Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dude...why are you quoting passages out of some book as if that proves your point.

Because that is the way Jesus taught truth; and since I am a disciple of Jesus, I try to imitate his pattern of teaching.

---

And I love my family members...that is how I love them.

Love requires confrontation of wrongs:

1Cor 13:6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

2Cor 7:8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it--I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while-- 9yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.


---

If you had a son who was gay would you tell him he is an immoral sinner.

If you had a son addicted to drugs, would you sweep it under the rug by simply "loving" him, or would you demonstrate your love by spurring him to overcome his bad habit?

---

 Call me crazy but I think calling them immoral fornicating sinners isnt really 'love', in fact the last time I looked that is called 'hate' and dont try dressing it up any other way.

I know...I know...and you also think confronting a drunk of their alcoholism equates to 'hate'...and you also think Jesus was hateful every time he spoke about sin...and you also think Jesus was hateful in dying for our sins.

Why don't you just admit that you hate everything that Jesus stood for, just like those who killed him?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And I love my family members...that is how I love them. Call me crazy but I think calling them immoral fornicating sinners isnt really 'love', in fact the last time I looked that is called 'hate' and dont try dressing it up any other way.

Go argue with these verses; I'm tired or arguing with someone who claims correction is not a part of love:

Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins, REBUKE him, and if he repents, forgive him." (spoken by Jesus Christ)

Pro 27:5 Open REBUKE is better than secret LOVE. 6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Rev 3:19 Those whom I LOVE I REBUKE and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.

[The Duke]

not to picky on what mormons call gentiles, but isn't there a compelling argument in favor of polygamy?  And in any case, this is so far off-topic.  that's the problem.  I think there are those who really argue that a change in definition alters your own marriage, like maybe the way grade-inflation devalues your own degree.  but in the latter case, it's easy to see (employers know BU grads are flaky, they look into it and see that BU grads all get As, etc., etc.) but in the former case it's really a specious argument, at best.  How, beyond the intriguing but irrelevant stats you mention, does it devalue a heteromarriage?  I'm really curious.  I'm about to be married, by the way, to a straight woman, and she's ever so slightly less understanding about this issue than I, but can't really make the case, either, against homomarriage to my satisfaction.  then again, who really cares?  Do you really honestly expect me to believe, if you're really straight, that all this bothers you?

It does bother me, because I have become quite convinced by the stats that gay marriage will lead to more out of wedlock births, shich I believe will lead to more child poverty.

[Fritz]

(yawn)

I thought there might be a serious discussion going on here.  Guess not.

[California Dreamer]

Why don't you just admit that you hate everything that Jesus stood for, just like those who killed him?

I am reminded of a qutoe that my Jesuit mentor quoted to me when I realised I was an atheist
"some of the most christian people I have met are not Christians"
- Gahndi

I guess according to you, since I love my sister, I hate Jesus.

how dare you equate my family members with alchoholics, murderers, thieves etc. You are the one who needs a readjustement, in your tolerance for others.

throw all the stuff you want from any book you want, it doesnt change the fact that you think you have some right to tell other people how to live their lives and that the way they love is invalid and that society should shun them....not very christian of you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(yawn)

I thought there might be a serious discussion going on here.  Guess not.

No, nothing too serious.  Just the price of sin being death.  Go back to sleep...

Eph 5:14 "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

[The Duke]

Nation is wrong about this issue, and here's why.

The increase in divorce rates didn't appear out of nowhere- it was the result of social and legal changes.  Things like unilateral divorce laws, no fault divorce laws, and a feminist ethic that derided marriage as a prison for women were the main causes.  It was not inevitable, and future erosions are not inevitable, either.

If the government got out of marraige entirely, things would no doubt get worse and fast.  For example, it is only by state law that polygamy is outlawed.  Not to pick on Mormons, but I'm quite sure that polygamy, a fairly oppressive social institution, would be brought back if we just left it all to these churches.  Gay marriage supporters would no doubt be thrilled at the clock being turned forward on that one issue, but they do not take into account all the ways that this proposal would turn the clock back.

I'm listening John D, but what else have you got for me besides polygamy? And it seems to be that gay marriage supporters would drop the argument if government wasn't involved.

There could be near total anarchy in the marriage arena.  Anyone could become "married" to almost anyone (or even anything) since the government couldn't tell them, "No stupid, you don't get to marry your cat!"  More common will be incestuous and polyamorous marriages, but interspecies marriage could actually happen.

Courts, when dealing with child custody issues, would still have to discern what constituted an immediate family.  They'd have little to go on, since they don't recognize marriages.  Today, marriage is still the legal core of the family.  If the government was not involved in marriage, it would become very difficult.

Issues would arise involving inheritances and next of kin (if the government doesn't recognize your marriage, your spouse would not have any survivors benefits).  If courts tried to go on church issued marriages for next of kin, the courts would have to pick and choose what "marriages" they recognized.  Someone could legally be married to two people because it is up to the churches who is and is not married, so who is the next of kin?

Secular people may want to get married, but not by any particular church.  Most secular people are married by a justice of the peace or a judge, but the government would not be involved in such things.  "By the power vested in me by the state of (insert state here), I now pronounce you..." wouldn't be true anymore.  There is no such power vested in them.  So secular folk who want to marry would find some friend or something to marry them, and courts deciding custody cases would have difficulty dealing with weddings performed by a guy off the street.

Divorce would become messy.  Churches may grant divorces, but again, what of those who are unaffiliated?  Who is to settle such a dispute?  Today, the government does, but if the state is not involved with marriages, who will settle the dispute?

The government must be involved with marriage.  They must define it, litigate disputes within it, and set the rules for ending it.  Otherwise, we will have a libertarian anarchy.

[The Duke]

(yawn)

I thought there might be a serious discussion going on here.  Guess not.

I thought angus, nation, and I were having a pretty serious discussion about the issues.  I haven't really been following the discussion between Dreamer and jmf, but they seem to be taking it seriously.

[California Dreamer]

well I am done...there is no point in arguing against faith.

I have no issue against faith...I just wish people kept in where it belonged, in their own homes and places of worship.

[Nation]

Nation is wrong about this issue, and here's why.

The increase in divorce rates didn't appear out of nowhere- it was the result of social and legal changes.  Things like unilateral divorce laws, no fault divorce laws, and a feminist ethic that derided marriage as a prison for women were the main causes.  It was not inevitable, and future erosions are not inevitable, either.

If the government got out of marraige entirely, things would no doubt get worse and fast.  For example, it is only by state law that polygamy is outlawed.  Not to pick on Mormons, but I'm quite sure that polygamy, a fairly oppressive social institution, would be brought back if we just left it all to these churches.  Gay marriage supporters would no doubt be thrilled at the clock being turned forward on that one issue, but they do not take into account all the ways that this proposal would turn the clock back.

I'm listening John D, but what else have you got for me besides polygamy? And it seems to be that gay marriage supporters would drop the argument if government wasn't involved.

There could be near total anarchy in the marriage arena.  Anyone could become "married" to almost anyone (or even anything) since the government couldn't tell them, "No stupid, you don't get to marry your cat!"  More common will be incestuous and polyamorous marriages, but interspecies marriage could actually happen.

I see your point, but I like to give the churches more credit than that. Do you actually believe a real church would marry a man and an animal?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point, but I believe a definition could be made. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very good points made there. Alright, I'll re-think my argument, heh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good argument. I would still hold true to my other argument that it was not, and will not be same-sex marriage that causes further deterioration of regular marriage. Would you agree to that?

[The Duke]

I would still hold true to my other argument that it was not, and will not be same-sex marriage that causes further deterioration of regular marriage. Would you agree to that?

I don't really agree, I think changes in the legal definition of marriage will inevitably change people's behavior within and towards the institution of marriage.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I am reminded of a qutoe that my Jesuit mentor quoted to me when I realised I was an atheist
"some of the most christian people I have met are not Christians"
- Gahndi

If you are trying to say that I am not acting as a true Christian, then please point out to me where I have deviated from Christ's teaching.

---

I guess according to you, since I love my sister, I hate Jesus.

No, I never said that.  You said that pointing out one's sin is hate, and I responded by proving that love includes rebuking.  And I proved it from Jesus' own words.  

What exactly do you think of this statement from Jesus:

Luke 17:3 If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

---

how dare you equate my family members with alchoholics, murderers, thieves etc. You are the one who needs a readjustement, in your tolerance for others.

Well then, since you sir are so self-righteous as to not dare associate you and your family with sin, I'll equate myself and my own family with every sin listed in the bible.  I don't mind at all if me and my family are labeled sinners, for it is written, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst (1Tim 1:15)."

You call me intolerant because I name sin, but I am not ashamed to have myself and my family labeled as 'sinners' along with all the alcoholics, murderers, and thieves.   Yet you won't even 'dare' to allow you and your family to be numbered with them?!

---

throw all the stuff you want from any book you want, it doesnt change the fact that you think you have some right to tell other people how to live their lives and that the way they love is invalid and that society should shun them....not very christian of you.

It is perfectly Christian of me to include 'rebuke' as part of the definition of love, in spite of your wayward opinion that I don't have the right to preach the gospel.

[Nation]

I would still hold true to my other argument that it was not, and will not be same-sex marriage that causes further deterioration of regular marriage. Would you agree to that?

I don't really agree, I think changes in the legal definition of marriage will inevitably change people's behavior within and towards the institution of marriage.

I'll write out my whole argument tomorrow cause' right now I'm waay too tired. It is 2 AM here, heh. But be prepared!

[Wakie]

This argument just amazes me.  Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong for religious reasons, how can you support imposing those religious beliefs on others?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This argument just amazes me.  Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong for religious reasons, how can you support imposing those religious beliefs on others?

Wouldn't a change in the legal definition of marriage equate to forcing a religious belief upon society?

Also, we currently don't allow bigamy based on the fact that Christianity teaches against it, paying no attention to the fact that Judaism and Islam accept such behavior.

In fact, we declared our independence from England based on a religious belief that God has given the right to be free.

[angus]

not to picky on what mormons call gentiles, but isn't there a compelling argument in favor of polygamy?  And in any case, this is so far off-topic.  that's the problem.  I think there are those who really argue that a change in definition alters your own marriage, like maybe the way grade-inflation devalues your own degree.  but in the latter case, it's easy to see (employers know BU grads are flaky, they look into it and see that BU grads all get As, etc., etc.) but in the former case it's really a specious argument, at best.  How, beyond the intriguing but irrelevant stats you mention, does it devalue a heteromarriage?  I'm really curious.  I'm about to be married, by the way, to a straight woman, and she's ever so slightly less understanding about this issue than I, but can't really make the case, either, against homomarriage to my satisfaction.  then again, who really cares?  Do you really honestly expect me to believe, if you're really straight, that all this bothers you?

It does bother me, because I have become quite convinced by the stats that gay marriage will lead to more out of wedlock births, shich I believe will lead to more child poverty.

well, except that two men cannot have children, and neither can two women, so how can such pairings lead to more births at all?  I say again, there's a disconnect between your statistics and your conclusions.  See, Jmfcst (and Brambila, I think) base their argument on Sin.  Fine, I can accept it.  For example, my parents raised me to believe capital punishment was a great crime against humanity.  That is a moralist view and I don't try to defend it rationally, I simply point out that I "feel" it is "wrong."   It would be disingenuous of me to try to pull up cost analyses to support my objections, when my philosophical objection is dearer to me than any statistic.  (This is why I have stopped arguing this point with them.  They're sold on their objections deeply and culturally, and I respect their freedoms to maintain such objections, and if a majority of my countrymen elect legislators who hold such objections, I will accept that.)  But that's a far cry from pathos posing as logos.  I've said before that I accept pathos and ethos as reasonable modes of debate.  Logos is superior, or so we've all been taught, but sometimes you just can't get that, and it's okay.  Your attempt to sell the idea logically isn't working.  If you have deeply held moral or philosophical objections to homosexuality in general, as some posters boldly and honestly admit, then good for you.  As President Bush says about other things and I gratuitously apply here, "We just need to change hearts and minds.  That takes time."

[Wakie]

Wouldn't a change in the legal definition of marriage equate to forcing a religious belief upon society?

Umm ... no.  Legal consumption of pork doesn't equate to forcing a religious belief on Jews and Muslims.  This wouldn't force you to enter into a gay marriage, to attend one, or even for any church to sanction one.

Also, we currently don't allow bigamy based on the fact that Christianity teaches against it, paying no attention to the fact that Judaism and Islam accept such behavior.

Umm ... no, actually the case against legal bigamy is that it would mean that an individual could the legally deceive their spouse(s) and engage in multiple marriages.

In fact, we declared our independence from England based on a religious belief that God has given the right to be free.

Yes, the language of the declaration of independence states that all men are created with certain inalienable rights by their creator.  And I agree with that ideal.  But in the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion (which means you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist).

I'm just looking for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

[angus]

Wakie,
There is none.  This is a rare point of agreement.  Refreshing.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Umm ... no.  Legal consumption of pork doesn't equate to forcing a religious belief on Jews and Muslims.  This wouldn't force you to enter into a gay marriage, to attend one, or even for any church to sanction one.

OK, so then, retaining the current definition of marriage doesn't force homosexuals to believe gay marriage is wrong.  Correct?

Just as outlawing murder does NOT force people to believe murder is wrong.  The law against murder couldn't care less about one's personally religious belief concerning murder; the law simply says don't do it.

---

Umm ... no, actually the case against legal bigamy is that it would mean that an individual could the legally deceive their spouse(s) and engage in multiple marriages.

The SCOTUS recognized the Christian origin of laws against bigamy:

"However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation...bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

---

Yes, the language of the declaration of independence states that all men are created with certain inalienable rights by their creator.  And I agree with that ideal.  But in the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion (which means you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist).

Again, I'll quote the following: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation..." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

---

I'm just looking for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

Why?  The SCOTUS doesn't consider whether a law has its reason based in religion, it just makes sure the law doesn't promote religion.  Your search criteria has nothing to do with judicial review.

[Wakie]

Umm ... no.  Legal consumption of pork doesn't equate to forcing a religious belief on Jews and Muslims.  This wouldn't force you to enter into a gay marriage, to attend one, or even for any church to sanction one.

OK, so then, retaining the current definition of marriage doesn't force homosexuals to believe gay marriage is wrong.  Correct?

It doesn't force them to change their beliefs but it does limit their rights based on the beliefs of others (thereby imposing the religious will of others upon them).

Just as outlawing murder does NOT force people to believe murder is wrong.  The law against murder couldn't care less about one's personally religious belief concerning murder; the law simply says don't do it.

This is a ridiculous comparison.  Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults.  Murder involves 1 person imposing their will on another person.

The SCOTUS recognized the Christian origin of laws against bigamy:

"However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation...bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

I disagree with your interpretation of this statement.  Nowhere does he state that all laws come from Christianity.  He only states that "civilized and Christian countries" outlaw these things.  Since America has no state religion we must take his statement to mean that as a "civilized country" we outlaw bigamy.

I find it interesting though that you cite a ruling authored by a man appointed to the SCOTUS in 1863.

Yes, the language of the declaration of independence states that all men are created with certain inalienable rights by their creator.  And I agree with that ideal.  But in the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion (which means you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist).

Again, I'll quote the following: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation..." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

And I'll agree that religious practice is subject to the rule of law.  However, laws should be made if they make sense, not just because some gray hairs don't like the idea of homosexuality.  This is why I ask for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

I'm just looking for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

Why?  The SCOTUS doesn't consider whether a law has its reason based in religion, it just makes sure the law doesn't promote religion.  Your search criteria has nothing to do with judicial review.

My argument is that the law is idiotic.  Imagine Utah passing a law which stated that non-Mormon couples cannot be married there.

[Gustaf]

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. You know, you should really tell us Swedes about it, since I never read or heard this anywhere from anyone. It is even more interesting considering the fact that we haven't even introduced gay marriage yet...

[The Dowager Mod]

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. You know, you should really tell us Swedes about it, since I never read or heard this anywhere from anyone. It is even more interesting considering the fact that we haven't even introduced gay marriage yet...

well he went from sweden to switzerland in one sentance.......

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It doesn't force them to change their beliefs but it does limit their rights based on the beliefs of others (thereby imposing the religious will of others upon them).

I don't remember ever hearing of the right to marry the same sex.  Nor did the framers of the constitution ever hear of that right.

Again, the laws reflect the beliefs of the people, regardless of the origin of the beliefs.  The only thing that matters is if the law is in agreement with the constitution.

---

This is a ridiculous comparison.  Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults.  Murder involves 1 person imposing their will on another person.

Wasn't comparing gays with murder.  I was simply showing how laws aren't intended to impose beliefs, rather they're simply intended to restrict certain actions.

---

I disagree with your interpretation of this statement.  Nowhere does he state that all laws come from Christianity.  He only states that "civilized and Christian countries" outlaw these things.  Since America has no state religion we must take his statement to mean that as a "civilized country" we outlaw bigamy.

1) No one would argue at the time that statement was made that American wasn't a "Christian country".
2) Also, is he not citing the wisdom of Christian countries?

---

I find it interesting though that you cite a ruling authored by a man appointed to the SCOTUS in 1863.

Well, I found it difficult finding a more recent case concerning bigamy.  But here is a reference to bigamy in Lawrence v. Texas:

"But society always . . . makes these moral judgments.  Why is this different from bigamy?" (Scalia)

FYI, I agreed with the Lawrence ruling striking down government interference in the bedroom (or at least I agree we should amend the constitution to protect the privacy of the bedroom), but I agree with Scalia's point that many laws have origins in moral judgments.

---

However, laws should be made if they make sense

The determination of whether a law makes sense if left to the people (either by elected representation or jury nullification), not to the courts.

---

My argument is that the law is idiotic.  Imagine Utah passing a law which stated that non-Mormon couples cannot be married there.

Granted such a law would be idiotic, but it is NOT the place of the court to determine the sanity of the will of the people.

[Gustaf]

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. You know, you should really tell us Swedes about it, since I never read or heard this anywhere from anyone. It is even more interesting considering the fact that we haven't even introduced gay marriage yet...

well he went from sweden to switzerland in one sentance.......

Also, impressive. And the divorce rate going up...I had no idea, I wonder why this national crisis of ours isn't being discussed in Sweden at all.

It's nice, btw, to see one of Ryan's old threads getting digged up like this.

[Wakie]

jmfcst, what I'm looking for is a rationale for the law.  Something which goes beyond just "God says don't do that".  I would just like someone who is opposed to gay marriage explain to me why they are opposed to it.  And to do it WITHOUT invoking religion.  Every other law can be explained without invoking religion.  Why is this one different?

Now, back to our show ...

I don't remember ever hearing of the right to marry the same sex.  Nor did the framers of the constitution ever hear of that right.

The framers also did not hear of semi-automatic weapons.  But interestingly enough many people feel the right to possess them is protected by the Constitution.

Again, the laws reflect the beliefs of the people, regardless of the origin of the beliefs.  The only thing that matters is if the law is in agreement with the constitution.

And I would argue that it is not.  It is denying the religious freedoms of certain individuals.

I disagree with your interpretation of this statement.  Nowhere does he state that all laws come from Christianity.  He only states that "civilized and Christian countries" outlaw these things.  Since America has no state religion we must take his statement to mean that as a "civilized country" we outlaw bigamy.

1) No one would argue at the time that statement was made that American wasn't a "Christian country".
2) Also, is he not citing the wisdom of Christian countries?

1) Yes, but the composition of this nation has drastically changed.
2) He is citing the wisdom of civilized countries.  Keep in mind that great wisdom has come from non-Christian nations too.  I don't think he is saying all law comes from Christianity.  In fact, if I remember correctly, the first civilization with a code of laws were the Sumerians who were polytheistic pagans.