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

[TXMomof4]

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:

 

Amen. That's exactly where I am.

[johnandtinagilbert]

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.

Of course I have seen that. In this case, I meant favoritism b/t the wives.

 

In this case, however, it is made clear the favoritism b/t wives is what led to the favoritism b/t children.

 

Peek's response also shows this. She's far better than I at presenting a case :) It must be the Catwoman suit!

[Tea Time]

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

:iagree: Thanks for the honesty!

 

This is about perceived gov't handouts. It always comes down to that, doesn't it?

 

But the institution of marriage is not just about "goodies" people get. It is about the strenuous responsibilities of being bound by family ties. The gov't has not traditionally doled out these "goodies" without any expectations in return. That is a new thing triggered by feminism, the sexual "revolution," and no-fault divorce. Those things have "broken" the social contract such that people no longer have to live up to their side of the social contract regarding marriage and the state, the part where two adults remain together to care for each other and their children so the gov't doesn't have to do it for them! This breakdown has also weakened extended families so that children are not always caring for elderly parents as well, so the gov't picks that up, too.

 

The weakened concept of marriage has devastated our civilization and will continue to do so. The question is whether or not extending a "broken" marriage concept to gays will weaken it further as the perception of it becomes less and less meaningful to anyone. After all, even as the gays clamor for marriage, more and more heterosexuals seem to be casting it aside, either by living together or by divorcing. This all happens while the expectation of the State stepping in and doing the business of families continues to grow.

 

Many people think that is the REAL agenda of gay marriage, to crush the institution of marriage, destroy the concept of family all together, and to replace it with the nanny state. The red herring is the perception that people "aren't being nice" when they don't want to extend FEDERAL BENEFITS to every imaginable combination and permutation of family.

 

Perhaps the State should recognize marriage in a more extended fashion (for gays or polygamists or whatever) but only ONCE and for LIFE. I'll bet people will run the other way!

[pqr]

Originally Posted by pqr

...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.

 

 

What are you talking about???

 

300 years???

 

1533 Henry VIII marries Anne Boleyn AFTER having to have his marriage to Catherine annulled. Why? ....because a man is only allowed one wife.

300 years ago???-----No... more

 

1191 Richard I of England married Berengaria, first-born daughter of King Sancho VI of Navarre. This ended his bethrothal to Princess Alys the daughter of Louis VII or France. Why? ......because a man is only allowed one wife.

300 years ago???-----No.... much more

 

995-1035 Laws of King Canute

 

....and no christian man shall ever marry among his own kin within six degrees of relationship....shall ever marry his god-mother.....he shall never comit adultry anywhere.....AND HE SHALL HAVE NO MORE WIVES THAN ONE.....Why? ....because a man is only allowed one wife.

300 years ago???-----No... much much more

 

 

342 AD Theodosian Code prohibited same-sex marriage, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in ancient Rome exist. (Even then these "marriages" were not accepted in the traditional sense). Why?....because a man is only allowed one wife.

300 years ago???-----No... much much more

 

18 BC Julian marriage laws set a series of laws down that deal with marriage and establish fines for those men who are not married. They further deal with the issue of adultery (albeit primarily by the famale). These laws speak of a husband and A WIFE Why?....because a man is only allowed one wife.

300 years ago???-----No... much much much more

 

I utterly fail to see where you get a mere 300 years, though even that is older then the United States and would opine that rather than being very very new the idea of a man and a woman it is very very old and predates Christianity.

[Tea Time]

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.

 

Did you read my post with the example about the military?

 

Are you ready to go to the families that are serving in the military and tell them that all their benefits no longer exist because the gov't has no interest in marriage?

 

Who will sign up then? NO. ONE.

 

That is totally unrealistic and will never happen. What will happen is that people will continue to whine about not getting "theirs," and those benefits (which are extensive and that is why our military is so strong) will be endlessly doled out to everyone who cries about it until the military buckles under the tremendous cost. No one will notice or care for a long time that it becomes weak and ineffective.

 

This is already happening as federal benefits for civilian employees have already started being extended to gay couples. It is on the way. The unintended consequences will follow right along. And taxpayers fund it even if it is disagreeable to their belief system as well. Nothing new there. The more the gov't does everything for everyone the more we all fund things we don't believe in, like public school.

[johnandtinagilbert]

:iagree: Thanks for the honesty!

 

This is about perceived gov't handouts. It always comes down to that, doesn't it?

 

But the institution of marriage is not just about "goodies" people get. It is about the strenuous responsibilities of being bound by family ties. The gov't has not traditionally doled out these "goodies" without any expectations in return. That is a new thing triggered by feminism, the sexual "revolution," and no-fault divorce. Those things have "broken" the social contract such that people no longer have to live up to their side of the social contract regarding marriage and the state, the part where two adults remain together to care for each other and their children so the gov't doesn't have to do it for them! This breakdown has also weakened extended families so that children are not always caring for elderly parents as well, so the gov't picks that up, too.

 

The weakened concept of marriage has devastated our civilization and will continue to do so. The question is whether or not extending a "broken" marriage concept to gays will weaken it further as the perception of it becomes less and less meaningful to anyone. After all, even as the gays clamor for marriage, more and more heterosexuals seem to be casting it aside, either by living together or by divorcing. This all happens while the expectation of the State stepping in and doing the business of families continues to grow.

 

Many people think that is the REAL agenda of gay marriage, to crush the institution of marriage, destroy the concept of family all together, and to replace it with the nanny state. The red herring is the perception that people "aren't being nice" when they don't want to extend FEDERAL BENEFITS to every imaginable combination and permutation of family.

 

Perhaps the State should recognize marriage in a more extended fashion (for gays or polygamists or whatever) but only ONCE and for LIFE. I'll bet people will run the other way!

 

I agree with your perspective, I think. I may use family though, in place of marriage. I believe the breakdown of families (which includes marriage, but is not exclusive from my viewpoint), even their proximity, has led us down a long path of societal breakdown. Gay marriage aside, as families no longer take care of each other, all things will fail. That I am sure of.

 

The nanny state is so far underway, I don't think we could go back. School, food, housing, education, healthcare, military...all gov't funded and not running well. Leads me back to healthcare and how scary it will be for them to take it over. I have long believed if families (and the church) were responsible for these things, our nation would be better off....libertarian Tina :)

[KarenNC]

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 ;)

 

Yep, read the entire several chapters many times. The issues in this situation appear to be primarily specific to the deception involved, rather than to the practice of polygyny in general. It seems a pretty definite example of being sure you know what you are agreeing to (and an interesting turn about for Jacob's willingly conspiring with his mother to deceive his own father to get what he wanted rather than what was his by right).

 

The jealousy and strife between the sisters would seem to be the direct result of their father's deception, as well as Jacob marrying sisters, not simply multiple wives, and then treating Leah badly because of the deception on the part of her father. Leviticus 18:18 later pretty specifically spells out marriage instructions in regards to the situation--- "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." (NIV) or "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time." (KJV) Note that it specifically instructs not to take your wife's *sister*, not just not take any other woman.

 

Personally, I am not an advocate of either polyandry or polygyny, as I don't share well with others;), but I don't see that there is support for saying that polygyny was taught as "ungodly" or an aberration throughout the scriptures, nor that only monogamous marriages appeared to meet with divine approval as shown by blessings.

 

I have already discussed the strife between the brothers.

 

And yes, I know there is another verse in that chapter about a man not lying with a man as with a woman. I am citing the above as part of the discussion of whether or not polygyny specifically was seen as "ungodly" throughout the Christian and Jewish scriptures as claimed.

[Melinda in VT]

Did you read my post with the example about the military?

 

Are you ready to go to the families that are serving in the military and tell them that all their benefits no longer exist because the gov't has no interest in marriage?

 

Who will sign up then? NO. ONE.

 

That is totally unrealistic and will never happen. What will happen is that people will continue to whine about not getting "theirs," and those benefits (which are extensive and that is why our military is so strong) will be endlessly doled out to everyone who cries about it until the military buckles under the tremendous cost. No one will notice or care for a long time that it becomes weak and ineffective.

 

This is already happening as federal benefits for civilian employees have already started being extended to gay couples. It is on the way. The unintended consequences will follow right along. And taxpayers fund it even if it is disagreeable to their belief system as well. Nothing new there. The more the gov't does everything for everyone the more we all fund things we don't believe in, like public school.

 

Given the current Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy/law (I can't remember which it is), I don't think you are going to have any members of the military asking for benefits for their gay spouses.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Did you read my post with the example about the military?

 

Are you ready to go to the families that are serving in the military and tell them that all their benefits no longer exist because the gov't has no interest in marriage?

 

Who will sign up then? NO. ONE.

 

That is totally unrealistic and will never happen. What will happen is that people will continue to whine about not getting "theirs," and those benefits (which are extensive and that is why our military is so strong) will be endlessly doled out to everyone who cries about it until the military buckles under the tremendous cost. No one will notice or care for a long time that it becomes weak and ineffective.

 

This is already happening as federal benefits for civilian employees have already started being extended to gay couples. It is on the way. The unintended consequences will follow right along. And taxpayers fund it even if it is disagreeable to their belief system as well. Nothing new there. The more the gov't does everything for everyone the more we all fund things we don't believe in, like public school.

 

I did read it and I see and agree with your assessment. I wonder what percentage of our population is military? I have no idea.

 

Do you really think enlisted numbers would grow significantly in number simply b/c of benefits for civil unions? I'm an army brat and I know what those benefits are, yet dh has no desire to join the military, nor does a large population of Americans.

 

I can't say I have a solution for the impending problem, just that I see your point. I still stand by convictions that the gov't should stay out of marriage. Civil unions, fine, but marriage--keep out.

[Peek a Boo]

Yep, read the entire several chapters many times. The issues in this situation appear to be primarily specific to the deception involved, rather than to the practice of polygyny in general. It seems a pretty definite example of being sure you know what you are agreeing to (and an interesting turn about for Jacob's willingly conspiring with his mother to deceive his own father to get what he wanted rather than what was his by right).

 

The jealousy and strife between the sisters would seem to be the direct result of their father's deception, as well as Jacob marrying sisters, not simply multiple wives, and then treating Leah badly because of the deception on the part of her father. Leviticus 18:18 later pretty specifically spells out marriage instructions in regards to the situation--- "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." (NIV) or "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time." (KJV) Note that it specifically instructs not to take your wife's *sister*, not just not take any other woman.

 

Personally, I am not an advocate of either polyandry or polygyny, as I don't share well with others;), but I don't see that there is support for saying that polygyny was taught as "ungodly" or an aberration throughout the scriptures, nor that only monogamous marriages appeared to meet with divine approval as shown by blessings.

......I am citing the above as part of the discussion of whether or not polygyny specifically was seen as "ungodly" throughout the Christian and Jewish scriptures as claimed.

 

if you didn't have Christ Himself explicitly supporting that from Creation polygyny was unacceptable, then you might have a valid scriptural point :)

 

but again, in context, the deception and instructions to the cultural practices are ALL seen as unGodly per God's original intent.

 

so hearkening back to a few scriptures that appear to make polygyny "ok" doesn't hold up. In fact, it is made clear that we were given those instructions and allowances because of the hardness of our hearts, not because of Godly principles.

[KarenNC]

if you didn't have Christ Himself explicitly supporting that from Creation polygyny was unacceptable, then you might have a valid scriptural point :)

 

Specific citations, please?

 

but again, in context, the deception and instructions to the cultural practices are ALL seen as unGodly per God's original intent.

 

so hearkening back to a few scriptures that appear to make polygyny "ok" doesn't hold up. In fact, it is made clear that we were given those instructions and allowances because of the hardness of our hearts, not because of Godly principles.

 

Not clear to me at all, when taken in the context of the other scriptures that do not condemn *at all* the general practice of polygyny in that culture at that time. Leviticus, specifically, is given as a direct quote from God to Moses, so if he intended "no other woman" rather than "sister", it would appear that it would have been perfectly possible to be clear, since the other instructions were not ambiguous. I will agree that one can (and many have) redacted much of Jewish, in this case, scripture to mean something other than they would have in the context of their time.

[Peek a Boo]

Specific citations, please?

 

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.

 

There is only one acceptable marriage union in God's eyes. He told us about it at the beginning, and Christ affirms it. Anything else is unGodly.

 

Not clear to me at all, when taken in the context of the other scriptures that do not condemn *at all* the general practice of polygyny in that culture at that time. ..... I will agree that one can (and many have) redacted much of Jewish, in this case, scripture to mean something other than they would have in the context of their time.

 

it is only in your interpretation and dismissal of what God has decreed where it is not condemned at all: When God says "do not lie" then shows examples of people who lied being great, that doesn't make lying Godly. The lie is still a sin --the fallible person may be seen as worthy of respect, but their sinful actions are not Godly.

 

more [extra biblical as well as scriptural] discussion here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/polygamy-is-condemned-by-scripture.html

[Erica in PA]

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.

 

It would be easier for me to follow your thinking if you didn't bring so many straw man arguments into it. I did not say that "One male and one female raising their biological children has always been seen by all societies to be "best" or as "standard." I said that it has always existed (and noted that polygamy was also practiced at times), and that imo, *I* view it as best for families. I didn't see anyone suggesting that homosexuals have to follow certain sexual conditions before they would be "worthy" to be married. I have never heard anyone suggest that homosexual marriage would replace same sex marriage, or that their own marriage would be jeopardized by a gay couple's marriage. Certainly that was never voiced in this thread, and yet several pro-gay marriage proponents have attacked that straw man. Even your use of the word, "trump," misrepresented what I said. I was speaking about the fact that a new definition of marriage, one that would now include same sex couples, would need to *trump* the existing definition. In my opinion, if you want a new standard to be imposed, that will replace the current one, there needs to be a logical, compelling reason that goes beyond "Heterosexuals aren't doing that great a job of upholding marriage anyway," or "The Bible supports polygamy," or "There's no good standard for marriage as it is, so why bother coming up with a new one that makes any sense." I think we need a lot better argument than that to make such a significant change in a fundamental societal institution.

[theresatwist]

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

 

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

 

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, look at the states where gay civil unions have been legalized. In how many instances has that change come form a politician saying "I think this is what's right" and in how many instance has that change come from court challenges? When a court makes that decision a politician can say "I had nothing to do with it." Politicians in this country have not shown themselves willing to truly stand up for gay civil unions. Some may be fine with them if the courts make that decision, but they don't want their name attached to that legislation.

 

If the courts don't represent average folk, let's just say they don't, then in California did the government force gay civil unions to be made illegal? Do you think that sort of government interference (if that's what we're calling it) should be permitted? If so, shouldn't it be permitted when it's going in the other direction?

[Tea Time]

It would be easier for me to follow your thinking if you didn't bring so many straw man arguments into it. I did not say that "One male and one female raising their biological children has always been seen by all societies to be "best" or as "standard." I said that it has always existed (and noted that polygamy was also practiced at times), and that imo, *I* view it as best for families. I didn't see anyone suggesting that homosexuals have to follow certain sexual conditions before they would be "worthy" to be married. I have never heard anyone suggest that homosexual marriage would replace same sex marriage, or that their own marriage would be jeopardized by a gay couple's marriage. Certainly that was never voiced in this thread, and yet several pro-gay marriage proponents have attacked that straw man. Even your use of the word, "trump," misrepresented what I said. I was speaking about the fact that a new definition of marriage, one that would now include same sex couples, would need to *trump* the existing definition. In my opinion, if you want a new standard to be imposed, that will replace the current one, there needs to be a logical, compelling reason that goes beyond "Heterosexuals aren't doing that great a job of upholding marriage anyway," or "The Bible supports polygamy," or "There's no good standard for marriage as it is, so why bother coming up with a new one that makes any sense." I think we need a lot better argument than that to make such a significant change in a fundamental societal institution.

 

:iagree:

 

The gov't is not in the business of determining what all manner of human relationships are valid or will be able to produce happy, healthy families. It does not confer legitimacy onto relationships. It does not need to "assist in the stability of other kinds of households" just because it has historically done so for one type of household.

 

The gov't has some responsibility to make sure children are taken care of so that they do not become dependent upon the State. But beyond that it should have little care what people do about marriage or relationships. To provide some benefits to people who are likely to be the heads of families with children is a nice luxury that will help children (as well as the elderly), but it is not a "right" or a "requirement" that the gov't or any private entity do so.

 

To make the issue of gay marriage a "civil rights" issue in this manner is to use extortion to try to force the gov't (taxpayers) to subsidize relationships that people should be responsible for on their own.

[Erica in PA]

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.)

 

 

Thank you for posting. I will think about what you've said here.

[Peek a Boo]

Peek a Boo, look at the states where gay civil unions have been legalized. In how many instances has that change come form a politician saying "I think this is what's right" and in how many instance has that change come from court challenges? When a court makes that decision a politician can say "I had nothing to do with it." Politicians in this country have not shown themselves willing to truly stand up for gay civil unions. Some may be fine with them if the courts make that decision, but they don't want their name attached to that legislation.

 

If the courts don't represent average folk, let's just say they don't, then in California did the government force gay civil unions to be made illegal? Do you think that sort of government interference (if that's what we're calling it) should be permitted? If so, shouldn't it be permitted when it's going in the other direction?

 

I didn't say that the courts don't represent average folk -- they should and often do as part of a gvt by, for, and of the people.

 

What i take issue with is your dismissal of the Court as "non gvt" when it clearly is, and your dismissal of representatives as representatives of the people [ordinary citizens].

 

We could look at all the legislation that's been introduced in Congress at the behest of individual citizens --including plenty of hidden pork that many of us are unaware of. ;)

 

i do think you might want to read up a bit more of the history of the Court system and the make up of our gvt before we delve further into this conversation tho.