For I Was Hungry
Around the nation a larger percentage of the people are talking about the money that President Bush is pushing for them to get. This rebate from the IRS. As one of the many citizens of this great nation who sits at the poverty level, I can understand why this is a big deal to them. Perhaps so much so that they don't understand what a big deal this is to the President and his party.
You see, I can't buy that this is being done out of benevolence on his part. I can't buy his stories about economic stimulus (perhaps because many economists will point out that this won't work, since the splurging will be done on foreign made products), no, all I can see is the President trying to do something incredible in a feeble attempt to overshadow what he has done in the past eight years. Not so bad an idea. Many wonderful things Clinton did were forgotten when the question of adultery was raised. Why not try the reverse?
Soon we will again be making a decision between the parties of two groups with decidedly different agendas and I find the whole process making me sick to my stomach. Outraged that we moved to impeach a President over a blowjob, but have yet to do so over war crimes. Outraged that this President and the Right that pulls his strings make decisions contradictory to their own bibles in alienating people and getting our own people killed for no good reason.
The title of this post references Mark 25. (I believe, I may be a little bit rusty. I am fairly certain of the 25, it could be Matthew.) Most of you Christians will understand what I reference, and you non christians won't care.
Think over and read over that verse and its context and think of the following potential, reasonable, replacements:
"When I was loyal, you sent me off to die."
"When I was sick, you refused to allow the person who knew me best to see that my wishes were met."
"When I loved, you condemned me for it."
Any of these sound like things you want said in that same judgement day scenario?
I brought up the concept of caring for our own in the last post, and I carry on with that theory now. In keeping with the above, I will offer another parable.
Two sets of parents left on a lengthy trip. Each leaving an elder son to care for a younger son.
In the first family, the elder son spent a good part of his time preaching to the younger about all of the various ways he needed to clean up his life. He lectured about how he should live, and then when he was sure his brother had gotten the message, he went on to similarly educate his neighbors.
In the second family, the elder son spent most of his time drinking and smoking pot. He had parties and slept around and made full use of his independence.
When the two sets of parents come back, what do they find? In the first home, they find that the eldest son has been too busy teaching his morals to care for his brother. They find the brother malnourished, and very sick.
In the second they find the house trashed, beer cans, roaches and condoms everywhere. A very hungover brother is watching his younger sibling eat cheerios in front of his cartoons even as the noise of the latter hurts his head.
In the first, the brother is righteous, in the second most certainly not. I blanketed religions in my last question and condemnation of the human nature, now I turn back directly to the Christians, for your god addressed the very question:
"When I was hungry...."
Do you good Christians vote for the same group who ban relationships between those "horrible sinners" who wish to live in homosexual realtionships that hurt nobody? The same righteous group that is responsible for our sons and daughters, neighbors, sisters and brothers coming home in boxes? Do we vote for those "righteous" folks who are destroying life after life? Or do we vote for the human race? Those who want our soldiers alive? Those who want loving relationships to thrive regardless of whether they fit the mold?
Yes, I know some generalization goes to both sides. Yet there is that thought "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren."
"I came to you as a homosexual just looking to live in peace, and you......"
"I came as a soldier, not wanting to die, but ready to do so to defend my fellow man, and you....."
A) Abandoned me.
B) Saw me safe and secure in a loving home.
Which do you choose? Which gets you into heaven? Which simply makes you a decent human being?
Just some thoughts on life, or something close to it.
You see, I can't buy that this is being done out of benevolence on his part. I can't buy his stories about economic stimulus (perhaps because many economists will point out that this won't work, since the splurging will be done on foreign made products), no, all I can see is the President trying to do something incredible in a feeble attempt to overshadow what he has done in the past eight years. Not so bad an idea. Many wonderful things Clinton did were forgotten when the question of adultery was raised. Why not try the reverse?
Soon we will again be making a decision between the parties of two groups with decidedly different agendas and I find the whole process making me sick to my stomach. Outraged that we moved to impeach a President over a blowjob, but have yet to do so over war crimes. Outraged that this President and the Right that pulls his strings make decisions contradictory to their own bibles in alienating people and getting our own people killed for no good reason.
The title of this post references Mark 25. (I believe, I may be a little bit rusty. I am fairly certain of the 25, it could be Matthew.) Most of you Christians will understand what I reference, and you non christians won't care.
Think over and read over that verse and its context and think of the following potential, reasonable, replacements:
"When I was loyal, you sent me off to die."
"When I was sick, you refused to allow the person who knew me best to see that my wishes were met."
"When I loved, you condemned me for it."
Any of these sound like things you want said in that same judgement day scenario?
I brought up the concept of caring for our own in the last post, and I carry on with that theory now. In keeping with the above, I will offer another parable.
Two sets of parents left on a lengthy trip. Each leaving an elder son to care for a younger son.
In the first family, the elder son spent a good part of his time preaching to the younger about all of the various ways he needed to clean up his life. He lectured about how he should live, and then when he was sure his brother had gotten the message, he went on to similarly educate his neighbors.
In the second family, the elder son spent most of his time drinking and smoking pot. He had parties and slept around and made full use of his independence.
When the two sets of parents come back, what do they find? In the first home, they find that the eldest son has been too busy teaching his morals to care for his brother. They find the brother malnourished, and very sick.
In the second they find the house trashed, beer cans, roaches and condoms everywhere. A very hungover brother is watching his younger sibling eat cheerios in front of his cartoons even as the noise of the latter hurts his head.
In the first, the brother is righteous, in the second most certainly not. I blanketed religions in my last question and condemnation of the human nature, now I turn back directly to the Christians, for your god addressed the very question:
"When I was hungry...."
Do you good Christians vote for the same group who ban relationships between those "horrible sinners" who wish to live in homosexual realtionships that hurt nobody? The same righteous group that is responsible for our sons and daughters, neighbors, sisters and brothers coming home in boxes? Do we vote for those "righteous" folks who are destroying life after life? Or do we vote for the human race? Those who want our soldiers alive? Those who want loving relationships to thrive regardless of whether they fit the mold?
Yes, I know some generalization goes to both sides. Yet there is that thought "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren."
"I came to you as a homosexual just looking to live in peace, and you......"
"I came as a soldier, not wanting to die, but ready to do so to defend my fellow man, and you....."
A) Abandoned me.
B) Saw me safe and secure in a loving home.
Which do you choose? Which gets you into heaven? Which simply makes you a decent human being?
Just some thoughts on life, or something close to it.
posted by Wanderer at 8:10 PM
24 Comments:
Those are excellent thoughts, Steve. It really is that simple.
I used to be a card carrying bible beating republican because in my church history I was taught that was my only option. Sad.
Today, it's interesting to me the criteria some of the religious right uses to make political decisions. It's more about what people should/should not do in their private lives and less about who needs to be cared for...I wonder which is more like Jesus? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Even more interesting to me these days is the people who don't follow Jesus but who can see the answer to this question more clearly than those who do follow Jesus. Makes me wonder a lot of things...
Hopefully what "gets us into heaven" isn't that different from what "makes us decent human beings". Shh...don't tell anyone I said that. ;-)
I do not fully embrace the aims of the gay rights movement. As a Christian, I find it hard to be supportive of a lifestyle I have to consider sinful. Tolerant, of course. Supportive, no.
BUT, both as a Christian and an American, I am absolutely opposed to every policy the Bush administration has pushed during the last 8 years. From the war, to the environment, right on to repealing the "death tax".
The current Republican party is nothing but a tool for the ultra-rich investor class. And yet all they've had to do to win the loyalty of the masses is pay a little lip service to old-fahioned sexual mores.
Makes me ashamed of my fellow Christians. Their misplaced loyalty is downright suicidal.
Anonymous -
"I do not fully embrace the aims of the gay rights movement. As a Christian, I find it hard to be supportive of a lifestyle I have to consider sinful. Tolerant, of course. Supportive, no."
You do realize, I hope, that federal policies effect people who are not Christian? And that not only is there no edict in the bible to force people to follow Christian principles, but explicit instructions in Acts that indicate the contrary?
This ties back to my comments in the last post. Test this issue on a few levels. 1) Does the bible instruct me to act directly in opposition of the rights of homosexuals? 2) Do the rights they seek cause any physical harm to themselves or others (independent of your own religious mores.) 3) Does the lack of these rights cause them or others physical harm?
I think you would find yourself hard pressed to not answer no to the first two and yes to the last. Since your religion doesn't tell you to restrict and/or attack them and human decency demands you protect your own, it seems supporting their rights is a no brainer.
Of course there are comments in the old testament strongly speaking out against homosexuality. As well do they condemn eating pork and many other regulations discarded by the churches. (Actually discarded by Jesus, but so many want to deny the fact that the bible states that Jesus discarded the laws of the old testament.)
Then again does your god Paul speak against it in the new testament, but the supporting player, Jesus, said to love your neighbor. That guy seemed a little more humanistic than the rest of the apparently more important folks in that book.
As I see it, tolerance means defending the rights of others who do not share my belief system. That's exactly what I meant. I can support the rights of people whose agenda I do not agree with.
My point was that I am able to look beyond the GOP's appeals to my beliefs in that one regard and evaluate what their actual, enforceable policies do our world as a whole.
By the way, while Paul does list homosexuality along with a bunch of other things that are not ok, he never advises any kind of negative action against homosexuals. And Jesus, in saving the life of the woman who was caught committing adultery, told her to "Go and sin no more." If you want to compare Paul with Jesus, I would consider Paul the more humanistic of the two. Paul's letters deal with many of the details of daily life: how to respond to conflicts with your friends, how to approach sticky ethical issues in the community, etc. Jesus told his followers to abandon their families for him, and to sell everything they owned to give it to others. I'm not saying he was wrong, but I wouldn't really call that a humanistic worldview. More like "otherworldly."
The problem is, that Jesus in teaching as he did seems to apply a faith in man, and a responsibility of said man, to apply daily thought to the bigger picture, whereas Paul, while offering many decent teachings seems to revert to the paint-by-numbers kind of theology that existed in the old testament.
"Love God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself." This isn't a simplifying of life, it complicates it immensely, as it acknowledges that few things are static enough to fit in a "thou shalt not" mold.
It is actually very much akin to "an it harm none, do as you will". Both of those teachings are a lot more complicated then ten rules on a tablet. Moreso even than the thousands of them in Leviticus. Yet an understanding and following of this precept takes you much further than those preceding laws to living a right and godly life.
Perhaps Paul felt that people weren't ready to handle that, so he started enumerating again. This is fine. I have done the same on individual basis. But now those individual letters addressing individual incidences are more revered by the churches than the gospels. The point and the teachings become lost, and you are left with loud preachers yelling dogma that is not founded by what their own scriptures say.
"The point and the teachings become lost, and you are left with loud preachers yelling dogma that is not founded by what their own scriptures say."
Amen to that, but I think they get their distorted dogmas from Jesus just as much as Paul.
There was a point when I thought it would be cool to throw out Paul's letters and treat only the four Gospels as the New Testament. But if you look at Paul's theology in context (or at least as much as scholars can reconstruct of the context) it's actually very important. He's creating a synthesis between Greek and Jewish thought, and he's also providing the first working model of how to live as a follower of Jesus post-resurrection. Very different in style and purpose from Jesus' teachings, which is probably part of the disparity you see between the two.
Fair enough, but the lack of contextualization of what Paul is saying, and realizing that he speaks to the moment, not the entirety causes significant problems in the translation of Jesus' teaching to modern life which, if you believe he was deity would have been just as important as then.
Instead you get a church thought process that seems to deify Paul and quote teachings that neither he nor Jesus ever presented.
Yes, religions that rely heavily on scriptures always face some tricky issues in applying them to modern life. Which teachings are universal, and which ones can we discard? Who has the authority to make that decision?
The Catholic church actually has a better take on this than the Protestant churches, because Catholics come right out and say that they rely on tradition as well as scripture. Protestants rely on tradition just as much (as do all religions), but they will scream bloody murder if you try to tell them so.
Christian denominations of all sorts theoretically are open to divine revelation that might change the way they see things (for example, in the New Testament, when Peter has a vision that tells him it's ok to give up the Jewish kosher laws).
If people I trusted were telling me that God revealed to them that gay marriage is the right way to go, I would have an easier time accepting it. The reality, it seems to me, is that liberal Christian denominations (like liberals in general) are just jumping on the bandwagon. Once someone drew the analogy between gay rights and civil rights, anyone who questions that is pretty much declaring themselves a Nazi and a clansman. I don't like being railroaded by political correctness.
So, while I have no desire to see gay people suffer any negative legal consequences, I reserve the right to question whether homosexuality is a 'normal', genetically mandated variation of human sexuality. And whether an unquestioning acceptance of that position is what's best for our common society. How's that for bringing a conversation full circle?
"And whether an unquestioning acceptance of that position is what's best for our common society."
This is one of the positions people bring up that always gets to me. In order for the argument to stand, there must be a societally dangerous side. Short of psychotics claiming hurricanes are God's punishment, there is no such thing to point to.
What woman another woman sleeps with has no more bearing on society than what man she might sleep with. What danger does homosexuality potentially pose?
It's not so much that the sex lives of individuals pose a danger to society. It's reshaping society to accomodate the sex lives of a small percentage of the population that concerns me. When a state or federal government starts legislating the re-definition of social constructs like marriage and family, I find that troubling. That has ramifications beyond the immediate issue.
Plus, gayness is a rather new phenomenon. I'm talking about the widespread acknowledgement of a "gay culture" as opposed to the actual practice of homosexuality. How did sexual behavior become the equivalent of an ethnicity? The ramifications of that are troubling too.
And let's not forget that there isn't really any firm understanding of what makes a person inclined toward homosexual experience instead of heterosexual.
I am not in a big hurry to make radical, sweeping changes to age old cultural institutions based on nothing more than political agitation from a particularly vocal and popular special interest group.
I'd much rather see changes to our financial/industrial complex that make life better for all citizens. For instance, say you are concerned that the domestic partner of a gay person can't get health insurance based on their partner's employment. Instead of lobbying for gay marriage, why not lobby for health care as a right of citizenship for all Americans regardless of marital or employment status?
The societal issues are the bigger threat, though. How does it become an ethnicity? It doesn't, it is just the closest we can get since people don't have less rights or get attacked for being blonde, or liking grits. Whether genetic, psychological or other, there is still a huge issue here.
When people live together in a monogamous relationship for thirty years and the partner is not allowed any claim over property or possessions when you die, there is a problem. When your partner loses the right to make medical choices for you in favor of the family that never spoke to you in the past ten years, that is a problem.
Socially speaking we have huge hurdles too. Many of us who lobby for these rights know where the graves of those who were led to agree with those who called them perverse and unnatural and took their own lives. Or those who lost their lives because of who they have intimate relationships with. These are huge problems.
The number of changes to cover the bases rather than addressing the marriage question are staggering. Much more wholesale reworking than the change that you speak of.
The fact that the LGBT community is only now truly getting a strong voice doesn't make the campaign new. It has taken quite some time.
Basically it comes down to the rights of the individuals involved to live their lives like anyone else does. If you are attracted to someone and they to you, and you choose to have a long term monogamous relationship, you can. You can go right out, have a judge sign on the line and all of the rights fall into place. Yet others can't. It is really that simple.
Of course all of this is without even addressing the fact that the marriage question is only one of the pieces of legislation that the christian right is fighting. They have also fought against ENDA, which would make it illegal to discriminat against homosexuals in the workplace and the Matthew Shepard bill that would make comitting a criminal act against someone because they were gay a hate crime.
The Marriage thing is a big one, but far from the only one. That is not to say that I am not still fighting to protect that one too.
It may just be from knowing so many people that this issue directly affects that I look at this a little differently. Yet, it seems cut and dry to me. I would be against legislation that said that tennis fans couldn't marry each other. I would be against legislation that said blondes could only marry brunettes.
Whenever an issue has no tangible negative consequences to others, but the alternative does, human beings should, out of self-interest if nothing else, strive to achieve the less damaging route.
It is not logic that leads people to be prejudiced against the LGBT community, nor is it logic that has them stand against this legislation. It is hatred. It is emotional reaction and bullshit religious dogma.
Patricia and Lisa Ann got married in Canada 4 years ago, and then returned to the United States. I am fairly certain that you didn't notice. This also had no impact on your life.
Several weeks ago, the New York State Court of Appeals announced that this marriage must be recognized as legal. I imagine at this time, you also didn't notice, nor has it yet (nor will it) had any effect on your life. Just as you most likely (since I haven't ruled out the possibility that I know you, as you are still anonymous) have no idea when I was married, nor did this have any impact on your life.
You question genetics/versus choice. You ask when being LGBT became an ethnicity. People die over the prejudices surrounding these people. Their sexual orientation does no harm in return. Based on those last two sentences, my question is, why aren't you as pissed off about this as I am, and why aren't you actively fighting for them? These aren't number or statistics. These are real, live, breathing people. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people."
Well, frankly, God, sir, I turned a blind eye and let them suffer. Why? Because Pat Robertson told me to. Isn't he your boss?
"It is not logic that leads people to be prejudiced against the LGBT community, nor is it logic that has them stand against this legislation. It is hatred. It is emotional reaction and bullshit religious dogma."
OK, now I'm a little offended. Would you call this statement a model of objective reasoning? I think your own emotional investment in this issue is getting the better of you.
I happen to think that human sexuality is a complicated construct, and a simplistic swing from one extreme to another in our society is unwarranted.
I didn't think a disclaimer like this would be necessary, but I guess I'm going to have to say now that I do not hate my gay neighbors, co-workers, or relatives. I simply don't see the issue the same way you do.
"OK, now I'm a little offended. Would you call this statement a model of objective reasoning? I think your own emotional investment in this issue is getting the better of you."
Frankly, if you find reason within that quote to take personal offense, then I am afraid I have no apology for you. If, however, you presume (as others have) that I am tacking this tag inappropriately to you, then I do apologize, as you were not specifically the target, nor were you a target at all if it doesn't apply to you.
Objective reasoning? Yes. Emotional wording tacked onto it? Definitely. No apology there either. This isn't a word game. This is life.
To state that this is not objective reasoning, refute my claim that logic does not stand in the way. That emotions and religious rhetoric are the only things that do. Otherwise, don't attempt to dismiss it with an "oh, that is just your emotions talking" kind of comment.
Yeah, my emotions run strong on this one. That doesn't change the fact that there is no credible reason to stand against these legislations. Nor have I ever heard one try to present one that didn't involve the bible or meaningless hate filled terms.
If you think it can be done, by all means take a swing at it.
I only have time for a brief overview, but here are some points that I think have more to do with logic (or perhaps practicality) than emotion.
1)Marriage is not an institution that was first defined by the US federal or state governments. It's much older than our constitutions and it exists all over the world, albeit with variations. I am not aware that any culture has ever included homosexual relationships as a variation on marriage. Therefore, "gay marriage" would be a significant redefinition of an existing concept. The word "marriage" in common usage has come to mean a joining of dissimilar things. It's all about the union of male and female. A committed, monogamous gay relationship might be a fine thing, but it isn't what is commonly meant by marriage.
2)The percentage of people across the US who define themselves as homosexual is quite small. I have never heard any estimate higher than 10%, and I believe that number is considered high because it comes from old Kinsey research (not the best sampling of the population). Does it make sense to redefine an institution that applies to 9 out of 10 people for the benefit of 1?
3)The rights and benefits that you speak of are the heart of the gay marriage issue for most people. But there are plenty of legal means already in place to ensure that you get to choose who inherits your property, who makes major medical decisions for you, etc. In fact, being married is no guarantee that your spouse has those rights. You also need to have a will, a power of attorney document, a living will, etc. It's true that marriage denotes a certain level of de facto respect from others, but if you choose to live your life in a way that is not the norm, it seems like you ought to be willing to deal with a certain amount of extra paperwork.
4)Contrary to the new popular opinion, people aren't always born "gay" or "straight". Many people go back and forth at various points during the course of their lives. Setting up legislation based on the idea that sexuality is an immutable identity, like race, is misguided.
You'll notice, I am not arguing whether homosexuality is immoral or perverse. My personal opinion is that it is. But then, I think much of the behavior of my heterosexual friends is also immoral and perverse. I understand that my views on this subject are influenced by my religious beliefs and that doesn't apply to everyone.
I am in agreement with you that people should not be beaten, killed, or otherwise harassed due to their sexual choices. But there are already plenty of laws that prohibit assault and harrassment in any circumstances. Why does it have to be about identity politics?
Workplace discrimination is the trickiest of these issues, I think. In general, I support the rights of gay people in the workplace. The sticky point is when modeling approved sexual behavior can be considered part of the job description. For instance, being employed by a private school or other private group where it is expected that you will uphold the beliefs and moral standards of a religion. In that case, anti-discrimination laws come into conflict with religious freedom.
Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is all I have time for.
"I am in agreement with you that people should not be beaten, killed, or otherwise harassed due to their sexual choices. But there are already plenty of laws that prohibit assault and harrassment in any circumstances. Why does it have to be about identity politics?"
The same reason hate crime laws already exist in attacks on people based on other reasons. A strong motivator sometimes requires a stronger motivator in the opposite direction. The hate crime law that does exist in this regard in New York does not increase the penalty for an assault if the person happens to be gay, but does if there is sufficient evidence that this was your motivation. When a motivation can be as strong as racism, religious differences, or homophobia, you need to attack that reasoning directly.
"Does it make sense to redefine an institution that applies to 9 out of 10 people for the benefit of 1?"
If the issue were a question of harrassment, lesser rights or actual assault on a similar minority of Christians in a predominantly muslim country, would you tell the world courts to leave well enough alone, since changing the country for the sake of a few was foolish?
"Setting up legislation based on the idea that sexuality is an immutable identity, like race, is misguided."
This would only apply if the legislation depended on said immutability, which it does not. Marriage laws and rights don't fall in the face of the possibility of divorce. Anti-discrimination laws in regards to religion don't fall in the face of the possibility won't mind change religions or become an atheist. (Never mind the fact that I only know of about 3 out of 50 or so homosexuals who have flip flopped at all, so barring some in depth poll to point to, I am not sure I buy the frequency you reference. It happens, but not frequently in my experience. Though this is irrelevant to the above argument.)
The fact of what marriage has always been is minor too. On one hand, if you give them a marriage and call it a salad, I don't think too many people will argue the name. On the other, we have quashed many age old institutions in our day.
"On one hand, if you give them a marriage and call it a salad, I don't think too many people will argue the name."
See, here's an important point that never came up before. I would be all in favor of some sort of legally binding civil union for gay people. Why not? It's the symbolic properties of marriage that I'm primarily concerned with, not whatever legal rights might come along with it.
"'Does it make sense to redefine an institution that applies to 9 out of 10 people for the benefit of 1?'
If the issue were a question of harrassment, lesser rights or actual assault on a similar minority of Christians in a predominantly muslim country, would you tell the world courts to leave well enough alone, since changing the country for the sake of a few was foolish?"
I was speaking specifically of the institution of marriage here. Protection from harrassment and assault is a right that goes along with citizen (in our country) and basic humanity (as far as the rest of the world is concerned), marriage (as I was arguing earlier in the quoted post) is not.
I've been thinking about our little debate since I last posted, and I think that I could characterize our opposing viewpoints thusly: you are primarily concerned with practical matters - the safety and wellbeing of gay Americans. I am primarily concerned with broader matters - the concepts of marriage and sexual identity, and the ramifications of codifying into law a new understanding of these concepts without any strong consensus in science or in public opinion.
When it comes to the real life application, we don't have all that much to argue about. It's all about the boundaries of the discussion.
"When it comes to the real life application, we don't have all that much to argue about. It's all about the boundaries of the discussion."
That's not quite right either. I would guess that on any given law, we would agree on the basic premise, disagree on the philosophical underpinnings, and argue over how it should be worded as a result. In other words, disagree about the best way to go about making the world better because we would have a different definition of better. Even though our competing visions of "better" might look very similar to a third party.
You might be right about our differences in approaching this argument. The problem is, taking time with the philosophical underpinnings leaves a giant hole where action would be the more sorely needed issue.
As I pointed out before, the marriage issue is not the only one, and is in fact more minor in comarison with issues such as the Matthew Shepard act and ENDA. Yet because these deal with homosexuals, too many people sit back. I reiterate that while you may not agree with their orientation, on these issues in particular, anyone who doesn't help, or even worse interferes with the basic human rights these things are designed to protect should be ashamed of themselves.
As for the marriage question itself, I am curious about this:
"See, here's an important point that never came up before. I would be all in favor of some sort of legally binding civil union for gay people. Why not? It's the symbolic properties of marriage that I'm primarily concerned with, not whatever legal rights might come along with it."
I have to think again of "a rose by any other name". If you would in fact be in favor of the institution existing, why does the name matter? What symbolic properties are we referring to? Marriages in ancient civilizations and their meanings? The eqyptians who simply saw it as an equal civil union between a man and his wife? The chinese (and most other cultures) who used it as a sign of ownership of a man over his wife? Marriage at its root was never any of the glorious things the opponents to gay marriage claim it was.
Even in the Jewish background from which Christianity rose, sex was for procreation, but that isn't what marriage was about. Marriage was a business contract. This woman is mine, and as such I am the only one who gets to make her with child. The proscription against adultery was to prevent the sale of damaged goods.
You said marriage always meant the joining of opposites, that is a definition that came from the institution, not the other way around.
With equal rights in america and other places in the world we have already warped your sacred institution. We have already declared a husband doesn't own his wife. How much more damage do you think we are going to do?
The only symbolic aspect of marriage worth holding on to is two people, binding themselves to each other with heart and hand, and saying (and meaning) "until death do us part."
I think your homosexual neighbors can handle that.
"I have to think again of "a rose by any other name". If you would in fact be in favor of the institution existing, why does the name matter?"
I do think that there would be less resistance to the gay rights movement if it was content to accept that and didn't insist on redefining "rose" to include flowers we had previously called sunflowers or lilacs. It offends a certain basic sensibility. More on the level of intuition than logic, probably.
To a certain extent, you can't really get away from religion on this question. There is no separation of church and state in marriage. It's a religious ceremony that the state long ago took over and regulated. Now might be a good time to separate them. Let the various religious groups hash out what marriage means within their own traditions, and have a civil union ceremony totally separate from marriage that would register your gay or straight union with the state, if you so choose.
"Let the various religious groups hash out what marriage means within their own traditions, and have a civil union ceremony totally separate from marriage that would register your gay or straight union with the state, if you so choose."
And herein do we find the root of my initial argument. As far as the state institution is concerned, what they call it isn't relevant. (It was not always religious. Marriages in ancient egypt were purely civil affairs.) The issue is that the state has a marriage definition and the various churches have marriage definitions. Most churches don't recognize marriages done by the justice of the peace, but the government does.
So here is where we give to caesar what is his. Nobody is trying to force the church to acknowledge any marriages. But this argument does have to separate the church from the government. If the basis for your argument against legislation allowing such a marriage is your religious belief, then you are enforcing your religion on those atheists or other religious groups that have no problem with the issue.
Even Jesus told his followers that if no one will listen, kick the dust from your feet and move on. He didn't say recruit by force, or impose your rules on those who aren't believers. If you have no basis other than religion to oppose laws to offer equal opportunities to these people, and you oppose it anyway, you violate not only the premise of the constitution but the teachings of your God when you act to enforce your religious observance on another group of people.
"He didn't say recruit by force, or impose your rules on those who aren't believers. If you have no basis other than religion to oppose laws to offer equal opportunities to these people, and you oppose it anyway, you violate not only the premise of the constitution but the teachings of your God when you act to enforce your religious observance on another group of people."
This works both ways though. If we agitate for laws that change the way marriage has traditionally been practiced and understood, isn't that something of an imposition? Especially when we could achieve the same benefits and legal protections by other means.
Because our culture has allowed this long historical overlap between religious ceremony and civil institution, any attempt to legislate marriage has the potential to become an infringement on religious freedom.
That's part of what I mean when I say that passing laws to redefine marriage would be a bad precedent. If the government can force people to change their religious practice in the service of a particular cause, it can be used as a precedent to enforce other restrictions later. It may feel good to score a victory over belligerent conservative Christians, but in the eyes of the law one religion is the same as another.
Incidentally, I think that when the Mormons were forced to abandon plural marriage in the 19th century, that was probably unconstitutional.
But I think we are just going to keep going around in circles beyond this point. Can you think of any aspect of this conversation that it would be productive to carry on with? I can't.
I have been arguing this issue for long enough, I think, to indicate that I always think there is something worth saying.
"This works both ways though. If we agitate for laws that change the way marriage has traditionally been practiced and understood, isn't that something of an imposition?"
An imposition? Yes. You are not guaranteed via the constitution or the bible to be free of imposition. If I feel my taxes are an imposition, do I simply stop paying them? It is not, however an imposition on your religious rights. Even if your religion declares that you must exterminate every gay individual, you must remember that your right to swing your fist always ends at the other guy's nose.
"If the government can force people to change their religious practice in the service of a particular cause, it can be used as a precedent to enforce other restrictions later."
I am sorry, I tend to dislike allowing straw men on my blog. Not once have I, nor the legislation mentioned changing religious practice. These laws would not require a church to perform or acknowledge the practice. Thus, no such precedent as you are suggesting.
I feel really deprived that I missed a good argument. Especially one Wanderer was in. I could have done so much :(
Post a Comment
<< Home