possible combination in which adults might find themselves or might fancy.

 

The personal sector should remain free to support and encourage whatever family structures they desire. Private entities can recognize and provide benefits for various family structures to the extent they are able and desire. Churches can do whatever they see fit - or not do what they disagree with as well. That is freedom. But no one should be strong armed into going past the natural, biological boundary of man/woman definition just because it seems to hurt the feelings of someone else. As I said before, it is not a putdown of those other relationships, it is recognition of the unique character of the man/woman relationship, and it is recognition of the limit of resources. There is a BIG difference! I am not saying it is perfect, who would not want to give more to everyone always? But much like the tough decisions that need to be made in other areas of life, when it comes down to it, marriage between a man and a woman is unique, not because I say so, or anyone says so, but because biology says so. The federal gov't should stay out except where it has an interest.

 

Where is that interest? Well, as an example, look at the military. If all types of unions are recognized by the gov't, then the gov't must provide housing, medical benefits, moving benefits, schooling benefits, life insurance to anyone that declares themselves "family." This is no small thing. We have an all voluntary military because it supports families. This has the potential to destroy the military, to crush it under the cost and burden of much more than it can really provide. It is already over burdened. So when the military can't afford it anymore and the benefits disappear for everyone because not every type of union can have them, then it can no longer attract volunteers. This undermines the strength of the country and places it at risk.

I appreciate this post. What I'm wondering is when will the gov't consider gay couples able to provide strong, healthy environments, particularly with the rise in state sponsored children (foster care system). Boy, what a wicked web we weave. This makes my mind roll about to planned parenthood, etc. all which bring me back to how difficult it is to make this sort of decision w/o adding in my moral/value system interpretations.

[Renee in NC]

I appreciate this post. What I'm wondering is when will the gov't consider gay couples able to provide strong, healthy environments, particularly with the rise in state sponsored children (foster care system). Boy, what a wicked web we weave. This makes my mind roll about to planned parenthood, etc. all which bring me back to how difficult it is to make this sort of decision w/o adding in my moral/value system interpretations.

 

In NC, at least, gay couples can care for foster children. I knew a male couple who did on a regular basis.

[KarenNC]

The gov't has no business in personal relationships except it has a huge interest in children being raised in healthy, strong families. The reason is that if they are not, then the gov't becomes responsible for them. We see this with the alarming rate of unwed mothers. The issue of gay marriage within the framework of gov't involvement need not be about morals or religion but rather economics. There are limited resources for the gov't to work with (contrary to popular belief). Those resources should be used carefully to promote the strongest social structure possible, and history and science have shown that the very best situation for children is to be with parents (probably biological parents - evolution is a mean and thoughtless master), so the gov't has an interest in promoting that type of union even to the exclusion of all other types.

 

Under this argument, then the state has no interest in or business providing benefits, etc to *any* couples who are not or not likely to be actively raising minor children. To most efficiently use their resources, there should then be an age exclusion to disallow new marriages between adults who are past reproductive age without minor children. Why waste all those resources (Social Security benefits, veteran's benefits, tax breaks, survivor benefits, etc---the 1000+ benefits available to all married couples, not just those raising or likely to raise children) on couples who are both over age 50 and have no minor children? Or on couples where there has been sterilization of one or both parties if they do not currently have minor children?

 

Arizona, Utah and Indiana have marriage laws that specifically allow first cousin marriages only if both parties are over age 65 precisely *because* they are not expected to be able to have children. Wisconsin allows them if there is proof of sterilization. What is the rationale for this under your argument?

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/arizona/index.shtml

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/indiana/index.shtml

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/utah/index.shtml

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/wisconsin/index.shtml

 

Many states do not allow cousin marriages even though such couples can and do produce their own biological children (and studies suggest that their likelihood of having children with birth defects is no greater than a woman in her 40s http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/cousinmarriage/).

 

It boils down to the fact that I see no compelling reason to require *more* of same sex couples than is required of heterosexual couples to access the same legal benefits. The likes of Britney Spears and Mark Sanford are a much, much greater threat to heterosexual marriage than any same sex marriage could be. There is no bar to a person marrying who was flagrantly unfaithful to his/her previous spouse. There is no fertility test requirement before being issued a marriage license or even a statement that you intend to have children. There is no statement that the couple signs agreeing to only engage in specific approved sexual practices (from what I have read not all states even require consummation to consider the marriage valid---no consummation=no biological children).

 

There is no psychological/financial/etc test required to show that the couple are likely to be able to provide a "healthy, strong family". People with all sorts of psychiatric and physical disorders are not barred from marriage, even if those disorders are highly likely to be hereditary. The simple presence of both an x and a y chromosone does not guarantee that a couple will automatically be good or even mediocre parents. The lack of the ability to have biological children does not automatically mean that two people will be bad parents, regardless of their gender.

 

As to the arguments that if we allow same sex marriage mothers and sons, etc will be required to be allowed to be married, I don't see it. There are a number of types of heterosexual possibilities for unions that are not allowed even though heterosexual marriage is allowed (the exact ones depend on the state). I see no reason to expect that if same sex marriage is legalized, brothers will be allowed to marry each other any more than brothers and sisters currently can or that a grandfather will be allowed to marry his grandson any more than he currently can his granddaughter.

Edited August 10, 2009 by KarenNC

[Erica in PA]

 

 

As to the arguments that if we allow same sex marriage mothers and sons, etc will be required to be allowed to be married, I don't see it. There are a number of types of heterosexual possibilities for unions that are not allowed even though heterosexual marriage is allowed (the exact ones depend on the state). I see no reason to expect that if same sex marriage is legalized, brothers will be allowed to marry each other any more than brothers and sisters currently can or that a grandfather will be allowed to marry his grandson any more than he currently can his granddaughter.

 

What would be the basis at that point, or what will the foundation of marriage be, in your opinion, if that one man-one woman foundation has been put aside? You presented the case here that it should not be based on reproduction/raising a family... so what do you think that it should it be based on? On what logical basis would you allow one sort of couple the opportunity to marry (i.e. homosexuals), yet rule out others (i.e. family members, polygamists, etc.)? I think the point that several of us here have tried to make, is that if you take away the foundational principle of reproductive male-female relationships forming the building block of society, you need to replace it with some other foundation, or it just doesn't make any sense at all. If the new foundation is simply "anyone who loves each other and wants to be married," which is what many seem to be saying, I don't see how anyone could be fairly barred from marrying at that point. I don't think anyone has answered what that new foundation should be, and how it will serve to logically differentiate between different groups of people who all may have a desire to marry.

[theresatwist]

well, the Supreme Court was written into the Constitution as one of the checks and balances IN our gvt [and are subject to those checks and balances as part OF our gvt], even tho it is accessible by the people. so that doesn't seem like something that one can re-define, but whatever. ;)

 

and gosh -even Rush has remarked bout the organization of the Democratic party [and lack of leadership/organization in the Republican party] for quite some time.

 

disclaimer: can't stand the guy, but i'm subjected to him quite regularly via dh :D

 

and hey --go ahead and add the Steinem remark. The only time the mods mind is when people whine.

that's it!!

"Posters whine, mods mind."

how's that? lol!

I don't whine. i just say you're wrong ;)

 

I think if we paid Rush enough he'd switch to propaganda for the Democrats. That said, you folks can keep him. I'll be generous.;) I think Rush is all about Rush. You either like his personality or you don't. I'll stick to my Renee Montagne, thank you.

 

Yes, the Supreme Court is a branch of government, but if gay marriage was challenged through a court case that court case would come from a citizen, NOT a politician and so even though it might ultimately be the Supreme Court (a branch of government) making the decision the original challenge would be coming from someone like you and me (well, I guess someone like me...:001_smile:.) I see that as different from a politician initiating legislation.

 

I think you're probably right about the moderators. I'm happy signature free though.

[theresatwist]

I understand that, and am in favor of civil unions, as opposed to "marriage." I do think marriage, the wedding in church, etc. is religious in nature and I don't think the state or fed. govt should have a thing to do with marriage (according to that definition), although I have no problem for the state to recognize civil unions, esp. to handle all the legal matters. I was going by that pseudo-definition as it was previously laid out in this thread.

 

if there were a clear distinction in the two, I believe it would aid with a clear distinction b/t church and state.

 

Then we basically agree.:001_smile: All I'm talking about is civil unions. I think the church should have the right to decide for itself whether it want to recognize those unions. Where we disagree is on the religious side of things, but that's fine.

[theresatwist]

What would be the basis at that point, or what will the foundation of marriage be, in your opinion, if that one man-one woman foundation has been put aside? You presented the case here that it should not be based on reproduction/raising a family... so what do you think that it should it be based on? On what logical basis would you allow one sort of couple the opportunity to marry (i.e. homosexuals), yet rule out others (i.e. family members, polygamists, etc.)? I think the point that several of us here have tried to make, is that if you take away the foundational principle of reproductive male-female relationships forming the building block of society, you need to replace it with some other foundation, or it just doesn't make any sense at all. If the new foundation is simply "anyone who loves each other and wants to be married," which is what many seem to be saying, I don't see how anyone could be fairly barred from marrying at that point. I don't think anyone has answered what that new foundation should be, and how it will serve to logically differentiate between different groups of people who all may have a desire to marry.

 

Marriage (in a legal sense, not a religious one) would be a union between two biologically-unrelated individuals who wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

 

Legalizing civil unions would make it very easy for us to give gay couples the benefits they deserve (visitation rights, tax breaks, etc.) and it would also simply make them an official unit in the eyes of society. Marriage (in both a religious and non-religious context) is how we organize our society. Gay civil unions would simply allow gays to be a part of that. They are family units as is (because they already function that way), whether you give them legal recognition or not, and whether you morally approve or not, all this would be doing is making that official. When two people decide to spend the rest of their lives together that is very meaningful for them, but also for both families. If I had a gay child I would want him/her to be able to have a ceremony (in other words official recognition) and the celebration that goes with that. It's one of the most important milestones in virtually all cultures. (I don't know of any exceptions, maybe such exceptions exist.)

 

People without children play an important role in our society. I think you could argue that people without children are discriminated against much the way SAHMs are. For one, they are often willing to work much longer hours (because they aren't splitting their energy between work and kids). People who don't have the ability to reproduce often adopt and we need more people to be adopting. Finally, our planet simply can't afford for us all to be reproducing.

[KarenNC]

What would be the basis at that point, or what will the foundation of marriage be, in your opinion, if that one man-one woman foundation has been put aside? You presented the case here that it should not be based on reproduction/raising a family... so what do you think that it should it be based on? On what logical basis would you allow one sort of couple the opportunity to marry (i.e. homosexuals), yet rule out others (i.e. family members, polygamists, etc.)? I think the point that several of us here have tried to make, is that if you take away the foundational principle of reproductive male-female relationships forming the building block of society, you need to replace it with some other foundation, or it just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

It is obvious that in many cultures (including the Jewish and Christian ones on which the bulk of the respondents want to base the definition) that marriage has not always been "one man-one woman". Polygamy (primarily polygyny) was the standard for a very long time in the very sacred scriptures used to argue against it. The "reproductive male-female relationship" that was the "building block of society" was/is a man and however many women he could support (and impregnate). It remains the standard in some cultures today.

 

If reproduction were the sole concern, polygamy would not be an issue----it would still be the biological parents raising the child and one man can very successfully impregnate scores of women, thereby reproducing much more efficiently. It would be to the advantage of the society (for reproductive purposes) if a woman whose husband is infertile could take on an additional husband so that she could then reproduce. Such marriages would also give more adults to be involved in rearing the children. If your statement of the government's position is correct, it would be much more in the government's interest to allow polygamous marriages than marriages between couples unlikely or unable to reproduce.

 

The question is better asked, "On what is civil marriage currently based in this country?" On what logical basis does the government currently provide the legal benefits of civil marriage to couples who cannot reproduce? On what logical basis does it do so specifically for some specific couples *only* when it is not possible for them to biologically reproduce? Obviously there is some value to society in promoting stable legally binding relationships between unrelated adults beyond simple reproduction. I suppose that means that marriage in this country currently "just doesn't make any sense at all".

 

This is not an either/or situation. The legalization of same sex marriage on the same footing and under the same guidelines that govern heterosexual marriage does not nullify the reasons to support a heterosexual marriage that produces offspring nor does it threaten them any more than the legalization of the marriage between two people who have been sterilized or two 65 year olds. Nothing about heterosexual marriage would change, that I can see. I have seen no statements from any advocates of same sex marriage that, if same sex marriage is legalized, I am going to be required to divorce my husband and marry a woman, or that a man and a woman would not be allowed, even encouraged, to marry and have children.

[Peek a Boo]

I think if we paid Rush enough he'd switch to propaganda for the Democrats. That said, you folks can keep him. I'll be generous.;) I think Rush is all about Rush.

 

ayup. all Rush did was point out the obvious [about organization w/in the Dem party]. ;)

 

Yes, the Supreme Court is a branch of government, ....that court case would come from a citizen, .....I see that as different from a politician initiating legislation.

 

actually, that court case would likely come from a lawyer. ;)

There's a lot of legislation enacted at the request of citizens too. they are usually called lobbyists :D

 

The only thing different is the process: thru the Supreme Court relies on a different set of rules than thru Congress. And that process is GVT:

the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

 

eta: and we have a gvt of, by, and for, the people. which means whether you have a rep, a judge, or a citizen deciding, it's all GVT.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

It is obvious that in many cultures (including the Jewish and Christian ones on which the bulk of the respondents want to base the definition) that marriage has not always been "one man-one woman". Polygamy (primarily polygyny) was the standard for a very long time in the very sacred scriptures used to argue against it. The "reproductive male-female relationship" that was the "building block of society" was/is a man and however many women he could support (and impregnate). It remains the standard in some cultures today.

 

 

just to clarify -- that the culture mentioned in scriptures practiced something unGodly does not lend credence to the practice :) If anything, it brings us back to acknowledging how many times God warned that culture to straighten up and fly right ;)

 

What we are basing our standard on is NOT what was culturally practiced, but what was divinely instituted. :D

 

eta: and observed in nature as hugely predominant. ;)

Edited August 10, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Erica in PA]

It is obvious that in many cultures (including the Jewish and Christian ones on which the bulk of the respondents want to base the definition) that marriage has not always been "one man-one woman". Polygamy (primarily polygyny) was the standard for a very long time in the very sacred scriptures used to argue against it. The "reproductive male-female relationship" that was the "building block of society" was/is a man and however many women he could support (and impregnate). It remains the standard in some cultures today.

 

If reproduction were the sole concern, polygamy would not be an issue----it would still be the biological parents raising the child and one man can very successfully impregnate scores of women, thereby reproducing much more efficiently. It would be to the advantage of the society (for reproductive purposes) if a woman whose husband is infertile could take on an additional husband so that she could then reproduce. Such marriages would also give more adults to be involved in rearing the children. If your statement of the government's position is correct, it would be much more in the government's interest to allow polygamous marriages than marriages between couples unlikely or unable to reproduce.

 

The question is better asked, "On what is civil marriage currently based in this country?" On what logical basis does the government currently provide the legal benefits of civil marriage to couples who cannot reproduce? On what logical basis does it do so specifically for some specific couples *only* when it is not possible for them to biologically reproduce? Obviously there is some value to society in promoting stable legally binding relationships between unrelated adults beyond simple reproduction. I suppose that means that marriage in this country currently "just doesn't make any sense at all".

 

This is not an either/or situation. The legalization of same sex marriage on the same footing and under the same guidelines that govern heterosexual marriage does not nullify the reasons to support a heterosexual marriage that produces offspring nor does it threaten them any more than the legalization of the marriage between two people who have been sterilized or two 65 year olds. Nothing about heterosexual marriage would change, that I can see. I have seen no statements from any advocates of same sex marriage that, if same sex marriage is legalized, I am going to be required to divorce my husband and marry a woman, or that a man and a woman would not be allowed, even encouraged, to marry and have children.

 

Thank you for responding, but I'm still interested in an answer to my initial question.... what would *your* basis for marriage be? My position is that the one male-one female standard that has existed throughout the world's history is best for families, and best for society. (That polygamy was also practiced at various times does not negate that fact.)Therefore, it's my position that that standard for marriage should be upheld. Agree or disagree, my case is plainly stated. But what exactly *is* the case being promoted by those such as yourself? What is your standard for marriage, and what are the compelling reasons that yours should trump that which has been in place for so long, and with such great success? (Again the failures of marriage to be supported as it should be over the years doesn't change the fact that as an institution it has done untold good for society.) I'm not saying that theoretically, there should never be a change in the definition of marriage, but I do think that if a foundational change is to take place, those who are arguing for it have the burden to state their position clearly and with a great deal of logical support.

[sagira]

Well it is widely known that gay people aren't accepted by many in society. It took me awhile for homeschooling to feel natural because I know many people think it is anything from weird to wrong. Now I think they are weird and wrong. It is something I felt drawn to despite my fears and worries. That pull towards homeschooling was stronger than caring what people think, but I don't live under a rock. It is hard to go against the grain.

 

So yeah, I understand that point, but being drawn to a person of the same sex must have a certain feeling to it. It must be strong enough for one to be willing to endure ridicule from a lot of people.

 

:iagree: Shame and guilt are by-products in this case because of society's disapproval of an alternative lifestyle. Perhaps guilt because the person was raised in a religious family as well, but it's all because of beliefs.

[tdeveson]

Just my 2 cents...

 

Regardless of faith - it doesn't seem natural. Male and female fit together like a puzzle and are meant to work together...

 

There is plenty of same-sex behavior in nature. Homosexuality is by no means a "human" thing. It may rub some people the wrong way, but it is not unnatural.

[tdeveson]

Why do two people need to change the institution of marriage in order to be happy together? One doesn't have to be married in order to visit at hospitals or to inherit property; lawyers can draw up documents to enable hospital visitation without changing the definition of a millenial-old social institution which virtually all of our ancestors practiced.

 

Can you think of a single good reason why a portion of the population should be required to hire a lawyer at great expense in order to avail themselves of the rights you and I enjoy for free?

 

As to millenial-old social institution, you should know that marriage as you and I know it is no more than 300 years old. This would be a great homeschool project -- you'd be surprised how many different ways "marriage" has been defined throughout history.

 

Great can of worms, by the way.

[Peek a Boo]

There is plenty of same-sex behavior in nature. Homosexuality is by no means a "human" thing. It may rub some people the wrong way, but it is not unnatural.

yeah -- i addressed that earlier in the thread ;)

[KarenNC]

just to clarify -- that the culture mentioned in scriptures practiced something unGodly does not lend credence to the practice :) If anything, it brings us back to acknowledging how many times God warned that culture to straighten up and fly right ;)

 

What we are basing our standard on is NOT what was culturally practiced, but what was divinely instituted. :D

 

If polygamy was considered "unGodly" from the beginning of creation, it seems odd that there is no mention of Jehoiada, the chief priest, being chastised or punished for having more than one wife, but he is rather seen as having "done good in Israel, both toward God, and toward his house". His goodness is not specifically related to multiple marriage, but since the fact that he had two wives was deemed worth mention, doesn't seem to have been an issue. Given that Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states "No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation ", I don't see that the multiple marriage of Samuel's father, Elkanah, was considered forbidden.

 

Deuteronomy gives specific instructions regarding inheritance situations in which there are multiple wives and treating the children of such fairly. Jacob is not punished for marrying Rachel after he was already married to her sister, and the twelve tribes of Israel were the sons of his two wives and their maids. If multiple marriage is "unGodly", then the passage in Deuteronomy regarding Levarite marriage would also seem to be problematic. (Deuteronomy 25.5-10)

 

My point is not that polygamy should be the ideal form of marriage or that it was/is the most common form of marriage (multiple wives are expensive;)), but that to say only a marriage between one man and one woman has ever been divinely acceptable seems disingenuous. Marriage customs have, even in the sacred scriptures held by Jews and Christians, changed over time rather than being divinely dictated in one specific form from the outset.

[tdeveson]

 

It must mean something more than just "being together". I guess gay people want that extra meaning for their relationship.

 

What they want is access to the more than 1500 federal benefits available to the rest of us.

[tdeveson]

After thinking about this a little more - I would say that it might not feel totally natural to a gay person. From what I see from gay people (or portrayed) is that there is usually a lot of confusion, guilt, shame, at least at first.

 

The guilt doesn't have anything to do with the act itself. It's got to do with having been taught from a small child that the act is wrong. Many people in India think it's degenerate and unnatural to eat beef. I've never had a problem with a good steak -- didn't have to get used to it. I just liked it from the get-go. On the other hand, I think it's unnatural to eat worms and grubs. Some Australian natives would vehemently disagree with me.

[tdeveson]

...but you are not talking about "evolution" here. You are talking about redefining and completely changing the definition.

 

This definition is 300 years old. Seriously, the way we do marriage--one man, one woman--is very, very new. Three hundred years is hardly "written in stone" and in fact, the way we practice marriage now is not Biblical at all.

[Peek a Boo]

Can you think of a single good reason why a portion of the population should be required to hire a lawyer at great expense in order to avail themselves of the rights you and I enjoy for free?

got that one too --it's not necessarily "for free."

As to millenial-old social institution, you should know that marriage as you and I know it is no more than 300 years old. This would be a great homeschool project -- you'd be surprised how many different ways "marriage" has been defined throughout history.

 

legally and culturally, one man/ one woman has been around for thousands of years. Adultery is just as old ;)

 

In all of these, there has always been at least one culture that allowed or recognized a mutual consent marriage. That we have had cultures [and people today] that practice a marriage based on something other than love is pretty much irrelevant when we're discussing same-sex marriage. Even in all the ways its been defined, the man/woman idea is historically strong. Traditions and ceremonies change as to how culture recognizes that, but the basic premise *is* millenial-old.

[tdeveson]

That's true, but it has *always* involved a man and a woman. That part has been consistent.

 

Not true. Research paper! :)

[Peek a Boo]

If polygamy was considered "unGodly" from the beginning of creation, it seems odd that there is no mention of Jehoiada, the chief priest, being chastised or punished for having more than one wife, but he is rather seen as having "done good in Israel, both toward God, and toward his house". His goodness is not specifically related to multiple marriage, but since the fact that he had two wives was deemed worth mention, doesn't seem to have been an issue. Given that Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states "No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation ", I don't see that the multiple marriage of Samuel's father, Elkanah, was considered forbidden.

 

Deuteronomy gives specific instructions regarding inheritance situations in which there are multiple wives and treating the children of such fairly. Jacob is not punished for marrying Rachel after he was already married to her sister, and the twelve tribes of Israel were the sons of his two wives and their maids. If multiple marriage is "unGodly", then the passage in Deuteronomy regarding Levarite marriage would also seem to be problematic. (Deuteronomy 25.5-10)

 

My point is not that polygamy should be the ideal form of marriage or that it was/is the most common form of marriage (multiple wives are expensive;)), but that to say only a marriage between one man and one woman has ever been divinely acceptable seems disingenuous. Marriage customs have, even in the sacred scriptures held by Jews and Christians, changed over time rather than being divinely dictated in one specific form from the outset.

 

The fact that a few people escaped an earthly punishment for doing something unGodly is NOT what the Bible is about :)

 

Jacob endured a whole different kind of punishment for marrying Rachel and Leah --his problems are spelled out pretty clearly. God uses sinful people and the results of sin to accomplish His good works: that is a showing iof His mercy and grace, not an acknowledgment that sinful acts must be inherently good or Godly. "Do we continue in sin so that grace may abound? NO!"

 

The entire issue of Levites to begin with was "problematic" --indeed, the entire Law was designed to show how much we NEED Christ, not to establish a "Godly" way of doing things. Again --back to the storyline :) You see one issue or verse as problematic, without looking at the entire passage in context to the purpose of the Bible.

 

The strong marriages that thrive w/o strife in the Bible are recognized as being one man/ one woman.

[Peek a Boo]

Not true. Research paper! :)

 

source please. wikipedia and its sources disagree with you.

[Peek a Boo]

What they want is access to the more than 1500 federal benefits available to the rest of us.

 

and as I mentioned also -- this is another place where the federal gvt has overstepped its bounds and needs to be reined in.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I know, just not where, that there is a scripture in the New Testament that says one man, one woman...anyone know where?

 

I do not believe the gov't should have their hands on marriage at all, which I believe to be community/religious/celebratory. If they need some definition in order for legal equality -- then civil union works for me for hetero or homosexual couples. I know that seems like war of words, but since I view marriage, particularly Christian marriage since I am Christian, as a commitment b/t a male and female and as a covenant between those two and God, it is a holy institution in my life, a sacred bond b/t me, dh and the Lord.

 

I do believe the bible is clear on homosexual activity, so I couldn't endorse, if you will, gay marriage (as the bible says homosexuality is unholy and marriage is a holy covenant IMO); however, considering there is a population of those who partner, I do not have a problem with them having the same legal liberties a married couple has. One of my best friends from high school is gay. I think it would be ridiculous if his partner couldn't see him in the ICU or would lose the home they have built together, or not have the social security from the partner he's been with for a lifetime. I love him dearly, and the legal drama would break my heart and carry a stench of injustice. If the gov't recognized his relationship and mine as a civil union, I'd be fine with that, I couldn't however, appreciate a marriage in the "get married in the Church" situation. I believe faith and law should be separate. JMHO.

 

I would certainly prefer the definition changed across the board, legally that is, from marriage to civil union. I don't believe my religious viewpoints should institute law. We do live in a separated society (although I use that term loosely).

 

So, I guess for the sake of the OP, I'd say I will continue to vote no for legalizing gay marriage, but would vote yes for legalizing civil unions. I imagine that makes me unpopular on both sides, but it is my opinion.

 

:lurk5:

[johnandtinagilbert]

and as I mentioned also -- this is another place where the federal gvt has overstepped its bounds and needs to be reined in.

 

can you clarify this, please?

[johnandtinagilbert]

Has there ever been a society where homosexual marriages, not just know relationships on the side, ever existed?

[Peek a Boo]

I know, just not where, that there is a scripture in the New Testament that says one man, one woman...anyone know where?

....................

I would certainly prefer the definition changed across the board, legally that is, from marriage to civil union. I don't believe my religious viewpoints should institute law. We do live in a separated society (although I use that term loosely).

 

So, I guess for the sake of the OP, I'd say I will continue to vote no for legalizing gay marriage, but would vote yes for legalizing civil unions. I imagine that makes me unpopular on both sides, but it is my opinion.

 

:lurk5:

 

Genesis 2:24

 

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

Jesus reiterates this in matthew 19.

 

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one.

 

and I tend to agree with you on the legal issues.

[Peek a Boo]

can you clarify this, please?

 

too much gvt involvement --I'm a [pseudo] capitalist at heart: few legal benefits, few legal restrictions. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Has there ever been a society where homosexual marriages, not just know relationships on the side, ever existed?

 

well sure -- it's a big world :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage

[KarenNC]

Thank you for responding, but I'm still interested in an answer to my initial question.... what would *your* basis for marriage be? My position is that the one male-one female standard that has existed throughout the world's history is best for families, and best for society. (That polygamy was also practiced at various times does not negate that fact.)Therefore, it's my position that that standard for marriage should be upheld. Agree or disagree, my case is plainly stated. But what exactly *is* the case being promoted by those such as yourself? What is your standard for marriage, and what are the compelling reasons that yours should trump that which has been in place for so long, and with such great success? (Again the failures of marriage to be supported as it should be over the years doesn't change the fact that as an institution it has done untold good for society.) I'm not saying that theoretically, there should never be a change in the definition of marriage, but I do think that if a foundational change is to take place, those who are arguing for it have the burden to state their position clearly and with a great deal of logical support.

 

One male and one female raising their biological children has *not* always been seen by all societies to be "best" nor as "standard", but that has already been discussed.

 

I don't see it as a "foundational change" or "trumping" legal marriage as it currently stands. To borrow Teresa's phrasing, we currently allow legal marriage between two unrelated (though that varies with state) adults who chose to commit in a legally binding way to spending their lives together and committing their resources to the support of each other. There are no requirements regarding reproduction, types of sexual activity, proof of intent to be monogamous (or history of such) or any of the other conditions people seem to want to put on same sex marriage before it is "worthy" to be legally recognized. If we do not put those restrictions on heterosexual unions, I see no compelling reason to cite them as reasons not to legalize same sex unions.

 

One does not have to vilify heterosexual marriages of two adults with their jointly biological children in order to see value in providing legal supports to assist in the stability of other kinds of households. There are many, many legalized heterosexual marriages that do not fit the oft-cited standard of a man and a woman raising their (jointly) biological children---step-marriages, adoption, marriage between childless or those with grown children, etc.

 

No one is talking of *replacing* heterosexual marriage with same sex marriage, despite a lot of implied arguments to the contrary. As I said, it is not either/or. If it were to "trump" marriage between one man and one woman, then it would be seen as held up as the ideal and culturally expected situation of the majority of the population. I don't see that as being the situation at all. Given that people who are homosexual make up only about 10% of the population and that not all of them will choose to seek marriage just as not all heterosexuals choose to seek marriage, I don't foresee same sex marriage becoming the norm and heterosexual marriage becoming a minority. It would not "trump" heterosexual marriage any more than a couple who choose to remain childless "trumps" the marriage of a couple who does not, interracial marriage "trumps" marriage between people of the same race, interfaith marriage "trumps" marriage between people of the same faith, etc.

[Peek a Boo]

One male and one female raising their biological children has *not* always been seen by all societies to be "best" nor as "standard", but that has already been discussed.

 

yeah.... all representing a subjective number. ;)

[KarenNC]

The fact that a few people escaped an earthly punishment for doing something unGodly is NOT what the Bible is about :)

 

Jacob endured a whole different kind of punishment for marrying Rachel and Leah --his problems are spelled out pretty clearly.

 

Where do you see it spelled out that Jacob's difficulties were the direct result of marrying Rachel and Leah?

[theresatwist]

ayup. all Rush did was point out the obvious [about organization w/in the Dem party]. ;)

 

 

 

actually, that court case would likely come from a lawyer. ;)

There's a lot of legislation enacted at the request of citizens too. they are usually called lobbyists :D

 

The only thing different is the process: thru the Supreme Court relies on a different set of rules than thru Congress. And that process is GVT:

the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

 

eta: and we have a gvt of, by, and for, the people. which means whether you have a rep, a judge, or a citizen deciding, it's all GVT.

 

Okay, we're not reaching agreement. In my view, that lawyer is representing ordinary citizens. He's working for them. Of course if you want a change in laws you're going to go through the government at some point---that's who makes laws in the country.

 

The church has lobbyists and politicians on their side too.:001_smile: I get calls practically weekly where I have this recorded voice asking me, "Don't you think marriage is between one man and one woman? Do you want our children learning about homosexual lifestyles in school?" Now civil unions have already been legalized in my state. This started before they were legalized and continues now. There are also radio advertisements to that effect.

 

I appreciate that the church doesn't want to be forced into changing their beliefs. However, when the church mobilizes its members to fight against civil unions some of us feel like the church is forcing its views upon non-religious folks and people of other religions or denominations who don't have a problem with gay civil unions.

[theresatwist]

Has there ever been a society where homosexual marriages, not just know relationships on the side, ever existed?

 

There had never been a society like American society until 1776. I'm not trying to be snarky (and I don't know the answer to your question), but just don't think that tells us whether we should do something.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Where do you see it spelled out that Jacob's difficulties were the direct result of marrying Rachel and Leah?

His brothers were jealous b/c dad loved his favorite wife's sons more, enough to give the coat, and the jealousy led to getting rid of Joseph. You really can't have favortism if you only have 1 wife.

[Peek a Boo]

Okay, we're not reaching agreement. In my view, that lawyer is representing ordinary citizens. He's working for them. Of course if you want a change in laws you're going to go through the government at some point---that's who makes laws in the country.

 

NEWSFLASH! the representatives in Congress are representing.....ordinary citizens :)

 

Judicial activism has been a pretty hot topic wrt making laws.

I appreciate that the church doesn't want to be forced into changing their beliefs. However, when the church mobilizes its members to fight against civil unions some of us feel like the church is forcing its views upon non-religious folks and people of other religions or denominations who don't have a problem with gay civil unions.

well sure -- what makes gvt different from private citizens is the legal use of FORCE. the democratic process is a way of channeling that force. To clarify tho, The Christian Right [should we just say CR?] is lobbying for gvt to NOT make a change: not to "force" its views upon non-religious folk, but to maintain the status quo which happens to align [somewhat] w/ its views.

[Peek a Boo]

Where do you see it spelled out that Jacob's difficulties were the direct result of marrying Rachel and Leah?

 

have you even read that passage??

 

*he had to work ANOTHER seven years for Rachel after being deceived;

*the jealousy and strife between rachel and Leah was pretty dang clear;

* and yes, the jealousy and strife between his kids was evident.

 

those are directly the result of marrying both Rachel and Leah.

 

and those are just the ones off the top of my head ;)

[KarenNC]

His brothers were jealous b/c dad loved his favorite wife's sons more, enough to give the coat, and the jealousy led to getting rid of Joseph. You really can't have favortism if you only have 1 wife.

 

Really? You have never seen or heard of situations in which a parent favors one child over another, even if they are both the children of the same wife? Or when the children think this is so (I know there were many accusations of "you love her more" between me and my sister). Or that it might happen only in the case of polygamy? Never seen or heard of parents who might be perceived (especially by the children) to show favoritism to the child of a new wife vs an ex-wife in the case of divorce and remarriage?

 

Isaac and Rebecca's behavior (which definitely lead directly to problems) toward Jacob and Esau would be a prime scriptural example of parents showing favoritism between full biological siblings. They were not only the children of the same wife, but twins.

 

Genesis 25: 28 "Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob." Rebecca goes on to conspire with Jacob to help him steal his father's blessing by deceit.

 

So in the case of Joseph, the issue was a father showing favoritism between his children, just as his own parents had, not specifically because he had more than one wife.